Introduction

In the United Kingdom today, courts play a part in securing accountable government that goes far beyond the role they fulfilled just a few decades ago. This paper does not dissent from the (admittedly contestable) view that this has, on the whole, been a beneficial development.

It does, however, contend that the contemporary prominence of judicial review should not be permitted to obscure the value of non-court-based accountability institutions. It will be suggested that there is a tendency in the UK to regard the court-based model as a paradigm in relation to securing government accountability, but that this view should be resisted. Instead, it will be argued, an effective accountability system requires a degree of diversity, and accountability to courts should therefore be regarded neither as a panacea, nor as a necessarily adequate substitute for other forms of accountability. This raises questions about the proper balance between legal and political control of government, and it will be argued that the perceived shortcomings of the latter should not lead ineluctably to greater reliance upon the former. These points will be developed by reference to tribunals, ombudsmen and inquiries as instruments by which the UK government may be held to account.

<< | >>

↑

Source: Bamforth Nicholas, Leyland Peter (eds.). Accountability in the Contemporary Constitution. Oxford University Press,2014. — 425 p.. 2014

More legal literature on Laws.Studio

Introduction

More on the topic Introduction: