Legitimacy—not Justice—and the Case for Judicial Review

Tom Hickey

Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 2022, vol. 42, issue 3, 893-917

Abstract: Sceptics of judicial review—from Jeremy Waldron to those in the Judicial Power Project—have tended to attribute to their opponents an erroneous prioritisation of ‘justice’ over ‘legitimacy’. They claim that those who make the case for judicial review do so on the grounds that ‘judges know best’, and that judicial review therefore helps promote the overall justness of a state’s social order—rather than on the grounds that it helps enhance the overall legitimacy of a state’s authority. This article interrogates that line of attack. It explores its roots in political theory, particularly the idea that those guilty of it (such as Aileen Kavanagh) follow in John Rawls’s supposed prioritisation of justice over legitimacy. And it turns to republican and later-Rawlsian thinking on these two concepts to see whether it may offer a sound basis upon which the case for judicial review can be made … legitimately.

Keywords: judicial review; legitimacy; democracy; Judicial Power Project; Rawls; republicanism (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2022
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/ojls/gqac009 (application/pdf)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:oup:oxjlsj:v:42:y:2022:i:3:p:893-917.

Access Statistics for this article

Oxford Journal of Legal Studies is currently edited by Liz Fisher, Stefan Enchelmaier, Andreas Televantos, Liora Lazarus and Jennifer Payne

More articles in Oxford Journal of Legal Studies from Oxford University Press
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Oxford University Press ().