Nghiên cứu so sánh hệ thống xem xét hành chính của tòa án và cơ quan ở Australia và Việt Nam: Những bài học cho Việt Nam từ kinh nghiệm của Australia

Trường đại học

Hanoi Law University

Chuyên ngành

Law

Người đăng

Ẩn danh

Thể loại

thesis
363
0
0

Phí lưu trữ

50.000 VNĐ

Mục lục chi tiết

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

ABSTRACT

TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS

STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP

INTRODUCTION

1.1. Introducing Administrative Law Jurisdiction to Vietnam’s People’s Courts: Issues and Problems

1.2. Reforming the Current System of Review of Administrative Actions in Vietnam: ‘Comparative Law’ as a Tool of Legal Reform. Why the Australian Model?

1.3. THESIS STRUCTURE

1. Chapter One: Methodological Issues: Comparative Law and Legal Transplantation

1.1. Comparative Law: a Method for the Study of Law

1.2. How To Compare Law: a ‘Law in Context Approach’

1.3. Comparative Law and Legal Reform: Legal Transplantation

1.3.1. Legal Transplantation: Possible or Impossible?

1.3.2. Legal Transplantation: How to Successfully Transplant Law?

2. Chapter Two: Legal and Constitutional Background

2.1. Australian Administrative Review System

2.1.1. Historical Development of the Australian Legal System: British Colonial Experience and Common Law Tradition

2.1.2. Constitutional Principles Underpinning the Australian Administrative Review System

2.1.2.1. Responsible Government
2.1.2.2. Rule of Law
2.1.2.3. Separation of Powers

2.1.3. Development of the Australian Administrative Review System: a Historical Perspective

2.1.3.1. Australian Administrative Review System before the 1970s: the Need for Reform
2.1.3.2. ‘New Administrative Law’ and the Australian Administrative Review System

2.2. Vietnamese Administrative Review System

2.2.1. Historical Background of the Vietnamese Legal System: the History of Foreign Influences

2.2.2. Core Constitutional Principles Underpinning the Vietnamese Administrative Review System: Influences of the Socialist Political and Legal Factors

2.2.2.1. Leadership of the Communist Party of Vietnam
2.2.2.2. Socialist Legality and a Socialist Law-Based State
2.2.2.3. Concentration of State Powers

2.2.3. System for Review of Administrative Action in Vietnam

2.2.3.1. Supervision of the National Assembly and the Local people’s Councils
2.2.3.2. Inspection by the State Inspectorate Bodies System
2.2.3.3. Resolving Complaints and Denunciations: Internal Review of Administrative Action
2.2.3.4. Administrative Adjudication of Courts: Judicial Review of Administrative Action

3. Chapter Three: Models of Administrative Adjudicative Bodies in Australia and Vietnam

3.1. Australian Administrative Adjudicative Bodies

3.1.1. Australian Courts of Law

3.1.1.1. Australian Courts of Law and Administrative Law Jurisdiction Cases

3.1.2. Australian Merits Administrative Tribunals

3.1.2.1. Conception of Australian Merits Review Tribunals
3.1.2.2. Structure of the Australian Administrative Tribunal System

3.2. Vietnamese Administrative Adjudicative Bodies

3.2.1. Searching a Relevant Model of Adjudicative Bodies Exercising Administrative Law Jurisdiction: Debates on Models of Administrative Courts in Vietnam

3.2.1.1. An Independent Administrative Court System
3.2.1.2. Administrative Courts under the Government
3.2.1.3. A Semi-Independent Administrative Court System
3.2.1.4. Model of Administrative Divisions of the People’s Court

3.2.2. Vietnamese People’s Courts and Administrative Law Jurisdiction

3.2.2.1. Supreme People’s Court: the Removal of Original Jurisdiction
3.2.2.2. District People’s Courts: No Administrative Divisions
3.2.2.3. Composition of Vietnamese People’s Courts Hearing Administrative Cases
3.2.2.3.1. Participation of People’s Assessors

3.3. Some Comparative Remarks on the Two Systems

3.3.1. The Two Court Structures Compared: Several Distinctive Features

3.3.2. The Existence of Australian Administrative Tribunals: Unravelling the Mysteries

4. Chapter Four: Judicially Reviewable Administrative Action under the Laws of Australia and Vietnam

4.1. Judicially Reviewable Administrative Action under the Law of Australia

4.1.1. Broad Scope of Judicially Reviewable Administrative Actions

4.1.2. Ways to Limit the Scope of Judicial Review of Administrative Actions

4.1.2.1. Privative Clauses
4.1.2.2. Judicial Limits: the Doctrine of Justiciability

4.2. Judicially Reviewable Administrative Action under the Law of Vietnam

4.2.1. Adoption of an Enumerative Clause

4.2.2. The Object of Judicial Review of Administrative Action

4.2.2.1. ‘Administrative Decisions’ and ‘Administrative Acts’ as the Objects of Judicial Review of Administrative Actions of Vietnamese Courts
4.2.2.2. Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions of a Legislative Character: the Vietnamese Context

4.2.3. Broadening the Scope of Judicially Review of Administrative Actions under the Law of Vietnam

5. Chapter Five: Grounds for Judicial Review of Administrative Action under the Law of Australia and Vietnam

5.1. Introduction

5.2. An Overview of Grounds for Review under the Laws of Australia and Vietnam

5.2.1. Commonly Accepted Principles in the Two Jurisdictions

5.2.2. No Clear-Cut Determination of Detailed Grounds for Review under the Laws of Vietnam

5.2.2.1. Lack of Legal Provisions Listing Detailed Grounds for Review
5.2.2.2. Lack of Related Judicial Interpretations
5.2.2.3. Lack of Scholarly Interest

5.3. A Close Analysis of Grounds for Judicial Review of Administrative Actions under the Laws of Australia and Vietnam

5.3.1. Australian Law and Grounds for Judicial Review of Administrative Action

5.3.1.1. ‘Substantive Requirements’ Grounds for Review
5.3.1.2. ‘Procedural Requirements’ Grounds for Review
5.3.1.3. ‘Catch-All’ Grounds for Review

5.3.2. Grounds for Judicial Review of Administrative Action in the Vietnamese Legal Context

5.3.2.1. ‘Substantive Requirements’ Grounds for Review
5.3.2.2. ‘Procedural Requirements’ Grounds for Review

5.4. Improving Vietnamese Law In Relation to Grounds for Judicial Review of Administrative Action

5.4.1. Framework Legal Provisions for Grounds for Review

5.4.2. What Grounds for Review Vietnam Should Not Adopt: the Case of “Unreasonableness”

5.4.3. Enhancing the Role of the People’s Supreme Court in Making Judicial Interpretations

5.4.3.1. Call for the Adoption of a Doctrine of Precedent

6. Chapter Six: Powers of Australian and Vietnamese Courts in Judicial Review of Administrative Action

6.1. Common Principle Underpinning Powers of Courts in Judicial Review of Administrative Action

6.2. Powers of Australian Courts to Issue Final Orders of Review: Overlapping Classes of Remedies

6.2.1. Orders Quashing or Setting aside Decisions (Certiorari)

6.2.2. Orders Restraining Administrators (Prohibition and Injunction)

6.2.3. Orders Requiring Administrators to Perform Duties (Mandamus and Declaration)

6.3. Powers of Vietnamese Courts to Issue Final Orders of Review

6.3.1. Some Historical Background to the Process of Drafting the Ordinance for Procedures Resolving Administrative Cases

6.3.2. Judicial Interpretations of the Supreme People’s Court

6.3.3. Final Orders of Review Made by Vietnamese Courts

6.4. Interim Orders of Review under the Laws of Australia and Vietnam: Similarities between the Two Systems

6.5. Exercise of Judicial Discretion to Grant Orders of Review

6.5.1. Discretion of Australian Courts to Grant Orders of Review

6.5.2. Vietnamese Courts and Discretionary Powers to Issue Orders of Review: Should Vietnamese Courts Be Vested with the Discretion to Grant Final Orders of Review?

7. Chapter Seven: Towards a Well-Functioning Administrative Review System in Vietnam: Proposed Reform

7.1. Current Channels of Resolutions for Administrative Disputes in Vietnam: Revealing the Shortcomings

7.1.1. Resolving Complaints and Denunciations: the Question of Reliability

7.1.2. Enforcement of Administrative Judgments

7.1.3. Dependence of Local Courts on Local Governments: the Question of Judicial Independence

7.1.4. Administrative Judges: the Question of Expertise

7.2. Enhancing the Effectiveness of Administrative Adjudication of Vietnamese Courts: Several Proposals

7.2.1. Restructuring Vietnam’s Court System: the Model of Regional Courts

7.2.1.1. Initial Ideas of the Model

7.2.2. Expanding the Scope of Judicially Reviewable Administrative Decisions: Choosing an Appropriate Way for the Current Vietnamese Context

7.2.3. Amendment of Some Procedural Legal Provisions: a Careful Consideration

7.3. A Model of Administrative Tribunals in Vietnam: Some Australian Ideas

7.3.1. Vietnamese Administrative Tribunals: Some Initial Ideas

7.3.2. Vietnamese Administrative Tribunals: a Justification for the Proposal Model

7.3.3. Model of Land Tribunals (co quan tai phan ve dat dai)

GENERAL CONCLUSION

1.1. Understanding the Context: Reforming the Vietnamese Administrative Review System in the Vietnamese Conditions

1.2. Proposed Reforms of the Vietnamese Administrative Review System: Adopting Australian Ideas Given the Vietnamese Conditions

1.3. Model of Vietnamese Administrative Adjudicative Bodies: Courts and Merits Review Tribunals

1.4. Gradually Extending the Scope of Judicially Reviewable Administrative Action: an Appropriate Solution for Vietnam

1.5. Adopting Detailed Rules Relating to the Judicial Review of Administrative Action: What Could Australian Experience Suggest to Vietnamese Law-Makers?

1.6. Constructing a Well-Functioning Administrative Review System in Vietnam: Challenges and Prospects

Bibliography

Luận án tiến sĩ luật học a comparative study of the systems of review of administrative action by courts and tribunals in australia and viet nam what vietnam can learn from australian experience

Bạn đang xem trước tài liệu:

Luận án tiến sĩ luật học a comparative study of the systems of review of administrative action by courts and tribunals in australia and viet nam what vietnam can learn from australian experience

Tài liệu "So sánh hệ thống xem xét hành chính giữa Australia và Việt Nam: Bài học từ kinh nghiệm Australia" cung cấp cái nhìn sâu sắc về sự khác biệt và tương đồng trong hệ thống hành chính của hai quốc gia. Bài viết không chỉ phân tích các quy trình và cơ chế xem xét hành chính mà còn rút ra những bài học quý giá từ kinh nghiệm của Australia, giúp Việt Nam cải thiện và hoàn thiện hệ thống của mình. Độc giả sẽ tìm thấy những lợi ích thiết thực từ việc hiểu rõ hơn về cách thức hoạt động của hệ thống hành chính, từ đó có thể áp dụng những cải tiến phù hợp với bối cảnh Việt Nam.

Để mở rộng thêm kiến thức về các vấn đề liên quan, bạn có thể tham khảo các tài liệu như Luận án hoàn thiện pháp luật về giám sát của nhân dân đối với cơ quan hành chính nhà nước ở việt nam, nơi bàn về vai trò của người dân trong việc giám sát các cơ quan hành chính. Ngoài ra, Luận án tiến sĩ luật học hoàn thiện pháp luật về giải quyết vụ án hành chính ở việt nam hiện nay sẽ cung cấp cái nhìn sâu hơn về quy trình giải quyết các vụ án hành chính tại Việt Nam. Cuối cùng, bạn cũng có thể tìm hiểu thêm về Luận văn thạc sĩ luật học hoàn thiện pháp luật về thi hành án dân sự ở việt nam hiện nay, giúp bạn nắm bắt được các vấn đề liên quan đến thi hành án dân sự trong bối cảnh hiện tại. Những tài liệu này sẽ giúp bạn mở rộng hiểu biết và có cái nhìn toàn diện hơn về hệ thống hành chính và pháp luật tại Việt Nam.