La dynamique de la déférence: création et évolution des modèles auto-restrictives de contrôle juridictionnel dans le droit comparé

Authors

  • Eduardo Jordão Fundação Getúlio Vargas – FGV DIREITO RIO

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5380/rinc.v2i3.44531

Keywords:

dynamique de la déférence, contrôle juridictionnel, administration publique, création et évolution, droit comparé

Abstract

Cet article examine la création et l’évolution des modèles déférentiels de contrôle dans quatre systèmes juridiques (France, Italie, Etats-Unis et Canada). Cette perspective historique servira à démontrer (i) que la position juridictionnelle auto-restrictive peut avoir des significations très distinctes et (ii) que dans certains systèmes juridiques, la déférence est fortement disséminée, alors que dans d’autres, elle se trouve en plein déclin.

Author Biography

Eduardo Jordão, Fundação Getúlio Vargas – FGV DIREITO RIO

Professeur à l’Ecole de Droit de Rio de Janeiro de la Fundação Getulio Vargas – FGV Direito Rio (Rio de Janeiro-RJ, Brasil). Docteur en Droit Public par l’Université Paris 1 (Panthéon-Sorbonne) et l’Università di Roma (Sapienza), en cotutelle.

References

BONNARD, Roger. Le Contrôle Juridictionnel de l’Administration: Étude de Droit Administratif Comparé. Paris: Dalloz, 2005.

BRÉCHON-MOULÈNES Christine. La place du juge administratif dans le contentieux économique public. Actualité juridique - Droit Administratif, Paris, v. 56, n. 9, p. 679-686, sept. 2000.

CRAIG, Jared. Defending city hall after Dunsmuir. Alberta Law Review Edmonton, v. 46, n. 1, p. 275-297, nov. 2008.

DYZENHAUS, David. The politics of deference: judicial review and democracy. In: TAGGART, Michael (ed.). The Province of Administrative Law. Oxford: Hart Publishing, 1997.

DYZENHAUS, David. The logic of the rule of law: lessons from Willis. The University of Toronto Law Journal, Toronto, v. 55, n. 3, p. 691-714, jun./sept. 2005.

DYZENHAUS, David; FOX-DECENT, Evan. Rethinking the process/substance distinction: Baker versus Canada. The University of Toronto Law Journal, Toronto, v. 51, n. 3, p. 193-242, jun./sept. 2001.

ESSENS, Oda; GERBRANDY, Anna; LAVRIJSSEN, Saskia (Ed.). National Courts and the Standard of Review in Competition Law and Economic Regulation. Groningen: Europa Law Publishing, 2009.

GARRY, Patrick M. Judicial review and the ‘hard-look’ doctrine. The Nevada Law Journal, Las Vegas, v. 7, n. 1, p. 151-170, sept./dec. 2006.

JACOBS, Laverne. Developments in administrative law: the 2007-2008 term – The impact of Dunsmuir. Supreme Court Law Review, Ottawa, v. 43, n. 2, p. 1-34, dec. 2008.

JAFFE, Louis L. The right to judicial review I. Harvard Law Review, New Haven, v. 71, n. 3, p. 401-437.

KALUSYNZKI, Martine. La fonction politique de la Justice: regards historiques. Du souci d’historicité à la pertinence de l’historicisation. In: COMMAILLE, Jacques; KALUSZYNSKI, Martine (Dirs.). La Fonction Politique de la Justice. Paris: Éditions La Découvert, 2007.

LANGILLE, Brian. Judicial review, judicial revisionism and judicial responsibility. Revue Générale de Droit, Ottawa, v. 17, n. 1-2, p. 169-192, 1986.

LI, Zhang. Le Contrôle Juridictionnel de la Légalité des Actes Administratifs en Chine: Eléments d’Analyse Comparée des Contentieux Administratifs Chinois et Français. Bruxelles: Bruylant, 2010.

MACKLIN, Audrey. Standard of review: the pragmatic and functional test. In: FLOOD, Coleen; SOSSIN, Lorne (Eds.). Administrative Law in Context. Toronto, Emond Montgomery, 2008.

MARCHETTI, Barbara. Pubblica Amministrazione e Corti negli Stati Uniti: il Judicial Review sulle Administrative Agencies. Padova: CEDAM, 2005.

MERRILL, Thomas W. Judicial deference to Executive precedent. The Yale Law Journal, New Haven, v. 101, n. 5, p. 969-1041, mar. 1992.

MERRILL, Thomas W. The story of Chevron: the making of an accidental landmark. In: STRAUSS, Peter (Ed.). Administrative Law Stories. New York: Thomsom/West, 2006.

MULLAN, David J. Recent developments in administrative law – The apparent triumph of deference! Canadian Journal of Administrative Law and Practice, v. 12, n. 2, p. 191-, 1998.

ODENT, Raymond. Contentieux Administratif. Paris: Institut d’Études Politiques de Paris, 1971.

RISK, Richard C. B. In Memoriam: John Willis. The University of Toronto Law Journal, Toronto, v. 47, p. 301-304, 1997.

SUNSTEIN, Cass R. Deregulation and the hard-look doctrine. The Supreme Court Review, Chicago, v. 24, p. 177-213, 1983.

SUNSTEIN, Cass R. Law and administration after Chevron. Columbia Law Review, New York, v. 90, n. 8, p. 2071-2120, dec. 1990.

TRUCHET, Didier. Droit Administratif. 3. ed. Paris: PUF, 2010.

WERHAN, Keith. The neoclassical revival in administrative law. Administrative Law Review, Washington, v. 44, n. 3, p. 567-628, dec.1992.

WILLIS, John. Three approaches to administrative law: the judicial, the conceptual and the functional. The University of Toronto Law Journal, Toronto, v. 1, p. 53-81, 1935.

WOOLHANDLER, Ann. Judicial deference to administrative action – A revisionist history. Administrative Law Review, Washington, v. 43, p. 197-223, 1991.

Downloads

How to Cite

JORDÃO, Eduardo. La dynamique de la déférence: création et évolution des modèles auto-restrictives de contrôle juridictionnel dans le droit comparé. Revista de Investigações Constitucionais, [S. l.], v. 2, n. 3, p. 111–135, 2015. DOI: 10.5380/rinc.v2i3.44531. Disponível em: https://revistas.ufpr.br/rinc/article/view/44531. Acesso em: 26 dec. 2025.

Issue

Vol. 2 No. 3 (2015): September/December

Section

Original articles

License

Authors who publish in this Journal agree to the following terms:

  1. Authors retain copyright and grant the Journal of Constitutional Research the right of first publication with the article simultaneously licensed under the Creative Commons - Attribution 4.0 International which allows sharing the work with recognition of the authors and its initial publication in this Journal.
  2. Authors are able to take on additional contracts separately, for non-exclusive distribution of the version of the paper published in this Journal (eg.: publishing in institutional repository or as a book), with a recognition of its initial publication in this Journal.
  3. Authors are allowed and encouraged to publish their work online (eg.: in institutional repositories or on their personal website) at any point before or during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as increase the impact and the citation of the published work (see the Effect of Open Access).