{{unreferenced|date=December 2007}}

[[Image:250px-HQFTC.jpg|thumb|250px|right|Administrative law in the United States often relates to, or arises from, so-called "independent agencies"- such as the [[Federal Trade Commission]] ("FTC"). Here is FTC's headquarters in [[Washington D.C.]]]]

'''Administrative law''' is the body of [[law]] that governs the activities of [[government agency|administrative agencies]] of [[government]]. [[Government agency]] action can include [[rulemaking]], [[adjudication]], or the [[enforcement]] of a specific [[regulation|regulatory]] agenda. Administrative law is considered a branch of [[public law]]. As a body of law, administrative law deals with the decision-making of administrative units of government (e.g., [[tribunal]]s, [[board]]s or [[Government agency|commissions]]) that are part of a national [[regulation|regulatory scheme]] in such areas as [[international trade]], [[manufacturing]], the [[natural environment|environment]], [[taxation]], [[broadcasting]], [[immigration]] and [[transport]]. Administrative law expanded greatly during the twentieth century, as legislative bodies world-wide created more [[government agency|government agencies]] to regulate the increasingly complex social, economic and political spheres of human interaction.

==Administrative law in common law countries==
Generally speaking, most countries that follow the principles of [[common law]] have developed procedures for [[judicial review]] that limit the reviewability of decisions made by administrative law bodies. Often these procedures are coupled with legislation or other [[common law]] doctrines that establish standards for proper [[rulemaking]].
Administrative law may also apply to review of decisions of so-called quasi-public bodies, such as [[non-profit corporations]], disciplinary boards, and other decision-making bodies that affect the legal rights of members of a particular group or entity.

While administrative decision-making bodies are often controlled by larger governmental units, their decisions could be reviewed by a [[court]] of [[general jurisdiction]] under some principle of [[judicial review]] based upon [[due process]] (United States) or [[fundamental justice]] (Canada). Judicial review of administrative decision, it must be noted, is different from an appeal. When sitting in review of a decision, the Court will only look at the method in which the decision was arrived at, whereas in appeal the correctness of the decision itself will be under question. This difference is vital in appreciating administrative law in common law countries.

The scope of [[judicial review]] may be limited to certain questions of [[fairness]], or whether the administrative action is ''[[ultra vires]]''. In terms of ultra vires actions in the broad sense, a reviewing court may set aside an administrative decision if it is [[patently unreasonable]] (under Canadian law), [[Wednesbury unreasonableness|''Wednesbury'' unreasonable]] (under British law), or arbitrary and capricious (under U.S. [[Administrative Procedure Act]] and New York State law). Administrative law, as laid down by the [[Supreme Court of India]], has also recognized two more grounds of judicial review which were recognized but not applied by English Courts viz. [[legitimate expectation]] and [[Proportionality (political maxim)|proportionality]].

The powers to review administrative decisions are usually established by statute, but were originally developed from the royal [[prerogative writ]]s of [[English law]], such as the writ of [[mandamus]] and the writ of [[certiorari]]. In certain [[Common Law]] jurisdictions, such as [[India]] or [[Pakistan]], the power to pass such writs is a Constitutionally guaranteed power. This power is seen as fundamental to the power of [[judicial review]] and an aspect of the independent [[judiciary]].

=== Administrative law in Australia===
{{Main|Australian administrative law}}

=== Administrative law in Canada===
{{Main|Canadian administrative law}}

=== Administrative law in the United States===
{{Main|United States administrative law}}
In the [[United States]] legal system, many [[government agency|government agencies]] are organized under the [[executive branch]] of [[government]], rather than the [[judicial branch|judicial]] or [[legislative branch]]es. The [[United States Federal Executive Departments|departments]] under the control of the [[executive branch]], and their sub-units, are often referred to as [[government agency|executive agencies]]. The so-called [[government agency|executive agencies]] can be distinguished from the many important and powerful [[Independent Agencies of the United States Government|independent agencies]], that are created by [[statutes]] enacted by the [[U.S. Congress]]. Congress has also created [[Article I and Article III tribunals|Article I judicial tribunals]] to handle some areas of administrative law.

The actions of [[government agency|executive agencies]] and [[Independent Agencies of the United States Government|independent agencies]] are the main focus of American administrative law. In response to the rapid creation of new [[Independent Agencies of the United States Government|independent agencies]] in the early twentieth century (see discussion below), [[U.S. Congress|Congress]] enacted the [[Administrative Procedure Act]] (APA) in 1946. Many of the [[Independent Agencies of the United States Government|independent agencies]] operate as miniature versions of the [[Federal Government of the United States|tripartite federal government]], with the authority to "legislate" (through [[rulemaking]]; see [[Federal Register]] and [[Code of Federal Regulations]]), [[adjudication|"adjudicate"]] (through administrative hearings), and to [[Executive (government)|"execute"]] administrative goals (through agency enforcement personnel). Because the [[United States Constitution]] sets no limits on this tripartite authority of [[government agency|administrative agencies]], [[U.S. Congress|Congress]] enacted the [[Administrative Procedure Act|APA]] to establish fair administrative law procedures to comply with the requirements of [[United States Constitution|Constitutional]] [[due process]].

The dominant [[U.S. Supreme Court]] case in the field of American administrative law is ''[[Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.|Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council]]'', {{ussc|467|837|1984}}.

The [[American Bar Association]]'s official journal concerning administrative law is the [[Administrative Law Review]].

====Historical development====
In his book, ''Administrative Law & Regulatory Policy'' (3d Ed., 1992) (''Admin. Law & Reg. Policy ''), U.S. Supreme Court Justice [[Stephen Breyer]] divides the history of administrative law in the United States into six discrete periods:
* English antecedents & the American experience to 1875
* 1875 - 1930: the rise of regulation & the traditional model of administrative law
* The New Deal
* 1945 - 1965: the [[Administrative Procedure Act]] & the maturation of the traditional model of administrative law
* 1965 - 1985: critique and transformation of the administrative process
* 1985 - ?: retreat or consolidation

==Administrative law in civil law countries==

Unlike most Common-law jurisdictions, the majority of [[Civil law (legal system)|civil law]] jurisdictions have specialized courts or sections to deal with administrative cases which, as a rule, will apply procedural rules specifically designed for such cases and different from that applied in private-law proceedings, such as [[contract]] or [[tort]] claims.

===France===
In [[France]], most claims against the national or local governments are handled by [[administrative court]]s, which use the ''[[Conseil d'État]]'' as a court of last resort.

{{sect-stub}}
===Germany===
In [[Germany]], the highest administrative court for most matters is the federal administrative court [[Bundesverwaltungsgericht]]. There are federal courts with special jurisdiction in the fields of social security law ([[Bundessozialgericht]]) and tax law ([[Bundesfinanzhof]]).

{{sect-stub}}
===The Netherlands===
In The Netherlands, administrative law provisions are usually contained in separate laws. There is however a single General Administrative Law Act ("Algemene wet bestuursrecht" or Awb) that applies both to the making of administrative decisions and the judicial review of these decisions in courts. On the basis of the Awb, citizens can oppose a decision ('besluit') made by a public body ('bestuursorgaan') within the administration and apply for judicial review in courts if unsuccessful.

Unlike France or Germany, there are no special administrative courts of first instance in the Netherlands, but regular courts have an administrative "chamber" which specializes in administrative appeals. The courts of appeal in administrative cases however are specialized depending on the case, but most administrative appeals end up in the judicial section of the Council of State ([[Raad van State]]).

In addition to the system described above there is another part of administrative law which is called "administratief beroep" (administrative [[appeal]]). This procedure is available only if the law on which the primary decision is based specifically provides for it and involves an appeal to a higher ranking administrative body. If administrative [[appeal]] is available, no appeal to the judicial system may be made.

===Brazil===
In [[Brazil]], unlike most Civil-law jurisdictions, there is no specialized court or section to deal with administrative cases.


{{Law}}

[[Category:Administrative law]]

[[am:አስተዳደር ህግ]]
[[cs:Správní právo]]
[[de:Verwaltungsrecht]]
[[el:Διοικητικό Δίκαιο]]
[[es:Derecho administrativo]]
[[eo:Administracia juro]]
[[fr:Droit administratif]]
[[ko:행정법]]
[[it:Diritto amministrativo]]
[[he:משפט מנהלי]]
[[lv:Administratīvās tiesības]]
[[lt:Administracinė teisė]]
[[nl:Bestuursrecht (Nederland)]]
[[ja:行政法]]
[[pl:Prawo administracyjne]]
[[pt:Direito administrativo]]
[[ru:Административное право]]
[[sk:Správne právo]]
[[sh:Upravno pravo]]
[[vec:Dirito aministrativo]]
[[zh:行政法]]