EditorCane, P; Hofmann, H; Ip, E; Lindseth, P
Source TitleThe Oxford Handbook of Comparative Administrative Law
PublisherOxford University Press
University of Melbourne Author/sBiddulph, Sarah
AffiliationMelbourne Law School
CitationsBiddulph, S. (2021). Administrative Power. Cane, P (Ed.). Hofmann, H (Ed.). Ip, E (Ed.). Lindseth, P (Ed.). The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Administrative Law, (1), Oxford University Press.
Access StatusOpen Access
ARC Grant codeARC/FT130100412
This chapter compares the respective roles of administrative institutions and administrative power on the one hand, and other governmental institutions and powers on the other, in dealing with drug use, possession, and trafficking in China and Victoria (Australia). Comparison of these two jurisdictions provides both opportunities and challenges. Though one is a nation-state, the other a sub-national state within a federation, both have jurisdiction to regulate drug use-related harms and offending. There is thus comparability in terms of jurisdiction. More importantly, the opportunities and challenges for comparison stem from the divergence in fundamental political system; one authoritarian and one liberal democratic, and the nature of the relationship between state and citizen that flows from this. This divergence has implications for selection of both comparative methodology and the subject matter of comparison.
- Click on "Export Reference in RIS Format" and choose "open with... Endnote".
- Click on "Export Reference in RIS Format". Login to Refworks, go to References => Import References