Advertisement

Axial Shift pp 239-270 | Cite as

The Auxilium Model

  • Benjamen GussenEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter continues the analysis of the principle of subsidiarity from Chap.  6. The principle is presented as an extension of the fiduciary principle and as an operational form of the construct of social trust. It would not be hyperbolic to claim that legal systems are a footnote to the concept of (social) trust. An abundance of evidence comes from the evolution of the common law legal system. Even more evidence can be furnished from the sociological genesis of the law. The latter is what this chapter essays to provide. Through the auxilium model, based on what could be termed a theory of ‘legal sociology,’ the chapter provides a reconstruction of constitutional law and administrative law. In the former, the concept of trust accentuates the importance of the subsidiarity principle as a cornerstone for constitutional designs. The concept also illuminates the basis of judicial review as deriving from the fiduciary principle. An expectation of a unifying theory of public law renovates on this premise of trust. The auxilium model reconciles the dichotomy between power and trust by showing how power is largely based on the emergence of trust.

References

  1. Allison, J W F, ‘History to Understand and History to Reform, English Public Law’ (2013) 72(3) The Cambridge Law Journal 526.Google Scholar
  2. Arrow, K, The Limits of Organization (Norton, 1974).Google Scholar
  3. Beard, Charles A, The Economic Basis of Politics (George Allen & Unwin, 1935).Google Scholar
  4. Boast, R, ‘New Zealand Maori Council v AG’ (1987) New Zealand Law Journal 240.Google Scholar
  5. Brown, Christine, ‘The Fiduciary Duty of Government: An Alternative Accountability Mechanism or Wishful Thinking?’ (1993) 2 Griffith Law Review 161.Google Scholar
  6. Castelfranchi, C and R Falcone, ‘Social Trust: A Cognitive Approach’ in C Castelfranchi and Y-H Tan (eds), Trust and Deception in Virtual Societies (Kluwer Academic Publishing, 2001) 55.Google Scholar
  7. Clark, Kathleen, ‘Do We Have Enough Ethics in Government Yet? An Answer form Fiduciary Theory’ (1996) University of Illinois Law Review 57.Google Scholar
  8. Craig, Paul, ‘Competing Models of Judicial Review’ (1999) Public Law 42.Google Scholar
  9. Criddle, Evan J, ‘Fiduciary Foundations of Administrative Law’ (2006) 54 UCLA Law Review 117.Google Scholar
  10. Cross, Raymond, ‘The Future of International indigenous Trust and Fiduciary Law’ in Richard Bartlett and Larissa Behrendt (eds), In Whom We Trust (Irwin Law, 2002) 221.Google Scholar
  11. Dicey, A V, Introduction to the Study of the Constitution (Macmillan, 9th ed, 1945).Google Scholar
  12. Dickhaut, John and Kevin McCabe, ‘Trust, Reciprocity, and Social History’ (1995) 10 Games and Economic Behavior 122.Google Scholar
  13. Earle, Timothy C and George T Cvetkovich, Social Trust: Toward a Cosmopolitan Society (Praeger Publishers, 1995).Google Scholar
  14. Ellis, M V, Fiduciary Duties in Canada (Carswell, 1993).Google Scholar
  15. Farrell, Henry, ‘Trust, Distrust, and Power’ in Russell Hardin (ed), Distrust (Russell Sage Foundation, 2004) 85.Google Scholar
  16. Fennell, Phil, ‘Roberts v Hopwood: The Rule against Socialism’ (1986) 13(3) Journal of Law and Society 401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Finn, P D, ‘The Fiduciary Principle’ in T G Youdan (ed) Equity, Fiduciaries and Trusts (Carswell, 1989) 1.Google Scholar
  18. Fitzgerald, John, ‘The Role of Equity in Public Law’ (1998) 87 Canberra Bulletin of Public Administration 112.Google Scholar
  19. Fox-Decent, Evan, Sovereignty’s Promise: The State as Fiduciary (PhD Thesis, The University of Toronto, 2004).Google Scholar
  20. ———, ‘The Fiduciary Nature of State Legal Authority’ (2005) 31 Queen’s Law Review 259.Google Scholar
  21. Frame, Alex, ‘The Fiduciary Duties of the Crown to Maori: Will the Canadian Remedy Travel?’ (2005) 13 Waikato Law Review 70.Google Scholar
  22. Frankel, Tamar, ‘Fiduciary Law’ (1983) 71 California Law Review 795.Google Scholar
  23. French, John R P and Bertram Raven, ‘The Bases of Social Power’ in Dorwin Cartwright (ed) Studies in Social Power (University of Michigan Press, 1959) 150.Google Scholar
  24. French, R S, ‘The Equitable Geist in the Machinery of Administrative Justice’ (Paper presented to an AIAL seminar on recent developments in Administrative Law, Sydney, 22 May 2003).Google Scholar
  25. Fukuyama, Francis, Trust (Free Press, 1995).Google Scholar
  26. Fuller, Lon L, The Morality of Law (Yale University Press, rev ed, 1969).Google Scholar
  27. Gageler, Stephen, ‘Legitimate Expectations’ (2005) 12 Australian Journal of Administrative Law 111.Google Scholar
  28. Gautreau, Maurice, ‘Demystifying the Fiduciary Mystique’ (1989) 68 Canadian Bar Review 1.Google Scholar
  29. Giffin, K, ‘The Contribution of Studies of Source Credibility to a Theory of Interpersonal Trust in the Communication Process’ (1967) 68(2) Psychological Bulletin 104.Google Scholar
  30. Gussen, Benjamen F, ‘On the problem of scale: Hayek, Kohr, Jacobs and the Reinvention of the Political State’ (2013a) 24 (1) Constitutional Political Economy 19.Google Scholar
  31. ———, ‘On the problem of scale: Spinozistic Sovereignty as the Logical Foundation of Constitutional Economics’ (2013b) (7)(1) The Journal of Philosophical Economics (online).Google Scholar
  32. ———, ‘The State is the Fiduciary of the People’ (2015) Public Law 440.Google Scholar
  33. Hall, Donna, ‘The Fiduciary Relationship Between Maori and the Government in New Zealand’ in Richard Bartlett and Larissa Behrendt, In Whom We Trust: A Forum on Fiduciary Relationships (Irwin Law, 2002) 123.Google Scholar
  34. Harris, Bruce, ‘The “third source” of authority for government action’ (1992) 108 Law Quarterly Review 626.Google Scholar
  35. Higginbotham, John (trans), Cicero On Moral Obligations (Faber & Faber, 1967).Google Scholar
  36. Hirshleifer, J, ‘Economics from a Biological Viewpoint’ (1977) 20 Journal of Law and Economics 1.Google Scholar
  37. Hopkins, John, Devolution in Context: Regional, Federal and Devolved Government in the European Union (Cavendish Publishing, 2002).Google Scholar
  38. Johns, Andrew J I, ‘On the Concept of Trust’ (2002) 33 Decision Support Systems 225.Google Scholar
  39. Johns, J L, ‘A Concept Analysis of Trust’ (1996) 24 Journal of Advanced Nursing 76.Google Scholar
  40. Kan, Raybon, Fiduciary Duties in Public Law (LLM Thesis, Victoria U of Wellington, 1989).Google Scholar
  41. Knight, Jack, Institutions and Social Conflict (Cambridge University Press, 1992).Google Scholar
  42. Lanning, Gerald, ‘The Crown-Maori Relationship: The Spectre of a Fiduciary Relationship’ (1996–1999) 8 Auckland University Law Review 445.Google Scholar
  43. Larsson, Rikard, Lars Bengtsson, Kristina Henriksson and Judith Sparks, ‘The Interorganizational Learning Dilemma: Collective Knowledge Development in Strategic Alliances’ (1998) 9(3) Organization Science 285.Google Scholar
  44. Leary, J S, Fiduciary Duties in Public Law (LLB(Hons) Dissertation, The University of Auckland, 1992).Google Scholar
  45. Lewis, D and A Weigert, ‘Social Atomism, Holism and Trust’ (1985) 26(4) Sociological Quarterly 455.Google Scholar
  46. Locke, John, Two Treaties of Government (Legal Classics Library, 1994).Google Scholar
  47. Loughlin, Martin, Legality and Locality (Clarendon Press, 1996).Google Scholar
  48. Lowe, Vaughan, ‘The Role of Equity in International Law’ (1988) 12 Australian YBIL 54.Google Scholar
  49. Luhmann, Niklas, Trust and power: Two Works by Niklas Luhmann (John Wiley & Sons, 1979).Google Scholar
  50. ———, ‘Law as a Social System’ (1989) 83 (1&2) Northwestern University Law Review 136.Google Scholar
  51. Mason, Anthony, ‘The Place of Equity and Equitable Doctrines in the Contemporary Common Law World: An Australian Perspective’ in Donovan W M Waters (ed), Equity, Fiduciaries and Trusts (Carswell 1993) 3.Google Scholar
  52. ———, ‘The Place of Equity and Equitable Remedies in the Contemporary Law World’ (1994) 110 Law Quarterly Review 238.Google Scholar
  53. McHugh, Paul G, The Maori Magna Carta (Oxford University Press, 1991).Google Scholar
  54. Merriam, C E, History of the Theory of Sovereignty since Rousseau (Batoche Books, 2001).Google Scholar
  55. Millon-Delsol, Chantal, ‘Le Principe de Subsidiarité: Origines et Fondements’ (1990) (4) Cahiers de l’Institute La Boetie 4.Google Scholar
  56. ———, L’État Subsidiaire: Ingérence et Non-ingérence de l’État, Le Principe de Subsidiarité aux Fondements de l’Histoire Européenne (Presses Universitaires de France, 1992).Google Scholar
  57. Morgan, Robert M and Shelby D Hunt, ‘The Commitment Trust Theory of Relationship Marketing’ (1994) 58 Journal of Marketing 20.Google Scholar
  58. Nooteboom, Bart and Frédérique Six (eds), The Trust Process in Organizations (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2003).Google Scholar
  59. Oliver, Dawn, Common Values and the Public-Private Divide (Cambridge University Press, 1999).Google Scholar
  60. Ostrom, Elinor, Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action (Cambridge University Press, 1990).Google Scholar
  61. ———, ‘Coping with Tragedies of the Commons’ (1999) 2 Annual Review of Political Science 493.Google Scholar
  62. Nolan, Michael Patrick, Stephen Sedley and Geoffrey Philip Wilson, The Making and Remaking of the British Constitution (Blackstone Press, 1997).Google Scholar
  63. Peiris, G J, ‘Wednesbury Unreasonableness: The Expanding Canvas’ [1987] Cambridge Law Review 53.Google Scholar
  64. Polcock, J G A, ‘Sovereignty and History in a Divided Culture: The Case of New Zealand and the Treaty of Waitangi’ (The Iredell Memorial Lecture, Lancaster University, 10 October 1991).Google Scholar
  65. Prokhovnik, Raia, ‘Spinoza’s Conception of Sovereignty’ (2001) 27 History of European Ideas 289.Google Scholar
  66. Pontier, Jean-Marie, ‘La Subsidiarité en Droit Administrative’ (1986) (novembre· decembre) Revue du Droit Public et de la Science Politique en France et d’Étranger 1515.Google Scholar
  67. Rea, T, ‘Engendering Trust in Electronic Environments—Role for a Trusted Third Party’ in C Castelfranchi and Y-H Tan (eds.), Trust and Deception in Virtual Societies (Kluwer Academic Publishing, 2001) 221.Google Scholar
  68. Reynolds, Paul, ‘Legitimate Expectations and the Protection of Trust in Public Officials’ (2011) Public Law 330.Google Scholar
  69. Rossiter, Clinton (ed), The Federalist (Penguin, 1961).Google Scholar
  70. Rotter, J B, ‘A New Scale for the Measurement of Interpersonal Trust’ (1967) 35 Journal of Personality 651Google Scholar
  71. ———, ‘Generalized Expectancies for Interpersonal Trust’ (1971) 26 American Psychologist 443.Google Scholar
  72. Rowe, Thomas D, Jr, ‘No Final Victories: The Incompleteness of Equity’s Triumph in Federal Law’ (1993) 56 Law and Contemporary Problems 105.Google Scholar
  73. Sealy, LS, ‘Fiduciary Relationships’ (1962) Cambridge Law Review 69.Google Scholar
  74. Simmel, Georg, ‘The Secret and the Secret Society’ in KH Wolff (ed and trans), The sociology of Georg Simmel (The Free Press, 1950) 307.Google Scholar
  75. Sossin, Lorne, ‘Public Fiduciary Obligations, Political Trusts, and the Equitable Duty of Reasonableness in Administrative Law’ (2003) 66 Saskatchewan Law Review 129,Google Scholar
  76. Stadler, Hans, Subsidiarittitsprinzip und Foderalismus (Universitätsbuchhandlung, Freiburg, 1951).Google Scholar
  77. Tan, David, ‘The Fiduciary as an Accordion Term: Can the Crown Play a Different Tune?’ (1995) 69 Australian Law Journal 440.Google Scholar
  78. Wade, William and C F Forsyth, Administrative Law (Oxford University Press, 10th ed, 2009).Google Scholar
  79. Warren, Mark E (ed), Democracy and Trust (Cambridge University Press, 1999).Google Scholar
  80. Waters, Donovan W M (ed), Equity, Fiduciaries and Trusts (Carswell, 1993).Google Scholar
  81. Weber, Linda R and Allison I Carter, The Social Construction of Trust (Springer, 2003).Google Scholar
  82. Weber, Max, Economy and Society (University of California Press, 1978).Google Scholar
  83. Wray, George R, Fiduciary Duties and Constitutional Rights: Constitutionalizing a Minimum Level of Well-Being under Section 7 of the Charter (LLM Thesis, The University of Toronto, 2007).Google Scholar
  84. Wright, David, ‘The Role of Equitable Remedies in the Merging of Private and Public Law’ (2001) 12 Public Law Review 40.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of LawSwinburne University of TechnologyMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations