摘要：This article compares several systems of administrative adjudication. In the U.S., adjudication is typically performed by the same agency that makes and enforces the rules. However, in Australia, almost all administrative adjudication is performed by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal [AAT], a non-specialized adjudicating agency, and several other specialized tribunals that are independent of the enforcing agency. These tribunals (which evolved out of concerns about separation of powers) have achieved great legitimacy. In the U.K., recent legislation [the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act] merged numerous specialized tribunals into a single first-tier tribunal with much stronger guarantees of independence than previously existed. An upper tribunal hears appeals from the first tier and largely supplants judicial review. The article concludes by asking whether the U.S. could learn anything from the Australian and U.K. experience and suggests that a single tribunal to adjudicate federal benefits cases might be a significant improvement over the existing model.Cet article compare un certain nombre de systèmes de règlement judiciaire de différends dans le domaine administratif. Aux Etats-Unis, typiquement, le règlement de différends est effectué par la même agence qui établit les règles et qui les met en application. Toutefois, en Australie, presque tous ces règlements sont effectués par le Administrative Appeals Tribunal [AAT], une agence non-spécialisée de règlement de différends, ainsi qu‟un certain nombre d‟autres tribunaux spécialisés qui sont indépendants de l‟agence qui met les règles en application. Ces tribunaux (qui émanent de préoccupations au sujet de la séparation des pouvoirs) ont atteint un niveau élevé de légitimité. Au Royaume-Uni, une loi récente [la Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act] a fusionné plusieurs tribunaux spécialisés en un seul tribunal de première instance ayant des garanties d‟indépendance bien plus fortes qu‟auparavant. Un tribunal supérieur juge les appels des décisions du tribunal de première instance et supplante largement la révision judiciaire. L‟article se termine en posant la question à savoir si les Etats-Unis pourraient apprendre quelque chose de l‟expérience australienne et britannique et suggère qu‟un seul tribunal pour juger les cas de bénéfices fédéraux pourrait constituer une amélioration importante par rapport au modèle existant.
其他摘要：This article compares several systems of administrative adjudication. In the U.S., adjudication is typically performed by the same agency that makes and enforces the rules. However, in Australia, almost all administrative adjudication is performed by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal [AAT], a non-specialized adjudicating agency, and several other specialized tribunals that are independent of the enforcing agency. These tribunals (which evolved out of concerns about separation of powers) have achieved great legitimacy. In the U.K., recent legislation [the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act] merged numerous specialized tribunals into a single first-tier tribunal with much stronger guarantees of independence than previously existed. An upper tribunal hears appeals from the first tier and largely supplants judicial review. The article concludes by asking whether the U.S. could learn anything from the Australian and U.K. experience and suggests that a single tribunal to adjudicate federal benefits cases might be a significant improvement over the existing model.
