English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Written constitutions often include generalized guarantees of equal protection which imply a proscription on unconstitutional differential treatment. This paper will examine what the analytical focus ought to be when evaluating challenges to executive action based on such rights, a particularly relevant issue given recent developments in Hong Kong’s and Singapore’s equal protection jurisprudence. These developments suggest that there are three possible analytical focal points, each of which takes a different perspective on the relevance of the executive’s purpose in utilizing differential treatment: (1) the connection between the chosen differentiation and the specific purpose of the challenged executive action; (2) the connection between the differentiation and the broad purpose for which power was conferred upon the authority to perform the challenged action; and (3) a generalized assessment of the action’s rationality independent of purpose. This paper will critically evaluate each of these possibilities. It will argue that a specific purpose approach (namely (1)) is to be preferred, and that such an approach should be substantiated through a structured proportionality framework.

The relevance of purpose in constitutional equal protection challenges to executive action