Judicial review as a quasi-administrative jurisdiction^†.

This article examines the evolving nature of judicial review, arguing that it functions as a quasi-administrative jurisdiction rather than solely a judicial, adversarial process. It highlights how courts, particularly in Canadian and English law, increasingly engage in prospective and collaborative roles—advising administrative bodies, issuing flexible remedies, and managing complex, multilateral disputes—to support the proper execution of public administration and statutory schemes. The article contrasts this with Lon Fuller's traditional view of adjudication as inherently bilateral and retrospective, proposing instead that judicial review operates through claims of legitimate authority and recognition in the public interest, reflecting a multilateral, collaborative justice model. It further discusses the normative and conceptual limits of this quasi-administrative role, emphasizing judicial deference grounded in democratic legitimacy and the dialogic relationship between courts, administrators, and legal subjects.