From Rule of Law to Administrative Governance: A Comparative Study of Administrative Law on UK and USA

The growth of the welfare state has transformed the nature of administrative law from its classical foundations rooted in the Rule of Law doctrine to a more complex system of modern administrative governance. This paper examines the development of administrative law in the United Kingdom and the United States by analysing the emergence of distinct yet comparable mechanisms for regulating administrative authorities. While the United Kingdom traditionally rejected the existence of a separate administrative law under Dicey’s concept of the Rule of Law, the United States developed an extensive administrative framework based on constitutional principles of separation of powers and checks and balances. The paper studies the historical evolution, principles, institutions, and control mechanisms associated with administrative law in both jurisdictions. It further compares the approaches adopted with respect to judicial review, delegated legislation, natural justice, due process, and administrative accountability. The study observes that despite differences in constitutional structure and legal traditions, both systems recognise the increasing importance of administrative agencies in modern governance. However, the methods adopted to regulate administrative power continue to differ significantly. The paper concludes that both models offer valuable insights into balancing administrative efficiency with accountability and protection of individual rights.