The law on administrative procedure regulates the processes through which administrative decisions and administrative projects are elaborated. It is more and more regarded as essential in ...administrative laws: it is really considered as the central part of it in some systems. In many jurisdictions, rules concerning administrative procedure are codified, gathered in a single piece of general legislation: in a few, it remains non codified.The book is made of the different contributions presented on the topic to the last congress of the International Academy of International Law (Taipei, 2012): national reports on twenty countries and a general report.These contributions examine the way administrative procedure became codified, the obstacles which had to be overcome, the main orientations of the codes, their evolution in time; alternatively, they explain why administrative procedure is not codified.Providing extensive materials on an issue which is a concern in many administrative laws and many administrative systems, the book is intended for all searchers and experts in administrative law and public management, whether academics or practitioners.
Federal agencies have taken steps to include the public in a wide range of environmental decisions. Although some form of public participation is often required by law, agencies usually have broad ...discretion about the extent of that involvement. Approaches vary widely, from holding public information-gathering meetings to forming advisory groups to actively including citizens in making and implementing decisions.
Proponents of public participation argue that those who must live with the outcome of an environmental decision should have some influence on it. Critics maintain that public participation slows decision making and can lower its quality by including people unfamiliar with the science involved.
This book concludes that, when done correctly, public participation improves the quality of federal agencies' decisions about the environment. Well-managed public involvement also increases the legitimacy of decisions in the eyes of those affected by them, which makes it more likely that the decisions will be implemented effectively. This book recommends that agencies recognize public participation as valuable to their objectives, not just as a formality required by the law. It details principles and approaches agencies can use to successfully involve the public.
This groundbreaking book is the first to look at administration and administrative law in the earliest days of the American republic. Contrary to conventional understandings, Mashaw demonstrates that ...from the very beginning Congress delegated vast discretion to administrative officials and armed them with extrajudicial adjudicatory, rulemaking, and enforcement authority. The legislative and administrative practices of the U.S. Constitution's first century created an administrative constitution hardly hinted at in its formal text. Beyond describing a history that has previously gone largely unexamined, this book, in the author's words, will "demonstrate that there has been no precipitous fall from a historical position of separation-of-powers grace to a position of compromise; there is not a new administrative constitution whose legitimacy should be understood as not only contestable but deeply problematic."
<!CDATA Presidents of nations with constitutionally imposed term limits are often viewed as growing weaker as they approach the end of their time in office. However, in this important new study, ...political scientist Genevieve M. Kehoe argues that because such chief executives are free from reelection constraint and often still enthusiastic to create a legacy by pursuing bold projects, they may accomplish significant initiatives. Kehoe has developed a concept for this which she calls “Terminal Logic Behavior” (TLB). Presidents and Terminal Logic Behavior: Term Limits and Executive Action in the United States , Brazil, and Argentina provides both case studies and quantitative evidence to show how US presidents of the last three decades have utilized decrees on foreign, domestic, and environment policy during their final months in office. She finds a systematic pattern of decree use consistent with the mark of TLB in a most unexpected place—presidents’ use of national emergency powers. In a careful comparative analysis, she also finds support for her argument in the Argentinean and Brazilian experience of the same period. >
THE PROCEDURE FETISH Bagley, Nicholas
Michigan law review,
12/2019, Volume:
118, Issue:
3
Journal Article
The strict procedural rules that characterize modern administrative law are said to be necessary to sustain the fragile legitimacy of a powerful and constitutionally suspect administrative state. We ...are likewise told that they are essential to public accountability because they prevent factional interests from capturing agencies. Yet the legitimacy-and-accountability narrative at the heart of administrative law is both overdrawn and harmful. Procedural rules have a role to play in preserving legitimacy and discouraging capture, but they advance those goals more obliquely than is commonly assumed and may exacerbate the very problems they aim to fix. This Article aims to draw into question the administrative lawyer's instinctive faith in procedure, to reorient discussion to the trade-offs at the heart of any system designed to structure government action, and to soften resistance to a reform agenda that would undo counterproductive procedural rules. Administrative law could achieve more by doing less.
Automated process control has been used for a long time. Innovation and information technology achievements have made it possible to use automation in the State governance. Algorithm-based automated ...decisions are integral part of the concept of e-Government. Automated decisions are becoming more and more prevalent in modern society of the EU. Using automated decisions in public administration is a challenge for Administrative Law, because it has to evolve and keep up with the usage of new technologies, keep the legal balance between the cost-efficiency and operational flexibility of the State in general and at the same time ensure the protection of rights of individuals in each Member State and in the EU as a whole. Estonia is EU Member State and its public sector uses automated decisions but there are no direct legal provisions regarding what automated decision is, what are the conditions for issuing them, what are the safeguards to avoid the violation of rights of individuals etc. The right to issue automated decision is based only on the authorisation norm stipulated in a specific act regulating the field of activity of administrative authority. The Estonian Unemployment Insurance Fund is one of the administrative authorities which issues automated decisions in its field of activity. The aim of this paper is to examine and find out whether the automated decisions used by Estonian Unemployment Insurance Fund comply with the general principles of administrative procedure and the EU rules on data protection but also to identify aspects where legal adjustment is needed and propose legislative amendments. The paper is based on the analysis of relevant scientific books, articles, legal acts, supported by relevant case law and other sources.
Eighty years on, we are seeing a resurgence of the antiregulatory and antigovernment forces that lost the battle of the New Deal. President Trump's administration has proclaimed the "deconstruction ...of the administrative state" to be one of its main objectives. Early Trump executive actions quickly delivered on this pledge, with a wide array of antiregulatory actions and a budget proposing to slash many agencies' funding. Invoking the long-dormant Congressional Review Act, the Republican-controlled Congress has eagerly repealed numerous regulations promulgated late in the Obama Administration. Other major legislative and regulatory repeals are pending, and bills that would impose the most significant restrictions on administrative governance since the Administrative Procedure Act was adopted in 1946 -- like the proposed Regulatory Accountability Act -- now stand a chance of enactment. This resistance to administrative government reflects antigovernment themes that have been a consistent presence in national politics since President Reagan's election in 1980.
Judicial deference to executive statutory interpretation — a doctrine now commonly associated with the Supreme Court's decision in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council—is one of the central ...principles in modern American public law. Despite its significance, however, the doctrine's origins and development are poorly understood. The Court in Chevron claimed that the roots of judicial deference stem from statutory interpretation cases dating to the early nineteenth century. Others, by contrast, have sought to locate Chevron's doctrinal roots in judicial review's origins in the writ of mandamus. According to the standard narrative, courts in the pre-Chevron era followed a multifactor and ad hoc approach to issues of judicial deference; there was little theory that explained the body of cases; and the holdings and reasoning of the cases were often contradictory and difficult to rationalize. This Article challenges the standard account. It argues that the Supreme Court in Chevron, and scholarly commentators since, have misidentified nineteenth-century statutory interpretation cases applying canons of construction "respecting" contemporaneous and customary interpretation as cases deferring to executive interpretation as such. It further argues that, although the standard for obtaining a writ of mandamus was central to judicial review in the early Republic, statutory developments in the latter half of the nineteenth century (significantly, the enactment of general federal-question jurisdiction in 1875) ultimately mooted the relevance of that standard. Finally, it discusses the intellectual challenges to the traditional interpretive framework beginning in the early twentieth century; the Supreme Court's embrace of these intellectual challenges in the early 1940s; and Congress's attempt in the Administrative Procedure Act's (APA) standard-of-review provision to reject the Court's interpretive experimentation and corresponding deviation from the traditional canons. The Article thus seeks to establish — contrary to the suggestion in Chevron and recent cases — that there was no rule of statutory construction requiring judicial deference to executive interpretation qua executive interpretation in the early American Republic. And it contends that the governing statute of administrative law—the APA—was intended to codify the traditional interpretive approach and to reject the experimentation of the 1940s Court. Taken together, these conclusions cast doubt on much of the received wisdom on the doctrinal basis for the rule announced in Chevron.
The concept of the circular economy (CE) is currently gaining impetus as a way to move towards sustainable, low‐carbon, resource‐efficient, and competitive economies. However, despite the potential ...benefits of CE activities, their implementation remains relatively rare. We use a cross‐sectional survey of European small and medium‐sized firms (SMEs) to identify the main barriers firms face to promote the CE, focusing specifically on the following: those related to a lack of resources (human and financial) and capabilities (expertise) and those related to the regulatory framework (administrative procedures and the costs of meeting the regulations). Our results indicate that it is the complexity of administrative/legal procedures and the costs of meeting regulations/legal standards that constitute the most significant barriers, whereas the lack of human resources is also perceived to be an obstacle by firms engaged in CE activities. Those obstacles may be considered revealed barriers, and it is only when the firms become involved in these activities that they actually perceive them. Furthermore, when we consider the breadth of CE activities, administrative procedures and regulations once again emerge as the most significant obstacles. Finally, we stress the need to distinguish between different CE activities given that the perception of barriers differs substantially across these activities. Firms undertaking a disruptive innovation redesigning products and services to minimize the use of materials are more likely to perceive all barriers as important. However, firms implementing such activities as minimizing waste, replanning energy usage, and using renewable energy only perceive those obstacles related to administrative procedures and regulations.
