The Use of Administrative Law Principles to Limit the Decision Making Powers of Owners Corporations

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giridhar Kowtal
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Administrative Law

Global Administrative Law: A Transnational Perspective

2021 ◽  
pp. 156-178
Author(s):  
Karl-Heinz Ladeur
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
International Treaties ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
Private Actors

The most important phenomena attributable to the project of “global administrative law” (GAL) consists of rules, principles, practices, or procedures that have a more informal character and are generated from networks of public and private actors. The main characteristics of those rules is that they tend to be generated below the level of formal international treaties and that norm production occurs—at least in part—outside traditional formal modes of decision-making. However, some GAL norms including standards on products and services in particular, can have far reaching consequences as their factual weight is much more influential than domestic norms. GAL also develops new forms of procedure (e.g., voting) that are different from traditional international forms.

scholarly journals The Europeanisation of Spanish Administrative Law through the Principle of Legitimate Expectations

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 55-86
Author(s):  
Luis Arroyo Jiménez ◽  
Gabriel Doménech Pascual
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
General Principle ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
Status Quo ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
National Legislation ◽  
Legitimate Expectations ◽  
The Eu

This article describes the Europeanisation of Spanish administrative law as a result of the influence of the EU law general principle of legitimate expectations. It examines, firstly, whether the formal incorporation of the principle of legitimate expectations into national legislation and case law has modified the substance of the latter, and if so, secondly, whether this has led to a weaker or a more robust protection of the legal status quo. To carry out that examination, the article considers the influence of the principle of legitimate expectations in two different areas: in individual administrative decision-making, and in legislative and administrative rulemaking. Our conclusion is that the Europeanisation of Spanish administrative law through the principle of legitimate expectations has been variable and ambiguous.

scholarly journals Through a Glass Darkly: The Role and Review of "National Security" Concepts in Canadian Law

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Craig Forcese
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
National Security ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
The Public ◽  
Precise Meaning ◽  
Canadian Law ◽  
Real Importance ◽  
The Government

The expression "national security" or its close similes lacks a precise meaning, even in the public policy literature. Nevertheless, the concept appears in over 30 federal statutes. In most instances, the term is undefined, an important oversight in light of the significant powers these statutes accord the government. Under these circumstances, how courts review government invocations of "national security" is of real importance. With some exceptions, courts applying s. 7 of the Charter and standard administrative law doctrines have accorded substantial deference to government national security determinations. When largely deferential substantive review of the ambiguous concept of national security is coupled with the ex parti and in camera context in which these cases are often heard, the net effect is to leave government with a freer hand in national security matters than in other domains of administrative decision making. Several possible responses to this problem are proposed.

4. Public Law

2019 ◽  
pp. 94-127
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Fisher ◽  
Bettina Lange ◽  
Eloise Scotford
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
Environmental Law ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Aarhus Convention ◽  
Constituent Elements ◽  
Public Decision

This chapter explains the important role that public law, particularly administrative law, plays in environmental law. This role comes about because much of environmental law requires vesting decision-making and regulatory power in the hands of public decision-makers at all levels of government. This chapter begins by providing an overview of the different constituent elements of public law: constitutional law, administrative law, the role of the EU and international law, as well the complexities of this area of law. The chapter then moves on to consider the way in which the different types of interests involved in environmental problems and the need for information and expertise provide challenges for public law. The chapter then provides an overview of four major features of public law that are particularly relevant to environmental lawyers: the Aarhus Convention, accountability mechanisms, judicial review, and human rights.

scholarly journals Addressing Disconnection: Automated Decision-Making, Administrative Law and Regulatory Reform

2021 ◽  
Vol 44 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna Huggins
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Regulatory Reform ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
Government Agencies ◽  
Mental Process ◽  
Automated Systems ◽  
Regulatory Evolution ◽  
Distinctive Features ◽  
Automated Decision Making

Automation is transforming how government agencies make decisions. This article analyses three distinctive features of automated decision-making that are difficult to reconcile with key doctrines of administrative law developed for a human-centric decision-making context. First, the complex, multi-faceted decision-making requirements arising from statutory interpretation and administrative law principles raise questions about the feasibility of designing automated systems to cohere with these expectations. Secondly, whilst the courts have emphasised a human mental process as a criterion of a valid decision, many automated decisions are made with limited or no human input. Thirdly, the new types of bias associated with opaque automated decision-making are not easily accommodated by the bias rule, or other relevant grounds of judicial review. This article, therefore, argues that doctrinal and regulatory evolution are both needed to address these disconnections and maintain the accountability and contestability of administrative decisions in the digital age.

scholarly journals The Unmeritorious ‘Legality’/‘Merits’ Distinction in Singapore Administrative Law

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-32
Author(s):  
Benjamin Joshua Ong
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
General Principle ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Rough Approximation ◽  
Executive Decision Making ◽  
The Law

Abstract The Singapore courts often state that judicial review of executive decision-making ought only to involve an inquiry into the ‘legality’ of a decision or the ‘decision-making process’, and not the ‘decision itself’ or its ‘merits’ – let us call this the ‘Distinction’. This article argues that the Distinction should be expunged from Singapore law. The Distinction has its roots in English case law which aimed to prevent the courts from arbitrarily substituting their decision for the executive's by reason of mere disagreement. But Singapore case law has gone further and treated the Distinction as a general principle applicable to all of administrative law. However, the Distinction is too vague for this purpose (as seen from Singapore cases which have interpreted the distinction inconsistently). It is conceptually problematic, incompatible with the practicalities of judicial review (particularly substantive review as recognised in Singapore law), and has occasionally been paid lip service but not followed in substance. The Distinction cannot form a coherent principle to guide the courts and ought to be replaced by a more nuanced application of constitutional principles relevant to determining the appropriate scope of review. Whatever these principles may be, and however they are to be balanced, the Distinction can be but an over-inclusive rough approximation of them which hampers the development of the law.

scholarly journals Public agents of front line: the creator of administrative law

2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Juliana Bonacorsi de Palma
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Public Policies ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
Front Line ◽  
The Public ◽  
Public Action ◽  
Street Level ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Street Level Bureaucrats

<span>Abstract: The role of the front-line public agents in the implementation of the public policies created by the first-tier is the subject addressed by the author. From the notion of street-level bureaucrats, it seeks to identify the difficulties encountered by such public agents in decision-making and the need for standards that provide for institutes and administrative dynamics that in fact lead to more efficient, impersonal and guaranteeing public action to protect the well-intentioned front-line public agent to fully exercise the discretion he needs in case-by-case action.</span>

Effective Law from a Regulatory and Administrative Law Perspective

2018 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 391-415 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria DE BENEDETTO
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Law And Economics ◽  
Integrated Approach ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
Sociology Of Law ◽  
The Public ◽  
Regulatory Perspective ◽  
Administrative Procedures ◽  
Behavioural Sciences

The question of effective law has been studied in many fields of research, such as philosophy and sociology of law, law and economics, public policy and behavioural sciences. This article aims to treat it as a genuine administrative law issue which is currently having a significant impact on administrative procedures, especially affecting the way in which rules are adopted and implemented. Furthermore, the article attempts to reconcile conflicting views in existing literature on the meaning of effective law and on which factors lead to effectiveness by proposing an integrated approach: starting from a regulatory perspective it considers both traditional determinants of effectiveness, ie compliance and enforcement, as well as the emerging aspect of outcomes, focused on the idea that a rule can be defined as effective when its desired effects have been achieved and the public interest which justifies the rule has been safeguarded without producing unwanted or disfunctional consequences.Far from being simply a decisional problem for institutions (arising in legislative, regulatory and administrative procedures), effectiveness calls for a “steering administration” and represents a criterion for decision-making, since expected effectiveness can be used in the logic of “whether” and “how” institutions should arrive at decisions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document