Administrative Law and Policy Effectiveness

2021 ◽  
pp. 174-199
Author(s):  
J. D. B. Mitchell
2021 ◽  
pp. 109-120
Author(s):  
Laurent Manderieux

Intellectual property and administrative law entertain a long-standing, though ambiguous relationship. Intellectual property rights (IPR) depend on a number of institutions, and primarily from intellectual property offices granting several of them, which fall into the administrative structure of each country. The direct consequence of the relevance of administrative law for the research, analysis, and understanding of intellectual property law is that certain IP-related questions cannot be properly addressed without using the tool provided by administrative law. Indeed, intellectual property and administrative law partly overlap, as both branches of law are nationally characterized and country-specific, changing from country to country, and both have experienced significant changes related to globalization from the national to the international level. The growing regulation of intellectual property at the international level has somehow brought about an expansion of the intersection between intellectual property and administrative law and procedures. Therefore, complete, thorough research on intellectual property law and policy must take into account the conceptual tools and categories elaborated in administrative law.


Author(s):  
Matthew Williams

This chapter examines how legislative language affects local government duties by looking to homelessness law and policy. To test whether legislative language is a variable for explaining policy effectiveness, and more specifically how indeterminate legislation impacts the accountability of policy delivery, the chapter uses data from local government housing decisions in England and Wales. It first provides a brief history of local government housing provision, placing emphasis on the meaning of ‘homelessness’, as well as the powers and duties of local authorities, before discussing the theory, hypotheses, methodology, data and results of the study. The adjectives ‘vulnerable’ and ‘likely’ were found to exert a strong and statistically significant effect on the delivery of homelessness policy in England after 2002. Both words also affected the recognition rate of individuals fleeing violence or threats of violence in England.


This volume deals with the law governing the administrative implementation of European Union public policy. Much of this law is specific to individual policy sectors. The volume provides a study of such specialized admininstrative law for more than twenty sectors. This cross-sectoral approach allows for detailed comparisons of EU administration in diverse policy fields. It identifies situations where legal structures and approaches may be unnecessarily duplicated, thus indicating where a comprehensive, general system could be advantageous for both Union law and policy achievement. The comparative nature of the study also draws attention to policy fields which have proven to be testing grounds for approaches adopted subsequently in other areas. In addition, the work highlights the distinctive, highly networked, and strongly cooperative character of EU administration, as a reflection of, and a foundation for, the operative nature of the European Union as a whole.


Author(s):  
Elspeth Guild

Administrative law relating to the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) developed rapidly following the introduction of a European Union competence for asylum. The Amsterdam Treaty 1999 brought an end to the rather chaotic European field of law and policy on borders, immigration, and asylum. This area had not been included in EU competences at all until the Maastricht Treaty (in force from 1993) which fragmented the legal framework of the then EC by creating three so-called pillars, the first pillar of EU law proper (as had been contained in the then EC Treaty), the second on the Common Foreign and Security Policy (which was entirely intergovernmental), and the third pillar on justice and home affairs which included then (most of) border policy, migration, and asylum.


2020 ◽  
pp. 1-7
Author(s):  
Oliver Westerwinter

Abstract Friedrich Kratochwil engages critically with the emergence of a global administrative law and its consequences for the democratic legitimacy of global governance. While he makes important contributions to our understanding of global governance, he does not sufficiently discuss the differences in the institutional design of new forms of global law-making and their consequences for the effectiveness and legitimacy of global governance. I elaborate on these limitations and outline a comparative research agenda on the emergence, design, and effectiveness of the diverse arrangements that constitute the complex institutional architecture of contemporary global governance.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document