Search

Australia’s combustible cladding crisis is estimated to cost approximately $6 billion to remediate. No study has been published which determined the causative factors for the magnitude of this issue. Investigators for the Federal Building Ministers’ Forum stated that building practitioners misinterpreted or ignored the requirements of the National Construction Code. However, research by the authors showed that the cause of Australia’s combustible cladding crisis are likely deficiencies in the National Construction Code itself. A comparative analysis of historic National Construction Code requirements and recent National Construction Code changes in response to cladding fires showed that the factors which contributed to Australia’s combustible cladding crisis were present for nearly 20 years. Findings also showed that some of the newly introduced measures incorporated in the National Construction Code to address the combustible cladding crisis do not fully address combustible cladding risks and fail to completely address the historical deficiencies.

Delegated legislation involves Parliament lending its legislative powers to the executive branch of government, such as to the cabinet or an individual minister. As the ultimate source of legislative power, Parliament has a special responsibility to keep an eye on executive lawmaking. The Australian federal scrutiny committee – formerly called the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, and now rebadged as the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation – recently carried out an inquiry to consider how it could improve its scrutiny process. In 2019 it published a unanimous report that was endorsed by the Australian Senate in November when it amended its Standing Orders in line with the committee’s proposed changes. This article provides an overview of the Australian scrutiny committee and its inquiry. It then considers the committee’s report and recommendations, which present an opportunity to consider changes to the parliamentary scrutiny of delegated legislation in other jurisdictions such as Canada. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Lawmakers and scholars concerned with content moderation regulation typically appeal to "analogies" to justify or undermine different forms of regulation. The logic goes: law should afford individuals due process rights against speech platforms because speech platforms are "like" speech governors as a matter of objective reality. Other common analogies include common carriers, publishers, distributors, shopping malls, and bookstores. Commentators attempt to invoke social roles to understand what the content moderation relationship is, what behaviors are "right" and "wrong" within it, and how law should police behavioral deviations. But they do so without relying on foundational sociology theory that explains what social roles are, what they do, and how they come to be. Without this theoretical foundation, the discourse incompletely portrays the project of content moderation regulation. Content moderation regulations do not simply "take" speech platforms' role as it currently exists----they will also "make" speech platforms' role by expressing that speech platforms should be speech governors, common carriers, publishers, or something else, based on how lawmakers choose to regulate. This Article is the first to introduce role theory into the content moderation discourse. Content moderation regulations are poised to define the basic contours of what it means to be a "speech platform" because the role remains unsettled. Earlier, the Communications Decency Act failed to articulate coherent roles within the content moderation relationship. But current content moderation regulatory reforms--including the PACT Act in Congress as well as state platform-common carriage laws and their judicial review--have a renewed opportunity to script social roles for speech platforms and individuals. Foregrounding these reforms' role scripts directs attention to urgent questions about whether they are likely to produce a desirable content moderation relationship and an online speech ecosystem that meets the public's needs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite empirical evidence documenting its harms and substantial legislative efforts to ban its practice, conversion therapy remains a tragically prevalent practice in the United States. Recently, a circuit split between the Ninth and Eleventh Circuits has developed, raising questions about the future of conversion therapy regulation. This Note takes a retrospective look at the last ten years of conversion therapy bans and related legal challenges, questions the effectiveness of enacted bans, and explores routes for more effective regulation. This Note ultimately argues that conversion therapy bans must shift their focus to the regulation of unlicensed practitioners in order to better protect minors from the empirically demonstrated harms of conversion therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction to The Problem: Delegated legislation in Indonesia is a new type of legislation that should be interpreted and ruled carefully. However, nowadays, the Indonesian legal system has no fixed term for delegated legislation and no hierarchy on it. Furthermore, as many as 57.677 regulations at the level of Ministries, Agencies and State Institutions have the potential to overlap regulations and become subject to judicial review in the Supreme Court Purpose/Objective Study: This article aims to analyze the best term and hierarchy of delegated legislation in the legal system in Indonesia. Design/Methodology/Approach: This legal research conducted normative studies, by examining previous studies on delegated legislation and Electronic and Information Transaction (EIT) law to imagine the delegated legislation type and hierarchy. The data was analyzed by a prescriptive method to give a new idea regarding delegated legislation in Indonesia's legal system. Findings: This paper finds no fixed term for delegated legislation in the Indonesian legal system. There is a loophole in the Indonesian legal system related to delegated legislation. However, some scholars argue that delegated legislation in Indonesia can be found in Government Regulation, Presidential Regulation, Local Regulation and beleidsregel in Article 8 Paragraph (1) Law Number 12 of 2011 concerning Establishing Statutory Regulation and its amendment. As a suggestion, the amendment of the Law on Establishing Statutory Regulation is a must in carrying delegated legislation definition, purpose and hierarchy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Australia's combustible cladding crisis is estimated to cost approximately $6 billion to remediate. No study has been published which determined the causative factors for the magnitude of this issue. Investigators for the Federal Building Ministers' Forum stated that building practitioners misinterpreted or ignored the requirements of the National Construction Code. However, research by the authors showed that the cause of Australia's combustible cladding crisis are likely deficiencies in the National Construction Code itself. A comparative analysis of historic National Construction Code requirements and recent National Construction Code changes in response to cladding fires showed that the factors which contributed to Australia's combustible cladding crisis were present for nearly 20 years. Findings also showed that some of the newly introduced measures incorporated in the National Construction Code to address the combustible cladding crisis do not fully address combustible cladding risks and fail to completely address the historical deficiencies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Originalist proponents of a tougher nondelegation doctrine confront the many broad delegations that Congress enacted in the 1790s by claiming that each fell into some exceptional category to which the original nondelegation doctrine was inapplicable or weakly applicable, one being foreign affairs. There is lively debate on whether the founding generation actually recognized an exception to nondelegation principles for foreign affairs. This Article, commissioned for a symposium on “The Statutory Foreign Affairs Presidency,” intervenes in the debate by examining the Embargo Authorization Act of 1794, which empowered the President to lay an embargo on all ships in U.S. ports (and/or other classes of ships) if “the public safety shall so require,” for the upcoming five-month congressional recess. This was a delegation of remarkable power over the U.S. economy, which at the time depended heavily on maritime transport. An examination of the Act undermines the idea that there existed a foreign-affairs exception to cover it. Originalist proponents of a tougher nondelegation doctrine claim the doctrine was meant to protect private individual rights of liberty and property, yet Americans in the late 1700s lived in an economy that was more dependent on foreign commerce than it has ever been since, in which a five-month international embargo could be disastrous for private business nationwide. In this context, an “exception” for foreign affairs would be strange, turning economic reality on its head. Furthermore, the Act itself flouted any objective or even workable distinction between the foreign and the domestic. The Act’s unqualified use of the term “embargo” authorized the President to prohibit the departure of all ships, not only those sailing to foreign ports but also to other U.S. ports in the coastwise trade, which was then the main channel of U.S. domestic commerce. And even if the President were to impose an embargo aimed mainly at international maritime trade, preventing evasion of such a restriction required regulation of the coastwise trade—regulation that contemporaries apparently understood the Act to authorize. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

TABLE OF CONTENTS I. BACKGROUND 837 II. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF TSA'S FACIAL RECOGNITION 841 PROGRAM III. HISTORICAL DEFERENCE TO AGENCY INTERPRETATIONS 845 IV. HOW THE COURT MIGHT REVIEW THE TSA'S [...], The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has begun using facial recognition technology (FRT) to screen passengers at airports. Although travelers can currently opt out, it is not clear that this will continue to be an option as the program expands. This raises significant concerns about the amount of personally identifiable information being collected by the agency, as well as the level of discretion the agency has to implement this increasingly invasive technology without input from Congress. This Note proposes that, in light of the United States Supreme Court's shift away from its deferential Chevron standard for reviewing agency action, litigators can and should argue that the TSA's program ought to be struck down. Furthermore, it concludes that, regardless of whether the TSA's program would be invalidated in court, Congress should step in and pass legislation guiding the agency's adoption of FRT. Although much has been written about the Court's evolving Chevron-deference jurisprudence, this Note contributes to the discussion by applying this analysis to the TSA's potentially problematic new FRT program.

This article assesses the constitutional foundation by which Parliament lends its lawmaking powers to the executive, which rests upon a century-old precedent established by the Supreme Court of Canada in a constitutional challenge to wartime legislation. While the case law demonstrates that courts have continued to follow this early precedent to allow the parliamentary delegation of sweeping lawmaking powers to the executive, it is time for courts to reassess the constitutionality of delegation in light of Canada's status as a liberal democracy embedded within a system of constitutional supremacy. Under the Constitution of Canada, Parliament is placed fi rmly at the centre of public policymaking by being vested with exclusive legislative authority in certain subject matters. Parliament must therefore play the principal federal lawmaking role. The Supreme Court's 1918 judgment should no longer be followed to the extent that it allows courts to accept near unlimited delegation of Parliament's lawmaking powers to the executive. Instead, and to that extent, the judgment should be seen as an historical anachronism, a holding that was suitable for a young country in the context of the First World War but now out of step with the constitutional role of Parliament as seen through the contemporary approach to constitutional interpretation. Courts and Parliament must take delegation more seriously, and constitutional safeguards should be established to better protect the role of Parliament as lawmaker in chief and restore the proper constitutional balance. Achieving this goal would be a major advance toward the democratic, representative and accountable federal lawmaking process contemplated by the Constitution. It is possible through reforms to strengthen the judicial scrutiny of the vires of regulations and creating effective parliamentary mechanisms to scrutinize and supervise the exercise of delegated lawmaking powers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The topic of legal forms in public administration is strongly influenced by the principles of good administration. In the Czech legal order, the Parliament acts as the rule-maker of statutory foundations for public administration, making it crucial to focus on the legislative approach to enacting legal forms. This paper examines the weaknesses in legislation related to the enactment of legal forms of public administration, specifically through the principles of legal certainty and predictability of law. Design/Methodology/Approach: The author analyses Czech legal norms, existing legal doctrine, and administrative court's rulings in relation to the legislative enactment of legal forms of public administration. This analysis leads to categorisation of legislative techniques based on the clarity with which the legal form of public administration activity is enacted. The paper also includes a case study consisting of a qualitative analysis of the legislative process in a specific case, based on publicly available records of parliamentary debates during the legislative process. Findings: In the case under review, there was no proper discussion of the implications of removing the explicit designation of legal form during the legislative process. No case has been found in which the Constitutional Court, acting as a negative legislator, annulled a statute for failing to explicitly specify a legal form, either due to its removal or its absence from the outset. Academic contribution to the field: The article highlights that, for the public administration to function effectively as good administration, the rules governing its activities must be clearly defined. The findings encourage legislators to ensure that proper discussions regarding the legal form of administrative activity take place when enacting laws. Such expert debate during the legislative process is essential to ensuring the clarity of the laws under which public administration operates in a particular legal form. Circumventing the legislative process or failing to engage in proper debate disproportionately impacts legal certainty and the predictability of law. Originality/Value: This article presents arguments emphasising the irrefutable role of the legislature in creating clear rules for the exercise of public administration and, as a direct result, enabling public administration to function as good administration. It points out the importance of clearly referencing the legal form of public administration in the law. The categorisation of legal form designation aids in identifying patterns and trends, helping to isolate relevant issues and focusing research on specific legal questions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aotearoa New Zealand has a strong history, culture and political economy of dairy agriculture, all of which are deeply interconnected in the global production and trade of dairy. However, changes in the environment, markets and regulations, and the development of alternative proteins, are disrupting traditional pastoral practices, leading to uncertain food futures. This article draws on insights gleaned over a three-year doctoral project investigating just and sustainable transitions for the nation's dairy sector. The article puts forward three key considerations to shape future policy design principles and guidelines for more just and sustainable dairy futures: navigating intensification pressures; supporting the development of alternative proteins; and supporting farmer agency in the transition process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses legislative procedures on law, delegated legislation and rules in the Indian Parliament and government of Kerala, India. Topics discussed include the distribution of legislative subjects and powers of the Union and State Legislatures, the classification and features of the bills, and the concept of subordinate legislation. Information on judiciary, parliamentary and legislative control is also given.

INTRODUCTION 1745 I. THE NONDELEGATION DOCTRINE AND FOREIGN AFFAIRS 1749 A. The Nondelegation Doctrine 1749 B. The Purported Foreign Affairs Exception 1753 II. THE INDEPENDENT POWERS QUALIFICATION 1758 A. The [...], Some of the Supreme Court Justices and scholars who support a reinvigoration of the nondelegation doctrine would allow for an exception for grants of authority relating to foreign affairs. Others have criticized such an exception as unprincipled or as reflecting improper "foreign affairs exceptionalism." This Article argues against a foreign affairs exception to the nondelegation doctrine but contends that the doctrine should be applied less strictly when a statutory authorization relates to an area of independent presidential power. The President has more independent power relating to foreign affairs than domestic affairs, so this limitation on the nondelegation doctrine will do more work in the foreign affairs area. But the President does not have unlimited power over foreign affairs and has some independent constitutional power relating to domestic affairs, so it is inaccurate and potentially misleading to refer to a "foreign affairs" exception. After establishing this point, the Article identifies three circumstances in which independent presidential power reduces nondelegation concerns, which we call "redundant authorizations," "unlocking authorizations," and "independent discretion authorizations." The Article then analyzes a number of broad statutory authorizations relating to foreign affairs and domestic security and finds that some but not all of them can be justified by reference to the President's independent powers. The Article concludes by considering the relevance of this analysis to the application of the major questions doctrine, and it explains why that doctrine likely poses less of a threat to authorizations related to foreign affairs than scholars have maintained.

INTRODUCTION 1847 I. THE RISE OF THE MAJOR QUESTIONS DOCTRINE AND 1849 NONDELEGATION CONCERNS A. The Evolution of the Major Questions Doctrine 1849 B. The Push to Reinvigorate the Nondelegation [...], The Supreme Court's recent expansion of the major questions doctrine has rocked administrative law, throwing into doubt executive agencies' statutory authority for numerous regulations. Some Justices have suggested that they want to go further and reinvigorate the nondelegation doctrine as a constitutional limit on Congress's authority to delegate power to the executive branch. This Article is the first to consider how these developments might put at risk the United States' international commitments. The Article first identifies the role of congressional delegations to the executive branch with respect to the formation and implementation of ex ante congressional-executive agreements, executive agreements pursuant to treaties, sole executive agreements, and nonbinding agreements. It then explains how the Supreme Court's recent decisions might spark challenges to the agreements themselves or to the executive's authority to implement them. Turning from the diagnostic to the prescriptive, the Article takes the Supreme Court's recent cases as a given (problematic though they are) and argues that delegations involving international agreements differ from purely domestically focused delegations in material ways that counsel against applyingthe major questions doctrine or nondelegation doctrines to them. In particular, the existence offoreign state counterparties with whom the executive must negotiate means that Congress cannot simply direct the executive branch on international agreements with the same specificity that it can in domestically focused legislation. Moreover, declaring an existing international agreement or its implementing legislation invalid based on a domestic statutory interpretation doctrine risks causing the United States to violate international law, as well as harmingits reputation as a reliable agreement partner. Treating international agreement-related delegations identically to domestically focused ones would also run counter to long-standing historical gloss from the Supreme Court itself that treats foreign-relations-related issues in exceptional ways. After arguing against using the major questions and nondelegation doctrines to police delegations related to international agreements, the Article proposes steps that the courts, Congress, and the executive branch can each take to ensure that existing and future international agreements are well-grounded in constitutional and statutory law.

FEATURE CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 2308 I. TAKING STOCK OF THE DEBATE 2316 II. UNIVERSAL VACATUR, BEFORE AND AFTER THE APA 2322 A. Pre-APA Cases and the Meaning of Set Aside 2327 [...], Universal vacatur, the judicial power to void a regulation, is a remedy rooted in the foundations of modern administrative law, not an artifact of judicial overreach or creative re-interpretation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). This Feature adds to the literature on the historical underpinnings and legal propriety of universal vacatur by mapping the development of universal vacatur from the pre-APA period through the Abbott Labs trilogy. Canvassing the work of courts, Congress, and scholars, this account underscores that universal vacatur is a legitimate part of the remedial scheme of administrative law, grounded in history and sustained by subsequent recognition. After establishing these points, the Feature connects the debate over universal vacatur to another topic of vigorous discussion in contemporary administrative law: the Roberts Court's recent fortification of the major questions doctrine. The case against universal vacatur leverages the intuition that an individual district court judge should not be able to decide issues of vast economic and political significance by vacating a rule universally absent a clear statement in the APA that the judge possesses that authority. That form of argument resembles the mechanics of the new major questions doctrine. As to their consequences, the two also align: both serve to centralize power in the Supreme Court by weakening actors of our government other than the Supreme Court. Though accepting the case against universal vacatur will certainly place curbs on lower court judges, it would also indulge, and thereby strengthen, the perilous proposition that the Supreme Court should intervene to redistribute congressional allocations of power in ways that centralize its own importance and preferences.

Copyright of Revista Gestão & Tecnologia is the property of Revista Gestao & Tecnologia and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Environmental & Social Management Journal / Revista de Gestão Social e Ambiental is the property of Environmental & Social Management Journal and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Today, it is appropriate to talk about cooperation between Ukraine and EU member states in matters that are functional for their legal systems. The first is the protection of the rights and freedoms of citizens; providing asylum to refugees from other countries; adaptation of legislation on the regulation of relations in the field of migration, both legal and illegal; fight against illegal employment; and others. It was found that the administrative law of Ukraine is developing in complex political-economic and sociallegal conditions. Therefore, the use of European experience in the field of administrative and legal regulation of social relations in Ukraine should not imply mindless copying, which can negatively affect society and the state. The topic of the research should be the creation of national methodological recommendations on quality indicators of individual branches of law in accordance with the quality standards of legislation and law of the countries of the European Union. The introduction of European approaches to the regulation of social relations at the administrative and legal level in Ukraine must be balanced and adapted so that there is no negative impact on the development of society and the process of state formation. At the same time, the comparative legal study and rational use of foreign experience in the development of administrative law allows to significantly expand the so-called "legal field", enriching it with the experience of foreign countries. The current conditions for the development of administrative law in Ukraine depend on globalization, which affects all spheres of life, affecting the development of unified legal values and democratic principles of European administrative law, and the national administrative law system of individual European countries. In fact, there are two parties of subjects endowed with the corresponding rights and obligations in the field of administrative-legal relations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Environmental & Social Management Journal / Revista de Gestão Social e Ambiental is the property of Environmental & Social Management Journal and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Environmental & Social Management Journal / Revista de Gestão Social e Ambiental is the property of Environmental & Social Management Journal and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Environmental & Social Management Journal / Revista de Gestão Social e Ambiental is the property of Environmental & Social Management Journal and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Environmental & Social Management Journal / Revista de Gestão Social e Ambiental is the property of Environmental & Social Management Journal and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)