Search

There was every indication that 5th turn appointments were to be the easiests in terms of motivation and therefore the most difficult to misrepresent their compulsory motivation. For two reasons: they are positions with an essentially judicial profile (no mixed with governing functions) and their awarding falls within a single criterion: professional excellence. However, the practice carried out by the General Council of the Judiciary shows that the compulsory motivation can be openly dodged. And, unfortunately, more often than not with the argumentative help provided by the same Supreme court doctrine.

The advent of the era of artificial intelligence makes it possible for administrative subjects to use intelligent machines and systems to engage in administrative activities. Among them, the administrative discretion, which is the core of administrative law, is particularly concerned about the use of artificial intelligence. In the era of weak artificial intelligence, intelligent administrative discretion has been widely used in all aspects of administrative law enforcement, but there is a phenomenon that administrative subjects are negligent in exercising discretion. Looking forward to the era of strong artificial intelligence, artificial intelligence machines or systems may have the ability and power to independently exercise administrative discretion, but they cannot become the real administrative discretion subject. Intelligent administrative discretion is conducive to administrative efficiency and guarantees the fairness of administrative behavior, but it also faces legal risks such as unfair results of discretion, opaque algorithm settings, and weakening of government functions. Only by strengthening the legal basis, protecting the rights of the counterparty, improving the accuracy of the algorithm, and improving the status of the administrative subject can the administrative discretionary behavior under the background of artificial intelligence be effectively regulated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This Article frames the precautionary principle as an inner limit to the EU institutions' broad discretion in the field of EU risk regulation, contextualizing recourse to the principle against the more encompassing backdrop of socially acceptable risk approaches. On these grounds, it inquires to what extent the precautionary principle may be successfully invoked in challenges to acts which are deemed insufficiently protective. The opening sections set the ground for the analysis. The third section analyzes challenges to regulatory acts, arguing that the Court has followed a quantitative threshold approach. This is legally tenable and appropriate; however, it cannot do justice to the true nature of the precautionary principle. The following sections analyze cases involving legislative acts. This includes an in-depth examination of the recent Blaise case, which has put judicial review of compliance with the precautionary principle under the spotlight. Against this overall background, this Article concludes that judicial review can hardly do justice to the precautionary principle, as applicable to the risk management process and underpinning EU legislative frameworks. It will ultimately rest on EU risk managers and EU legislators to ensure that the principle is applied and that its overarching goals are pursued. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal of Administrative Law & Administrative Sciences / İdare Hukuku ve İlimleri Dergisi is the property of Journal of Adminstrative Law & Administration Sciences / Idare Hukuku ve Ilimleri Dergisi 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 Croatian & Comparative Public Administration is the property of Institut za Javnu Upravu 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.)

This article explores the operation of the presumption of constitutionality, which permits courts to select a constitutional interpretation of an overbroad or ambiguous statute to save it from constitutional violation. I explore the presumption's operation in the context of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, focusing in particular on statutory conferrals of administrative discretion. In this context the presumption has the potential to operate particularly robustly given the ambiguous drafting that often characterizes discretionary grants of authority. While many argue in favour of the presumption, I argue that it can be inappropriate in light of judges' role as guardians of Charter rights. I demonstrate how the presumption can complicate Charter litigation for the litigant and identify circumstances in which principled rationales for the presumption are absent or weigh against its application. Throughout, I examine closely cases such as Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium v Canada (Minister of Justice) and the recent case of Canadian Civil Liberties Association v Ontario (Attorney General). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of European Policy Analysis is the property of Wiley-Blackwell 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.)

Blending organizational types enables public agencies to seek alternative resources, sometimes yielding mega-gifts large enough to transform the public institution and its agenda. Administrative discretion enables administrators to shape priorities based on negotiations with donors. Drawing on two cases, we examine administrative discretion in negotiating mega-gifts and implementing changes. Two findings suggest that as hybridization increases, trust and confidence in public agencies and actors may erode without responsible use of administrative discretion. First, institutions may pursue change that does not conform to elected officials' goals. Second, absent trusted leaders, institutional actors may mire gifts in institutional cultures that prohibit change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It is habitually presumed that Member State governments primarily articulate themselves in litigation before the Court of Justice for the purpose of voicing opposition to an overly activist court. This view is especially pronounced in migration law. Although the presumption is invigorated by several high-profile judgments, it provides only a glimpse into the diversity of motives that Member State governments may pursue in court. Based on a comprehensive collection of judgments in the field of migration law, this article revisits the role of Member State governments in migration litigation before the Court of Justice. It advances a nuanced understanding of national governments' litigation activity, highlighting the variety of motives and patterns of argument. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Urban legislation requires that town planning comes with a whole range of reports such as justifications, environmental, economical or citizen participation. However, there are times when the Administration fails to justify the rational of their decisions. There are many plans that are canceled for not correctly justifying what is the purpose or public needs that justifies these measures. The control of administrative discretion is a constant in administrative law, but there is always one last judgment of appreciation that corresponds to the Administration. However, special motivation is required. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of A&C - Administrative & Constitutional Law Review - Revista de Direito Administrativo e Constitucional is the property of A&C - Revista de Direito Administrativo & Constitucional (Instituto Bacellar) 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.)

The main question this article seeks to address is how the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) bureaucratic autonomy is affected by deep ideological divides over public lands management policy. Daniel Carpenter's theory of bureaucratic autonomy serves to provide the definition and method for evaluating the research question. The case study identifies that the bureaucratic autonomy afforded the BLM is intrinsically bound to interest group politics. There exists little room for initiative not supported by specific interests. Actions required by the multiple use mandate, but not supported by interests, will be suppressed. But, of greater interest in understanding the BLM, once support shifts for an initiative, all previous action is undone or at least mitigated to a point of inconsequence. Hence, limited bureaucratic autonomy is afforded either way, as the multiple use requirement will not satisfy all parties and does not allow the BLM to ignore other potential uses of the public lands. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista Digital de Derecho Administrativo is the property of Universidad Externado de Colombia 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 Revista Digital de Derecho Administrativo is the property of Universidad Externado de Colombia 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 Türkiye Adalet Akademisi Dergisi is the property of Justice Academy of Turkey 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.)

This theme-based book review highlights three recent texts, on immigration policy in the United States and European Union; corruption and exclusion; and applied ethics in executive and administrative practice. The review includes Ethical dilemmas of migration: Moral challenges for policymakers, by Jean-Claude Garcia-Zamor; Legal but corrupt: A new perspective on public ethics, edited by Frank Anechiarico; and Administrative ethics and executive decisions: Channeling and containing administrative discretion, by Chad Newswander. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article concerns the actual impact of courts controlling the activity of public administration on the direction of its activities and the content of issued decisions. In particular, it concerns sovereign individual decisions that affect the sphere of civil rights and freedoms. The aim of the article is to seek an answer to the question of whether independent judges actually participate in the process of management in the public sphere, which is characterised by elements of politics and (regardless of the answer to this question) whether such participation is allowed or (even) necessary in modern rule of law states. The main argument is that regardless of whether the courts controlling the administration have reformatory or exclusive cassation powers, they influence the decision-making process in the public sphere. At the same time, such influence not only does not violate the fundamental values of the rule of law, but is even sometimes necessary. This does not mean that courts should interfere in the management processes in the public sphere in every case. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Participation and administration have long had an uneasy coexistence. On one hand, public participation in decisions that affect citizens is consistent with citizenship and democracy; on the other hand, much of what government does is complex and requires some level of technical understanding to make decisions. In this article, we report on public administrators' perceptions of public participation and the ways that they understand the participation process. We find that public participation is managed by public administrators; they determine the extent of participation, shape the ways that the participation takes place, and decide whether or not participation is valuable for their work. In some cases, the process is rather democratic, whereas in others, it is not. We find that it is up to administrators to shape the spaces for participation and select the participants in a manner consistent with their understanding of the task to be accomplished. We explore this process in the context of Environmental Impact Analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The full judicial control of the acts and resolutions of the Administration is a requirement of the constitutional principles contained in articles 1, 9.1, 9.3. 14, 23, 24, 103 and 106, and it is a pending task in our Rule of Law and in the protection of citizens' rights. The discretion of the administrative acts that consists in the authority of the Administration to decide between different options, all of them in accordance with the legal system, does not fit the technical qualification, because when it comes to reaching the "technical truth" we are faced with an undetermined legal concept that will require an interpretive effort of concretion, but in the end only one option will meet this condition. The evidence and its due evaluation by the judicial bodies thus constitutes the central nucleus of effective judicial protection in the contentious-administrative process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista de Administración Pública is the property of Centro de Estudios Politicos y Constitucionales 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.)

Campus committees for supervising research ethics have developed rules and procedures that are indifferent to the emergent nature of ethnographic research. As a result, participant-observing fieldworkers have appreciated that, independent of their ethical commitments, they cannot comply with official regulations. Resolution of the fieldworker's dilemma requires limiting review jurisdiction to funded studies; articulating the meaning of regulatory language defining auspices, exemptions, waiver, and research; and, above all, developing a culture of legality in campus ethics administration. © 2006 by the American Anthropological Association. All rights reserved.

This article focuses on analyzing an individual opinion to a Supreme Court¿s ruling that annulled a discretional appointment to the General Council of the Judiciary. The arguments in that opinion are critically observed from a general-theoretical point of view and not from the standpoint of the particularities of the case (even though at the beginning a profile of it is given in order to make the terms of the issue comprehensible). The critical considerations turn on the following subjects: the necessity of a substantive motivation (not only a formal one) in discretional appointments, the faulty approach within the dichotomy between «discretional appointment» ¿ «merit competition», the contextual motivation, discretion is not mere freedom, the inaccurate importation of two procedural elements (joint assessment and immediacy), the different methodology used in the assessment depending on the «all or nothing» or «more or less» approach.

Copyright of Direito da Cidade is the property of Editora da Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (EdUERJ) 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.)

Freedom of judgment as a traditional institute of administrative law is an unceasing topic of expert discussions. The article returns to its roots during the period of the so-called First Czechoslovak Republic and systematically proceeds from the theoretical to practical aspects. The subject matter of the analysis is the nature of its existence in the legal order, the relation to the addressees through public subjective rights, the expression in the field of administrative acts and the possibility of subsequent judicial review. It maps period case law and published opinions on these aspects, looking for a link with the current state. After analysing it, it finds that, in particular, the first-republican law in reaction to legislation largely foresaw the attitude to the current notion of discretion, which it has also undeniably influenced. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To place the administrative state into perspective, I first present the theoretical justifications for America's traditional form of government followed by the theoretical justifications for the administrative state, especially promoted by early public administration scholars. I then present the prevalent scholarly viewpoint that we live in an administrative state where public administrators exercise not only administrative powers, but legislative and judicial powers as well because Congress has irresponsibly delegated away vast legislative powers to agency administrators, while the courts have provided scant review by deferring too readily to administrative expertise. To these scholars, this has undermined our checks and balance system and violated the rule of law. Although there is considerable merit to this position, for the sake of providing some balance, I present a rather polemical, opposing argument. I hold that the administrative state notion distorts the true governing system in America because Congress, the courts, and the president are still viable players that have and can continue to provide, if necessary, sufficient checks on the administrative state. I provide the reasons why. I conclude by questioning whether we even have an administrative state, but even if so, I offer evidence to suggest that the administrative state is constitutionally sanctioned, politically legitimate, upholds the rule of law, and actually performs better than our traditional three governmental branches. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Achieving a proper balance between administrative discretion, which promotes efficient and effective governance, and oversight of that discretion to ensure political responsiveness has been a classic and enduring issue in public-administration literature. This study joins the dialogue by examining the question in the context of China, where power is highly concentrated and there are not many checks and balances. By examining administrative discretion in work safety regulation, this study argues that in China's context, the tension between efficiency and responsiveness is less explicit among the legislature, executive and judiciary powers, but more explicit between central and local powers. In other words, if local bureaucracies have considerable discretionary power, they may use this power to achieve local interests at the expense of national goals. To improve local bureaucracies' political responsiveness, the Chinese leaders have adopted both legal and managerial measures. On the one hand, administrative discretion has been increasingly curbed through elaborate legislation. On the other hand, management reforms play a crucial role in bringing local leaders' goals in line with national ones. China's efforts to balance administrative efficiency and political responsiveness suggest that each country must choose solutions in keeping with its own context and problems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The objective of this paper is to rethink the criteria on which the judicial control of administrative discretion is currently based. Currently, court decisions limit the margin of discretion or free choice towards administrative authorities in unforeseen situations. Therefore, in this article we propose to show the need of a new paradigm in the judicial control of the Public Administration that, at the same time, collect, orient and regulate the rules of the economy in search of the fullest satisfaction of the common good; this, given the model of Welfare State currently in force. To doing so, the Administrative Law, together with the Judicial Power, are constituted as two essential legal tools that, more than confrontation or tension, as we have seen until today, require coordination and self-restriction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Inonu University Law Review / İnönü Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi is the property of Inonu University Law Review (IULR) 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.)

The purpose of the research is to determine the impact of the current administrative and legal regulation of the implementation of administrative procedures for the provision of the non-profit organisation state registration services on the scope of discretionary powers of the public administration in the provision of this service. The methodological basis of the research is created by modern philosophical, general-scientific and special-scientific methods of cognition including dialectical, logical, formal-legal, systemic and statistical methods, as well as analysis, description, synthesis and interpretation. The research results were the conclusions from the analysis of the administrative and legal regulation of administrative procedures for the provision of the non-profit organisation state registration services. Thus, in particular, the discrepancy between a separate provision of the administrative regulation on the provision of the non-profit association state registration services with the current federal legislation was identified and a proposal to amend it was formulated. In addition, it was concluded that the detailed regulation at the sub-legal level of the procedure for the implementation of administrative procedures for the provision of public services has a negative impact on the scope of discretionary powers of public administration bodies. The research novelty lies in the adopted methodological approach to the analysis of the overseas experience in legal regulation of the implementation of administrative procedures by public administration bodies and the conduct of a comparative legal study of regulation of the implementation of administrative procedures for the provision of public services in Russia and in the European Union member states.

Nowadays discretion is the notion used loosely enough in the legal sphere. Consequently, in different situations connected with application of discretion it is interpreted in different ways. The article deals with the issues relating to the modern role of discretion in state administration, the notion of discretion and its distinctive features.

The title of the paper has to be suitable, clear, concise and accurate. The Abstract: Discretion is a decision to explain policies that explicitly do not regulate certain activities. To interpret it is necessary for government administrators for protected by the formal legal administration so that they are not in the case of abuse of authority. This article was the view from the other side about the control discretion from logic formal. The formal logic we select for to clarify the general principles of reasoning about knowledge attribution for a claim and explain the implications and consequences of inferential control discretion and the role of law. The results of this research revealed that formal rules should control discretion so that the administrative irregularities in the government activity can avoid. This article also confirms the government administrators that discretion is not an activity that violates the law, but has controlled from the interpretation that is biased caused by lack of knowledge, relations of power, and the interests of a particular group. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The following paper aims to make a contribution to the doctrinal debates that arise around the need to know where the legal conduct of administration objectified in the exercise of discretion ends, respectively where the abuse of right begins. In this regard we are interested in seeing to what extent a genuine judicial review has emerged in Romania in order to control the abuse of discretionary power and whether this review is based on coherent, consistent principles that substantiate solutions in our national case law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The mounting backlash against intra-EU migration in various EU countries has triggered national policies seeking to restrict EU citizens’ social rights and freedom of movement. Building on and expanding Noora Lori’s work around this concept, the article examines intra-EU migrants’ increasingly unsettled legal statuses as potentially precarious citizenship. Focusing on the experiences of young university-educated intra-EU migrants in Brussels, the article claims that, in the absence of straightforward EU legislation and explicit government policies, administrative actors use their discretion to draw indeterminate boundaries enforcing conditionality and temporariness of status for EU citizens in precarious work arrangements, therefore often increasing the pressure on them to take further precarious jobs. The article argues that, under the conditions of precarious employment, not even migrants with privileged access to citizenship rights are protected from processes of boundary enforcement that institutionalise the ambiguity of statuses and produce precarious citizenship. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]