Search Results

The institutionalization of European administration space is examined through one of the least visible or understudied, but most important, outcomes of integration: the development of administrative law for the European Union (EU). As positive integration came to constitute a central priority for EU organizations, the European Commission’s administrative responsibilities and capacities multiplied, so that it is now expected not only to monitor and enforce compliance with an increasingly dense and technical body of supranational rules but also to determine how that law is to be applied to specific individuals and situations. Neither task could be performed without appropriating a great deal of discretionary authority, and it is argued that, in Western democracies, the problem of controlling rising administrative discretion has inevitably been felt, and has typically been dealt with through the development of judicial mechanisms. Using the American (US) experience as a comparative backdrop, it is shown that once judges require that administrators furnish formal justifications for their actions, the judicial review of the ‘reasonableness’ of administrative acts follows. The author traces how these and other forms of judicial control of the EU’s administrative acts developed through litigation and the rule-making of the European Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance, despite the absence of explicit Treaty of Rome provision, so that the basic foundations of EU administrative law are now in place.

This chapter investigates reforms that arguably produce more direct forms of accountability and citizen participation in administrative agencies. A first type of reform is part of a larger trend to decentralize aspects of administrative accountability, which includes New Public Management reforms designed to make agencies more responsive to their “customers.” A second type of reform, increasingly widespread, involves the creation of legal frameworks for pursuing grievances and ensuring representation, such as ombudsman systems and administrative procedure laws. Finally, a third type involves direct attempts to increase deliberation, using informal strategies of collaborative governance between public agencies and stakeholders particularly. These are particularly common at the local level. A wide of variety of other new techniques designed to enhance participation and democratic deliberation — such as citizen juries and consensus conferences — are increasingly popular, though they remain largely experimental.

This chapter examines the stages of development of administrative law in Great Britain during the twentieth century, describing the different attitudes towards the exercise of state power and its legal control over the century. It explains that the century began with a concern for procedural justice and a particular concept of the rule of law, and ended with judicial constraints upon both the procedures and the substance of official decisions, justified by constitutional rights.

This chapter draws out some of the issues raised by the ostensibly modest ambition of the Global Administrative Law (GAL) project. It criticizes the claim that the project amounts only to a redescription of modern international law under the dominating influence of administrative rationality. Rather, it marks the triumph of administrative rationality over the legal form itself. The world that GAL describes is not that of the demise of the state under globalising pressures; it marks instead the triumph of the state (the state as administration) over both politics and law.

This chapter weighs the pros and cons of applying the insights of constitutionalism to issues of global law. After sketching the challenge both global constitutionalism and global administrative law face in the precarious legitimacy of transnational and global governance, it examines more closely the scope and aims of both projects. It is in their respective ambitions that the key difference between the two lies: constitutionalist visions set out to describe and develop a fully justified global order, while global administrative law approaches are more limited in scope, focusing on particular elements of global governance and confining themselves to the analysis and realisation of narrower political ideals, especially accountability. Such a limited approach does, however, raise serious problems, both on the practical and the normative level. The chapter focuses on only on two sets of issues: the difficulty in separating ‘administrative’ from ‘constitutional’ issues, and the risk of legitimising illegitimate institutions, in part by elevating them to the level of law. Although the resulting challenge for global administrative law is serious and will condition the further trajectory of the project, it should not distract from the significant advantages its more limited ambition entails.

European Union governments have delegated executive and agenda‐setting powers to the Commission primarily to reduce the transaction costs of policy‐making, and they have designed complex control mechanisms to limit the discretion of the Commission in the policy process. Examines the record of delegation to the Commission throughout the EU's history, measuring the extent of delegation and Commission discretion across 35 different issue‐areas. Almost without exception, member states delegate to the Commission precisely the functions hypothesized by principal‐agent models, including most notably monitoring compliance, setting the legislative agenda and laying down expert and credible market regulations. Similarly, however, the Commission is closely monitored by member governments, which have adopted a carefully designed and calibrated system of appointment and censure mechanisms, ‘comitology’ or oversight committees and administrative law and judicial review by the European Court of Justice.

Modern governments have greatly expanded the range of their activities and now assume responsibility for furthering economic and social development, managing the economy, and providing for the welfare of their citizens. For the purpose of promoting security, liberty, and prosperity, government has acquired a large and sophisticated administrative apparatus. With this growth in administrative power, the efficacy of constitutional checks is placed in question. This chapter examines legal and institutional responses to the establishment of administrative regimes of government — such as the emergence of administrative law and the rise of agencies — and considers the implications of these developments for conceptualizing public law today.

This chapter focuses on the sources of European administrative law. It addresses the sources of administrative law more from the perspective of setting the framework for such forms of administrative action and the procedures, prerequisites, and processes of supervision which apply to them. Such sources arise from European Treaty provisions, and legislative, delegated, and implementing measures. To a certain, albeit limited, degree they may also arise from customary public international law or international agreements. Further, in certain contexts, they may arise from national law. The chapter presents such sources with special emphasis on their connection with administrative action in the EU.

Sir William Wade dominated two diverse areas of law – real property and administrative law – by writing the textbooks that became a source of first reference for students, scholars, practitioners, and judges. While he was the leading academic land lawyer of his generation, he will principally be remembered as one of the two scholars who did most to revitalise administrative law during the 20th century. Wade's scholarly career lasted over sixty years, and he remained active into his eighties. He wrote with penetrating clarity and an elegant and memorable turn of phrase, often expressing himself in trenchant terms. Wade did this both when grappling with the technicalities of property law and, in the heady atmosphere of constitutional principles, with the respective roles of executive government and the courts.

Information is the raw material of public decision-making. Within the sphere of European Union law, administrative decision-making relies heavily for this raw material on information networks based upon systems of decentralized information gathering and subsequent information sharing. The generation and use of information within network administration is thus one of the most essential elements of EU administration, and thus an essential subject of EU administrative law. This chapter addresses the various rules and principles — written and unwritten — on the generation, use, and dissemination of information by European and national administrative bodies for implementing EU law, focusing especially on those of general applicability across all sectoral areas.

One of the core areas of national administrative proceedings and decision-making that concerns investments and commercial activities more generally is the granting, supervision, and termination of concessions, licenses and other administrative acts. This chapter looks at the termination of such public acts in detail and examines whether there are certain general features or principles that apply in the proceedings in the countries examined. The focus is on a number of countries with a highly sophisticated regulatory framework for energy, i.e., the EU and the EFTA Member States and the United States. In addition to the national comparisons, another source of international administrative law is also examined: that of EU law.

This chapter offers a view of the current place, function, and nature of Union administrative law, and how this body of law can and should develop in order to serve the tasks with which it has been charged within the overall political and legal order of the European Union. A review of European public law has shown that the most substantial and encompassing challenge is that in regard to establishing, enhancing, and extending the accountability of networks. The specific nature of the EU inheres to a large degree in the exercise of shared sovereignty by integrated executives through such networks. Thus, the most profound challenges facing public law in the European Union emerge in relation to the conceptual and practical features of its administrative law, especially in relation to networks.

This chapter discusses administrative rule-making. Administrative rule-making is one of the central tools for an administration to guide its own administrative procedures and the exercise of discretions. Internal administrative rule-making in turn may also have the indirect external effect of increasing predictability in policy implementation. Administrative rule-making can be established in various forms, often referred to as guidelines, notices, frameworks, communications, declarations, and many others. Administrative rule-making by EU authorities will generally be undertaken unilaterally by the institution. Exceptionally, in some areas, the authorities' exercise of discretion will be subject to and restricted by administrative rules which result from a negotiated rule-making process involving the Commission and one or more Member States.

The previous chapters contain numerous instances of courts passing judgment on the legality of decisions, regulations, and actions made in pursuance of statutory authority, which together constitute the division of law in the 20th century called judicial review or, in one of its senses, administrative law. This chapter offers a framework for the instances of review raised in previous chapters. It begins with the world of Pashley and Richards and ends with Rice, Arlidge, and the cases tentatively asserting decisions.

This chapter examines administrative law in Germany. It begins with a discussion of the so-called Europeanization of administrative law. It then discusses how stability and flexibility in administrative decision making under German administrative law are influenced by different approaches in European Community law. Unifying tendencies are considered but remaining or even newly occurring divergence at the conceptual level is also highlighted.

This chapter discusses the three models or perspectives — functional, organizational, and procedural — that are particularly helpful in understanding EU administration and administrative law. The functional aspect of administration refers to the totality of the tasks of administration, no matter who undertakes them and how they are carried out. The organizational perspective emphasizes the organization and structure of the institutions, bodies, and actors engaged in undertaking such tasks. A procedural understanding of administration observes the processes which link the various actors and authorities in the performance of administrative functions.