Globalizing of Administrative Law

Sungjoon Cho
{"title":"Globalizing of Administrative Law","authors":"Sungjoon Cho","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1774785","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"What if the same international trade dispute is adjudicated both in a domestic court and in an international tribunal? The conventional view – dualism – may tolerate two conflicting legal conclusions in this situation. However, in the Habermasian postnational constellation, such legal dissonance appears not only normatively troublesome but also practically taxing to global business. Against the backdrop of the recent “double remedies” dispute between the United States and China, this Article seeks to offer a modest solution to this dilemma via a discursive engagement between a domestic court and an international tribunal. The Article argues that the WTO Appellate Body qua trade law adjudicator could have employed the same hermeneutical tool, such as “reasonableness,” adopted by the United States Court of International Trade (USCIT) when the latter reduced the Commerce Department’s discretion over the double remedies issue to null. The Article further views that as such an engagement between a domestic court and an international tribunal, as well as the resultant discursive connection between them, matures and deepens, both courts may form a broader interpretive community, in which they can establish an identifiable pattern of common administrative law principles. This visible, and thus accessible, trans-judicial practice in overlapping issue-areas, such as trade remedy, this Article submits, is a propitious step toward the reconciliation of domestic and international administrative law, and eventually the globalizing of administrative law. The Article concludes that this diffusive and osmotic global administrative law-making process offers a novel dimension of understanding transnational-international law.","PeriodicalId":341363,"journal":{"name":"Administrative Law eJournal","volume":"9 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Administrative Law eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1774785","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

What if the same international trade dispute is adjudicated both in a domestic court and in an international tribunal? The conventional view – dualism – may tolerate two conflicting legal conclusions in this situation. However, in the Habermasian postnational constellation, such legal dissonance appears not only normatively troublesome but also practically taxing to global business. Against the backdrop of the recent “double remedies” dispute between the United States and China, this Article seeks to offer a modest solution to this dilemma via a discursive engagement between a domestic court and an international tribunal. The Article argues that the WTO Appellate Body qua trade law adjudicator could have employed the same hermeneutical tool, such as “reasonableness,” adopted by the United States Court of International Trade (USCIT) when the latter reduced the Commerce Department’s discretion over the double remedies issue to null. The Article further views that as such an engagement between a domestic court and an international tribunal, as well as the resultant discursive connection between them, matures and deepens, both courts may form a broader interpretive community, in which they can establish an identifiable pattern of common administrative law principles. This visible, and thus accessible, trans-judicial practice in overlapping issue-areas, such as trade remedy, this Article submits, is a propitious step toward the reconciliation of domestic and international administrative law, and eventually the globalizing of administrative law. The Article concludes that this diffusive and osmotic global administrative law-making process offers a novel dimension of understanding transnational-international law.
行政法全球化
如果同一国际贸易争端同时在国内法院和国际法庭进行裁决会怎样?传统的观点- -二元论- -在这种情况下可以容忍两个相互矛盾的法律结论。然而,在哈贝马斯的后民族星座中,这种法律上的不和谐不仅在规范上令人烦恼,而且对全球商业实际上也是一种负担。在最近中美之间的“双重救济”争端的背景下,本文试图通过国内法院与国际法庭之间的话语接触,为这一困境提供一个适度的解决方案。文章认为,世贸组织上诉机构作为贸易法裁判员本可以采用与美国国际贸易法院(USCIT)相同的解释性工具,如“合理性”,后者将商务部在双重救济问题上的自由裁量权降低为无效。该条进一步认为,随着国内法院与国际法庭之间的这种接触,以及它们之间由此产生的话语联系的成熟和深化,两个法院可能形成一个更广泛的解释共同体,在这个共同体中,它们可以建立一种可识别的共同行政法原则模式。本文认为,在诸如贸易救济等重叠的问题领域,这种可见的、因而可获得的跨司法实践,是迈向国内和国际行政法和解并最终实现行政法全球化的有利一步。本文的结论是,这种扩散和渗透的全球行政立法过程为理解跨国国际法提供了一个新的维度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信