Arbitration in Administrative Affairs: The Enlargement Scope of Ratione Materiae in Portugal

IF 1.6 Q3 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
M. Portocarrero
{"title":"Arbitration in Administrative Affairs: The Enlargement Scope of Ratione Materiae in Portugal","authors":"M. Portocarrero","doi":"10.17573/cepar.2020.1.10","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The purpose of this article is to address the question of arbitrability of administrative conflicts, generally and as characteristic of Portugal. Although the use of arbitration in conflicts where public entities intervene in private relationships is usually allowed, European legislatures commonly consider administrative disputes as a type of controversy excluded from arbitration. It is indeed easy to raise strong arguments against alternative dispute resolution when public administration is implicated. Nevertheless, none of the objections usually raised seems to be unbridgeable. Consequently, the article aims to critically analyse the main arguments against the power of arbitrators to rule on public conflicts. Presently, the Portuguese law allows administrative arbitration in a wide range of areas, from conflicts relating to administrative contracts to conflicts over the legality of administrative authority acts. The assessment of this regime makes it clear that the enlargement of the objective scope of administrative arbitration has to be accompanied by rules, which offer a response to the specific requirements of administrative law and a safeguard of public interest. In this sense, the analysis offers a critical review of the solutions of Portuguese law, which can be also used in comparable legal regimes of other European countries.","PeriodicalId":53802,"journal":{"name":"Central European Public Administration Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2020-04-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Central European Public Administration Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17573/cepar.2020.1.10","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to address the question of arbitrability of administrative conflicts, generally and as characteristic of Portugal. Although the use of arbitration in conflicts where public entities intervene in private relationships is usually allowed, European legislatures commonly consider administrative disputes as a type of controversy excluded from arbitration. It is indeed easy to raise strong arguments against alternative dispute resolution when public administration is implicated. Nevertheless, none of the objections usually raised seems to be unbridgeable. Consequently, the article aims to critically analyse the main arguments against the power of arbitrators to rule on public conflicts. Presently, the Portuguese law allows administrative arbitration in a wide range of areas, from conflicts relating to administrative contracts to conflicts over the legality of administrative authority acts. The assessment of this regime makes it clear that the enlargement of the objective scope of administrative arbitration has to be accompanied by rules, which offer a response to the specific requirements of administrative law and a safeguard of public interest. In this sense, the analysis offers a critical review of the solutions of Portuguese law, which can be also used in comparable legal regimes of other European countries.
行政事务仲裁:葡萄牙属事仲裁范围的扩大
本文的目的是解决行政冲突的可仲裁性问题,一般来说,并作为葡萄牙的特点。虽然通常允许在公共实体干预私人关系的冲突中使用仲裁,但欧洲立法机构通常认为行政纠纷是一种排除在仲裁之外的争议类型。当公共行政牵涉其中时,确实很容易提出反对替代性争端解决的有力论据。然而,通常提出的反对意见似乎没有一个是不可逾越的。因此,本文旨在批判性地分析反对仲裁员对公共冲突进行裁决的权力的主要论点。目前,葡萄牙法律允许在广泛的领域进行行政仲裁,从与行政合同有关的冲突到对行政当局行为合法性的冲突。对这一制度的评价表明,扩大行政仲裁的客观范围必须有相应的规则,这既是对行政法具体要求的回应,也是对公共利益的保障。从这个意义上说,分析提供了对葡萄牙法律解决办法的批判性审查,这些解决办法也可以用于其他欧洲国家的类似法律制度。
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
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
28.60%
发文量
7
×
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