{"title":"Accountability of regulators through adaptable legal norms","authors":"Mirko Pečarič","doi":"10.1080/20508840.2019.1632051","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Although the future is hard to predict, general legal rules do always address it. And while abstractness and generality are, by their pro futuro orientation, fundamental elements in the principle of equality, regulators usually cannot predict future events. This paper addresses this problem and gives a regulatory solution in the form of negative legislation and adaptable norms based on negative thinking. Regulators should look for negative and absent consequences, and based on them frame different future legal scenarios with different thresholds for different legal actions. When faced with different input data, a proposed legal norm switches its meaning (legal demand) like an electric relay. The proposed approach can avoid difficulties with the calculation of future probabilities, interpretation of discretionary norms or legal principles by building future elements into a decision-maker’s frame. Accountability and transparency can, therefore, be placed on a higher level. When a possibility of negative events can be rationally predicted, a legislator could be accountable when to these events the appropriate legal actions/rules were not legally prescribed before their appearance. When a possibility of negative events can be rationally predicted, a legislator could be accountable when to these events the appropriate legal actions/rules were not legally prescribed before their appearance.","PeriodicalId":42455,"journal":{"name":"Theory and Practice of Legislation","volume":"6 1","pages":"321 - 342"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2018-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/20508840.2019.1632051","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Theory and Practice of Legislation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/20508840.2019.1632051","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
ABSTRACT Although the future is hard to predict, general legal rules do always address it. And while abstractness and generality are, by their pro futuro orientation, fundamental elements in the principle of equality, regulators usually cannot predict future events. This paper addresses this problem and gives a regulatory solution in the form of negative legislation and adaptable norms based on negative thinking. Regulators should look for negative and absent consequences, and based on them frame different future legal scenarios with different thresholds for different legal actions. When faced with different input data, a proposed legal norm switches its meaning (legal demand) like an electric relay. The proposed approach can avoid difficulties with the calculation of future probabilities, interpretation of discretionary norms or legal principles by building future elements into a decision-maker’s frame. Accountability and transparency can, therefore, be placed on a higher level. When a possibility of negative events can be rationally predicted, a legislator could be accountable when to these events the appropriate legal actions/rules were not legally prescribed before their appearance. When a possibility of negative events can be rationally predicted, a legislator could be accountable when to these events the appropriate legal actions/rules were not legally prescribed before their appearance.
期刊介绍:
The Theory and Practice of Legislation aims to offer an international and interdisciplinary forum for the examination of legislation. The focus of the journal, which succeeds the former title Legisprudence, remains with legislation in its broadest sense. Legislation is seen as both process and product, reflection of theoretical assumptions and a skill. The journal addresses formal legislation, and its alternatives (such as covenants, regulation by non-state actors etc.). The editors welcome articles on systematic (as opposed to historical) issues, including drafting techniques, the introduction of open standards, evidence-based drafting, pre- and post-legislative scrutiny for effectiveness and efficiency, the utility and necessity of codification, IT in legislation, the legitimacy of legislation in view of fundamental principles and rights, law and language, and the link between legislator and judge. Comparative and interdisciplinary approaches are encouraged. But dogmatic descriptions of positive law are outside the scope of the journal. The journal offers a combination of themed issues and general issues. All articles are submitted to double blind review.