The Least Restrictive Means

IF 1.9 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW
A. Sykes
{"title":"The Least Restrictive Means","authors":"A. Sykes","doi":"10.2307/1600566","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Least restrictive means requirements and related legal principles, which require regulators to pursue regulatory objectives in the manner that is \"least restrictive\" of other societal values, pervade national and international legal systems.' In American constitutional law, they appear in First Amendment cases, in Equal Protection cases, and in Dormant Commerce Clause cases, among others. They perform similar functions in European Law, such as in the jurisprudence of Articles 30 and 36 of the Treaty of Rome. They may be found in a number of articles of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and they play an essential role in the law of the World Trade Organization (WTO). Despite the extensive use of least restrictive means requirements in the law, their meaning has rarely been explored with care. Precisely how does one determine whether some regulatory policy is a less restrictive alternative (or not)? One class of cases seems clear-when an alternative regulation unquestionably achieves a clearly stipulated regulatory objective at equal or lower cost to regulators while imposing a lesser burden on some other valued interest (free speech, free trade, or the like), the alternative is \"less restrictive.\" But these conditions seem quite narrow, and the question arises whether a challenged regulation will necessarily pass muster when they do not hold. A proposed alternative may be somewhat more costly to implement, for example, or slightly less effective at achieving the stated regulatory objective, yet still seem quite preferable if it is much less burdensome on the interest that is protected by the least restrictive means requirement. One wonders, therefore, whether a least restrictive means analysis will drift toward broader cost-benefit analysis. That is the central question this Essay explores. The answer may well depend on context, and in this short Essay I cannot explore the least restrictive means test in all of its domestic and international manifestations. The analy-","PeriodicalId":51436,"journal":{"name":"University of Chicago Law Review","volume":"3 1","pages":"403-420"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2003-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"33","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"University of Chicago Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2307/1600566","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 33

Abstract

Least restrictive means requirements and related legal principles, which require regulators to pursue regulatory objectives in the manner that is "least restrictive" of other societal values, pervade national and international legal systems.' In American constitutional law, they appear in First Amendment cases, in Equal Protection cases, and in Dormant Commerce Clause cases, among others. They perform similar functions in European Law, such as in the jurisprudence of Articles 30 and 36 of the Treaty of Rome. They may be found in a number of articles of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and they play an essential role in the law of the World Trade Organization (WTO). Despite the extensive use of least restrictive means requirements in the law, their meaning has rarely been explored with care. Precisely how does one determine whether some regulatory policy is a less restrictive alternative (or not)? One class of cases seems clear-when an alternative regulation unquestionably achieves a clearly stipulated regulatory objective at equal or lower cost to regulators while imposing a lesser burden on some other valued interest (free speech, free trade, or the like), the alternative is "less restrictive." But these conditions seem quite narrow, and the question arises whether a challenged regulation will necessarily pass muster when they do not hold. A proposed alternative may be somewhat more costly to implement, for example, or slightly less effective at achieving the stated regulatory objective, yet still seem quite preferable if it is much less burdensome on the interest that is protected by the least restrictive means requirement. One wonders, therefore, whether a least restrictive means analysis will drift toward broader cost-benefit analysis. That is the central question this Essay explores. The answer may well depend on context, and in this short Essay I cannot explore the least restrictive means test in all of its domestic and international manifestations. The analy-
限制最少的方法
最少限制是指要求监管机构以对其他社会价值观“限制最少”的方式追求监管目标的要求和相关法律原则,这些要求和原则普遍存在于国家和国际法律体系中。在美国宪法中,它们出现在第一修正案案件、平等保护案件和休眠商业条款案件等中。它们在欧洲法中履行类似的职能,例如在《罗马条约》第30条和第36条的判例中。它们可以在北美自由贸易协定(NAFTA)的一些条款中找到,它们在世界贸易组织(WTO)的法律中起着至关重要的作用。尽管法律中广泛使用了最少限制手段的要求,但很少仔细探讨其含义。确切地说,人们如何确定某些监管政策是否是限制较少的替代方案?有一类案例似乎很清楚——当一种替代法规毫无疑问地以与监管者同等或更低的成本实现了明确规定的监管目标,同时对其他一些有价值的利益(言论自由、自由贸易等)施加了更小的负担时,这种替代法规就“限制较少”。但这些条件似乎相当狭隘,问题就来了,当这些条件不成立时,受到质疑的监管是否一定会通过审查。例如,拟议的替代方案可能在实施上成本更高,或者在实现规定的监管目标方面效果稍差,但如果它对受最少限制手段要求保护的利益的负担要小得多,那么似乎仍然是相当可取的。因此,人们想知道,限制最少的手段分析是否会倾向于更广泛的成本效益分析。这是本文探讨的中心问题。答案很可能取决于上下文,在这篇短文中,我无法探讨限制最少的经济状况调查在国内和国际上的所有表现。分析-
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
2.40
自引率
5.00%
发文量
2
期刊介绍: The University of Chicago Law Review is a quarterly journal of legal scholarship. Often cited in Supreme Court and other court opinions, as well as in other scholarly works, it is among the most influential journals in the field. Students have full responsibility for editing and publishing the Law Review; they also contribute original scholarship of their own. The Law Review"s editorial board selects all pieces for publication and, with the assistance of staff members, performs substantive and technical edits on each of these pieces prior to publication.
×
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