防止自由裁量权随意性的立法起草工具

IF 1.5 Q1 LAW
J. Silveira, Diana Ettner
{"title":"防止自由裁量权随意性的立法起草工具","authors":"J. Silveira, Diana Ettner","doi":"10.1080/20508840.2020.1729552","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Despite the differences of approach that different national legal systems may adopt regarding discretionary powers, in general terms the main issue of discussion stays the same: Given that discretion is accepted and considered an essential legal technique in the context of administrative decisions, how, and to which extent, may discretionary powers be controlled and subjected to review by courts? The purpose of the present article is to discuss discretionary powers from the perspective of legislative drafting, with the aim to identify specific tools to be used by law-makers in order to prevent discretion from turning into arbitrariness. Therefore, starting from an analysis of Portuguese legal doctrine on the concept of discretionary powers, the present article will address three main issues. First, clarification as to how legal discretion is to be understood and how to identify discretionary powers granted by legislation. Second, identification of the advantages and disadvantages of legal discretion, in order to determine normative criteria according to which we can settle under which conditions discretionary powers in legislative drafting is to be employed or not. Third, identification of which legislative drafting tools may be used by lawmakers in order to grant discretionary powers. Overall, by focusing on lawmaking techniques, the article aims to demonstrate the extent to which legislative drafting tools, such as the ones identified in this article, are powerful tools to better identify discretionary powers in the law, but also to ensure that these powers are granted only when actually necessary. Taking into consideration that migration and asylum law usually involves reference to fundamental individual rights, the article argues that the provision of discretionary powers ought to be avoided whenever there are no solid and reasoned grounds for their use, so that discretion remains a tool for regulation and does not become arbitrariness.","PeriodicalId":42455,"journal":{"name":"Theory and Practice of Legislation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2019-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/20508840.2020.1729552","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Legislative drafting tools preventing arbitrariness in discretionary powers\",\"authors\":\"J. Silveira, Diana Ettner\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/20508840.2020.1729552\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Despite the differences of approach that different national legal systems may adopt regarding discretionary powers, in general terms the main issue of discussion stays the same: Given that discretion is accepted and considered an essential legal technique in the context of administrative decisions, how, and to which extent, may discretionary powers be controlled and subjected to review by courts? The purpose of the present article is to discuss discretionary powers from the perspective of legislative drafting, with the aim to identify specific tools to be used by law-makers in order to prevent discretion from turning into arbitrariness. Therefore, starting from an analysis of Portuguese legal doctrine on the concept of discretionary powers, the present article will address three main issues. First, clarification as to how legal discretion is to be understood and how to identify discretionary powers granted by legislation. Second, identification of the advantages and disadvantages of legal discretion, in order to determine normative criteria according to which we can settle under which conditions discretionary powers in legislative drafting is to be employed or not. Third, identification of which legislative drafting tools may be used by lawmakers in order to grant discretionary powers. Overall, by focusing on lawmaking techniques, the article aims to demonstrate the extent to which legislative drafting tools, such as the ones identified in this article, are powerful tools to better identify discretionary powers in the law, but also to ensure that these powers are granted only when actually necessary. Taking into consideration that migration and asylum law usually involves reference to fundamental individual rights, the article argues that the provision of discretionary powers ought to be avoided whenever there are no solid and reasoned grounds for their use, so that discretion remains a tool for regulation and does not become arbitrariness.\",\"PeriodicalId\":42455,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Theory and Practice of Legislation\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-05-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/20508840.2020.1729552\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Theory and Practice of Legislation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/20508840.2020.1729552\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Theory and Practice of Legislation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/20508840.2020.1729552","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

摘要

尽管不同国家的法律制度对自由裁量权可能采取不同的做法,但总的来说,讨论的主要问题是相同的:既然自由裁量权在行政决定的背景下被接受并被认为是一种基本的法律技术,那么自由裁量权如何以及在何种程度上受到法院的控制和审查?本文的目的是从立法起草的角度来探讨自由裁量权,旨在确定立法者可以使用的具体工具,以防止自由裁量权变成任意性。因此,本文将从分析葡萄牙关于自由裁量权概念的法律学说开始,讨论三个主要问题。首先,澄清如何理解法律上的自由裁量权以及如何认定立法赋予的自由裁量权。第二,辨明法律自由裁量权的利弊,以确定规范性标准,据此确定在何种条件下应使用或不使用立法起草中的自由裁量权。第三,确定立法者可以使用哪些立法起草工具来授予自由裁量权。总体而言,通过关注立法技巧,本文旨在展示立法起草工具(如本文所述的工具)在多大程度上是更好地识别法律中的自由裁量权的有力工具,同时也确保这些权力仅在实际需要时才被授予。考虑到移徙和庇护法通常涉及到个人基本权利,该条认为,只要没有确凿和合理的理由可以使用自由裁量权,就应避免提供这种权力,以便自由裁量权仍然是一种管制工具,而不会成为武断。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Legislative drafting tools preventing arbitrariness in discretionary powers
Despite the differences of approach that different national legal systems may adopt regarding discretionary powers, in general terms the main issue of discussion stays the same: Given that discretion is accepted and considered an essential legal technique in the context of administrative decisions, how, and to which extent, may discretionary powers be controlled and subjected to review by courts? The purpose of the present article is to discuss discretionary powers from the perspective of legislative drafting, with the aim to identify specific tools to be used by law-makers in order to prevent discretion from turning into arbitrariness. Therefore, starting from an analysis of Portuguese legal doctrine on the concept of discretionary powers, the present article will address three main issues. First, clarification as to how legal discretion is to be understood and how to identify discretionary powers granted by legislation. Second, identification of the advantages and disadvantages of legal discretion, in order to determine normative criteria according to which we can settle under which conditions discretionary powers in legislative drafting is to be employed or not. Third, identification of which legislative drafting tools may be used by lawmakers in order to grant discretionary powers. Overall, by focusing on lawmaking techniques, the article aims to demonstrate the extent to which legislative drafting tools, such as the ones identified in this article, are powerful tools to better identify discretionary powers in the law, but also to ensure that these powers are granted only when actually necessary. Taking into consideration that migration and asylum law usually involves reference to fundamental individual rights, the article argues that the provision of discretionary powers ought to be avoided whenever there are no solid and reasoned grounds for their use, so that discretion remains a tool for regulation and does not become arbitrariness.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
10.00%
发文量
23
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.
×
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