议会对加拿大立法质量的审查

IF 1.5 Q1 LAW

Theory and Practice of Legislation Pub Date : 2021-05-04 DOI:10.1080/20508840.2021.1904567

J. Keyes

{"title":"议会对加拿大立法质量的审查","authors":"J. Keyes","doi":"10.1080/20508840.2021.1904567","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This paper looks at how legislative quality is addressed in Canada by private (non-Executive) members of the two legislative chambers forming part of the federal Parliament (the Senate and the House of Commons). It considers legislative quality from three perspectives (1. Policy and Politics, 2. Legality, 3. Accessibility / Intelligibility) and reviews the resources and mechanisms parliamentarians have at their disposal to assess and improve the quality of legislation. The paper concludes that, while there is some potential for considerable parliamentary contribution to legislative quality, it is in fact relatively limited. This largely results from the dominant role the Executive plays in the development and enactment of legislation. The paper suggests the current pandemic crisis might provide an opportunity to re-evaluate this dominance and approaches to addressing legislative quality in Canada.","PeriodicalId":42455,"journal":{"name":"Theory and Practice of Legislation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/20508840.2021.1904567","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Parliamentary scrutiny of the quality of legislation in Canada\",\"authors\":\"J. Keyes\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/20508840.2021.1904567\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT This paper looks at how legislative quality is addressed in Canada by private (non-Executive) members of the two legislative chambers forming part of the federal Parliament (the Senate and the House of Commons). It considers legislative quality from three perspectives (1. Policy and Politics, 2. Legality, 3. Accessibility / Intelligibility) and reviews the resources and mechanisms parliamentarians have at their disposal to assess and improve the quality of legislation. The paper concludes that, while there is some potential for considerable parliamentary contribution to legislative quality, it is in fact relatively limited. This largely results from the dominant role the Executive plays in the development and enactment of legislation. The paper suggests the current pandemic crisis might provide an opportunity to re-evaluate this dominance and approaches to addressing legislative quality in Canada.\",\"PeriodicalId\":42455,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Theory and Practice of Legislation\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-05-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/20508840.2021.1904567\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Theory and Practice of Legislation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/20508840.2021.1904567\",\"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/10.1080/20508840.2021.1904567","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

摘要本文探讨了加拿大联邦议会两院（参议院和下议院）的私人（非行政）议员如何处理立法质量问题。它从三个角度考虑立法质量（1。政策与政治，2。合法性，3。可访问性/可理解性），并审查议员可支配的资源和机制，以评估和提高立法质量。该文件的结论是，虽然议会对立法质量有一定的贡献潜力，但实际上相对有限。这在很大程度上源于行政部门在立法制定和颁布中发挥的主导作用。该论文认为，当前的疫情危机可能为重新评估这种主导地位和解决加拿大立法质量问题的方法提供了机会。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Parliamentary scrutiny of the quality of legislation in Canada

ABSTRACT This paper looks at how legislative quality is addressed in Canada by private (non-Executive) members of the two legislative chambers forming part of the federal Parliament (the Senate and the House of Commons). It considers legislative quality from three perspectives (1. Policy and Politics, 2. Legality, 3. Accessibility / Intelligibility) and reviews the resources and mechanisms parliamentarians have at their disposal to assess and improve the quality of legislation. The paper concludes that, while there is some potential for considerable parliamentary contribution to legislative quality, it is in fact relatively limited. This largely results from the dominant role the Executive plays in the development and enactment of legislation. The paper suggests the current pandemic crisis might provide an opportunity to re-evaluate this dominance and approaches to addressing legislative quality in Canada.

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

Theory and Practice of Legislation LAW-

CiteScore

4.50

自引率

10.00%

发文量

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.