行政改革与法治

IF 0.3 Q4 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
Matej Babšek, Nina Tomaževič, P. Kovač
{"title":"行政改革与法治","authors":"Matej Babšek, Nina Tomaževič, P. Kovač","doi":"10.31297/hkju.20.4.1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Designing a public governance model suitable for a particular task often lacks an empirical basis for change and the criteria for evaluation. Hence, the paper analyses the case law following from the decisions of social work centres (SWC) in Slovenia in order to gain insight in the lawfulness of their work as a key component of the rule of law and thus pinpoint the optimal framework for improvements. Using quantitative and qualitative analyses of 213 higher court judgments issued in the course of five years, the paper examines, by means of content analysis, which elements of the rule of law are the most problematic in practice. There is special emphasis on lawfulness and equality in substantive terms and on fair trial in procedural terms. The case law following from the SWC cases in the highest courts in Slovenia is quite consistent, but it does reveal certain gaps. These gaps need to be bridged on both regulatory and implementation levels in terms of clearer and yet not too rigid rules, recognition of participative procedural standards, and more flexible organisation. The case law thus indicates options for legislative changes and administrative reforms of the Slovene welfare system and beyond.","PeriodicalId":42223,"journal":{"name":"Croatian and Comparative Public Administration","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Administrative Reforms and the Rule of Law\",\"authors\":\"Matej Babšek, Nina Tomaževič, P. Kovač\",\"doi\":\"10.31297/hkju.20.4.1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Designing a public governance model suitable for a particular task often lacks an empirical basis for change and the criteria for evaluation. Hence, the paper analyses the case law following from the decisions of social work centres (SWC) in Slovenia in order to gain insight in the lawfulness of their work as a key component of the rule of law and thus pinpoint the optimal framework for improvements. Using quantitative and qualitative analyses of 213 higher court judgments issued in the course of five years, the paper examines, by means of content analysis, which elements of the rule of law are the most problematic in practice. There is special emphasis on lawfulness and equality in substantive terms and on fair trial in procedural terms. The case law following from the SWC cases in the highest courts in Slovenia is quite consistent, but it does reveal certain gaps. These gaps need to be bridged on both regulatory and implementation levels in terms of clearer and yet not too rigid rules, recognition of participative procedural standards, and more flexible organisation. The case law thus indicates options for legislative changes and administrative reforms of the Slovene welfare system and beyond.\",\"PeriodicalId\":42223,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Croatian and Comparative Public Administration\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-12-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Croatian and Comparative Public Administration\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.31297/hkju.20.4.1\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Croatian and Comparative Public Administration","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31297/hkju.20.4.1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

设计适合特定任务的公共治理模型通常缺乏变革的经验基础和评估标准。因此,本文分析了斯洛文尼亚社会工作中心(SWC)决定后的判例法,以便深入了解其工作的合法性,作为法治的关键组成部分,从而确定最佳的改进框架。本文采用定性和定量分析的方法,对五年来我国最高人民法院发布的213份判决书进行分析,通过内容分析的方法,考察哪些法治要素在实践中存在最大的问题。在实质性方面特别强调合法性和平等,在程序方面特别强调公平审判。斯洛文尼亚最高法院对SWC案件的判例法是相当一致的,但它确实显示出某些差距。这些差距需要在监管和实施两个层面上弥合,包括制定更明确但不过于严格的规则,承认参与性程序标准,以及更灵活的组织。因此,判例法指明了斯洛文尼亚福利制度及其他方面的立法改革和行政改革的备选办法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Administrative Reforms and the Rule of Law
Designing a public governance model suitable for a particular task often lacks an empirical basis for change and the criteria for evaluation. Hence, the paper analyses the case law following from the decisions of social work centres (SWC) in Slovenia in order to gain insight in the lawfulness of their work as a key component of the rule of law and thus pinpoint the optimal framework for improvements. Using quantitative and qualitative analyses of 213 higher court judgments issued in the course of five years, the paper examines, by means of content analysis, which elements of the rule of law are the most problematic in practice. There is special emphasis on lawfulness and equality in substantive terms and on fair trial in procedural terms. The case law following from the SWC cases in the highest courts in Slovenia is quite consistent, but it does reveal certain gaps. These gaps need to be bridged on both regulatory and implementation levels in terms of clearer and yet not too rigid rules, recognition of participative procedural standards, and more flexible organisation. The case law thus indicates options for legislative changes and administrative reforms of the Slovene welfare system and beyond.
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
0.80
自引率
25.00%
发文量
12
×
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