“不可能的艺术”的类别:在澳大利亚联邦的协调立法中实现可持续的统一

Q3 Social Sciences
Guzyal Hill
{"title":"“不可能的艺术”的类别:在澳大利亚联邦的协调立法中实现可持续的统一","authors":"Guzyal Hill","doi":"10.1177/0067205X20927808","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"National uniform legislation links the federal distribution of powers achieved more than 119 years ago with the challenges and opportunities faced by Australia in an interconnected world. Over this span of time, developing national uniform legislation has been described as the ‘art of the impossible’. The main objective of this article is to critically examine the database of national uniform legislation with a view to applying public policy and federalist theory to explain how sustainable uniformity has been achieved. Rather than focusing on why an individual set of uniform Acts has not achieved a high level of uniformity or has diverged through unilateral amendment, this article examines national uniform legislation by analysing the factors at play. This approach allows the common patterns impacting sustainable uniformity to be identified. From among 84 sets of uniform Acts, four discernible links with theory have been found: (1) the ‘incrementalism and policy cycle’ model—to explain harmonisation that may take decades (31 sets); (2) the ‘multiple streams’ framework, explaining legislation that emerges as sustainably uniform from the outset due to an ‘open policy window’ (16 sets); (3) ‘pragmatic federalism’ solutions, such as skeletal legislation and the conferral of powers, which are developed in the course of inter-jurisdictional negotiations when uniformity is required but is particularly difficult to achieve (14 sets); and (4) the ‘advocacy coalition’ framework, which in contrast, explains situations where jurisdictions hold firm views about retaining diversity (23 sets). Developing and drafting national uniform legislation can become the ‘art of the possible’ with this improved understanding.","PeriodicalId":37273,"journal":{"name":"Federal Law Review","volume":"48 1","pages":"350 - 381"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-05-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/0067205X20927808","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Categories of the ‘Art of the Impossible’: Achieving Sustainable Uniformity in Harmonised Legislation in the Australian Federation\",\"authors\":\"Guzyal Hill\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/0067205X20927808\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"National uniform legislation links the federal distribution of powers achieved more than 119 years ago with the challenges and opportunities faced by Australia in an interconnected world. Over this span of time, developing national uniform legislation has been described as the ‘art of the impossible’. The main objective of this article is to critically examine the database of national uniform legislation with a view to applying public policy and federalist theory to explain how sustainable uniformity has been achieved. Rather than focusing on why an individual set of uniform Acts has not achieved a high level of uniformity or has diverged through unilateral amendment, this article examines national uniform legislation by analysing the factors at play. This approach allows the common patterns impacting sustainable uniformity to be identified. From among 84 sets of uniform Acts, four discernible links with theory have been found: (1) the ‘incrementalism and policy cycle’ model—to explain harmonisation that may take decades (31 sets); (2) the ‘multiple streams’ framework, explaining legislation that emerges as sustainably uniform from the outset due to an ‘open policy window’ (16 sets); (3) ‘pragmatic federalism’ solutions, such as skeletal legislation and the conferral of powers, which are developed in the course of inter-jurisdictional negotiations when uniformity is required but is particularly difficult to achieve (14 sets); and (4) the ‘advocacy coalition’ framework, which in contrast, explains situations where jurisdictions hold firm views about retaining diversity (23 sets). Developing and drafting national uniform legislation can become the ‘art of the possible’ with this improved understanding.\",\"PeriodicalId\":37273,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Federal Law Review\",\"volume\":\"48 1\",\"pages\":\"350 - 381\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-05-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/0067205X20927808\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Federal Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/0067205X20927808\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Federal Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0067205X20927808","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

国家统一立法将119多年前实现的联邦权力分配与澳大利亚在一个相互关联的世界中面临的挑战和机遇联系起来。在这段时间里,制定国家统一立法被描述为“不可能的艺术”。本文的主要目的是批判性地审查国家统一立法数据库,以期应用公共政策和联邦制理论来解释如何实现可持续的统一。本条不是集中讨论为什么一套统一的法律没有达到高度的统一,或者通过单方面修正而出现分歧,而是通过分析起作用的因素来审查国家统一立法。这种方法可以确定影响可持续统一性的常见模式。在84套统一法案中,发现了四个与理论的明显联系:(1)“渐进主义和政策周期”模型——解释可能需要几十年时间的协调(31套);(2) “多流”框架,解释由于“开放的政策窗口”而从一开始就可持续统一的立法(16套);(3) “务实的联邦制”解决方案,如框架立法和权力授予,这些解决方案是在需要统一但特别难以实现的司法管辖区间谈判过程中制定的(14套);以及(4)“倡导联盟”框架,相比之下,该框架解释了司法管辖区对保持多样性持有坚定观点的情况(23套)。有了这种更好的理解,制定和起草国家统一立法可以成为“可能的艺术”。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Categories of the ‘Art of the Impossible’: Achieving Sustainable Uniformity in Harmonised Legislation in the Australian Federation
National uniform legislation links the federal distribution of powers achieved more than 119 years ago with the challenges and opportunities faced by Australia in an interconnected world. Over this span of time, developing national uniform legislation has been described as the ‘art of the impossible’. The main objective of this article is to critically examine the database of national uniform legislation with a view to applying public policy and federalist theory to explain how sustainable uniformity has been achieved. Rather than focusing on why an individual set of uniform Acts has not achieved a high level of uniformity or has diverged through unilateral amendment, this article examines national uniform legislation by analysing the factors at play. This approach allows the common patterns impacting sustainable uniformity to be identified. From among 84 sets of uniform Acts, four discernible links with theory have been found: (1) the ‘incrementalism and policy cycle’ model—to explain harmonisation that may take decades (31 sets); (2) the ‘multiple streams’ framework, explaining legislation that emerges as sustainably uniform from the outset due to an ‘open policy window’ (16 sets); (3) ‘pragmatic federalism’ solutions, such as skeletal legislation and the conferral of powers, which are developed in the course of inter-jurisdictional negotiations when uniformity is required but is particularly difficult to achieve (14 sets); and (4) the ‘advocacy coalition’ framework, which in contrast, explains situations where jurisdictions hold firm views about retaining diversity (23 sets). Developing and drafting national uniform legislation can become the ‘art of the possible’ with this improved understanding.
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
Federal Law Review
Federal Law Review Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
27
×
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