Administrative Law of the United States the twenty-first century
Richard B. Stewart
Administrative law in a free and democratic society, its own administrative rules and regulations will be subject to administrative regulations. Administrative law established executive in the entire political system in the framework of status; set to take a decision that the executive must follow the procedural requirements; provides for an independent judiciary may be to review the possibility of administrative acts and scope. It to the administration and the administrative regulations of the various key areas in the provision of the universal principles and procedural requirements. Traditionally, the essence of administrative law focuses on how the executive authorities in accordance with the fair and unbiased process, The statutory mandate and to respect the private rights of way to such acts to ensure the rule of law protection of freedom. Here, the functions of administrative law is a negative sense of the (negative), that is designed to prevent the executive power with mandatory private individuals for the illegal use or misuse.
In the last decade, the United States administrative law is also some positive take on the mission. Adoption of new procedural requirements and judicial review of a new channel through which the executive authorities to ensure that a reasonable and thorough consideration of those decisions because it will be in the economic and social interests affected by a wide range of related interests including the provisions of the beneficiaries and be bound by the provisions and sanctions of the person)the way, we can make policy decisions.
The current status of the U.S. administration: the management of weak laws and regulations(Fatigue)Today, we face a growing weakness in the administration of this acute problem. Increasing the public needs the protection of the law, but it seems more and more administrative bodies can not be an effective and efficient way of providing such protection. Generally speaking, the development and adoption of a new law takes a very long time, the implementation of this law is also very time-consuming. The outcome of management is often not only fail to achieve the desired objectives, but also led to more trouble. In my opinion, The main reason for this predicament is that we rely too much on command- control of the administrative model. In the past 50 years, the use of this model has enabled us to achieve the agreed objectives are met. However, in a large and multi-ethnic country where this model is still an attempt to regulate the system through the command in a rapidly changing and complex economic and social environment in the conduct of tens of thousands of people, it is bound to expose its inherent drawbacks exhaustive, especially in the adoption of uniform federal laws and regulations of the management time. As a result of intensive management, these issues will become increasingly more serious. Federal executive authorities developed a detailed action plan due to the lack of flexibility and easy to outdated(Obsolescence), and thus not only add to the burden and inefficiency. In addition to affecting the efficiency of administration, the rigid, unilateral control (unresponsive Controls) also affected the expansion of its legitimacy, and not conducive to accountability. With these questions need for public order due to management of federal expansion and intensification of the more serious.
We now rely on two main organs for the development of administrative regulations and policies contained in the volume of the free right to the administrative law model of regulation will not solve the inherent drawbacks of the above. In fact, they are doing so they will become even worse, that is exacerbated by weak administration. Driven by the legal person (Lawyer-driven) models represent the interests of the administration process will delay the process too much. Spend the majority of laws and regulations at least 5 years to be passed. Judicial review is also time-consuming, but if the court finds that administrative regulations invalid, the executive body can also make a requirement.Of course, some basis for this understanding, that is, at the federal level in the regulation of the market has a serious problem, but our question is how to solve the problem?
New management practices. The answer lies in the use of new management methods and means to resolve the past due to over-reliance on command- to control the problems brought about by the model. Practice in the administration, there are two new models began to appear that the Government- network of stakeholders in the framework of (government-stakeholder network structures) and economic incentive systems (economy incentive systems).
In order to avoid top-down(top-down) order management, as well as the required administrative procedures of the formal defects in children born as a new type of solution of the executive authorities- the network of stakeholders in various forms mode is to develop. Unlike past attempts to unilaterally decide the kind of behavior by managers, the executive authorities in the formulation and implementation of administrative regulations have been created in a variety of strategies to win, including commercial enterprises and non-profit groups, various government and non-governmental organizations support. Here are a few examples: the executive authorities in the establishment of formal administrative procedures and regulations to develop legislation, From the business with the public and representatives of state and local governments to reach agreement in consultation with each other; the administrative institutions in the provision of municipal services and administrative aspects of health care and governmental and non-governmental entities, collaborative arrangements; for 'Endangered Species Protection Act'(Endan
剩余内容已隐藏，支付完成后下载完整资料
二十一世纪美国行政法
理查德B.斯图尔特
在最近十年，美国行政法也担负起了一些积极的使命。通过新的程序要求和新的司法审查途径，它确保行政机关要以一种合理的且是充分考虑了那些因它的决定而会在经济和社会利益上受到影响的广泛的相关人的利益（包括该规定的受益人和受该规定约束和制裁的人）的方式，才可以做出政策决定。
目前美国行政管理的现状：法规管理的疲软（Fatigue）今天，我们面临着日益严重的行政管理疲软这一尖锐问题公众需要越来越高的法律保护，但行政管理机构却似乎越来越不能以一种有效而且高效的方式提供这种保护了。一般说来，制定和采用一个新的法规需要花费很长时间，执行这一法规亦相当费时。管理的结果常常是不仅不能达到预期目标反而还衍生出了更多麻烦。我认为，出现这种困境的主要原因在于我们过分依赖命令控制的行政模式。在过去50年中，这一模式的运用会使我们实现了既定目标。在一个大且多民族的国度里，这一模式仍企图通过命令来规制处于一个急剧变化且纷繁复杂的经济社会环境中的成千上万的人的行为，那势必会使其固有弊端暴露无遗，尤其是在通过联邦法规将管理统一化的时候。由于管理的强化，上述问题也就越发越严重了。联邦行政机关所制定的详细行动规划由于缺乏灵活性而且易过时（obsolescence），因而既增加了负担，又降低了效率。除了对行政管理的效率有影响外，僵化的、单方性控制（unresponsive Controls）的扩张也影响了其合法性，而且不利于责任的承担。这些问题随着针对公共需要而致的联邦命性管理的扩张和加剧就更加严重了。
我们现在所依赖的两种主要是针对行政机关制定法规和政策的自由载量权进行规制的行政法模式并不能解决上述固有弊病。事实上，它们反而会使问题变得更遭，即加剧行政管理的疲软。由法律人推动的（Lawyer－driven－）利益代表模式程序将会使行政管理过程过分迟延。大多数法规至少要花上5年时间才能被通过。司法审查也有费时的问题，而且假如法院认定行政法规无效的话，行政机构还可以重新作一个规定。这样就会造成法规制定程序的“僵化”（ossification）预算和管理局的法规分析和其它对审查有影响的管理方法也会因分析而造成管理的瘫痪（ paralysis by analysis）因而行政机关越来越倾向于采用不太正规的，且又不负说明责任的不透明的法规政策模式了。对此，有观点认为，应当在联邦层面解除行政控制。这种观点认为，比起市场本身的问题和存在于州和地方层面的管理问题来讲，联邦行政管理的失败更加严重。虽然，这种认识有一定依据，即在联邦层面中对市场的规制有着严重问题但我们的疑问是如何去解决问题？新管理方法。答案在于运用新的管理方法和手段去化解过去因过分依赖命令控制模式而带来的问题。在行政管理实践中，有两种新模式开始出现，即政府—利益相关人网络构架（ government－stakeholder－ network structures）和经济激励制度（ economy incentive systems
为了避免由上而下（top－down）的命令型管理以及行政法所要求的正式化程序所生的缺陷，作为一种新型解决之道的行政机关利益相关人网络模式正多种形式得以发展。不同于过去的那种企图单方决定被管理者行为的方法，行政机关在制定和执行行政规章中业已创造了多种策略以赢得包括商业企业和非赢利团体在内的各种政府和非政府组织的支持。下面就是几个例证：行政机关在行政法的法规制定正式程序之外制定法规时通过与来自实业界、公众及州和地方政府代表的协商而相互达成一致；行政机构在提供市政服务和行政医疗保健方面与政府和非政府实体的协作安排；针对《濒临灭绝物种保护法》（《Endangered species Act》）的严格规定，被联邦自然资源管理机关划定的保护区内的居民、土地所有者、开发商及地方政府之间的协商。在上述例子中，联邦行政机关主动出击，从而在这个程序中占据了主导地位，其结果便是在协商的基础上与各参加者达成一种准合同性质的关系，进而解决行政管理中所存在的问题。不同于集中化的批量生产方法（ centralized mass production），这一方法信奉后工业时代法规制定的策略。它的主要特点在于其行为方式富于灵活性、创新性，具有基准程序性（ benchmarking）透明性，并且可以使相互之间知情。在欧盟，这一方法在《协商公开法》（ Open Method of Coordination）项下被广泛用以执行在成员国中的社会服务管理方案。行政机构似乎也有许多理由来采用这一策略从而推动其目标的实现：减少因更正式程序而致的办事成本；确保选民的合作以支持而不是阻碍行政机关目标的实现；充分利用选民的知识和经验，并确保其更有效地参与到政策的执行中来。非政府的选民（ Nongovernme constituencies）也有足够动力来参与这一过程。去研究参加者的相互激励以及通过何种方式可以使不同的制度设计能被广泛认同都是极其重要的课题。
有些网络管理方法甚至与命令模式大相径庭，它使行政机关从与相对人直接的实质联系中抽身而以一种远距离式的策略来管理（ government at distance）比如环保局（EPA）的有毒物质排放目录（TR）要求信息的发布者要监督、报告并且公布各个设施所排放的空气污染物。由于来自信息公开的非官方压力，从而极大降低了污染物的排放。基于信息之上的方法也被用于促进包括健康医疗领域管理在内的目标的实现。其他的例子还包括政府对企业主动跟踪和改善污染行为的环境管理和监管制度的鼓励，以及环保局和能源部（Energy Department）与业界在降低能源消耗和二氧化碳排放方面所自愿达成的合作协议。在这些被称为“反身法（ reflexive law）的方法中，政府通过提供参照标准和交流途径来促进非政府实体的自我管理。在证券、广播、电影领域的自我管理规则是这一策略的另一种典型。
第二，针对管理疲软问题而正在出现的另外一个完全不同的方法是使用经济激励制度。比如，允许征收污染税、基础建设及环境保护费。不同于以往对人们的行为直接做出命令，这种方法利用价格杠杆（如对排污单位征税），这一形式来使人们的行为符合既定目标；但同时也留给被管理者以选择成本最低的方式行为的灵活性。污染税制度也激励私人部门去研发和采用污染少的生产方式。逻辑上讲，经济激励法是超越于现行的管理预算局程序的一种进步。它并不是使用经济手段去规制被授权的管理者，而是以此来减少授权管理并运用经济手段重新恢复市场本身对实现管理目标的作用力。不要误解，这并不是说要回到自由放任的状态（ Liaissez－faire－）为使这一方法行之有效必须密切监视和严格实施这些制度以防止欺骗。相对于传统的命令型管理，这一制度的合理设计和实施可以同时实现降低污染物排放和大量节约成本（可达50％或更多）的双重功效。为了赢得更广泛的认可，新管理方法必须提供更好的管理成果。它们同时也必定会遇到法律责任和政策合法性的难题。网络管理策略故意以联合协作的形式模糊传统意义上公和私的区别。这一方法的前提是它的代表资格必须与该管理问题所涉领域相匹配，而这一点正日益与司法权限相交叉。针对某个管理问题，网络参加人组成一个具有专门知识与经验的团队，但这些参加者所代表的是不同的政府、社会阶层和经济部门的利益和视角。这些特征会使刚刚出现的管理政策要费上很长时间才能奏效。然而网络管理方法却故意减损正式的法规制定和执行行为的作用。但像我们所知道的那样，这却是行政法的核心所在。依“反身法”的观点，政府就如同柴郡猫（ Cheshire Cat）它是几乎不用现身的。当一个重要的决定被转为由非政府部门参与的非正式程序而做出时，法律又如何去防止权力被部分人所滥用？又如何去约束专家的暴政（ tyranny of expertise）？又如何来确保经济激励制度在管理和被管理者之间保持了一个固定的距离，并且由此而划清了责任的分担。行政机关作出的有关激励制度的目标和设计的决定要受到法规制定程序的调整和普通程序上的司法审查。通过大量减少政府所做出的决定，经济激励制度会促进政策上的说明义务的履行。例如，在有偿排污或征收污染税制度下，政府决定的目标旨在激励整体环境的改善如在许可证制度下，整个范围内的排污许可），而不是去做大量应由企业来做的细节工作。
剩余内容已隐藏，支付完成后下载完整资料
资料编号：[240388]，资料为PDF文档或Word文档，PDF文档可免费转换为Word
以上是毕业论文外文翻译，课题毕业论文、任务书、文献综述、开题报告、程序设计、图纸设计等资料可联系客服协助查找。
