Suchergebnisse

Administrative law consists generally of the rules, orders, and decisions of federal, state, and local government agencies established to perform a specific function.The Administrative Procedure Act, other legislation, and court decisions have established administrative agencies as a large power base, largely insulated from electoral accountability, at both the federal and state levels.Most citizens are unaware of the extent of such power, and of the extent such power can be exercised with minimal transparency. This paper reviews and evaluates the federal administrative law process, examines differing practices followed in various states and foreign countries, and suggests potential changes to make the process more accountable and transparent, and to preserve better the rights of parties to both procedural and substantive due process.

The administrative court is given the authority to review the request for review of abuse of authority according to the legislation and general principles of good governance as the two touchstones. This review may serve as a testing benchmark to discuss the issue of the request over the abuse of authority as requested by government officials, recalling that abuse of authority has several criteria to proscribe and regulate in the general principles of good governance. The research problems involved the criteria and the bases for determining the type of abuse of authority in the request over the abuse of authority. This research employed a normative method, statutory, and historical approaches. The research results concluded that the Decision 2/P/PW/2017/PTUN.JBI holds the relevance to the current legislation, public interest, and the absence of state losses, while the Decision 09/P/PW/2018/PTUN.Sby only refers to the current legislation in terms of its relevance. Although the general principles of good governance refer to the administrative court as the touchstone, this touchstone is not optimally used in the request for review of abuse of authority.Keywords: AUPB (general principles of good governance); Administrative Court; request for review of abuse of authority.

Human rights courts often behave as constitutional courts especially when they have the ability to control the "separation of powers" in States in accordance with human rights conventions ("conventionality control"). This study comments on the latest "abuse of power" jurisprudence of the European and Inter-American courts of human rights, which embraces rich implications for re-evaluating general and specific provisions that place democratic limitations on human rights violations. The first section confirms that the courts have recently implemented conventionality control of "abuse of power" against judicial independence, voices of political opposition and media pluralism, in all such unfair exercises of authority adverse influences are exerted on individual (human rights) and collective (democracy) aspects. The next section justifies or criticises the courts' decisions on the pro-democratic fair balance tests (legality, legitimacy and proportionality) embodied in human rights conventions' general and specific limitation clauses, which have rarely been scrutinised until recent cases of "abuse of power". In essence, this study shows that value-oriented momenta in their practical decisions can contribute to a future mapping of constitutionalism beyond the State (ius constitutionale commune), limiting domestic abuse of kratos (power) of the demos (people) in terms of international human rights sources.

One paradox of administrative power holds that while bureaucracies may be criticized for being unaccountable and unresponsive, they, at the same time, provide necessary benefits for modern, democratic society. An examination of the careers of two civil servants - one American and one British - suggests a second paradox that democratic government in complex administrative states may depend on the administrators' own sense of ethical behaviour. Recent reform efforts in both the United States and Britain have failed to assess the impact of proposed reforms on the socialisation process, the process of inculcating appropriate values and attitudes in the civil service. They may make it less likely that administrative power will be held in check by the norms and ethical standards of civil servants.

Discusses the global ethics of increased executive power by invoking the idea of an emergency and cites philosophers, neuroscientists, and artists to prove that thinking and taking fast action are compatible

This dissertation explores the challenges that administrative reasoning places on classical theories about the nature of law or adjudication, the structure of the legal process, and the separation of powers, particularly in its relationship with legality and the active role of the administrative power in modern governance. It describes how traditional theories about the nature of law and adjudication have explicitly addressed the philosophical foundations of judicial reasoning in hard cases, but they have been oblivious about how administrative decision-makers should decide them. This dissertation argues for an eclectic model where administrative reasoning should ideally be informed by publicly validated expert knowledge that requires a moral and political compass oriented towards the fulfillment of the purposes and aspirations of a democratic polity that lives under the rule of law. To that end, it proposes that the administrative power ought to decide hard cases regardless of the empirical, theoretical or meta-interpretive nature of the disagreement they may elicit. It suggests that, unlike the judiciary, the administrative power is ideally endowed with original or delegated lawmaking authority, vested with democratic legitimacy, and equipped with specialized expertise and the procedural mechanisms to allow the active participation of the citizenry in the administrative process. Furthermore, it proposes that these features entail that administrative decision-makers should reason from principle and policy in deciding hard cases about the planning and allocation of valuable resources in a community by construing the grounds of law or deciding meta-interpretive disagreements based on publicly validated expertise. Finally, this dissertation ventures to speculate that the existence of administrative novelty may challenge the truism embraced by traditional jurisprudence according to which the solution to the tension between law's certainty and its responsiveness is usually reserved to the interplay legislature-courts that regards the administrative power as a mere executor of legislation.

Having power means having the ability to change the behavior or attitudes of others in accordance with what is desired by the authority. By holding power, automatically the bersangkuatan has an influence, and this is what is dreamed by some people who want to get legitimacy so that later he has the influence of the power possessed. the cause of abuse of power can have an impact on rampant corruption. Among the causes: a. That punishment perceived from the results of abuse of power is relatively lighter compared to the benefits it feels. b. Abuse of power can be tricked and engineered in the form of physical accountability. c. To get power requires substantial material capital, so that when the power is granted to him, of course the person concerned is trying to return the initial capital plus a large profit. d. It is not good for a check and balance system in the government system.