Die folgenden Links führen aus den jeweiligen lokalen Bibliotheken zum Volltext:
Alternativ können Sie versuchen, selbst über Ihren lokalen Bibliothekskatalog auf das gewünschte Dokument zuzugreifen.
Bei Zugriffsproblemen kontaktieren Sie uns gern.
26 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
Over the last decade the regulatory evaluation of environmental and public health risks has been one of the most legally controversial areas of contemporary government activity. Much of that debate has been understood as a conflict between those promoting ''scientific'' approaches to risk evaluation and those promoting ''democratic'' approaches. This characterization of disputes has ignored the central roles of public administration and law in technological risk evaluation. This is problematic because, as shown in this book, legal disputes over risk evaluation are disputes over administrative
In: European journal of risk regulation: EJRR ; at the intersection of global law, science and policy, Band 4, Heft 2, S. 125-132
ISSN: 2190-8249
Over a decade ago I was involved in a group project that focused on developing a regulatory model concerning the implementation of the precautionary principle in the EU. The project involved a number of workshops and in those workshops I used to joke about the fact that while there were many different frameworks being produced to represent risk regulation, these diagrams basically fell into two different categories. In the first category there were those diagrams that characterised risk regulation as a linear process involving usually a scientific process of risk assessment and then political processes of risk management and risk communication. In the second category there were those diagrams that had lots of looping arrows going all over the place that represented the fact that risk regulation was an iterative process that constantly involved many scientific, socio-political and other inputs.Behind my joking was a sense of hope. The linear diagrams did have their minimalist appeal, but the messy diagrams captured much of the reality of this area of regulatory practice.
In: Law & policy, Band 35, Heft 3, S. 236-260
ISSN: 1467-9930
Climate change litigation is an obsessive preoccupation for many legal scholars. Three different "narratives" can be identified for why scholars find such litigation important to study: litigation is a response to institutional failure, legal reasoning holds authority, and litigation is a forum for the co‐production of facts and social orders. The nature and consequences of these narratives are considered in the context of the first U.S. Supreme Court "climate change" case—Massachusetts v. EPA (2007). This analysis has implications for both how scholars understand their expertise in this area, and how they should foster it.
In: Administration in social work: the quarterly journal of human services management, Band 33, Heft 4, S. 347-367
ISSN: 0364-3107
In: Administration in social work, Band 33, Heft 4, S. 347-367
ISSN: 0364-3107
In: Journal of risk research: the official journal of the Society for Risk Analysis Europe and the Society for Risk Analysis Japan, Band 11, Heft 4, S. 541-563
ISSN: 1466-4461
In: Administration in social work, Band 29, Heft 4, S. 35-49
ISSN: 0364-3107
In: Administration in social work: the quarterly journal of human services management, Band 29, Heft 4, S. 35-68
ISSN: 0364-3107
In: The Modern Law Review, Band 83, Heft 1, S. 163-189
SSRN
In: Law & Policy, Band 35, Heft 3, S. 236-260
SSRN
In: Cambridge studies in constitutional law
This book, by two of the world's leading administrative law scholars, reimagines administrative law as the law of public administration by making its competence the focus of administrative law. Grounded in extensive interdisciplinary, historical, and doctrinal analysis, Fisher and Shapiro show why understanding both the capacity and authority of expert public administration is crucial to ensure the legitimacy and accountability of the administrative state. To address the current precarious state of administrative law, they support a new study of the administrative process by an Attorney Generals Committee on Administrative Procedure leading to a revised Administrative Procedure Act (APA). This book is a must-read for anyone interested in administrative law and its reform.
In: Cambridge studies in constitutional law
The state we are in -- Expert administrative capacity -- Administrative accountability -- Enlightened foundations -- Debating administrative law : from the spoils system to the new deal -- The emergence of administrative law and the limits of legal imagination -- The narrowing of the administrative law imagination -- Administrative competence and the Chevron doctrine -- Hard look review -- Conclusion : towards an enlightened administrative law.
In: Wake Forest Univ. Legal Studies Paper
SSRN