Suchergebnisse

Although it is widely appreciated that rights of exit from a legal order can be important and valuable, there currently exists no adequate account of the relationship between exit rights and legitimacy. This Article cures that deficiency by describing the contribution made by exit rights to the legitimacy of a legal order--a contribution that I call the "exit legitimacy" of that legal order--and offers two accounts of its normative significance. On the "thin" account, exit rights operationalize consent by making it more genuine, more ascertainable, and more closely related to relevant acts and relationships of governance; on the "thick" account, exit rights instantiate a value that I call 'political autonomy." The Article offers grounds to think that, while exit legitimacy is salient in legal orders of all kinds, it is particularly significant for international orders and institutions, which often lack the democratic, traditional, and other legitimating resources available to their national equivalents. Finally, to complete the account of exit legitimacy, the Article considers and responds to four of the strongest objections to which it appears vulnerable. It demonstrates that none of these objections convincingly undermines the case for this unique ground of legitimacy, and that each provides useful guidance for promoting exit legitimacy in legal orders of all kinds.

Exit is a ubiquitous feature of life, whether breaking up in a marriage, dropping a college course, or pulling out of a venture capital investment. In fact, our exit options often determine whether and how we enter in the first place. While legal scholarship is replete with studies of exit strategies for businesses and individuals, administrative law scholarship has barely touched the topic of exit. Yet exit plays just as central a role in the regulatory state as elsewhere- -welfare support ends, government steps out of rate-setting. In this Article, we argue that exit is a fundamental feature of regulatory design and should be explicitly considered at the time of program creation. Part II starts from first principles and sets out the basic features of regulatory exit. It addresses the design challenges of exit strategies and how to measure success of exit. With these descriptive and normative foundations in place, Part III develops a framework that explains the four basic types of regulatory exit strategies, exploring the political economy that determines each strategy and explaining when policy makers are most likely to adopt them. To demonstrate its usefulness in practice, the framework is applied as a case study in Part IV to the emerging challenge of fracking. We conclude by describing a new exit strategy model for regulatory design, a hybrid approach of "Lookback Exit." Exit is a vast, central, yet largely unexplored aspect of administrative governance. By providing a fuller account, we demonstrate why exit warrants focused research and theoretical development in its own right, create a framework for the analysis of exit issues, and identify the key questions for future research. Doing so provides important insights, not only for understanding the practice we see around us today, but also for the design of programs to manage emerging issues.

AbstractSome women did not participate in the Women's March, rejecting its claims of unity and solidarity because white women mobilize only in their self‐interest. This is a form of exit with three features: (1) rejecting a political claim; (2) providing reasons to the power wielder and the broader public; and (3) demanding accountability both as sanction and as deliberation, which requires a discussion about the claim—in this case, the meaning of the group and the terms on which it understands itself. This combination of exit, voice, and deliberative accountability might accurately be called "discursive exit." Discursive exit addresses conceptual and normative limitations of standard accounts of exit, voice, and loyalty, in particular, when exit and voice are imperfect—because exit can be seen as disapproval of an entire cause—and morally problematic—because voice "from within" implies that cause trumps disagreement, leaving people morally complicit in an unwelcome exercise of power.

Exit is a ubiquitous feature of life, whether breaking up in a marriage, dropping a college course, or pulling out of a venture capital investment. In fact, our exit options often determine whether and how we enter in the first place. While legal scholarship is replete with studies of exit strategies for businesses and individuals, the topic of exit has barely been touched in administrative law scholarship. Yet exit plays just as central a role in the regulatory state as elsewhere – welfare support ends; government steps out of rate-setting. In this article, we argue that exit is a fundamental feature of regulatory design and should be explicitly considered at the time of program creation. Part I starts from first principles and sets out the basic features of regulatory exit. It addresses the design challenges of exit strategies and how to measure success of exit. With these descriptive and normative foundations in place, Part II develops a framework that explains the four basic types of regulatory exit strategies, exploring the political economy that determines each strategy and explaining when policy makers are most likely to adopt them. To demonstrate its usefulness in practice, the framework is applied as a case study in Part III to the emerging challenge of fracking. We conclude by describing a new exit strategy model for regulatory design, a hybrid approach of "Lookback Exit.†Exit is a vast, central, yet largely unexplored aspect of administrative governance. By providing a fuller account, we demonstrate why exit warrants focused research and theoretical development in its own right, create a framework for the analysis of exit issues, and identify the key questions for future research. Doing so provides important insights not only to understand the practice we see around us today but also for the design of programs to manage emerging issues.

Wahlverhalten während der Parlamentswahlen.

Themen: Wahlbezirk; Zeitpunkt der Erhebung; gerade gewählte Partei;
Wahlentscheidung 1992; Alter; Geschlecht; Erwerbsstatus;
Religionszugehörigkeit; geographische Region; Gemeinde.