Priority Setting as the Blind Spot of Administrative Law Enforcement: A Theoretical, Conceptual, and Empirical Study of Competition Authorities in Europe

IF 1.5 4区 社会学 Q1 LAW Modern Law Review Pub Date : 2024-04-17 DOI:10.1111/1468-2230.12881
Or Brook, Katalin J. Cseres
{"title":"Priority Setting as the Blind Spot of Administrative Law Enforcement: A Theoretical, Conceptual, and Empirical Study of Competition Authorities in Europe","authors":"Or Brook, Katalin J. Cseres","doi":"10.1111/1468-2230.12881","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Priority setting by independent regulatory agencies (IRAs) is an invisible, yet essential component of regulatory law enforcement. The selection of which cases to enforce and which to disregard is vital given IRAs’ finite resources, and due to the function of concretising open‐ended administrative norms. Clear enforcement priorities allow IRAs to focus on matters of genuine economic, societal, and doctrinal importance, solve complex socio‐economic problems and build credible, independent, and accountable authorities. However, as a blindspot of administrative discretion, to date neither a normative framework to assess IRAs’ priority setting rules and practices nor a shared terminology to evaluate its different features has developed. This article fills this gap by developing a novel typology and normative framework to guide IRAs’ priority setting, based on a historical, conceptual, and empirical study focusing on the case of independent competition authorities. It combines insights from top‐down analysis of administrative and criminal law enforcement with bottom‐up empirical research and engagement with IRAs using EU competition law enforcement as a case study.","PeriodicalId":47530,"journal":{"name":"Modern Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Modern Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12881","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Priority setting by independent regulatory agencies (IRAs) is an invisible, yet essential component of regulatory law enforcement. The selection of which cases to enforce and which to disregard is vital given IRAs’ finite resources, and due to the function of concretising open‐ended administrative norms. Clear enforcement priorities allow IRAs to focus on matters of genuine economic, societal, and doctrinal importance, solve complex socio‐economic problems and build credible, independent, and accountable authorities. However, as a blindspot of administrative discretion, to date neither a normative framework to assess IRAs’ priority setting rules and practices nor a shared terminology to evaluate its different features has developed. This article fills this gap by developing a novel typology and normative framework to guide IRAs’ priority setting, based on a historical, conceptual, and empirical study focusing on the case of independent competition authorities. It combines insights from top‐down analysis of administrative and criminal law enforcement with bottom‐up empirical research and engagement with IRAs using EU competition law enforcement as a case study.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
设定优先权是行政执法的盲点:欧洲竞争管理机构的理论、概念和经验研究
独立监管机构(IRA)确定优先事项是监管执法的一个无形但又必不可少的组成部分。鉴于独立监管机构的资源有限,并且由于其具有将开放式行政规范具体化的功能,因此选择执行哪些案件和忽略哪些案件至关重要。明确的执法重点可以让独立监管机构专注于真正具有经济、社会和理论重要性的事项,解决复杂的社会经济问题,建立可信、独立和负责任的机构。然而,作为行政自由裁量权的一个盲点,迄今为止,既没有一个规范性框架来评估独立监管机构的优先事项设定规则和实践,也没有一个共同的术语来评估其不同特征。本文在历史、概念和实证研究的基础上,以独立竞争管理机构的案例为重点,建立了一个新颖的类型学和规范框架来指导独立监管机构的优先权设定,从而填补了这一空白。文章将自上而下的行政和刑事执法分析见解与自下而上的实证研究相结合,并以欧盟竞争法执法为案例,与独立监管机构进行了互动。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
61
期刊最新文献
Using AI to Mitigate the Employee Misclassification Problem StinePiilgaardPorner Nielsen and OleHammerslev (eds), Transformations of European Welfare States and Social Rights: Regulation, Professionals, and Citizens, Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 2024, x + 226, pb £34.99 and open access Performative Environmental Law Thinking Legally about Remedy in Judicial Review: R (on the application of Imam) v London Borough of Croydon Legal Parenthood, Novel Reproductive Practices, and the Disruption of Reproductive Biosex
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1