Migration law between acceleration and efficiency Efficiency and speed of decision making have been a recurrent theme of German administrative law reform since the 1970 s. Although migration law has long been the subject of acceleration efforts, this occurred largely outside the general efficiency discourse. In an effort to connect these two strands, this article first retraces the trends that the administrative efficiency discourse has undergone since the 1970 s and points out how the sectors of law driving it – environmental law, emission control, and economic regulation – as well as an economic paradigm have promoted an truncated understanding of efficiency as mere acceleration. In a second step, it shows that while the devaluation of procedure in the interest of speed does align with a German focus on subsequent judicial review, it neither does justice to the relevance of the procedure to the realization of fundamental rights, not to its specific performances: the development of substantive requirements, transparency, participation, legitimacy. Asylum law in particular has experienced a surge of acceleration measures since 2015, pushed by the consulting firm McKinsey. But its existential relevance for protection seekers and the particular dependency of the right to asylum on the asylum procedure require an especially rigorous examination. An efficiency concept geared merely toward acceleration cannot do justice to these specific challenges, as the McKinsey measures have demonstrated; the burden has simply been shifted on the courts. In its last part, this article therefore proposes a qualitative efficiency concept that bears in mind the entirety of the functions of the administrative procedure, takes into account the different requirements of the procedure in different sectors of law, and does not lose sight of the reciprocity between administrative and judicial procedure. Meanwhile, pilot studies from the Netherlands, Switzerland, and Germany show that a qualitatively efficient asylum procedure is not necessarily a slower or more costly procedure.
{"title":"Migrationsverwaltungsrecht zwischen Beschleunigung und Effizienz","authors":"Nora Markard","doi":"10.3790/verw.52.3.337","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3790/verw.52.3.337","url":null,"abstract":"Migration law between acceleration and efficiency\u0000Efficiency and speed of decision making have been a recurrent theme of German administrative law reform since the 1970 s. Although migration law has long been the subject of acceleration efforts, this occurred largely outside the general efficiency discourse. In an effort to connect these two strands, this article first retraces the trends that the administrative efficiency discourse has undergone since the 1970 s and points out how the sectors of law driving it – environmental law, emission control, and economic regulation – as well as an economic paradigm have promoted an truncated understanding of efficiency as mere acceleration. In a second step, it shows that while the devaluation of procedure in the interest of speed does align with a German focus on subsequent judicial review, it neither does justice to the relevance of the procedure to the realization of fundamental rights, not to its specific performances: the development of substantive requirements, transparency, participation, legitimacy.\u0000Asylum law in particular has experienced a surge of acceleration measures since 2015, pushed by the consulting firm McKinsey. But its existential relevance for protection seekers and the particular dependency of the right to asylum on the asylum procedure require an especially rigorous examination. An efficiency concept geared merely toward acceleration cannot do justice to these specific challenges, as the McKinsey measures have demonstrated; the burden has simply been shifted on the courts.\u0000In its last part, this article therefore proposes a qualitative efficiency concept that bears in mind the entirety of the functions of the administrative procedure, takes into account the different requirements of the procedure in different sectors of law, and does not lose sight of the reciprocity between administrative and judicial procedure. Meanwhile, pilot studies from the Netherlands, Switzerland, and Germany show that a qualitatively efficient asylum procedure is not necessarily a slower or more costly procedure.","PeriodicalId":36848,"journal":{"name":"Verwaltung","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49475866","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Analyses of how crises affect political agendas and policy formulation are widespread in political science literature. However, what is missing so far is a consideration of crisis effects during the implementation phase. In particular, the effects of crises on street-level bureaucrats implementing certain policies are examined insufficiently. Some authors reflect upon the consequences of single elements of crises, like burden or work overload, on individual administrative behavior. Nonetheless, what is missing so far is a multidimensional understanding of crisis and a consideration of how crisis situations affect public authorities concretely. Accordingly, it is the aim of this contribution to evaluate, if a crisis and its perception as such leads to deviating administrative behavior. With the help of a case study considering migration authorities in Bremen, this contribution can show that subjectively perceived crises can lead to an adjusted administrative pattern of task execution of street-level bureaucrats. A selective style of implementation for the benefit of the clients is characteristic for this, so-called, crisis implementation style.
{"title":"Verwaltungskrise im Migrationsfeld","authors":"L. Riedel","doi":"10.3790/verw.52.3.389","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3790/verw.52.3.389","url":null,"abstract":"Analyses of how crises affect political agendas and policy formulation are widespread in political science literature. However, what is missing so far is a consideration of crisis effects during the implementation phase. In particular, the effects of crises on street-level bureaucrats implementing certain policies are examined insufficiently. Some authors reflect upon the consequences of single elements of crises, like burden or work overload, on individual administrative behavior. Nonetheless, what is missing so far is a multidimensional understanding of crisis and a consideration of how crisis situations affect public authorities concretely. Accordingly, it is the aim of this contribution to evaluate, if a crisis and its perception as such leads to deviating administrative behavior. With the help of a case study considering migration authorities in Bremen, this contribution can show that subjectively perceived crises can lead to an adjusted administrative pattern of task execution of street-level bureaucrats. A selective style of implementation for the benefit of the clients is characteristic for this, so-called, crisis implementation style.","PeriodicalId":36848,"journal":{"name":"Verwaltung","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47597837","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper contributes to the ongoing discussion about the organization and efficiency of Asylum Law. It focuses on recent changes in the Asylum procedure and current political proposals aiming at a more efficient and rapid Asylum procedure including legal remedies against negative decision in that procedure. The main theses developed in this article is that the envisaged centralization and acceleration of Asylum procedure reflects a fundamental change in the relationship between the individual and the state in which the individual is increasingly treated as a means for public interests. The paper analyzes Asylum Law through the lens of general principles of administrative law and describes how the fundamental trade of between rapidity and diligence as well as between effective return and successful integration is more and more resolved at the expense of diligence and integration.
{"title":"Die Objektivierung des Asylverfahrens aus verwaltungsrechtswissenschaftlicher Sicht","authors":"Anuscheh Farahat","doi":"10.3790/verw.52.3.311","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3790/verw.52.3.311","url":null,"abstract":"This paper contributes to the ongoing discussion about the organization and efficiency of Asylum Law. It focuses on recent changes in the Asylum procedure and current political proposals aiming at a more efficient and rapid Asylum procedure including legal remedies against negative decision in that procedure. The main theses developed in this article is that the envisaged centralization and acceleration of Asylum procedure reflects a fundamental change in the relationship between the individual and the state in which the individual is increasingly treated as a means for public interests. The paper analyzes Asylum Law through the lens of general principles of administrative law and describes how the fundamental trade of between rapidity and diligence as well as between effective return and successful integration is more and more resolved at the expense of diligence and integration.","PeriodicalId":36848,"journal":{"name":"Verwaltung","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43638262","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Migrationsverwaltungsrecht unter Druck","authors":"","doi":"10.3790/verw.2019.52.3","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3790/verw.2019.52.3","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":36848,"journal":{"name":"Verwaltung","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42519200","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
While the technical details of immigration and asylum legislation remain the domain of a comparatively narrow field of experts, debates about nationality law often cause widespread attention within domestic academic circles. The latest reform was a case in point: in 2019, the government proposed depriving terrorist fighters of German nationality (provided that they have another passport) and suggested prohibiting the naturalisation of those with several spouses, thereby triggering a heated debate among experts. This contribution sets off to embed the legal-doctrinal analysis into a broader reflection on the role of nationality law as a forum for and vehicle of broader societal debates about the collective identity of Germans in the early 21st century. The article scrutinises this double function from an interdisciplinary perspective and shows that it is entrenched in the history of German nationality law with the extensive reform of 1999 as its climax. By contrast, the latest changes do not bring about a major conceptual or practical shift, since they continue earlier developments. Depriving terrorist fighters of the German passport adapts an established ground for the loss of nationality of those serving in foreign armies to the international context of asymmetric warfare; blocking the naturalisation of foreigners with several spouses reacts to a court judgment and complements several other small reform measures that have reinforced the integration paradigm within German nationality law over the past two decades. Against this background, the time may have come to disentangle nationality law from broader debates about collective identity at a time when many former immigrants have a German passport anyway. Such reconstruction of the national self-image beyond naturalisation may be addressed analytically from the standpoint of the citizenship paradigm, which remains normatively contested, but transcends technical focus of immigration, asylum and nationality legislation.
{"title":"Bürger zweiter Klasse im Einwanderungsland?","authors":"Daniel Thym","doi":"10.3790/verw.52.3.407","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3790/verw.52.3.407","url":null,"abstract":"While the technical details of immigration and asylum legislation remain the domain of a comparatively narrow field of experts, debates about nationality law often cause widespread attention within domestic academic circles. The latest reform was a case in point: in 2019, the government proposed depriving terrorist fighters of German nationality (provided that they have another passport) and suggested prohibiting the naturalisation of those with several spouses, thereby triggering a heated debate among experts. This contribution sets off to embed the legal-doctrinal analysis into a broader reflection on the role of nationality law as a forum for and vehicle of broader societal debates about the collective identity of Germans in the early 21st century. The article scrutinises this double function from an interdisciplinary perspective and shows that it is entrenched in the history of German nationality law with the extensive reform of 1999 as its climax. By contrast, the latest changes do not bring about a major conceptual or practical shift, since they continue earlier developments. Depriving terrorist fighters of the German passport adapts an established ground for the loss of nationality of those serving in foreign armies to the international context of asymmetric warfare; blocking the naturalisation of foreigners with several spouses reacts to a court judgment and complements several other small reform measures that have reinforced the integration paradigm within German nationality law over the past two decades. Against this background, the time may have come to disentangle nationality law from broader debates about collective identity at a time when many former immigrants have a German passport anyway. Such reconstruction of the national self-image beyond naturalisation may be addressed analytically from the standpoint of the citizenship paradigm, which remains normatively contested, but transcends technical focus of immigration, asylum and nationality legislation.","PeriodicalId":36848,"journal":{"name":"Verwaltung","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41907368","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Since the terrorist attack on Berlin’s Breitscheidplatz took place in December 2016, German state interior ministries deport potential top terrorists in the accelerated procedure under section 58a Residence Act (AufenthG). As a legal consequence, section 11(5) Residence Act imposes a lifelong entry ban to foreigners who have been deported on the basis of § 58a Residence Act. In defining the requirements for deporting potential top terrorists, the ministries do not refer to the foreseeability of a concrete terrorist attack, but to the risk arising from the person concerned. Consequently, deportation orders can also be issued to persons who, although identifying with radical extremist Islamism, would not have committed terrorist attacks in case they had stayed in Germany. This practice of accepting misjudgements, that is of deporting „the wrong“, for the sake of public security forms part of the broader concept of fighting terrorism pre-emptively. The paper reveals that there is a twofold need for reform of the German lifelong entry ban for potential top-terrorists: It arises, on the one hand, from the fact that section 11 Residence Act violates EU law requirements of the „Return Directive“ and, on the other hand, from the constitutional principle of proportionality. De lege lata, this principle is infringed because the legal consequence of a lifelong entry ban does not mitigate the deliberate acceptance of misjudgements within the framework of section 58a Residence Act. The paper argues that the constitutionality of pre-emptive security policy presupposes that the factual and legal consequences of misjudgements are reversible. As a consequence, the constitutionality of section 11 Residence Act with regards to potential top terrorists depends on setting time limits on entry bans.
{"title":"Zur Reversibilität von Rechtsfolgen einer vorsorgenden Sicherheitspolitik","authors":"Patricia Wiater","doi":"10.3790/verw.52.3.359","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3790/verw.52.3.359","url":null,"abstract":"Since the terrorist attack on Berlin’s Breitscheidplatz took place in December 2016, German state interior ministries deport potential top terrorists in the accelerated procedure under section 58a Residence Act (AufenthG). As a legal consequence, section 11(5) Residence Act imposes a lifelong entry ban to foreigners who have been deported on the basis of § 58a Residence Act. In defining the requirements for deporting potential top terrorists, the ministries do not refer to the foreseeability of a concrete terrorist attack, but to the risk arising from the person concerned. Consequently, deportation orders can also be issued to persons who, although identifying with radical extremist Islamism, would not have committed terrorist attacks in case they had stayed in Germany. This practice of accepting misjudgements, that is of deporting „the wrong“, for the sake of public security forms part of the broader concept of fighting terrorism pre-emptively.\u0000The paper reveals that there is a twofold need for reform of the German lifelong entry ban for potential top-terrorists: It arises, on the one hand, from the fact that section 11 Residence Act violates EU law requirements of the „Return Directive“ and, on the other hand, from the constitutional principle of proportionality. De lege lata, this principle is infringed because the legal consequence of a lifelong entry ban does not mitigate the deliberate acceptance of misjudgements within the framework of section 58a Residence Act. The paper argues that the constitutionality of pre-emptive security policy presupposes that the factual and legal consequences of misjudgements are reversible. As a consequence, the constitutionality of section 11 Residence Act with regards to potential top terrorists depends on setting time limits on entry bans.","PeriodicalId":36848,"journal":{"name":"Verwaltung","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49607008","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The report surveys the development of administrative procedural law und jurisprudence between 2014 and 2019, in particular, under the auspices of the overarching mandate to grant effective judicial review. Pursuant to Article 19(4) of the Basic Law, effective judicial review is constitutionally guaranteed, but enfolds its practical effects within the intricate framework of Administrative Court Procedure Code and the inhomogeneous body of substantive administrative law. Additionally, European Union law and its own guarantee of effective remedies (Article 47 EU Charter of Fundamental Rights) bears influence on the administrative procedural law. The European Court of Justice seeks to give shape to partly vague European common standards of judicial review and its institutional settings. The so-called refugee burdened the administrative courts, as the number of asylum cases greatly increased by hundreds of thousands since 2016. The courts struggled to secure sufficient review of asylum decisions handed down by the federal administration under great strain, which diminished the quality and reliability of the administrative procedure and its fact findings. In the wake of the refugee crisis, the dormant provision enabling the administration to execute instant deportation orders has been tested against the guarantee of effective judicial protection. Another reference area that illustrates a shift within administrative procedural law is the complicatedly fabricated environmental law and its special provisions, which guarantee access to a court and effective review of administrative decisions (or omissions) that can affect the environment.
{"title":"Effektiver Verwaltungsrechtsschutz im Zeichen von Migration und Europäisierung","authors":"K. Gärditz","doi":"10.3790/VERW.52.2.259","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3790/VERW.52.2.259","url":null,"abstract":"The report surveys the development of administrative procedural law und jurisprudence between 2014 and 2019, in particular, under the auspices of the overarching mandate to grant effective judicial review. Pursuant to Article 19(4) of the Basic Law, effective judicial review is constitutionally guaranteed, but enfolds its practical effects within the intricate framework of Administrative Court Procedure Code and the inhomogeneous body of substantive administrative law. Additionally, European Union law and its own guarantee of effective remedies (Article 47 EU Charter of Fundamental Rights) bears influence on the administrative procedural law. The European Court of Justice seeks to give shape to partly vague European common standards of judicial review and its institutional settings.\u0000 The so-called refugee burdened the administrative courts, as the number of asylum cases greatly increased by hundreds of thousands since 2016. The courts struggled to secure sufficient review of asylum decisions handed down by the federal administration under great strain, which diminished the quality and reliability of the administrative procedure and its fact findings. In the wake of the refugee crisis, the dormant provision enabling the administration to execute instant deportation orders has been tested against the guarantee of effective judicial protection. Another reference area that illustrates a shift within administrative procedural law is the complicatedly fabricated environmental law and its special provisions, which guarantee access to a court and effective review of administrative decisions (or omissions) that can affect the environment.","PeriodicalId":36848,"journal":{"name":"Verwaltung","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47158841","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
With Britain’s decision to leave the European Union, the question of the lasting legacy of a specific English administrative culture in the remaining member states arises. Although often treated as an import from the United States, this article argues that the British model of independent regulatory authorities is one of the most formative contributions to a common European administrative culture, forcing other EU member states to rethink fundamental ideas of democratic legitimacy. Taking national regulatory authorities in the energy sector as an example, this contribution shows how British approaches towards organisation and independence of these authorities played a decisive role in the drafting of the relevant EU directives. Consequently, only few changes in UK national legislation where necessary to comply, while in Germany major reforms were due, being the only member state in which no regulatory authority existed in the energy sector prior to the implementation of the EU directives. The analysis of these European requirements, the British influence on them, and the different ways of their implementation in the United Kingdom and Germany are the subject of this article.
{"title":"Europäisierung der Regulierungsbehörden im Energiesektor im Vergleich","authors":"J. Socher","doi":"10.3790/VERW.52.2.203","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3790/VERW.52.2.203","url":null,"abstract":"With Britain’s decision to leave the European Union, the question of the lasting legacy of a specific English administrative culture in the remaining member states arises. Although often treated as an import from the United States, this article argues that the British model of independent regulatory authorities is one of the most formative contributions to a common European administrative culture, forcing other EU member states to rethink fundamental ideas of democratic legitimacy. Taking national regulatory authorities in the energy sector as an example, this contribution shows how British approaches towards organisation and independence of these authorities played a decisive role in the drafting of the relevant EU directives. Consequently, only few changes in UK national legislation where necessary to comply, while in Germany major reforms were due, being the only member state in which no regulatory authority existed in the energy sector prior to the implementation of the EU directives. The analysis of these European requirements, the British influence on them, and the different ways of their implementation in the United Kingdom and Germany are the subject of this article.","PeriodicalId":36848,"journal":{"name":"Verwaltung","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47558898","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：