新西兰的机构法律改革:独立的重要性

G. McLay
{"title":"新西兰的机构法律改革:独立的重要性","authors":"G. McLay","doi":"10.1080/20508840.2018.1475900","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In this article, Geoff McLay, a former New Zealand Law Commissioner, asks what distinguishes Law Commissions from government agencies through which Governments might seek to reform the law. He does this by examining the work of the New Zealand Law Commission within the context of reform generally within New Zealand in order to establish what the Law Commission adds to the general policy and law-making machinery. Professor McLay argues that the work of the Commission, and its success (and failures), can be usefully viewed through two lenses of identity and process. The identity lens points to the aspects of the Commission’s work that come from it being a ‘Law Commission’ and explains much of its work in the area of ‘lawyers’ law reform'. The process lens which focuses on the Commission’s independence from Government policy control explains the Commission’s ability to take on non traditional projects. He argues that it is this independence, albeit imperfect, that makes the Law Commission a valuable part of the law-making scene that should not be necessarily restricted to ‘lawyers’ law reform'.","PeriodicalId":42455,"journal":{"name":"Theory and Practice of Legislation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2018-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/20508840.2018.1475900","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Institutional law reform in New Zealand: the importance of independence\",\"authors\":\"G. McLay\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/20508840.2018.1475900\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT In this article, Geoff McLay, a former New Zealand Law Commissioner, asks what distinguishes Law Commissions from government agencies through which Governments might seek to reform the law. He does this by examining the work of the New Zealand Law Commission within the context of reform generally within New Zealand in order to establish what the Law Commission adds to the general policy and law-making machinery. Professor McLay argues that the work of the Commission, and its success (and failures), can be usefully viewed through two lenses of identity and process. The identity lens points to the aspects of the Commission’s work that come from it being a ‘Law Commission’ and explains much of its work in the area of ‘lawyers’ law reform'. The process lens which focuses on the Commission’s independence from Government policy control explains the Commission’s ability to take on non traditional projects. He argues that it is this independence, albeit imperfect, that makes the Law Commission a valuable part of the law-making scene that should not be necessarily restricted to ‘lawyers’ law reform'.\",\"PeriodicalId\":42455,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Theory and Practice of Legislation\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-05-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/20508840.2018.1475900\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Theory and Practice of Legislation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/20508840.2018.1475900\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Theory and Practice of Legislation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/20508840.2018.1475900","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在本文中,新西兰前法律专员杰夫·麦克雷(Geoff McLay)探讨了法律委员会与政府机构的区别,政府可以通过这些机构寻求法律改革。为此,他在新西兰国内普遍改革的背景下审查了新西兰法律委员会的工作,以便确定法律委员会对一般政策和立法机制的补充。麦克雷教授认为,委员会的工作及其成功(和失败)可以从身份和过程两个角度来看待。身份透镜指出了委员会作为“法律委员会”的工作方面,并解释了其在“律师的法律改革”领域的大部分工作。过程视角侧重于委员会独立于政府政策控制,这解释了委员会能够承担非传统项目的能力。他认为,正是这种独立性,尽管不完美,使法律委员会成为立法场景中有价值的一部分,不应该局限于“律师的法律改革”。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Institutional law reform in New Zealand: the importance of independence
ABSTRACT In this article, Geoff McLay, a former New Zealand Law Commissioner, asks what distinguishes Law Commissions from government agencies through which Governments might seek to reform the law. He does this by examining the work of the New Zealand Law Commission within the context of reform generally within New Zealand in order to establish what the Law Commission adds to the general policy and law-making machinery. Professor McLay argues that the work of the Commission, and its success (and failures), can be usefully viewed through two lenses of identity and process. The identity lens points to the aspects of the Commission’s work that come from it being a ‘Law Commission’ and explains much of its work in the area of ‘lawyers’ law reform'. The process lens which focuses on the Commission’s independence from Government policy control explains the Commission’s ability to take on non traditional projects. He argues that it is this independence, albeit imperfect, that makes the Law Commission a valuable part of the law-making scene that should not be necessarily restricted to ‘lawyers’ law reform'.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
10.00%
发文量
23
期刊介绍: The Theory and Practice of Legislation aims to offer an international and interdisciplinary forum for the examination of legislation. The focus of the journal, which succeeds the former title Legisprudence, remains with legislation in its broadest sense. Legislation is seen as both process and product, reflection of theoretical assumptions and a skill. The journal addresses formal legislation, and its alternatives (such as covenants, regulation by non-state actors etc.). The editors welcome articles on systematic (as opposed to historical) issues, including drafting techniques, the introduction of open standards, evidence-based drafting, pre- and post-legislative scrutiny for effectiveness and efficiency, the utility and necessity of codification, IT in legislation, the legitimacy of legislation in view of fundamental principles and rights, law and language, and the link between legislator and judge. Comparative and interdisciplinary approaches are encouraged. But dogmatic descriptions of positive law are outside the scope of the journal. The journal offers a combination of themed issues and general issues. All articles are submitted to double blind review.
期刊最新文献
Regulatory capture in energy sector: evidence from Indonesia Operationalisation of legislation and the will of legislators in the judgments of international courts of war crimes and post-war recovery Observing law-making patterns in times of crisis Exploring the relationship between law and governance: a proposal Governing during the COVID-19 pandemic
×
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