“人民的友谊”:公民参与环境执法

IF 1.6 3区 社会学 Q1 LAW George Washington Law Review Pub Date : 2004-02-01 DOI:10.2139/SSRN.509105
M. Seidenfeld
{"title":"“人民的友谊”:公民参与环境执法","authors":"M. Seidenfeld","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.509105","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"There is a tension between citizen participation in environmental enforcement and an agency's discretion to choose the optimal balance between deterrence and cooperative approaches to enforcement. Citizen participation can reduce the costs of monitoring violations and their impacts and can pick up some of the burden of prosecuting violators. Cooperative enforcement can also reduce monitoring costs by encouraging regulated entities to provide information on their regulatory performance and can decrease those entities costs of compliance, as well focusing compliance on violations that cause net harm to the society. Cooperative enforcement, however, itself must be monitored to make sure that the agency does not abuse the discretion granted to it under this approach. At some level, however, citizen participation threatens effective use of cooperative enforcement. Although citizen participation provides a mechanism for controlling agency abuse under the cooperative enforcement model, such participation also scares regulated entities by empowering them to take unreasonable stands, and hence discourages companies from self reporting violations and acting candidly about what it will take to bring their plants into regulatory compliance. This article suggests three approaches to alleviate this tension and thereby capture the benefits of both citizen participation and a balanced model of enforcement. The article shows that although each of these three approaches - tripartism, corporatism and deliberative participation - holds some promise, each also raises significant concerns that prevent it from becoming the principal means of implementing participation in regulatory enforcement.","PeriodicalId":47068,"journal":{"name":"George Washington Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2004-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"'The Friendship of the People': Citizen Participation in Environmental Enforcement\",\"authors\":\"M. Seidenfeld\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.509105\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"There is a tension between citizen participation in environmental enforcement and an agency's discretion to choose the optimal balance between deterrence and cooperative approaches to enforcement. Citizen participation can reduce the costs of monitoring violations and their impacts and can pick up some of the burden of prosecuting violators. Cooperative enforcement can also reduce monitoring costs by encouraging regulated entities to provide information on their regulatory performance and can decrease those entities costs of compliance, as well focusing compliance on violations that cause net harm to the society. Cooperative enforcement, however, itself must be monitored to make sure that the agency does not abuse the discretion granted to it under this approach. At some level, however, citizen participation threatens effective use of cooperative enforcement. Although citizen participation provides a mechanism for controlling agency abuse under the cooperative enforcement model, such participation also scares regulated entities by empowering them to take unreasonable stands, and hence discourages companies from self reporting violations and acting candidly about what it will take to bring their plants into regulatory compliance. This article suggests three approaches to alleviate this tension and thereby capture the benefits of both citizen participation and a balanced model of enforcement. The article shows that although each of these three approaches - tripartism, corporatism and deliberative participation - holds some promise, each also raises significant concerns that prevent it from becoming the principal means of implementing participation in regulatory enforcement.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47068,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"George Washington Law Review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2004-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"George Washington Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.509105\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"George Washington Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.509105","RegionNum":3,"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: 3

摘要

在公民参与环境执法和机构自由裁量权之间选择威慑和合作执法方法之间的最佳平衡之间存在紧张关系。公民参与可以降低监督违法行为及其影响的成本,还可以减轻起诉违法者的负担。合作执法还可以通过鼓励受监管实体提供关于其监管绩效的信息来降低监测成本,还可以降低这些实体的合规成本,并将合规重点放在对社会造成净损害的违规行为上。然而,合作执法本身必须受到监督,以确保该机构不会滥用根据这种方法授予它的自由裁量权。然而,在某种程度上,公民参与威胁到合作执法的有效使用。尽管在合作执法模式下,公民参与提供了一种控制机构滥用的机制,但这种参与也使受监管的实体感到害怕,因为它们有权采取不合理的立场,因此阻碍了公司自我报告违规行为,也阻碍了公司坦率地说明如何使其工厂符合监管要求。本文提出了三种方法来缓解这种紧张关系,从而抓住公民参与和平衡的执法模式的好处。这篇文章表明,虽然这三种方法-三方主义、社团主义和协商参与-中的每一种都有一些希望,但每一种方法也都引起了严重的关切,使其无法成为实施参与监管执法的主要手段。
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
'The Friendship of the People': Citizen Participation in Environmental Enforcement
There is a tension between citizen participation in environmental enforcement and an agency's discretion to choose the optimal balance between deterrence and cooperative approaches to enforcement. Citizen participation can reduce the costs of monitoring violations and their impacts and can pick up some of the burden of prosecuting violators. Cooperative enforcement can also reduce monitoring costs by encouraging regulated entities to provide information on their regulatory performance and can decrease those entities costs of compliance, as well focusing compliance on violations that cause net harm to the society. Cooperative enforcement, however, itself must be monitored to make sure that the agency does not abuse the discretion granted to it under this approach. At some level, however, citizen participation threatens effective use of cooperative enforcement. Although citizen participation provides a mechanism for controlling agency abuse under the cooperative enforcement model, such participation also scares regulated entities by empowering them to take unreasonable stands, and hence discourages companies from self reporting violations and acting candidly about what it will take to bring their plants into regulatory compliance. This article suggests three approaches to alleviate this tension and thereby capture the benefits of both citizen participation and a balanced model of enforcement. The article shows that although each of these three approaches - tripartism, corporatism and deliberative participation - holds some promise, each also raises significant concerns that prevent it from becoming the principal means of implementing participation in regulatory enforcement.
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
1.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
2
期刊最新文献
The Jurisprudence of Justice Samuel Alito Measuring Computer Use Norms The Evolutionary Interpretation of Treaties and the Right to Marry: Why Article 23(2) of the ICCPR Should Be Re-Interpreted to Encompass Same-Sex Marriage Religion, Conscience, and Belief in the European Court of Human Rights Four Challenges Confronting a Moral Conception of Universal Human Rights
×
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