是时候让行政程序法行政化了

IF 2.5 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW Cornell Law Review Pub Date : 2003-05-31 DOI:10.2139/SSRN.412584
E. Rubin
{"title":"是时候让行政程序法行政化了","authors":"E. Rubin","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.412584","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This Article argues that the Administrative Procedure Act needs to be rewritten because it was ill-conceived from its inception. Its central defect is that it fails to comprehend the essential character of the modern administrative state. Instead, the procedures it imposes on administrative action are based on pre-administrative models of governance, and particularly on the model of judicial implementation of law that administrative agencies were specifically intended to replace. This is true not only of the APA's requirements for adjudication, but also of its requirements for rulemaking. Worse still, the APA leaves the remainder of the administrative process, which it implicitly and inaccurately characterizes as informal adjudication, almost entirely unregulated. The recommendation is that the APA be redrafted in its entirety based on the standard, Weberian concept of bureaucratic governance. The most important feature of this concept is that administrative governance is organized around the principle of instrumental rationality. According to Weber, an action is instrumentally rational when it is based upon the actor's expectations about its consequences, that is, \"when the end, the means, and the secondary results are all rationally taken into account and weighed.\" Applied to administrative agencies, this means: first, that the statute should require that the agency must assess the goals that it defines for itself on the basis of their pragmatic consequences; and second, that the statute should require that the agency assess all other administrative actions, whether rulemaking, adjudication, or the manifold executive actions characterized as informal adjudication (targeting, advising, planning, deploying resources, etc.) on the basis of their ability to achieve goals specified by the agency or the agency's superior. In reviewing administrative action, courts should be guided by this principle. Supplementary principles, for both the agency and the court, can be derived from Weber's conception of the agency as an hierarchical, continuously operating organization with a defined jurisdiction staffed by full-time employees chosen on the basis of their credentials. Based on these ideas, the APA can be redrafted in a manner that recognizes the distinctive character of modern administrative governance.","PeriodicalId":51518,"journal":{"name":"Cornell Law Review","volume":"89 1","pages":"95"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2003-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"46","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"It's Time to Make the Administrative Procedure Act Administrative\",\"authors\":\"E. Rubin\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.412584\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This Article argues that the Administrative Procedure Act needs to be rewritten because it was ill-conceived from its inception. Its central defect is that it fails to comprehend the essential character of the modern administrative state. Instead, the procedures it imposes on administrative action are based on pre-administrative models of governance, and particularly on the model of judicial implementation of law that administrative agencies were specifically intended to replace. This is true not only of the APA's requirements for adjudication, but also of its requirements for rulemaking. Worse still, the APA leaves the remainder of the administrative process, which it implicitly and inaccurately characterizes as informal adjudication, almost entirely unregulated. The recommendation is that the APA be redrafted in its entirety based on the standard, Weberian concept of bureaucratic governance. The most important feature of this concept is that administrative governance is organized around the principle of instrumental rationality. According to Weber, an action is instrumentally rational when it is based upon the actor's expectations about its consequences, that is, \\\"when the end, the means, and the secondary results are all rationally taken into account and weighed.\\\" Applied to administrative agencies, this means: first, that the statute should require that the agency must assess the goals that it defines for itself on the basis of their pragmatic consequences; and second, that the statute should require that the agency assess all other administrative actions, whether rulemaking, adjudication, or the manifold executive actions characterized as informal adjudication (targeting, advising, planning, deploying resources, etc.) on the basis of their ability to achieve goals specified by the agency or the agency's superior. In reviewing administrative action, courts should be guided by this principle. Supplementary principles, for both the agency and the court, can be derived from Weber's conception of the agency as an hierarchical, continuously operating organization with a defined jurisdiction staffed by full-time employees chosen on the basis of their credentials. Based on these ideas, the APA can be redrafted in a manner that recognizes the distinctive character of modern administrative governance.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51518,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cornell Law Review\",\"volume\":\"89 1\",\"pages\":\"95\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2003-05-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"46\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cornell Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.412584\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"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":"Cornell Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.412584","RegionNum":2,"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: 46

摘要

本文认为,《行政程序法》从制定之初就存在着不合理的构想,需要重新制定。它的主要缺陷在于未能理解现代行政国家的本质特征。相反,它对行政行为施加的程序是基于行政前的治理模式,特别是基于行政机构专门打算取代的司法执行法律的模式。这不仅适用于《美国行政程序法》对裁决的要求,也适用于它对规则制定的要求。更糟糕的是,《行政程序法》将行政程序的其余部分——它含蓄而不准确地将其定性为非正式裁决——几乎完全不受监管。我们的建议是,《行政程序法》应该根据标准的韦伯式的官僚治理概念重新起草。这一概念最重要的特征是行政治理是围绕工具理性原则组织起来的。根据韦伯的观点,当一个行为基于行为人对其后果的预期时,它就是工具理性的,也就是说,“当目的、手段和次要结果都被理性地考虑和权衡时。”适用于行政机构,这意味着:第一,规约应要求该机构必须根据其实际后果评估它为自己确定的目标;其次,法规应要求机构评估所有其他行政行为,无论是规则制定、裁决,还是以非正式裁决(目标、建议、规划、部署资源等)为特征的多种行政行为,其基础是它们实现机构或机构上级指定目标的能力。法院在审查行政行为时应遵循这一原则。对于行政机关和法院来说,补充原则可以从韦伯的概念中衍生出来,即行政机关是一个等级森严、持续运作的组织,拥有明确的管辖权,由根据其资历选择的全职雇员组成。在这些思想的基础上,《行政程序法》可以以一种承认现代行政治理特征的方式重新起草。
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
It's Time to Make the Administrative Procedure Act Administrative
This Article argues that the Administrative Procedure Act needs to be rewritten because it was ill-conceived from its inception. Its central defect is that it fails to comprehend the essential character of the modern administrative state. Instead, the procedures it imposes on administrative action are based on pre-administrative models of governance, and particularly on the model of judicial implementation of law that administrative agencies were specifically intended to replace. This is true not only of the APA's requirements for adjudication, but also of its requirements for rulemaking. Worse still, the APA leaves the remainder of the administrative process, which it implicitly and inaccurately characterizes as informal adjudication, almost entirely unregulated. The recommendation is that the APA be redrafted in its entirety based on the standard, Weberian concept of bureaucratic governance. The most important feature of this concept is that administrative governance is organized around the principle of instrumental rationality. According to Weber, an action is instrumentally rational when it is based upon the actor's expectations about its consequences, that is, "when the end, the means, and the secondary results are all rationally taken into account and weighed." Applied to administrative agencies, this means: first, that the statute should require that the agency must assess the goals that it defines for itself on the basis of their pragmatic consequences; and second, that the statute should require that the agency assess all other administrative actions, whether rulemaking, adjudication, or the manifold executive actions characterized as informal adjudication (targeting, advising, planning, deploying resources, etc.) on the basis of their ability to achieve goals specified by the agency or the agency's superior. In reviewing administrative action, courts should be guided by this principle. Supplementary principles, for both the agency and the court, can be derived from Weber's conception of the agency as an hierarchical, continuously operating organization with a defined jurisdiction staffed by full-time employees chosen on the basis of their credentials. Based on these ideas, the APA can be redrafted in a manner that recognizes the distinctive character of modern administrative governance.
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
1.60
自引率
4.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Founded in 1915, the Cornell Law Review is a student-run and student-edited journal that strives to publish novel scholarship that will have an immediate and lasting impact on the legal community. The Cornell Law Review publishes six issues annually consisting of articles, essays, book reviews, and student notes.
期刊最新文献
The Health Security Act: coercion and distrust for the market. Laws Intentionally Favoring Mainstream Religions: An Unhelpful Comparison to Race The Role of History in Constitutional Interpretation: A Case Study Making state civil procedure Stricken: the Need for Positive Statutory Law to Prevent Discriminatory Peremptory Strikes of Disabled Jurors.
×
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