6. 原因:过程和实质

2区 法学 Q1 Social Sciences Administrative Law Review Pub Date : 2018-05-31 DOI:10.1093/HE/9780198714507.003.0006
Timothy Endicott
{"title":"6. 原因:过程和实质","authors":"Timothy Endicott","doi":"10.1093/HE/9780198714507.003.0006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This chapter illustrates the principle of relativity by explaining why public authorities may or may not be required to give reasons for their decisions, depending on the type of decision and its context. The reasons why public authorities should sometimes explain their reasons for a decision reflect the process values explained in Chapter 4: requiring reasons may improve decisions, it may be unfair (to a person affected by the decision) for the decision to be unexplained, and reasons may support judicial review, and may improve transparency and accountability in government in other ways. The discussions cover the deprivation principle, the duty of respect, trigger factors for reasons, the Padfield practicality principle, the content of reasons, how to remedy inadequate reasons, process danger, and the difference between process and substance, and why the difference matters.","PeriodicalId":51730,"journal":{"name":"Administrative Law Review","volume":"6 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"6. Reasons: process and substance\",\"authors\":\"Timothy Endicott\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/HE/9780198714507.003.0006\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This chapter illustrates the principle of relativity by explaining why public authorities may or may not be required to give reasons for their decisions, depending on the type of decision and its context. The reasons why public authorities should sometimes explain their reasons for a decision reflect the process values explained in Chapter 4: requiring reasons may improve decisions, it may be unfair (to a person affected by the decision) for the decision to be unexplained, and reasons may support judicial review, and may improve transparency and accountability in government in other ways. The discussions cover the deprivation principle, the duty of respect, trigger factors for reasons, the Padfield practicality principle, the content of reasons, how to remedy inadequate reasons, process danger, and the difference between process and substance, and why the difference matters.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51730,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Administrative Law Review\",\"volume\":\"6 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-05-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Administrative Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/HE/9780198714507.003.0006\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"法学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Administrative Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/HE/9780198714507.003.0006","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"法学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本章通过解释为什么政府当局可能需要或可能不需要为其决定提供理由来说明相对性原则,这取决于决定的类型及其背景。公共当局有时应该解释其决定原因的原因反映了第4章中解释的过程价值:要求理由可能会改善决定,解释决定可能是不公平的(对受决定影响的人),理由可能支持司法审查,并可能以其他方式提高政府的透明度和问责制。讨论内容包括剥夺原则、尊重义务、事由触发因素、帕德菲尔德实践性原则、事由的内容、不充分事由如何补救、过程危险性、过程与实质的区别以及区别为何重要。
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
6. Reasons: process and substance
This chapter illustrates the principle of relativity by explaining why public authorities may or may not be required to give reasons for their decisions, depending on the type of decision and its context. The reasons why public authorities should sometimes explain their reasons for a decision reflect the process values explained in Chapter 4: requiring reasons may improve decisions, it may be unfair (to a person affected by the decision) for the decision to be unexplained, and reasons may support judicial review, and may improve transparency and accountability in government in other ways. The discussions cover the deprivation principle, the duty of respect, trigger factors for reasons, the Padfield practicality principle, the content of reasons, how to remedy inadequate reasons, process danger, and the difference between process and substance, and why the difference matters.
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
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Approach of the Administrative Court of Justice regarding to Extension of the Effect of Annulment of Regulations to the Time of Approval Analysis of the Effect of Whistleblowing on the Fiscal Discipline of Govermental companies Investigating the Requirements of the Decentralization System in the Social Security Organization Legislative policy of Iran Customs Law and its damages Investigating the violation of individuals' rights; An independent and neglected direction in the judicial supervision of the General Assembly of the Court of Administrative Justice
×
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