Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Part of a Book (180) (remove)
Language
- English (180) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (180)
Keywords
- Good Administration (4)
- Pan-European Principles (3)
- Deutschland (2)
- EU (2)
- EuGH (2)
- Europäische Union (2)
- Verwaltungsrecht (2)
- delegated acts (2)
- differentiation (2)
- implementing acts (2)
- Academic Freedom, Social and Political Constraints (1)
- Administrative Law (1)
- Conseil d'Etat (1)
- Corporate Governance (1)
- CuriaTerm (1)
- Datenbanken (1)
- Datenschutz (1)
- EMRK (1)
- European Convention on Human Rights (1)
- European Union (1)
- European arrest warrant (1)
- Experiment (1)
- Extraterritorialität (1)
- Geheimdienst (1)
- Germany (1)
- Grundrechte (1)
- Grundrechtliche Natur von Rechten (1)
- IATE (1)
- Informationsfreihei (1)
- Internationalization (1)
- Korruption (1)
- Lustration (1)
- Mehrsprachigkeit (1)
- PPP (1)
- Pandemic (1)
- Parteienfinanzierung (1)
- Participation (1)
- Participaton (1)
- Politiker (1)
- Protokoll Nr. 16 (1)
- Public Administration (1)
- Public Private Partnerships (1)
- Public Value (1)
- Selbstorganisation (1)
- Staatsgeheimnis (1)
- Sustainability (1)
- Terminologie (1)
- Unionsrecht (1)
- Vergessenwerden (1)
- Wahlkampffinanzierung (1)
- Wissensintensive Zusammenarbeit (1)
- administrative modernization (1)
- algorithmic decision making (1)
- artificial intelligence (1)
- machine learning (1)
- pandemic, administrative modernization, Germany (1)
- third mission, academic freedom, knowledge and technology transfer (1)
- Öffentlicher Sektor (1)
Institute
- Lehrstuhl für Öffentliches Recht, insbesondere Europarecht und Völkerrecht (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Weiß) (28)
- Lehrstuhl für Hochschul- und Wissenschaftsmanagement (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Michael Hölscher) (22)
- Lehrstuhl für vergleichende Verwaltungswissenschaft und Policy-Analyse (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Michael Bauer) (21)
- Lehrstuhl für Öffentliches Recht, Staatslehre und Rechtsvergleichung (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Karl-Peter Sommermann) (20)
- Lehrstuhl für Öffentliches Recht, insbesondere deutsches und europäisches Verwaltungsrecht (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Ulrich Stelkens) (15)
- Seniorprofessur für Verwaltungswissenschaft, Politik und Recht im Bereich von Umwelt und Energie (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Eberhard Bohne) (7)
- Lehrstuhl für Politikwissenschaft (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Stephan Grohs) (6)
- Lehrstuhl für Volkswirtschaftslehre, insbesondere Wirtschafts- und Verkehrspolitik (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Andreas Knorr) (6)
- Lehrstuhl für Wirtschaftliche Staatswissenschaften, insbesondere Allgemeine Volkswirtschaftslehre und Finanzwissenschaft (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Gisela Färber) (5)
- Lehrstuhl für öffentliches Recht, insbesondere allgemeines und besonderes Verwaltungsrecht (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Jan Ziekow) (4)
Administrative justice and the rule of law have often been in tension. However, they have converged over time as the scope of administrative justice and the conceptions of the rule of law have shifted. This chapter starts with the historical connections between administrative justice and the rule of law. It then maps ways in which the rule of law is expressed when ad-ministrative justice is embedded within administrative organization and when it is organized as a system external to the administration. This approach highlights the diversity of technical solutions to recurring questions across three major administrative systems (namely England, France, and the United States). This analysis also leads to highlighting two new challenges for the rule of law: first, how the rule of law responds to various forms of increasing administra-tive repression, and second, how the rule of law responds to globalization at a time when no coherent global administrative justice system exists.
This chapter focuses on the impact of specific “administrative styles,” understood as the everyday routines of the organization, on the reform patterns in international organizations. Consolidators are hence primarily driven by positional rather than policy interests. Entre-preneurs combine the latter two types; they develop administrative routines that entail intensive bureaucratic advocacy in policy-making and a strong orientation toward institu-tional consolidation to strengthen the administration’s position. In contrast, the picture should be completely different for consolidators. Given consolidators’ dominant motivation to secure their institutional status and legitimacy, organizational reforms will to a far greater degree reveal patterns of emulation of dominant reform paradigms and reform ideas in their organizational environment. Public sector organizations adopted these reports from the private sector as a form of communication with external and internal stakeholders. Most reforms have been identified within the area of organizational reforms, for example, institutional adjustments of the directorates.
This chapter analyses the impact of the Internet and the shift in communication processes on the States’ obligations emerging from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). It claims that the environment created by the Internet is different from the traditional one; that is, it substantially empowers a range of private actors such as social media and other Internet platforms. That is why in the light of the actual development of the ECHR’s standards, both the strict distinction between positive and negative State’s obligations, and an overall prefe-rence for the latter are anachronistic. This chapter claims that it is crucial to keep developing European minimal safeguards in horizontal online relations when human rights violation is a result of a State’s non-compliance with the positive duty. Against this backdrop, this chapter centers around the influence of the Internet on the exercise and protection of selected human rights and the changing nature of communication processes, as well as the game-changing shift caused by the growing power of private actors. It also includes a detailed analysis of the scope and content of positive State’s obligations emerging from the use of the Internet, focusing on substantive obligations (i.e., the legal framework and the allocation of responsibilities), as well as on the issue of the public guarantees for online pluralism and procedural obligations (the duty to provide responses to allegations concerning online ill-treatment inflicted by private individuals).