Refine
Document Type
- Article (16) (remove)
Language
- English (7)
- French (6)
- Other Language (3)
Has Fulltext
- no (16)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (16)
Proportionality in English Administrative Law: Resistance and Strategy in Relational Dynamics
(2021)
Proportionality is at the centre of heated debates in English administrative law. It has been adopted for matters pertaining to European law and the European Convention on Human Rights, but its use in other areas parts of English administrative law is highly contentious. While some arguments in favour or against applying proportionality in England are similar to those exchanged in relation to other legal systems (such as tensions between increased objectivity in judicial control over administrative action vs. the desirability of more limited control), other arguments are more specific to English administrative law. To understand the challenges encountered by proportionality in English administrative law, this paper adopts a contextual analysis, putting the emphasis on the relational dynamics framing the interactions between the main actors involved in the proportionality test. Paradoxically, this perspective rehabilitates the analysis of the legal techniques behind transplants such as proportionality: indeed, transplants are vehicles for legal changes in ways that go beyond the circulation of ideas across the world. Instead of being merely superficial and rhetorical, transplants engage deeply with the whole gamut of institutions and actors in a legal system, calling on them to rearticulate their implied and explicit relationships.
This note aims to provide a critical defintion of "sustancial changes" in the sense of the EU 2014/24 Directive on public procurement. (in Dutch)
Proportionaliteit
(2020)
This note aims to provide a short critical definition of the principle of proportionality as it is used in the EU procurement (in Dutch).
Onderaanneming
(2020)
This note aims to provide a short critical assessment of the regulation of supply chain in EU procurement (in Dutch).
Sous-traitance
(2020)
This note aims to provide a short critical assessment of the regulation of supply chain in EU procurement (in French).
Proportionnalité
(2020)
This note aims to provide a short critical definition of the principle of proportionality as it is used in the EU procurement (in French).
Modification du contrat
(2020)
This note aims to provide a critical defintion of "sustancial changes" in the sense of the EU 2014/24 Directive on public procurement. (in French)
This paper asks which legal tools digital operators could use to manage colliding rights on their platforms in a digitalised and transnational space such as the Internet. This space can be understood as a “modern public square”, bringing together actions in the digitalised world and their interactions with actual events in the physical world. It is then useful to provide this space with a discursive framework allowing for discussing and contesting actions happening on it. In particular, this paper suggests that two well-known legal concepts, proportionality and sanctions, can be helpfully articulated within that discursive framework. In a first step, proportionality, a justificatory tool, is often used to suggest a way for managing colliding rights. This paper argues that for proportionality to be useful in managing colliding rights on digital platforms, its role, scope and limits need to be better framed and supplemented by an overall digital environment which can feed into the proportionality test in an appropriate way. This can be provided, thanks to a second step, namely labelling in law the actions digital operators take as sanctions. Sanctions are the reactions organised by digital operators to bring back social order on the platforms. The labelling of these reactions under the legal category of “sanctions” offers a meaningful tool for thinking about what digital operators do when they manage colliding rights by blocking or withdrawing contents and/or accounts. As different types of sanctions can be distinguished, differentiated legal consequences, especially in relation to managing colliding rights, can be identified. Here the role played by the proportionality test can be distinguished depending on the type of sanctions.
In any case, for sanctions and proportionality to help address colliding rights on the modern public square, a discursive framework needs to be developed, which depends on the existence of relevant meaningful communities engaging in reflecting on the use of sanctions and proportionality.