Open Access

The Covid-19 pandemic affects societies worldwide, challenging not only health sectors but also public administration systems in general. Understanding why public administrations perform well in the current situation—and in times of crisis more generally—is theoretically of great importance; and identifying concrete factors driving successful administrative performance under today‘s extraordinary circumstances could still improve current crisis responses. This article studies patterns of sound administrative performance with a focus on networks and knowledge management within and between crises. Subsequently, it draws on empirical evidence from two recent public administration surveys conducted in Germany in order to test derived hypotheses. The results of tests for group differences and regression analyses demonstrate that administrations that were structurally prepared, learned during preceding crises, and that displayed a high quality in their network cooperation with other administrations and with the civil society, on average, performed significantly better in the respective crises.

Verfolgen die Mitgliedstaaten der Europäischen Union bei der Umsetzung des Unionsrechts unterschiedliche Anpassungsstrategien? Der vorliegende Band untersucht die Veränderungen in der Verwaltungsorganisation und dem Verwaltungsverfahren aufgrund von Richtlinien im Bereich des Umweltschutzes sowie die Transformationswirkung von Richtlinien auf die nationale Regulierungsverwaltung im Energiesektor. Der Band versteht sich als ein Beitrag zur EU-Implementationsforschung.

This contribution examines how checks and balances can be organised so that individual freedoms of users in the digital space are protected from encroachment by platforms. Indeed, platforms are quasi-states which enjoy legislative, judiciary and executive powers. This merging of functions in the hands of one single entity illustrates the failure of the liberal attempt at setting up a cyberspace free of sovereign power: platforms are the new sovereign. Modern thinkers like Foucault and Habermas have examined how sovereigns in the past have seen their powers curtailed and the role that the birth of two distinct spheres, one public and one private, has played in this process. Traditional public economic law builds on this public-private dichotomy, leaving little room to conceptualize hybrids. Yet this paper shows that platforms are such hybrids. Building on an analysis of the activities taking places on platforms, as well as the rights at stake in platform governance, it finds that platforms’ immaterial locus is both political and economic, bundling public and private powers. Hence, this paper puts forward the idea that public economic law should seek to develop mirroring hybrid counter-powers: civil society especially should be conceptualized in the digital space, with its rights, duties and responsibilities, to foster balanced relationships between the various actors on platforms.

.

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.