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)
The purpose of this chapter is to delineate and analyse current adjustments of Public Private Partnerships (PPP) in Germany in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Based on current data and official material, road infrastructure PPP was analysed, as demand for transporta-tion services is highly sensitive to fluctuations of overall economic activity. Accordingly, they do not only offer a good illustration of the challenges encountered by PPP operators in gene-ral but also – as road infrastructure PPP in Germany exist in different designs – important lessons may be learned with respect to their respective resilience in extraordinarily adverse economic conditions. One finding from the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany is that the case for public–private partnerships (PPP) become more compelling, also as an integral element of a large-scale reform package to massively improve the resilience of public service delivery to citizens and companies alike. Another important insight from the pandemic and the politico-administrative countermeasures is that massive pressure – both financial and in terms of the workload on the human resources employed – has been placed upon existing PPP, especially in critical infrastructures. The principal reasons are unforeseen or unexpected changes in user behaviour, affecting demand, and more difficult access to funding. These new insights demonstrate the relevance of anticipation of such events in the PPP contract, and the role of preparation for practitioners on both the private as well as the public side. Moreover, the findings provide leeway for further research on how the public administration, in particular in a federal multilevel system, can strengthen knowledge management and information exchange between single entities and stakeholders, and the role of PPP units as potential gatekeeper within this system.
Democratization of good global governance: The EU's role in the Parliamentarization of trade policy
(2022)
The quest for good governance in trade relations occurs against the backdrop of an increa-sing politicization of trade policy. In the new reality of global value chains and servitisation, regulating trade goes far beyond technical issues of reducing entrance barriers, border measures and tariffs, but becomes a comprehensive endeavour of scrutinizing and policing behind-the-border political issues. Therefore, a call for raising the legitimacy of trade policy formulation and implementation rises. Hence, parliamentarisation of trade policy is ever more necessary. The EU's constitutional development and its practice in trade policy is a good example for more parliamentary involvement, which strengthens trade policy's legi-timacy, transparency, and public awareness. Thus, the EU indeed is, despite all weaknesses,
a pacemaker and hence good global actor to the benefit of democratisation of global trade governance, being an essential factor of good governance.
Wolfgang Weiss’ contribution on “Constitutional Challenges to EU Administrative Soft Law During the Covid-19 Pandemic and Some Proposed Remedies” Studies how during the Covid-19 pandemic, as EU member states struggled to deal with the pandemic, EU officials increasingly resorted to so-called “soft law” to provide guidance to member states. He concludes that, while there are benefits to using EU soft law for crisis management and domestic implementation of EU, he raises concerns regarding their challenges for democratic legitimacy and the rule of law. He contends that these challenges should be addressed by a legislative enactment that sets forth a general framework for the adoption of EU soft law, core elements of which should be stipulations of subsidiarity vis-a-vis executive rulemaking and minimum procedural, transparency and justification requirements for the adoption of Commission soft law. Their domestic effects and reviewability should be clarified as well.
The constitutions of the Lander contain similar provisions for the issue of Rechtsverordnun-gen based on Land legal acts. There are only a few rules on the procedure of the adoption of Rechtsverordnungen in the Grundgesetz and the land constitutions. The aim is to enable social groups to settle, under their own responsibility, the matters that concern them. The power to enact Satzungen is, thus, directly linked to the idea of self-government, which ex-plains the importance of Satzungen at local level. The principle of subsidiarity of the constitu-tional complaint as a criterion which may lead to the inadmissibility of a constitutional com-plaint directly challenging a legislative act also has an impact on the interpretation of proce-dural law applicable to regular courts. It has already been said that the BVerfG gives a clear priority to constitutional complaints challenging a judicial decision which leads to an indirect constitutional review of a legal act on which the decision is based via Article 100(1) GG.