Refine
Document Type
- Article (16)
- Public lecture (15)
- Part of a Book (14)
- Review (3)
- Book (1)
- Part of a commentary (1)
- Contribution to a Periodical (1)
Language
- English (31)
- French (15)
- Other Language (3)
- German (2)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (51)
Transparency in France
(2017)
European Conference Public Administration (EGPA), Milan, 30th August-1st September, panel on Law and Administration (organised by D Drago, B Marseille and P Kovac). Paper from this presentation to be published with E Slautsky, ‘Freedom of Information in France’, in D Drago, B Marseille and P Kovac (eds), The Laws of Transparency in Action: A European Perspective (Palgrave) (ca. 17,000 words, submitted), a significantly longer version of this paper is available on ResearchGate and SSRN (ca. 22,000 words). The SSRN paper was included in the Top Ten List for “PSN: Public Administration (Institutions)” on 04.10.2017 and in the Top Ten List for “International Administrative Law eJournal” on 19.10.2017.
En prenant pour repère le droit administratif français, cet ouvrage propose une approche comparée des droits des administrations de cinq États européens : l’Allemagne, l’Espagne, l’Italie, les Pays-Bas et le Royaume-Uni.
Une telle exploration horizontale a paru nécessaire, à l’heure où la doctrine européenne reconnaît l’émergence d’un droit administratif européen et que l’influence croissante des droits de l’Union européenne et du Conseil de l’Europe sur le droit de leurs États membres semble bien identifiée. L’intensité des échanges, notamment économiques, sociaux et culturels, se renforce entre ceuxci et impose une meilleure connaissance et compréhension réciproque. C’est particulièrement vrai pour le droit administratif dont « l’intelligence interne » – pour reprendre l’expression de Jean Rivero – se comprend à l’aune des influences croisées (européennes, transnationales, etc.) comme à celles des spécificités de l’histoire et des traditions juridiques nationales.
C’est afin de rendre compte de la richesse de cette construction que ce manuel offre une présentation claire des concepts, des techniques et des régimes juridiques qui articulent le droit des administrations dans les cinq Étatstypes étudiés. Il donne aux étudiants, praticiens et universitaires, les outils pédagogiques et analytiques afin de mieux comprendre les mutations actuelles des droits publics nationaux et européens.
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.
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.