340 Recht
Refine
Year of publication
- 2020 (16) (remove)
Document Type
- Public lecture (5)
- Article (4)
- Part of a Book (2)
- Report (2)
- Book (1)
- Contribution to online periodical (1)
- Other (1)
Language
- German (12)
- English (2)
- Other Language (2)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (16)
Keywords
„Zwei Welten, ein Ziel?“
(2020)
Die öffentliche Verwaltung tritt in Evaluationsprozessen als Auftraggeberin, durchführende Instanz, Informationsquelle und/oder als Evaluationsgegenstand auf. Sie ist dabei durch ihre spezifischen Rationalitäten und Kommunikationsweisen geprägt, die häufig mit denen einer wissenschaftlich fundierten Evaluationsforschung kollidieren. So kommt es immer wieder zu Missverständnissen durch eine verzerrte Wahrnehmung und Kommunikation von Evaluationsergebnissen.
Der Vortrag in der Session des Arbeitskreises Verwaltung beschäftigt sich mit den besonderen Herausforderungen bei der Kommunikation zwischen der Ministerialverwaltung und Evaluatorinnen im Prozess der Gesetzesevaluation. Dabei werden auch mögliche Ansätze zur Verbesserung der Kommunikationsprozesse in den verschiedenen Phasen der Gesetzesevaluation vorgestellt.
Verfolgen die Mitgliedstaaten der Europäischen Union bei der Umsetzung des Unionsrechts unterschiedliche Anpassungsstrategien oder lassen sich die jeweiligen Regelungen zur Umsetzung eher situativ deuten? Der vorliegende Band untersucht in einem ersten Teil, welche Veränderungen in der Verwaltungsorganisation und dem Verwaltungsverfahren die Umsetzung von Richtlinien aus dem Bereich des Umweltschutzes in ausgewählten EU-Mitgliedstaaten bewirkt hat. Der zweite Teil befasst sich daran anknüpfend speziell mit der Transformationswirkung von Richtlinien auf die nationale Regulierungsverwaltung im Energiesektor. Der Band versteht sich als ein Beitrag zur EU-Implementationsforschung.
La gestione dell’emergenza pandemica in Germania è una sfida che mette alla prova il sistema democratico e federale, rivelandone i punti di forza e di debolezza.
Nel complesso, la risposta tedesca all’emergenza è stata gestita secondo i principi dello Stato di diritto e nel rispetto delle dinamiche del federalismo, con una pari attenzione sia alla prevenzione della diffusione del virus, sia ai danni al sistema economico dovuti alle misure anticontagio, accompagnando da subito le restrizioni a misure di sostegno. Il governo federale ha svolto un ruolo di coordinamento politico, rispettando il riparto delle costituzionale delle competenze legislative e amministrative, che vede i Länder protagonisti della gestione in concreto dell’emergenza sanitaria.
Le pesanti limitazioni dei diritti fondamentali dovute alle misure di contrasto hanno sollevato un acceso dibattito e sono state oggetto di un attento controllo giurisdizionale.
This contribution focuses on the analysis of the strategies adopted in Germany against the COVID-19 pandemic. The analysis is divided into two main issues represented by the virological containment of the pandemic on the one hand, and by the effort to stem the economic consequences of the containment measures on the other. This emergency has shown to be a real stress test for Germany, putting a strain on the federal division of competences, the democratic institutions as well as the protection of fundamental rights as a qualifying element of the rule of law.
Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) is already being employed to make critical legal decisions in many countries all over the world. The use of AI in decision-making is a widely debated issue due to allegations of bias, opacity, and lack of accountability. For many, algorithmic decision-making seems obscure, inscrutable, or virtually dystopic. Like in Kafka’s The Trial, the decision-makers are anonymous and cannot be challenged in a discursive manner. This article addresses the question of how AI technology can be used for legal decisionmaking and decision-support without appearing Kafkaesque.
First, two types of machine learning algorithms are outlined: both Decision Trees and Artificial Neural Networks are commonly used in decision-making software. The real-world use of those technologies is shown on a few examples. Three types of use-cases are identified, depending on how directly humans are influenced by the decision. To establish criteria for evaluating the use of AI in decision-making, machine ethics, the theory of procedural justice, the rule of law, and the principles of due process are consulted. Subsequently, transparency, fairness, accountability, the right to be heard and the right to notice, as well as dignity and respect are discussed. Furthermore, possible safeguards and potential solutions to tackle existing problems are presented. In conclusion, AI rendering decisions on humans does not have to be Kafkaesque. Many solutions and approaches offer possibilities to not only ameliorate the downsides of current AI technologies, but to enrich and enhance the legal system.
The article analyses the fully digitalized administrative procedures introduced by the reform of the General Administrative Procedures Act (Verwaltungsverfahrensgesetz – VwVfG) of 2017. This act is not an all-encompassing codification since the presence of several administrative procedures in the German legal system is dependent upon two factors: Germany’s federal structure, and its so-called "three columns system" comprising the General Administrative Procedures Act, tax procedure law and social law.
However, the legislator is committed to ensuring the uniformity of administrative procedure rules in every code in order to make their interpretation and use easier for administrations and judges. Following changes in tax law, a generalized introduction of robotic measures generated by algorithms was inaugurated in 2017, as it had become clear that mass procedures in tax law administration were particularly suitable for digitization.