Spelling suggestions: "subject:"administrative law judge"" "subject:"dministrative law judge""
1 |
Administrative Law Judge Decision Making in a Political Environment, 1991 - 2007Taratoot, Cole Donovan 25 June 2008 (has links)
Unelected bureaucrats make a broad range of important policy decisions raising concerns of accountability in a democratic society. Many classics in the literature highlight the need to understand agency decisions at stages prior to the final vote by agency appointees, but few studies of the bureaucracy do so. To this point, scholars have treated the issue of shirking as one where laziness and inefficiency are the driving forces. However, it is more realistic to expect that shirking comes in the form of ideological resistance by administrators. I develop a theory that the independence afforded to the bureaucracy is functionally comparable to that of the judiciary, allowing for the insertion of individual attitudinal preferences by bureaucrats. Drawing from the attitudinal model of judicial research, I look at whether attitudes affect the decision making of administrative law judges at the National Labor Relations Board, the influence administrative law judge decisions have on reviewing bodies, and whether attitudinal decision making can be controlled by external political and legal actors. Results demonstrate that Democratic judges are more likely than Republican judges to rule for labor in unfair labor practice cases, administrative law judge decisions provide the basis for subsequent decisions of reviewing bodies, and that few political and legal controls exist over this set of bureaucrats. This research provides evidence that lower level bureaucrats make decisions based on their own political preferences and that these preferences have far ranging consequences for policy and law.
|
2 |
Les théories jurisprudentielles en droit administratif / Theories of case lawGliniasty, Jeanne de 06 October 2015 (has links)
Quels liens existe-t-il entre la théorie de l'imprévision, la théorie de la connaissance acquise, la théorie des circonstances exceptionnelles, ou encore celle des associations transparentes ? Le nombre important de théories répertoriées en droit administratif pour désigner des jurisprudences conduit à s'interroger sur cet usage établi et pourtant peu étudié. La première difficulté résulte du terme même de « théorie ». Loin d'être neutre, celui-ci est chargé de significations qui renvoient très directement à l'épistémologie des sciences et donne à une étude relative aux théories jurisprudentielles en droit administratif une dimension substantielle.Peut-on identifier et analyser un substrat commun à l'ensemble de ces théories ou s'agit-t-il d'une utilisation fluctuante et contingente ? En d'autres termes, peut-on parvenir à une signification unifiée du concept de théorie dans l'analyse de la jurisprudence ?L'identification des théories jurisprudentielles procède de la mise en lumière d'une catégorie réelle qui répond à des règles conventionnelles auxquelles le discours juridique semble se plier. Construites au cours d'un long processus impliquant l'ensemble des acteurs juridiques, elles sont reconnues comme produisant des effets de droit.En outre, les jurisprudences appelées « théories » révèlent des fonctions normatives communes. Plus précisément, elles constituent un instrument à la disposition du juge administratif dans la mise en œuvre du contrôle de légalité et contribuent ainsi à la vitalité du droit administratif.L'usage du mot « théorie » témoigne de surcroît d'une volonté dogmatique de faire voir le droit administratif et son histoire sous un angle linéaire et sans rupture. Il a accompagné tout le processus de construction d'une science distincte de celle du droit privé et concourt aujourd'hui encore à l'affermissement du droit administratif. L'étude des théories jurisprudentielles met ainsi en lumière certains enjeux fondamentaux pour la discipline. / What are the relationship between the imprevision theory, the "connaissance acquise" theory, the exceptional circumstances theory and the theory of "associations transparentes" ? The important number of identified theories in french administrative law for naming all the jurisprudences leads to inquire about a common use, however little explored. The first difficulty stems from the term of "theory" itself. Far from being neutral, this term embodies meanings which refer directly to the epistemology of sciences and give a substantive dimension to jurisprudential theories in administrative law.Can we identify and analyse a common ground of all these theories, or is that use only changing and casual ? In others words, an unified meaning of the concept of theory in the jurisprudential analyse can be established ?The identification of jurisprudential theories comes from the highlight of a real category which satisfies to conventional rules, and the legal discourse seems to follow them. Developped through a long process, they are recognized as theories which produce binding legal effects.Furthermore, administrative jurisprudences called "theories" reveal common normative functions. More precisely, they constitute an instrument for the administrative judge in order to implement the control of legality and contribute, in that way, to the vitality of administrative law.In addition, the use of the word "theory" underlines a dogmatical will to let show administrative law and its history in a linear way, without any discontinuity. It has accompagnied all the building process of a distinctive science from the common law, and it still contributes to the strenghtening of administrative law. Thus, jurisprudential theories raise fundamental issues for this matter.
|
3 |
Office du juge administratif et questions préjudicielles : recherche sur la situation de juge a quo / The role of the administrative judge and the question of preliminary issuesLebrun, Geoffroy 28 November 2014 (has links)
Les questions préjudicielles interrogent l’office du juge administratif qui les formule.Accessoires du procès au principal, elles pourraient être considérées comme des questions annexes etsecondaires. Cette étude de contentieux administratif, fondée sur l’analyse systématique de lajurisprudence administrative, vise à démontrer le contraire. Remarquables tant par leur variété que parleurs incidences sur le procès, les questions préjudicielles restent souvent perçues comme descomplications de procédure inutiles visant à retarder la résolution du litige. Cette étude prend le partid’expliciter comment le juge administratif au principal en vient à construire une question préjudicielle,et quel en est le fondement juridique. De ce point de vue, si les parties au litige jouent bien souvent unrôle essentiel dans le relevé d’une exception, c’est en dernière analyse, le juge au principal qui détientle pouvoir de formulation de la question. Par ailleurs, la mise en oeuvre des questions préjudicielles,traditionnellement présentée comme paralysant l’office du juge, apparaît sous un nouveau jour. Loind’immobiliser l’office du juge au principal, l’étude minutieuse du droit positif révèle les importantspouvoirs que possède encore le juge a quo dans la maîtrise du procès dont il est compétemment saisi.Enfin, la réception par le juge a quo de la décision préjudicielle correspond à un partage de lasouveraineté juridictionnelle impliquant l’édiction d’un acte juridictionnel issu d’un processus decodécision. Cette étude livre un éclairage sur le fonctionnement et la complexité d’un mécanisme icitraité sous l’angle de l’office du juge lorsqu’il se place en situation de juge a quo. Elle permetégalement d’envisager les principales problématiques juridiques relatives à la fonction juridictionnelle. / Preliminary issues challenge the role of the administrative law judge who formulates them.They are regarded as being accessory to the principle case at bar. They may even be perceived assecondary issues. This study of administrative litigation, based on a systematic analysis ofadministrative case law, aims to establish the opposite. Preliminary issues are characterized by theirdiversity as well as by their influence on the lawsuit, however, they are often perceived as useless andcumbersome procedural complications aiming to delay the resolution of the dispute. This study aimsto explicit the process by which the administrative law judge builds a preliminary issue and what is thelegal foundation of such an issue. From this angle, albeit the fact that the parties to the main disputeplay an essential role, it is the judge, who mainly retains the power to formulate the preliminary issue.This analysis challenges the traditional portrayal of preliminary issues as paralyzing the judicial“office”. To the contrary, far from immobilizing the “office of the judge”, an in depth study of positivelaw reveals the extensive powers that the judge a quo possesses with regards to the case at bar.Finally, the reception by the judge a quo of the preliminary ruling corresponds to a sharing of juridicalsovereignty implying the passing of a juridical act emanating from a process of co-decision. Thisstudy aims to shed light on the functioning and the complexity of a mechanism rarely examined fromthis angle. This study equally allows for an exploration of the main legal issues relating to the judicialfunction and the “Office” of the administrative law judge when placed in the situation of judge a quo.
|
Page generated in 0.1021 seconds