LEGISLATION IMPACT ASSESSMENT BETWEEN LEGISLATIVE OUTPUTS AND LEGISLATIVE OUTCOMES: A LEGAL THEORETICAL CONTRIBUTION
0
조회
0
다운로드
1
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Before delving into the procedures or criteria for assessing the impact of specific legislation, a preliminary question must be addressed—a question that significantly shapes both the nature and goals of the entire assessment process: What precisely does one assess? Despite the pivotal nature of this question, a review of the current legal discourse, encompassing both legally binding documents and scholarship on impact assessment, reveals a lack of a clear answer. Given this scenario, the goal of this contribution is to employ legal theoretical analysis to elucidate the impacts that legislative impact assessment aims to evaluate. Consequently, it seeks to determine whether a distinction, and possibly a priority ranking, is necessary, at least from the perspective of legal discourse, among the criteria legislators must use when assessing the potential impacts of legislation before enactment. To achieve this objective, this contribution outlines a four-part approach to enhance legislative impact assessment. Part One stresses the importance of legal theory exploring both the formation and consequences of laws, critiquing the limited focus of risk analysis on economic, social, and cultural effects. Part Two highlights the need to differentiate between legislative outputs and outcomes in the assessment process, considering impacts within the legal system and broader societal effects. Part Three argues that, due to the legalization of legislative processes, legal logic dominates, emphasizing the necessity of evaluating legal impacts to assess legislation’s effects on the community. Lastly, Part Four proposes specific steps for improvement, including separating the assessment of legislative outputs, involving external legal experts, and integrating AI for more efficient and accurate legal analysis.
Abstract
Before delving into the procedures or criteria for assessing the impact of specific legislation, a preliminary question must be addressed—a question that significantly shapes both the nature and goals of the entire assessment process: What precisely does one assess? Despite the pivotal nature of this question, a review of the current legal discourse, encompassing both legally binding documents and scholarship on impact assessment, reveals a lack of a clear answer. Given this scenario, the goal of this contribution is to employ legal theoretical analysis to elucidate the impacts that legislative impact assessment aims to evaluate. Consequently, it seeks to determine whether a distinction, and possibly a priority ranking, is necessary, at least from the perspective of legal discourse, among the criteria legislators must use when assessing the potential impacts of legislation before enactment. To achieve this objective, this contribution outlines a four-part approach to enhance legislative impact assessment. Part One stresses the importance of legal theory exploring both the formation and consequences of laws, critiquing the limited focus of risk analysis on economic, social, and cultural effects. Part Two highlights the need to differentiate between legislative outputs and outcomes in the assessment process, considering impacts within the legal system and broader societal effects. Part Three argues that, due to the legalization of legislative processes, legal logic dominates, emphasizing the necessity of evaluating legal impacts to assess legislation’s effects on the community. Lastly, Part Four proposes specific steps for improvement, including separating the assessment of legislative outputs, involving external legal experts, and integrating AI for more efficient and accurate legal analysis.
참고문헌 (50)
- Abbot, A. A., "The System of Professions : An Essay on The Division of Expert Labor" (1988), University of Chicago Press
- Aidid, A., "The Legal Singularity : How Artificial Intelligence Can Make Law Radically Better" (2023), University of Toronto Press
- Besio, C., "Luhmann and Socio-Legal Research", pp.96~109 (2021), Routledge
- Biggs, S., "The Practice of American Public Policymaking" (2015), Routledge
- Bourdieu, P., "The Force of Law : Toward a Sociology of the Juridical Field", The Hastings Law Journal, 38(5), pp.814~853 (1987)
- Campbell, T., "Prescriptive Legal Positivism : Law, Rights and Democracy" (2004), UCL Press
- Castles, F., "Comparative Public Policy : Patterns of Post-war Transformation" (1998), Edward Elgar Pub
- Cormacain, R., "The Form of Legislation and the Rule of Law" (2022), Hart Publishing
- Cotterrell, R., "Law’s Community : Legal Theory in Sociological Perspective" (1995), Clarendon Press
- Cotterrell, R., "The Sociology of Law : An Introduction" (2005), Oxford University Press
- Friedman, L., "Impact : How Law Affects Behaviour" (2016), Harvard University Press
- Habermas, J., "Between Facts and Norms : Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law And Democracy" (1996), The MIT Press
- Hart, H. L. A., "The Concept of Law", pp.238~276 (1994), Clarendon Press
- Hofmann, H. C. H., "Administrative Law and Policy of the European Union" (2011), Oxford University Press
- Lane, J. -E., "The New Institutional Politics : Outcomes and Consequences" (2000), Routledge
- Levmore, S., "The Timing of Lawmaking", pp.227~246 (2017), Edward Elgar Pub
- Luhmann, N., "Law as a Social System" (2008), Oxford University Press
- Mader, L., "Evaluating the Effects : A Contribution to the Quality of Legislation", Statute Law Review, 22(2), pp.119~131 (2001)
- Masson, M., "Mapping Legal Innovation-Trends and Perspectives", pp.85~112 (2021), Springer
- McLeod, I., "Principles of Legislative and Regulatory Drafting" (2009), Hart Publishing
- Merton, R. K., "The Unanticipated Consequences of Purposive Social Action", American Sociological Review, 1(6), pp.894~904 (1936)
- Mousmouti, M., "Making Legislative Effectiveness an Operational Concept : Unfolding the Effectiveness Test as a Conceptual Tool for Lawmaking", European Journal of Risk Regulation, 9(3), pp.445~464 (2018)
- Poggi, G., "The Development of Modern State : a Sociological Introduction" (1989), Stanford University Press
- Posner, R. A., "Statutory Interpretation-in the Classroom and in the Courtroom", University of Chicago Law Review, 50(2), pp.800~822 (1983)
- Post, H. H. G., "Legal Risks in EU Law: Interdisciplinary Studies on Legal Risk Management and Better Regulation in Europe", pp.225~238 (2016), Springer
- Raccah, A., "Legal Risks in EU Law: Interdisciplinary Studies on Legal Risk Management and Better Regulation in Europe", pp.3~22 (2016), Springer
- Raz, J., "Oxford Essays in Jurisprudence (Second Series)", pp.278~304 (1973), Clarendon Press
- Schaffer, H., "Evaluation and Assessment of Legal Effects Procedures : Towards a More Rational and Responsible Lawmaking Process", Statute Law Review, 22(2), pp.132~153 (2001)
- Summers, R., "Essays in Legal Theory", pp.165~182 (2000), Kluwer Academic Publishers
- Teubner, G., "Law, Society and Economy: Centenary Essays for the London School of Economics and Political Science 1895-1995", pp.149~176 (1996), Clarendon Press
- Teubner, G., "Globalization and Public Governance", pp.71~87 (2004), Ashgate
- Tuori, K., "Critical Legal Positivism" (2002), Routledge
- Uhlmann, F., "Professional Legislative Drafters: Status, Roles, Education" (2016), Dike Verlag
- Van Hoecke, M., "The Philosophy of Law: An Encyclopedia", pp.459~461 (1999), Garland Publishing
- Van Hoecke, M., "Law as Communication" (2002), Hart Publishing
- Wahlgren, P., "Legislation in Context: Essays in Legisprudence", pp.77~94 (2007), Routledge
- Waldron, J., "The Dignity of Legislation" (1999), Cambridge University Press
- Walker, N., "Intimations of Global Law" (2015), Cambridge University Press
- Waluchow, W. J., "Inclusive Legal Positivism" (1994), Clarendon Press
- Weatherill, S., "The Limits of Legislative Harmonization Ten Years after Tobacco Advertising : How the Court’s Case Law has become a ‘Drafting Guide’", German Law Journal, 12(3), pp.827~864 (2011)
- Weber, M., "From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology", pp.129~156 (1991), Oxford University Press
- Williams, R. F., "State Constitutional Limits on Legislative Procedure : Legislative Compliance and Judicial Enforcement", Publius : The Journal of Federalism, 17(1), pp.91~114 (1987)
- Schartum, D. W., "Innovating Government: Normative, Policy and Technological Dimensions of Modern Government", pp.347~361 (2011), T.M.C. Asser Press
- Xanthaki, H., "Thornton’s legislative drafting" (2013), Bloomsbury Professional
- Xanthaki, H., "Drafting Legislation : Art and Technology of Rules for Regulation" (2014), Hart Publishing
- Zamboni, M., "Legislation in Europe: A Compre- hensive Guide for Scholars and Practitioners", pp.97~108 (2017), Hart Publishing
- Zekos, G. I., "Advanced Artificial Intelligence and Robo-Justice" (2022), Springer
- "Better Regulation Toolbox -July 2023 Edition" (2023)[URL]
- "“Consistency versus Innovation.” The Loophole -Journal of the Commonwealth Association of Legislative Counsel" (2009)[URL]
- "European Commission Legal Drafting in the Era of Artificial Intelligence and Digitisation, Directorate- General for Informatics Solutions for Legislation" (2022)[URL]