Due process of lawmaking: The United States, South Africa, Germany, and the European union

Due Process of Lawmaking: The United States, South Africa, Germany, and the European Union

Volumn , Issue , 2014, Pages 1-296

  Rose Ackerman, Susan ^a   Egidy, Stefanie ^b   Fowkes, James ^c  

^a YALE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR RESEARCH ON COLLECTIVE GOODS   (Germany)

^c UNIVERSITY OF PRETORIA   (South Africa)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84952905323     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781107338845     Document Type: Book

References (224)

1. Ittai Bar-Siman-Tov, Semiprocedural Judicial Review 6 Legisprudence 271 (2012).
2. Jon Elster, Forces and Mechanisms in the Constitution-Making Process 45
3. Duke Law J. 364 (1995).
4. Tom Ginsburg, Zachary Elkins, & Justin Blount, Does the Process of ConstitutionMaking Matter? 5 Annual Rev. of Law and Social Science 201 (2009).
5. David R. Mayhew, Congress: the Electoral Connection (1974, 2004);
6. David R. Mayhew, Parties and Policies: How the American Government Works (2008);
7. Morris Fiorina, Congress: Keystone of the Washington Establishment (1977, 1989).
8. Philip P. Frickey & Steven S. Smith, Judicial Review, the Congressional Process and the Federalism Cases: An Interdisciplinary Critique 111
9. Yale Law J. 1707, 1728-31 (2002). On blame avoidance, Christopher Hood, The Blame Game: Spin, Bureaucracy, and SelfPreservation (2011).
10. John Ferejohn & Charles Shipan, Congressional Influence on the Bureaucracy 6 J. of Law, Economics and Organization 1, 9-12-20 (1990).
11. William N. Eskridge Jr. & John Ferejohn, Making the Deal Stick: Enforcing the Original Constitutional Structure of Lawmaking in the Modern Regulatory State 8.
12. J. of Law, Economics and Organization 165 (1992), For critiques, see Susan Rose-Ackerman, Comment on Ferejohn and Shipans “Congressional Influence on Bureaucracy,” 6.
13. J. of Law, Economics and Organization 21 1990.
14. Peter L. Strauss & Andrew R. Rutten, The Game of Politics and Law: A Response to Eskridge and Ferejohn 8
15. J. of Law, Economics and Organization 205 (1992).
16. William N. Eskridge Jr. & John Ferejohn, A Republic of Statutes: The New American Constitution, 22-8 (2010).
17. Ethan Leib & Aaron-Andrew Bruhl, Elected Judges and Statutory Interpretation 79 University of Chicago Law Rev. 1215 (2012).
18. Alexander Tabarrok & Eric Helland, Court Politics: he Political Economy of Tort Awards 42 J. of Law and Economics 157 (1999);
19. Eric Helland & Alexander Tabarrok, Exporting Tort Awards 23 Regulation 21 (2000).
20. C. Gordon & Gregory A. Huber, Accountability and Coercion: Is Justice Blind When It Runs for Office? 48 American J. of Political Science (2004), 247-63;
21. Sanford C. Gordon & Gregory A. Huber, The Effect of Electoral Competitiveness on Incumbent Behavior 2 Quarterly J. of Political Science, 107 (2007).
22. Frank B. Cross, he Judiciary and Public Choice 50 Hastings Law J. 355 (1999);
23. Frank B. Cross & Emerson H. Tiller, Judicial Partisanship and Obedience to Legal Doctrine: Whistleblowing on the Federal Courts of Appeals 107 Yale Law J. 2155 (1998);
24. Richard L. Revesz, Environmental Regulation, Ideology, and the D.C. Circuit 83 Virginia Law Rev. 1717 (1997).
25. James Q. Wilson, The Politics of Regulation (1980);
26. Morris Fiorina, Legislative Choice of Regulatory Forms: Legal Process or Administrative Process 39 Public Choice 33 (1982).
27. Mathew D. McCubbins, Roger G. Noll, & Barry Weingast, Administrative Procedures as Instruments of Political Control 3 J. of Law, Economics and Organization 243 (1987)
28. Mathew D. McCubbins, Roger G. Noll, & Barry Weingast, Structure and Process, Politics and Policy: Administrative Arrangements and the Political Control of Agencies 75.
29. David E. Lewis, Presidents and the Politics of Agency Decisions: Political Insulation in the United States Government Bureaucracy, 1946-1997 (2003).
30. Jerry L. Mashaw, Reasoned Administration: he European Union, the United States, and the Project of Democratic Governance 76 George Washington Law Rev. 99, 111 (2007-8).
31. George Tsebelis, Veto Players: How Political Institutions Work (2002).
32. William M. Landes & Richard Posner, he Independent Judiciary in an Interest Group Perspective, 18.
33. McCubbins, Noll, & Weingast W, Administrative Procedures.
34. McCubbins, Noll, & Weingast W, Structure and Process.
35. Susan Rose-Ackerman, Controlling Environmental Policy: The Limits of Public Law in Germany and the United States, 7-17 (1995)
36. Susan Rose-Ackerman, Corruption and Government: Causes, Consequences and Reform, 163-4 (1999);
37. Alan Doig, Politics and Public Sector Ethics: he Impact of Change in the United Kingdom, in Political Corruption in Europe and Latin America 173 (Walter Little & Eduardo Posada-Carb, eds., 1996).
38. Susan Rose-Ackerman & homas Perroud, Policymaking and Public Law in France: Public Participation, Agency Independence, and Impact Assessment 19 Columbia J. of European Law 223 (2013).
39. Dawn Oliver, Regulation, Democracy, and Democratic Oversight in the UK, in The Regulatory State: Constitutional Implications 243-258 (Dawn Oliver, Tony Prosser, & Richard Rawlings, eds., 2010).
40. House of Commons, Canada, Questions of Privilege Relating to the Failure of the Government to Fully Provide the Documents as Ordered by the House, 40th Parliament, 3rd Session, March 2011. he same party was returned to power after the election with a stronger mandate.
41. Christian B. Jensen & Robert J. McGarth, Making Rules about Rulemaking: A Comparison of Presidential and Parliamentary Systems, 20
42. Fabian Wittreck, Parliamentary Law: he German Experience, in Constitutionalism and the Role of Parliaments 55, 61-7 (Katja S. Ziegler, Denis Baranger, & Anthony W. Bradley, eds., 2007).
43. Brannon P. Denning & Brooks R. Smith, Uneasy Riders: he Case for a Truth-in Legislation Amendment, 1999 Utah L. Rev. 957, 1005-24;
44. Pascale Cancik, Making Parliamentary Rights Effective: he Role of the Constitutional Courts in Germany, in Constitutionalism and the Role of Parliaments 239 (Katja S. Ziegler, Denis Baranger, & Anthony W Bradley, eds., 2007).
45. Adrian Vermeule, Mechanisms of Democracy, 229-44 (2007) (recognizing that Congress is a collection of individuals whose members face collective action problems and recommending several reforms).
46. John Martinez, Rational Legislating, 34 Stetson L. Rev. 547-590 (2005).
47. Lome Sossin, he Puzzle of Administrative Independence and Parliamentary Democracy in the Common Law World: A Canadian Perspective, in Comparative Administrative Law 205 (Susan Rose-Ackerman & Peter Lindseth, eds., 2010).
48. Peter Lindseth, Power and Legitimacy: Reconciling Europe and the Nation-State 4-14 (2010)
49. Jud Mathews & Alec Stone Sweet, All hings in Proportion? American Rights Review and the Problem of Balancing, 60 Emory L. J. 797 (2011).
50. Terry M. Moe & Michael Caldwell, he Institutional Foundations ofDemocratic Government: A Comparison of Presidential and Parliamentary Systems, 150 J. of Institutional and Theoretical Economics 171 (1994).
51. Daniel Halberstam, he Promise of Comparative Administrative Law: A Constitutional Perspective on Independent Agencies, in Comparative Administrative Law 185 (Susan Rose-Ackerman & Peter Lindseth, eds., 2010).
52. Robert Carnwath, Tribunal Justice - A New Start, 2009 United Kingdom Public L. 48.
53. Juan J. Linz, he Perils of Presidentialism, 1 J. Democracy 51 (1990);
54. Susan Rose- Ackerman, Diane A. Desierto, & Natalia Volosin, Hyper-Presidentialism: Separation of Powers without Checks and Balances in Argentina and the Philippines, 29 Berkeley J. of International Law 101 (2011);
55. Mariana Mota Prado, Presidential Dominance from a Comparative Perspective: he Relationship between the Executive Branch and Regulatory Agencies in Brazil, in Comparative Administrative Law 225 (Susan Rose-Ackerman & Peter Lindseth, eds., 2010).
56. Bruce Ackerman, We the People, vol. 1 Foundations (1991);
57. Bruce Ackerman, We the People vol. 2 Transformations (2000);
58. Bruce Ackerman, We the People vol. 3 The Civil Rights Revolution (2014).
59. Eskridge E & Ferejohn F, supra note 8, on super-statutes.
60. Daryl Levinson, Rights versus Votes, 121 Yale Law J. 1286 (2012).
61. Susan Rose-Ackerman, Controlling Environmental Policy: The Limits of Public Law in Germany and the United States (2005).
62. Adrian Vermeule, he Constitutional Law of Congressional Procedure, 71 U. of Chicago Law Rev. 361 (2004)
63. Peter L. Strauss, Rulemaking in the Ages of Globalization and Information: What America Can Learn from Europe and Vice Versa, 12 Columbia J. of European Law 645, 654-5 (2005-6).
64. Kevin M. Stack & Michael P. Vandenbergh, he One Percent Problem, 111 Columbia Law Rev. 1385, 1425-9, 1436-7 (discussing hands-tying internal rules and statutes);
65. Jerry Brito, Running for Cover: he BRAC Commission as a Model for Federal Spending Reform, 9 Georgetown J. of Law & Public Policy 131 (2011);
66. Jon D. Michaels, he (Willingly) Fettered Executive: Presidential Spinoffs in National Security Domains and Beyond, 97 Virginia Law Rev. 801, 893-4 (2011).
67. Aaron-Andrew Bruhl, Using Statutes to Set Legislative Rules Entrenchment, Separation of Powers, and the Rules of Proceedings Clause, 29 J. of Law and Politics 345 (2003)
68. Connor Raso, Agency Avoidance of Rulemaking Procedures Administrative Law Rev. (forthcoming 2015). Gramm- Rudman-Hollings, sect. 274
69. Philip P. Frickey & Steven S. Smith, Judicial Review, the Congressional Process, and the Federalism Cases: An Interdisciplinary Critique, 111
70. Ittai Bar-Siman-Tov, Semiprocedural Judicial Review, 6 Legisprudence 271 (2012).
71. Alberto Alemanno, he Emergence of the Evidence-based Judicial Reflex: A Response to Bar-Siman-Tov’s Semiprocedural Review, 1(2)
72. David R. Mayhew, Congress: The Electoral Connection (1974);
73. Morris P. Fiorina, Congress; Keystone of the Washington Establishment (2nd ed., 1989);
74. Keith Krehbiel, Information and Legislative Organization (1991);
75. Victoria Nourse, Misunderstanding Congress: Statutory Interpretation, the Supermajoritarian Difficulty, and the Separation of Powers, 99 Geo. Law J. 1119(2011).
76. Evan Tsen Lee & Josephine Mason Ellis, he Standing Doctrine’s Dirty Little Secret, 107 Northwestern U. Law Rev. 161-170 (2012).
77. Bruce Ackerman, he Living Constitution, 120 Harvard Law Rev. 1727 (2007).
78. William Eskridge and John Ferejohn develop a broader category called “super statutes,” but they do not explicitly discuss the APA.
79. William Eskridge & John Ferejohn, A Republic of Statutes: The New American Constitution (2010).
80. Thomas McGarity, Some houghts on “Deossifying” the Rulemaking Process, 1992
81. Duke Law J. 1385, Richard Pierce, Seven Ways to Deossify Agency Rulemaking, 47 Administrative Law Rev. 59 (1995).
82. Laughlin Mcdonald, he Looming 2010 Census: A Proposed Judicially Manageable Standard and Other Reform Options for Partisan Gerrymandering, 46
83. Laughlin Mcdonald, he Looming 2010 Census: A Proposed Judicially Manageable Standard and Other Reform Options for Partisan Gerrymandering 1003-5.
84. Laughlin Mcdonald, he Looming 2010 Census: A Proposed Judicially Manageable Standard and Other Reform Options for Partisan Gerrymandering 1004.
85. Laughlin Mcdonald, he Looming 2010 Census: A Proposed Judicially Manageable Standard and Other Reform Options for Partisan Gerrymandering 997.
86. Laughlin Mcdonald, he Looming 2010 Census: A Proposed Judicially Manageable Standard and Other Reform Options for Partisan Gerrymandering 998
87. Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486-512 ff (1969).
88. Frederick van Tatenhove, A Question of Power: Judicial Review of Congressional Rules of Procedure, 76 Kentucky Law J. 597 (1987)
89. Stephen Raher, Judicial Review of Legislative Procedure; Determining Who Determines the Rules of Proceedings, ExpressO (2008), available at http://works.bepress.com/stephen_raherA.
90. Michael B. Miller, he Justiciability of Legislative Rules and the “Political” Political Question Doctrine, 78 California L. Rev. 1341 (1990).
91. Michael B. Miller, he Justiciability of Legislative Rules and the “Political” Political Question Doctrine, 78 California L. Rev. at 48-9.
92. Peter L. Strauss, Was here a Baby in the Bathwater? A Comment on the Supreme Court’s Legislative Veto Decision 1983 Duke. Law J. 789, 791-2
93. Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl, Return of the Line Item Veto? Legalities, Practicalities, and Some Puzzles, 10 J. of Constitutional Law 447 (2008).
94. David E. Pozen, he Leaky Leviathan: Why Government Condemns and Condones Unlawful Disclosures of Information, 127 Harvard Law Rev. (2013).
95. Robert F. Williams, State Constitutional Limits on Legislative Procedure: Legislative Compliance and Judicial Enforcement, 48 University. of Pittsburgh Law Rev. 797, 822-3 (1987)
96. Michael E. Libonati, Congress in Comparative Perspective: State Constitutions and Legislative Process; he Road Not Taken, 89 Boston University Law Rev. 863, 867-8 (2009)
97. Caleb Nelson, Judicial Review of Legislative Purpose, 83 New York University Law Rev. 1784, 1792, note 42 (2008).
98. Bruce Montgomery, Congressional Oversight: Vice President Richard B. Cheney’s Executive Branch Triumph, 120 Political Science Q. 581 (2005-6).
99. Michael D. Gilbert, Single Subject Rules and the Legislative Process, 67 University. of Pittsburgh Law Rev. 803 (2006).
100. Denning D & Smith S, Truth-in-Lending, supra note 92, at 834-6 (2011).
101. Richard J. Lazarus, Congressional Descent: he Demise of Deliberative Democracy in Environmental Law, 94 Georgetown Law Rev. 619 (2006).
102. Hans Linde, Due Process of Lawmaking, 55
103. Gerald Gunther, Foreword: In Search of Evolving Doctrines on a Changing Court: A Model for a Newer Equal Protection, 86 Harvard Law Rev. 1 (1972).
104. Emily Hammond Meazell, Scientific Avoidance: Toward a More Principled Judicial Review of Legislative Science, 84 Indiana Law J. 239-260 (2009).
105. Emily Hammond Meazell, Scientific Avoidance: Toward a More Principled Judicial Review of Legislative Science, 84 Indiana Law J. at 30.
106. Emily Hammond Meazell, Scientific Avoidance: Toward a More Principled Judicial Review of Legislative Science, 84 Indiana Law J. at 35.
107. Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, vol. 2, 533 (1833).
108. Robert W. Bennett, “Mere” Rationality in Constitutional Law: Judicial Review and Democratic heory, 67 California Law Rev. 1049-1072 (1979).
109. Jud Mathews & Alec Stone Sweet, All hings in Proportion? American Rights Review and the Problem of Balancing, 60 Emory Law J. 797 (2011).
110. Dan T. Coenen, A Constitution of Collaboration: Protecting Fundamental Values with Second-Look Rules of Interbranch Dialogue, 42 William & Mary Law Rev. 1575, 1755–72 (2001).
111. Dan T. Coenen, A Constitution of Collaboration: Protecting Fundamental Values with Second-Look Rules of Interbranch Dialogue, 42 William & Mary Law Rev. 1575, 1755–72. at 735–46.
112. Dan T. Coenen, A Constitution of Collaboration: Protecting Fundamental Values with Second-Look Rules of Interbranch Dialogue, 42 William & Mary Law Rev.765.
113. A. Christopher Bryant & Timothy J. Simeone, Remanding to Congress: he Supreme Court’s New “On the Record” Constitutional Review of Federal Statutes, 86 Cornell Law Rev. 328 (2001).
114. Bryant B & Simeone S, supra note 154;
115. Frickey F & Smith S, supra note 13, at 1708.
116. William W Buzbee & Robert A. Schapiro, Legislative Record Review, 54 Stanford Law Rev. 87 (2001).
117. William W Buzbee & Robert A. Schapiro, Legislative Record Review, 54 Stanford Law Rev. at 1709.
118. William W Buzbee & Robert A. Schapiro, Legislative Record Review, 54 Stanford Law Rev. at 384.
119. William W Buzbee & Robert A. Schapiro, Legislative Record Review, 54 Stanford Law Rev. at 2628–9.
120. William W Buzbee & Robert A. Schapiro, Legislative Record Review, 54 Stanford Law Rev. at 2638.
121. Abbe Gluck & Lisa Bressman, Statutory Interpretation from the Inside - An Empirical Study of Congressional Drafting, Delegation, and the Canons, Part I, 65 Stanford Law Rev. 901 (2013);
122. Abbe Gluck & Lisa Bressman, Statutory Interpretation from the Inside - An Empirical Study of Congressional Drafting, Delegation, and the Canons Part II, 66 Stanford Law Rev. 725(2014).
123. Matthew C. Stephenson, he Price of Public Action: Constitutional Doctrine and the Judicial Manipulation of Legislative Enactment Costs, 118 Yale Law J. 2, 42-55 (2008).
124. Stefanie Egidy, Casenote - he Fundamental Right to the Guarantee of a Subsistence Minimum in the Hartz IV Decision of the German Federal Constitutional Court, 12 German L.J. 1961 (2011).
125. Stefanie Egidy, Casenote - he Fundamental Right to the Guarantee of a Subsistence Minimum in the Hartz IV Decision of the German Federal Constitutional Court, 12 German L.J. at 197.
126. Stefanie Egidy, Casenote - he Fundamental Right to the Guarantee of a Subsistence Minimum in the Hartz IV Decision of the German Federal Constitutional Court, 12 German L.J. at 283–5.
127. Kevin M. Stack, he Irony of Oversight: Delegated Acts and the Political Economy of the European Unions Legislative Veto under the Treaty of Lisbon 2 Theory and Practice of Legislation 61 (2014).
128. Louis Fisher, he Legislative Veto: Invalidated, It Survives, 56 Law & Contemporary Problems 273 (1993).
129. Reuel E. Schiller, Reining in the Administrative State: World War II and the Decline of Expert Administration, in Total War and the Law: The American Home Front in World War II 185 (Daniel R. Ernst & Victor Jew, eds., 2002);
130. Martin Shapiro, APA: Past, Present, and Future, 76 Virginian Law Rev. 447 (1986);
131. George Shepherd, Fierce Compromise: he Administrative Procedure Act Emerges from New Deal Politics, 90 Northwestern Law Rev. 1557 (1996);
132. Joanna Grisinger, Law in Action: he Attorney General’s Committee on Administrative Procedure 20 J. of Policy History 379 (2012).
133. Wendy Wagner, Participation in the US Administrative Process, in Research Handbook on Comparative Law and Regulation (Francesca Bignami & David Zaring, eds., forthcoming 2015).
134. Steven J. Balla, Between Commenting and Negotiating, 1 J. of Law and Policy for the Information Society 59 (2004/2005)
135. Sidney A. Shapiro & Robert L. Glicksman, Congress, the Supreme Court, and the Quiet Revolution in Administrative Law, 1988 Duke Law J. 819, 839-40.
136. Steven Croley, heories of Regulation: Incorporating the Administrative Process, 98 Columbia Law Rev. 1-124 (1998).
137. Susan Rose-Ackerman, Putting Cost-Benefit Analysis in Its Place: Rethinking Regulatory Review, 65 University of Miami Law Rev. 335 (2011).
138. Kevin M. Stack, he Statutory Fiction of Judicial Review of Administrative Action in the United States, in Effective Judicial Review: A Cornerstone of Good Government 317, 319-20
139. Kevin M. Stack, he Statutory Fiction of Judicial Review of Administrative Action in the United States, in Effective Judicial Review: A Cornerstone of Good Government. at 66.
140. Kevin M. Stack, he Statutory Fiction of Judicial Review of Administrative Action in the United States, in Effective Judicial Review: A Cornerstone of Good Government. at 67.
141. Kevin M. Stack, he Statutory Fiction of Judicial Review of Administrative Action in the United States, in Effective Judicial Review: A Cornerstone of Good Government. at 68.
142. Richard Rawlings, Changed Conditions, Old Truths: Judicial Review in a Regulatory Laboratory, in The Regulatory State: Constitutional Implications, 283, 291-2 (Dawn Olivier, Tony Prosser, & Richard Rawlings, eds., 2010).
143. RichardMurphy, Chenery Unmasked: Reasonable Limits on the Duty to Give Reasons, 80 University of Cincinnati Law Rev. 817, 863-6 (2012).
144. E. Donald Elliott. Re-inventing Rulemaking, 41 Duke Law J. 1490, 1492–6 (1992).
145. Suzie navot, The Constitution of Israel: A Contextual Analysis (2014).
146. Antonin Scalia, he Rule of Law as a Law of Rules, 56 University of Chicago Law Rev. 1175 (1989);
147. Antonin Scalia, Common-Law Courts in a Civil-Law System: he Role of United States Federal Courts in Interpreting the Constitution and Laws, in A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law 3, 29-37
148. Nicholas R. Parrillo, Leviathan and Interpretive Revolution: he Administrative State, the Judiciary, and the Rise of Legislative History, 1890–1950, 123 Yale Law J. 266 (2013).
149. Antonin Scalia & Bryan A. Garner, Reading Law: he Interpretation of Legal Texts (2012).
150. William N. Eskridge Jr., he New Textualism and Normative Canons, 113 Columbia Law Rev. 531 (2013).
151. John F. Manning, Second Generation Textualism 98 California Law Rev. 1287 (2010).
152. SUSAN ROSE-ACKERMAN, RETHINKING THE PROGRESSIVE AGENDA: The REFORM OF the American Regulatory State, 43–79 (1992).
153. Jerry Mashaw, Constitutional Deregulation: Notes toward a Public, Public Law 54 Tulane Law Rev. 849.
154. Matthew R. Christiansen & William N. Eskridge Jr., Congressional Overrides of Supreme Court Statutory Interpretation Decisions, 1967-2011, Draft, Faculty Workshop, Yale Law School, January 27, 2014.
155. Maeve P. Carey, Congressional Research Service, Counting Regulations: An Overview of Rulemaking, Types of Federal Regulations, and Pages in the Federal Register 5 (May 1, 2013).
156. David C. Nixon et al., With Friends like hese: Rule-Making Comment Submissions to the Securities and Exchange Commission, 12 J. of Public Administration Research & Theory 59, 72-3 (2002)
157. Dennis Davis & Michelle Le Roux, Precedent and Possibility: The Use and (Ab)use of Law in South Africa (2009), chapter 1.
158. Daniel Halberstam, The Promise of Comparative Administrative Law: A Constitutional Perspective on Independent Agencies, in Comparative Administrative Law 185 at 196 (Susan Rose-Ackerman & Peter L. Lindseth, eds., 2010)
159. Peter L. Strauss, Rulemaking in the Ages of Globalization and Information: What America Can Learn from Europe, and Vice Versa, 12 Columbia J. of European Law 645-652 (2005-6).
160. Francesca Bignami, Creating European Rights: National Values and Supranational Interests, 11 Columbia Journal of European Law 241 (2005);
161. Giandomenico Majone, Two Logics of Delegation: Agency and Fiduciary Relations in EU Governance, 2 European Union Politics 103 (2001).
162. Johannes Saurer, Individualrechtsschutz gegen das Handeln der Europaischen Agenturen, 45 Europarecht 51 [hereinafter, Saurer, Individualrechtsschutz], 51 (2010).
163. Koen Lenaerts, he Principle of Democracy in the Case Law of the European Court of Justice, 62 Comparative Law Quarterly 271 (2013).
164. Stijn Smismans, Functional Participation in EU Delegated Regulation: Lessons from the United States at the EU’s “Constitutional Moment,” 12 Indiana J. of Global Legal Studies 599 (2005).
165. Stephen Breyer, Making Our Democracy Work: A Judge’s View (2010).
166. Susan Rose-Ackerman, From Elections to Democracy: Building Accountable Government in Hungary and Poland (2005);
167. Susan Rose-Ackerman, “Introduction,” in Economics of Administrative Law xiii, xxi-xxiv (Susan Rose-Ackerman, ed., 2007).
168. Joana Mendes, Delegated and Implementing Rule Making: Proceduralisation and Constitutional Design, 19 European Law J. 22 (2013) [hereinafter, Mendes, Proceduralisation].
169. Cosima Haselmann, Delegation und Durchfûhrung gemass Art. 290-291 AEUV 88, 54 (2012);
170. Jürgen Schwarze, Europarecht Strukturen, Dimensionen und Wandlungen des Rechts der Europaischen Union 701 (2012) [hereinafter, Schwarze, Europarecht] (calling non-legislative acts “quasi-legislative”).
171. Jürgen Bast, New Categories of Acts after the Lisbon Reform: Dynamics of Parliamentarization in EU Law, 49 Common Market Law Rev. 885-920 (2012)
172. Jürgen Bast, Handlungsformen und Rechtsschutz, in Europaisches Verfassungsrecht - THEORETiscHE und dogmatische Grundzüge 489-553 (Armin von Bogdandy & Jürgen Bast, eds., 2nd ed., 2009).
173. Schwarze, Europarecht, supra at 703.
174. Alexander H. Türk, Oversight of Administrative Rulemaking: Judicial Review, 19 European Law J. 126-134 (2013).
175. Stijn Smismans, European Civil Society; Shaped by Discourses and Institutional Interests, 9 European Law J. 473 (2003);
176. Francesca Bignami, hree Generations of Participation Rights Before the European Commission, 68 Law & Contemporary Problems 61, 72-3 (2004-5)
177. Commission Staff Working Document, Review of the Commission Consultation Policy, SWD(2012) 422 final, Strasbourg, 12.12.2012. Additional backing for this claim is in Mendes, Participation, at 1854-7.
178. Herwig C. H. Hofmann, Gerard C. Rowe, & Alexander H. Turk, Administrative Law and Policy of the European Union 326-31 (2011);
179. Deirdre Curtin, Herwig Hofmann, & Joana Mendes, Constitutionalising EU Executive Rule-Making Procedures: A Research Agenda, 19 European Law J. 1, 2-3 (2013).
180. Markus Mostl, Rechtsetzungen der europaischen und nationalen Verwaltungen, Deutsches Verwaltungsblatt [DVBl] 1076-1077 (2011);
181. Markus Mostl, Rechtsetzungen der europaischen und nationalen Verwaltungen, Deutsches Verwaltungsblatt [DVBl]. at 1083.
182. Herwig C. H. Hofmann & Alexander Türk, Die Ausübung übertragener Normset- zungsbefugnisse durch die Europaische Kommission, Zeitschrift fûr Gesetzgebung [ZG] 105, 108 (2012)
183. Christoph Mollers & Jelena von Achenbach, Die Mitwirkung des Europaischen Parlaments an der abgeleiteten Rechtsetzung der Europaischen Kommission nach dem Lissabonner Vertrag, 46 Europarecht 39-49 (2011)
184. Merijn Chamon, How the Concept of Essential Elements of a Legislative Act Continues to Elude the Court. Parliament v. Council, 50 Common Market Law Rev. 849
185. Paul Craig, Delegated Acts, Implementing Acts and the New Comitology Regulation, 36 European Law Rev. 671 [hereinafter, Craig, Delegated Acts] 672-4 (2011).
186. Francesca E. Bignami, he Democratic Deficit in European Community Rulemaking: A Call for Notice and Comment in Comitology, 40Harvard International Law J. 451 (1999);
187. Gijs Jan Brandsma, Deirdre Curtin, & Albert Meijer, How Transparent are EU “Comitology” Committees in Practice? 14 European Law J. 819 (2008).
188. Schwarze, Europarecht, How Transparent are EU “Comitology” Committees in Practice? at 702.
189. Hofmann, Rowe, & Türk T, How Transparent are EU “Comitology” Committees in Practice?, at 284-395.
190. Anne Meuwese, Ymre Schuurmans, & Wim Voermans, Towards a European Administrative Procedure Act, 2 Rev. of European Administrative Law 3, 10-12 (2009);
191. Patricia Popelier, Governance and Better Regulation: Dealing with the Legitimacy Paradox, 17 European Public Law 555 (2011)
192. Stijn Smismans, From Harmonization to Co-ordination? EU Law in the Lisbon Governance Architecture, 18 J. of European Public Policy 504, 516-19 (2011).
193. Verica Trstenjak & Erwin Beysen, Das Prinzip der Verhaltnismafiigkeit in der Unionsrechtsordnung, 47 Europarecht 265-273 f. (2012) (emphasizing the legislature’s discretion).
194. Peter hialmann, Zur Auslegung von Art. 263
195. Johannes Saurer, he Accountability of Supranational Administration: he Case of European Union Agencies, 24.
196. Johannes Saurer American University International Law Rev. 429 [hereinafter, Saurer, Accountability], 461-2 (2008-9).
197. Richard L. Creech, While the Advocate-General Finds Eurojust’s Language Rules for Job Applicants Partly Contrary to Union Law, the Court Dismisses Case for Lack of Standing. Decision of 15 March 2005 in Case C-160/03, Kingdom of Spain v. Eurojust 2 European Constitutional Law R. 147 (2006).
198. Craig, EU Administrative Law, While the Advocate-General Finds Eurojust’s Language Rules for Job Applicants Partly Contrary to Union Law, the Court Dismisses Case for Lack of Standing at 305-19 (2010) (reviewing the case law).
199. Craig, EU Administrative Law, While the Advocate-General Finds Eurojust’s Language Rules for Job Applicants Partly Contrary to Union Law, the Court Dismisses Case for Lack of Standing.
200. Craig, EU Administrative Law While the Advocate-General Finds Eurojust’s Language Rules for Job Applicants Partly Contrary to Union Law, the Court Dismisses Case for Lack of Standing. paras. 78-80.
201. Craig, EU Administrative Law, While the Advocate-General Finds Eurojust’s Language Rules for Job Applicants Partly Contrary to Union Law, the Court Dismisses Case for Lack of Standing. paras. 74-75.
202. Craig, EU Administrative Law, While the Advocate-General Finds Eurojust’s Language Rules for Job Applicants Partly Contrary to Union Law, the Court Dismisses Case for Lack of Standing. para. 78.
203. Craig, EU Administrative Law While the Advocate-General Finds Eurojust’s Language Rules for Job Applicants Partly Contrary to Union Law, the Court Dismisses Case for Lack of Standing. para. 88.
204. Craig, EU Administrative Law, While the Advocate-General Finds Eurojust’s Language Rules for Job Applicants Partly Contrary to Union Law, the Court Dismisses Case for Lack of Standing. para. 87.
205. Craig, EU Administrative Law, While the Advocate-General Finds Eurojust’s Language Rules for Job Applicants Partly Contrary to Union Law, the Court Dismisses Case for Lack of Standing. para. 97.
206. Craig, EU Administrative Law, While the Advocate-General Finds Eurojust’s Language Rules for Job Applicants Partly Contrary to Union Law, the Court Dismisses Case for Lack of Standing. para. 96.
207. Craig, EU Administrative Law, While the Advocate-General Finds Eurojust’s Language Rules for Job Applicants Partly Contrary to Union Law, the Court Dismisses Case for Lack of Standing. para. 102.
208. Craig, EU Administrative Law, While the Advocate-General Finds Eurojust’s Language Rules for Job Applicants Partly Contrary to Union Law, the Court Dismisses Case for Lack of Standing. para. 123.
209. Craig, EU Administrative Law, While the Advocate-General Finds Eurojust’s Language Rules for Job Applicants Partly Contrary to Union Law, the Court Dismisses Case for Lack of Standing. para. 133.
210. Craig, EU Administrative Law, While the Advocate-General Finds Eurojust’s Language Rules for Job Applicants Partly Contrary to Union Law, the Court Dismisses Case for Lack of Standing. para. 121.
211. Craig, EU Administrative Law While the Advocate-General Finds Eurojust’s Language Rules for Job Applicants Partly Contrary to Union Law, the Court Dismisses Case for Lack of Standing. paras. 163-72.
212. Craig, EU Administrative Law, While the Advocate-General Finds Eurojust’s Language Rules for Job Applicants Partly Contrary to Union Law, the Court Dismisses Case for Lack of Standing. para. 166.
213. Craig, EU Administrative Law, While the Advocate-General Finds Eurojust’s Language Rules for Job Applicants Partly Contrary to Union Law, the Court Dismisses Case for Lack of Standing. para. 169.
214. Craig, EU Administrative Law, While the Advocate-General Finds Eurojust’s Language Rules for Job Applicants Partly Contrary to Union Law, the Court Dismisses Case for Lack of Standing. para. 311.
215. Craig, EU Administrative Law While the Advocate-General Finds Eurojust’s Language Rules for Job Applicants Partly Contrary to Union Law, the Court Dismisses Case for Lack of Standing. 401–3.
216. Craig, EU Administrative Law, While the Advocate-General Finds Eurojust’s Language Rules for Job Applicants Partly Contrary to Union Law, the Court Dismisses Case for Lack of Standing. paras. 197–9.
217. Craig, EU Administrative Law, While the Advocate-General Finds Eurojust’s Language Rules for Job Applicants Partly Contrary to Union Law, the Court Dismisses Case for Lack of Standing. para. 199.
218. Craig, EU Administrative Law, While the Advocate-General Finds Eurojust’s Language Rules for Job Applicants Partly Contrary to Union Law, the Court Dismisses Case for Lack of Standing. para. 201.
219. Craig, EU Administrative Law, While the Advocate-General Finds Eurojust’s Language Rules for Job Applicants Partly Contrary to Union Law, the Court Dismisses Case for Lack of Standing. para. 63.
220. Craig, EU Administrative Law, While the Advocate-General Finds Eurojust’s Language Rules for Job Applicants Partly Contrary to Union Law, the Court Dismisses Case for Lack of Standing. paras. 68, 83, 86.
221. Craig, EU Administrative Law, While the Advocate-General Finds Eurojust’s Language Rules for Job Applicants Partly Contrary to Union Law, the Court Dismisses Case for Lack of Standing., para. 510.
222. Craig, EU Administrative Law, While the Advocate-General Finds Eurojust’s Language Rules for Job Applicants Partly Contrary to Union Law, the Court Dismisses Case for Lack of Standing. para. 29.
223. Craig, EU Administrative Law, While the Advocate-General Finds Eurojust’s Language Rules for Job Applicants Partly Contrary to Union Law, the Court Dismisses Case for Lack of Standing. para. 33.
224. Craig, EU Administrative Law, While the Advocate-General Finds Eurojust’s Language Rules for Job Applicants Partly Contrary to Union Law, the Court Dismisses Case for Lack of Standing. para. 46.