Executive dominance in Covid-19 lawmaking has been a major trend worldwide. Governments have leveraged emergency prerogatives to boost their legislative powers, often sidelining the role of parliaments. The impact of executive lawmaking on fundamental liberties has been unprecedented. However, government’s capacity to exercise full legislative powers is not absolutely new to many European countries. |
Search result: 8 articles
Editorial |
Are Emergency Measures in Response to COVID-19 a Threat to Democracy? |
Journal | European Journal of Law Reform, Issue 4 2020 |
Authors | Franklin De Vrieze and Constantin Stefanou |
Author's information |
Article |
Governments as Covid-19 Lawmakers in France, Italy and SpainContinuity or Discontinuity |
Journal | European Journal of Law Reform, Issue 4 2020 |
Keywords | Covid-19, emergency legislation, executive lawmaking, parliaments, decree-laws and ordinances |
Authors | Elena Griglio |
AbstractAuthor's information |
Article |
The New Regulation Governing AIR, VIR and ConsultationA Further Step Forward Towards ‘Better Regulation’ in Italy |
Journal | European Journal of Law Reform, Issue 4 2019 |
Keywords | regulation, RIA, regulatory impact analysis, impact assessment, evaluation, consultation |
Authors | Victor Chimienti |
AbstractAuthor's information |
This article describes the scope and contents of the newly adopted regulation governing regulatory impact analysis (RIA) and ex post evaluation of regulation (ExPER) in the Italian legal system. The article shows that this regulation has the potential to improve regulatory governance in Italy. Not only does it introduce innovations designed to increase transparency and participation, especially through strengthened consultation and communication mechanisms, but it also aims to improve the quality and effectiveness of regulatory analysis and evaluation activities. How the new regulation will be applied in practice, however, remains to be seen. In the meantime, the new set of rules are a welcome addition to Italy’s Better Regulation policy. |
Article |
The Role of National Human Rights Institutions in Post-Legislative Scrutiny |
Journal | European Journal of Law Reform, Issue 2 2019 |
Keywords | National Human Rights Institution, parliament, legislation, reporting, post-legislative scrutiny |
Authors | Luka Glušac |
AbstractAuthor's information |
This article explores the role of national human rights institutions (NHRIs) in post-legislative scrutiny (PLS), a topic that has been notably neglected in existing literature. The present research demonstrates that (1) legislative review is actually part of NHRIs’ mandate and (2) the applicable international standards (e.g. Belgrade and Paris Principles) provide for their actorness in all stages of legislative process. The main hypothesis is that NHRIs have already been conducting activities most relevant for PLS, even though they have not often been labelled as such by parliaments or scholars. In other words, we argue that their de facto role in PLS has already been well established through their practice, despite the lack of de jure recognition by parliamentary procedures. We support this thesis by providing empirical evidence from national practices to show NHRIs’ relevance for PLS of both primary and secondary legislation. The central part of this article concentrates on the potential of NHRIs to act as (1) triggers for PLS, and (2) stakeholders in PLS that has already been initiated. The article concludes with a summary of the results, lessons learned, their theoretical and practical implications and the avenues for further research. |
Article |
Post-Legislative Scrutiny in a Non-Westminster ParliamentOpportunities, Challenges and Considerations |
Journal | European Journal of Law Reform, Issue 2 2019 |
Keywords | post-legislative scrutiny, parliamentary oversight, legislative process, Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, French Senate, Belgian federal parliament |
Authors | Jonathan Murphy and Svitlana Mishura |
AbstractAuthor's information |
Post-legislative scrutiny (PLS) has generated growing interest as a means both for strengthening the legislative process and for permitting parliament to more effectively integrate its legislative and oversight functions. Engagement throughout the cycle of legislative development, adoption and implementation enables parliament to assure laws are properly implemented and to rectify weaknesses either in original legislative conceptualization or in executive implementation. Carried out properly, PLS should improve governance and increase its democratic accountability. Recent attention to PLS has however focused mainly on its role and use in Westminster-type parliaments. This article explores PLS from the perspective of non-Westminster parliaments. It seeks to understand why PLS in non-Westminster parliaments has received comparatively less scholarly and parliamentary development practitioner attention. The article uses a case study of Ukraine to explore the context and challenges for effective PLS, a non-Westminster emerging democracy. It concludes by proposing rebalancing discussion of PLS to take better account of diverse parliamentary models and suggests approaches to supporting PLS development in parliaments where it has not previously been consistently used |
Article |
Post-Legislative Scrutiny as a Form of Executive OversightTools and Practices in Europe |
Journal | European Journal of Law Reform, Issue 2 2019 |
Keywords | scrutiny of law enforcement, ex-post impact assessment, parliamentary oversight of the executive, post-legislative scrutiny |
Authors | Elena Griglio |
AbstractAuthor's information |
Parliaments’ engagement in post-legislative scrutiny can be considered either as an extension of the legislative function or within the framework of the oversight of the executive. This article makes use of the latter view to assess how parliaments in Europe approach post-legislative scrutiny and to which extent this function can be regarded as a form of executive oversight. Although rules and practices of parliaments in this realm are remarkably heterogeneous, the focus on some selected parliaments (Italy, France, Germany, Sweden, and the European Parliament) reveals three different conceptual categories. In the ‘basic’ approach (passive scrutinizers), parliaments limit their role solely to the assessment of the ex-post scrutiny performed by the government and external agencies. Differently, parliaments willing to engage in a more proactive approach might choose either to act on an informal basis, establishing ad hoc research/evaluation administrative units (informal scrutinizers) or to address post-legislative scrutiny in a formal and highly institutionalized manner (formal scrutinizers). As a matter of fact, the practise of parliaments often combines characters of different categories. While in all of these approaches post-legislative scrutiny shows potential for executive oversight, only the third can potentially lead to a kind of ‘hard’ oversight. |
Editorial |
Introduction |
Journal | European Journal of Law Reform, Issue 2 2019 |
Authors | Franklin De Vrieze |
Author's information |
Research Note |
Moeten we de daklozen helpen, zelfs als ze dat niet willen? |
Journal | Res Publica, Issue 3 2018 |
Authors | Bart van Leeuwen and Michael Merry |
Author's information |