Administrative Law of the USA and Germany: a comparison of their models, principles and doctrines

当我们谈到美国或英国法律中的行政法或德国法律中的Allgemeines Verwaltungsrecht时，我们使用的是法律结构。它是基于我们意识到的潜在假设、前提和期望，至少是潜意识的。我们可以期望这些假设作为我们法律话语的共同基础而为人所知和理解。然而，只有当我们与来自同一（我们自己的）法律秩序的律师交谈时，这一点才是正确的。相比之下，在比较法领域，卓有成效的思想交流的首要条件是首先确定假设，其次选择那些可能具有代表性的假设进行更仔细的研究，以帮助对方对各自的法律秩序形成一个总体概念。因此，我提出的这项研究的出发点是，不同的法律秩序对什么是行政有着不同的理解：在德国法律中，行政管理被理解为历史上发展起来的、预先存在的、复杂的联邦和州当局结构，以及地方和专业自治的自治实体。在这种背景下，司法、立法和学术的兴趣都集中于低级程序和更重要的个人决策结果：警察命令、建筑许可证、个人发放社会福利。高层的行政规则制定就不那么重要了。相比之下，在美国法律中，行政法的概念主要是指联邦一级（独立）机构的深远监管活动。当然，美国法律也必须处理警察命令、建筑许可等问题。然而，由于这个多样化的领域很难在管理学中找到解释。法律教科书。这种缺乏兴趣的例子，反过来，大多数教科书集中在程序问题上，特别是那些由行政程序法（APA）提出的问题，也加强了这种兴趣。因此，这项研究的中心假设是这些关于行政实际上是什么的不同背景思想以决定性的方式预先决定了作为一个整体的行政法概念以及不同的法律学说。这些无意识的关于正常案例的想法将不可避免地影响学术和司法理论，如美国法律中的非授权理论或德国的法律适用是一个更机械的过程的观点。本研究旨在澄清这些基本假设和前提与行政法基本理论之间的相互联系，重点关注行政决策程序、司法审查和信息法这三个核心问题。

When we speak of administrative law in US or UK law or of Allgemeines Verwaltungsrecht in German law, then we make use of a legal construct. It is based on underlying assumptions, premises and expectations that we are aware of, at least subconsciously. We can expect these assumptions to be known and understood as the common basis of our legal discourse. That, however, is only true as long as we speak to lawyers from the same (our own) legal order. In contrast, in the field of comparative law the foremost condition for a fruitful exchange of ideas is first to identify the assumptions and secondly to choose those for closer examination, which might be representative so as to help the counterpart develop an overall idea of the respective legal order. So the starting point of the study I propose to undertake is the fact that different legal orders have different understandings of what administration is: In German law Verwaltung is understood in organisational terms as the historically grown, preexisting and complex structure of federal and state authorities and autonomous entities of local and professional self-government. Against that background, judicial, legislative and academic interest alike focuses on low level procedures and more importantly results of individual decision-making: police orders, building permits, the individual grant of social benefits. High level administrative rule-making instead is not so important. By contrast, in US law the concept of administrative law primarily refers to far-reaching regulatory activities of (independent) agencies on the federal level. Of course US law must deal with police orders, building permits etc. as well. Yet as this diverse field can hardly be found explained in Admin. law textbooks. That lack of interest is exemplified and, in turn, also reinforced by the fact that most textbooks focus on procedural issues, especially those raised by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). So the central assumption of this study is that these different background ideas of what administration actually is predetermine in a decisive way the concept of administrative law as a whole and with regard to different legal doctrines. These unconscious ideas of what the normal case is will then invariably influence academic and judicial doctrines such as the non-delegation-doctrine in US law or the German idea that the application of the law is a more mechanical process. This study aims at clarifying the interconnections between such underlying assumptions and premises on the one hand and the fundamental doctrines of administrative law on the other hand, focussing on these three central issues: the procedures of administrative decision-making, judicial review, and information law.