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所有法律时，我们就使用了法律解释。它基于我们意识到的潜在假设、前提和期望，至少是潜意识中的。我们可以期待这些假设被知道和理解为我们法律话语的共同基础。然而，只有当我们与来自相同(我们自己的)法律秩序的律师交谈时，这才是正确的。相比之下，在比较法领域，进行富有成效的思想交流的首要条件是首先确定假设，然后选择那些可能具有代表性的假设进行更仔细的审查，以帮助对方对各自的法律秩序形成一个总体概念。因此，我建议进行这项研究的出发点是，不同的法律秩序对行政管理有不同的理解：在德国法律中，Verwaltung在组织上被理解为联邦和州当局以及地方和专业自治政府的自治实体的历史发展、预先存在和复杂的结构。在这种背景下，司法、立法和学术界的兴趣都集中在低水平的程序上，更重要的是个人决策的结果：警察命令、建筑许可证、个人发放社会福利。相反，高级别的行政规则制定并不那么重要。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)机构的影响深远的监管活动。当然，美国法律也必须处理警察命令、建筑许可等。然而，由于这种多样化的领域很难在管理中得到解释。法律教科书。大多数教科书侧重于程序问题，特别是《行政程序法》提出的问题，这就是缺乏兴趣的例证，并反过来也加强了这一点。因此，本研究的中心假设是，这些关于行政实际上是什么的不同背景观念，决定了整个行政法的概念，以及关于不同法律学说的概念。这些关于正常情况是什么的无意识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原则，或德国关于法律适用是一个更机械的过程的观点。这项研究的目的是澄清这些基本假设和前提与行政法的基本原则之间的相互联系，重点关注这三个核心问题：行政决策程序、司法审查和信息法。

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.