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

当我们在美国或英国法律中谈到行政法或在德国法律中谈到一般法时，我们使用的是一种法律的结构。它基于我们意识到的基本假设、前提和期望，至少是潜意识的。我们可以期待这些假设作为我们法律的话语的共同基础而被认识和理解。然而，只有当我们与来自同一（我们自己的）法律的秩序的律师交谈时，这才是正确的。与此相反，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，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的秩序形成一个总体的概念。因此，我建议进行的研究的出发点是，不同的法律的秩序对什么是行政有不同的理解：在德国法律中，Verwaltung被理解为历史上成长的、预先存在的和复杂的结构，包括联邦和州当局以及地方和专业自治政府的自治实体。在这种背景下，司法、立法和学术界的兴趣都集中在低层次的程序上，更重要的是个人决策的结果：警察命令、建筑许可证、个人社会福利的发放。高层次的行政规则制定反而不那么重要。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、建筑许可证等。然而，由于这个不同的领域几乎找不到解释行政。法律教科书。这种缺乏兴趣的情况是一个例证，反过来，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，这一事实也加强了这种缺乏兴趣。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以决定性的方式预先确定了行政法作为一个整体的概念，并考虑到不同的法律的学说。这些关于正常情况是什么的无意识的想法将不可避免地影响学术和司法理论，例如美国法律中的非授权原则或德国的法律适用是一个更机械的过程的想法。本研究的目的是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.