Canons of Interpretation as Substitutes of Causation in the Public Administration’s Rulemaking
In science the usual research and thinking are based on the cause-effect relations while in the law this approach is mainly used in adjudication and not in rule making. Within the latter causality cannot reach a scientific level, so there are substitutes of causation at work that are a base also for the canons of interpretation. Draft rules are in the majority of cases prepared by the public administration, but surprisingly there is a little emphasis of the public administration’s role at interpretation of the (draft and enacted) rules. The paper deals with reasons for the absence of causation in rule making, states the non-scientific substitutes of causation in rule making and points at the modus operandi of rule making in the absence of causality for which administrative deference is of crucial importance. The paper gives reasons for the absence of canons of interpretation in Europe and gives the most important canons of interpretation for the rulemaking in the public administration. This work can be more complex than judicial, because the element of institution’s impact is more present in the first.
Blackstone, W. (2011) Commentaries on the Laws of England: Book 1 The Rights of Persons (Indiana: Liberty Fund, Inc.).
Breyer, S. G., Stewart, R. B., Sunstein, C. R. & Vermeule, A. (2006) Administrative Law and Regulatory Policy: Problems, Text, and Cases, 6 edition (New York, NY: Aspen Publishers).
Cass, R. A., Diver, C. S., Beermann, J. M. & Freeman, J. (2011) Administrative Law: Cases and Materials, Sixth Edition, 6 edition (New York: Aspen Publishers).
Chapus, R. (1996) Droit Administratif Général (Paris: Montchrestien).
Craig, P. P. (2003) Administrative Law. 5th edition (London: Sweet & Maxwell).
Douglas, M. (1986) How Institutions Think. First Edition (Syracuse, N.Y.: Syracuse University Press).
Driedger, E. ( 1983) Construction of Statutes (Toronto: Butterworths).
Dworkin, R. (1978) Taking Rights Seriously. Fifth Printing edition (Cambridge: Harvard University Press).
Dworkin, R. (1986) Law’s Empire (Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press).
Dworkin, R. (1997) Freedom’s Law: The Moral Reading of the American Constitution (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press).
Dworkin, R. (2006) Justice in Robes (Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press).
Dworkin, R. (2013) Justice for Hedgehogs, Reprint edition (Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press).
Environment and Natural Resources Division (2014) Environment and Natural Resources Division (ENRD): Chevron, U.S.A. v. Natural Res. Def. Council (Washington: U.S. Department of Justice), available at: http://www.justice.gov/enrd/3591.htm (December 9, 2014).
Foucault, M. (1995) Discipline & Punish: The Birth of the Prison, 2nd edition(New York: Vintage Books).
Foucault, M. (2002) The Order of Things: Archaeology of the Human Sciences, 2 edition (London: Routledge).
Foucault, M. (2004) Naissance de la biopolitique (Paris: Seuil).
Fukuyama, F. (2002) Our Posthuman Future - Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution. Farrar, Staus and Giroux. 2002 (Farrar: Strauss and Giroux).
Hart, H. L. A. (1997) The Concept of Law, In:. Bulloch, P. & Raz, J. (eds.) The Concept of Law. 2nd edition (Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press).
Holmes, O. W. Jr. (2009) The Path of the Law (Auckland: The Floating Press).
Hume, D (2012) An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (Chicago: The Open Court Publishing Co.).
Jackson, V. (2006)Constitutions as ‘Living Trees’? Comparative Constitutional Law and Interpretive Metaphors, Fordham Law Review, 75(2), pp. 921- 960.
Kant, I. (1999) Critique of Pure Reason (Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press).
Kelsen, H. (2005) Pure Theory of Law (Clark, N.J.: The Lawbook Exchange, Ltd.).
Klatt, M. (2008) Making the Law Explicit: The Normativity of Legal Argumentation (Oxford; New York: Hart Publishing).
Kovač, P. (2014) Significance of and comparative trends in procedural regulation of right to information, Mednarodna revija za javno upravo, 12(2-3), pp. 31-45.
Llewellyn, K. N. (2008) The Bramble Bush: The Classic Lectures on the Law and Law School (New York: Oxford University Press).
Maccormick, D. N. & Summers, R. S. (eds.) (1991) Interpreting Statutes: A Comparative Study (Aldershot, Hants, England; Brookfield, Vt., USA: Dartmouth Pub Co.).
Mill, J. S. (2011) A System of Logic (Adelaide: eBooks@Adelaide).
Neumann, F. (1996) The Change in the Function of Law in Modern Society, In: Scheuerman, W., E. (ed.) The Rule of Law Under Siege: Selected Essays of Franz L. Neumann and Otto Kirchheimer (Berkeley: University of California Press), pp. 101-141.
Perelman, C. (1963) The Idea of Justice and the Problem of Argument (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul).
Popper, A., McKee, G., Varona, A. E. & Harter, P. (2010) Popper, McKee, Varona, and Harter’s Administrative Law: A Contemporary Approach, 2d. 2 edition (St. Paul, MN: West Academic Publishing).
Posner, R. A. (1993) The Problems of Jurisprudence (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press).
Posner, R. A. (2010) How Judges Think. Reprint edition (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press).
Posner, R. A. (2013) Reflections on Judging (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press).
Prigogine, I. & Stengers, I. (1984) Order Out of Chaos (New York, N.Y.: Bantam).
Raz, J. (1996) Ethics in the Public Domain: Essays in the Morality of Law and Politics, Reprint edition (Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press).
Raz, J. (2010) Between Authority and Interpretation: On the Theory of Law and Practical Reason (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Rose-Ackerman, S. (2010) Law and Regulation, In: Whittington, K. E., Kelemen, R. D. & Caldeira, G. A. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Law and Politics (Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press), pp. 576–594.
von Savigny, F. K. (1831) The Vocation of Our Age for Legislation and Jurisprudence (London: Littlewood).
Scalia, A. (1989) Judicial Deference to Administraitve Interpretations of Law, Duke Law Journal, 3, pp. 511-521.
Scalia, A. & Garner, B. A. (2012) Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts, 1 edition (St. Paul, MN: West).
Schwarze, J. (1992) European Administrative Law (Luxembourg; London: Sweet & Maxwell UK).
Shapiro, M. (2010) Law and Politics: The Problem of Boundaries, In: Whittington, K. E., Kelemen, R. D. Caldeira, G. A. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Law and Politics (Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press), pp. 767-774.
Siltala, R. (2011) Law, Truth, and Reason: A Treatise on Legal Argumentation, 2011 edition (Dordrecht Netherlands: Springer).
Simon, H. A. (1997) Administrative Behavior, 4th Edition (New York: Free Press).
Sordi, B. (2011) Révolution, Rechtsstaat, and the Rule of Law: Historical Reflections on the Emergence of Administrative Law in Europe, In: Rose-Ackerman, S. & Lindseth, P. L. (eds.) Comparative Administrative Law (Cheltenham, U.K.; Northampton, Mass.: Edward Elgar Pub.), pp. 23–36.
Spinoza, B. de & Hampshire, S. (2005) Ethics (London; New York: Penguin Classics).
Sunstein, C. R. (1998) Legal Reasoning and Political Conflict (New York: Oxford University Press).
Sunstein, C. R. (2011) Going to Extremes: How Like Minds Unite and Divide, Reprint edition (Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press).
Sutherland, J. G. (1891) Statutes and Statutory Construction (Chicago, Callaghan and company).
Thornton, S. (2014) Karl Popper, In: Zalta, E. N. (ed) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy [online encyclopedia], available at: http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2014/entries/popper/ (December 8, 2014).
Tridimas, T. (2007) The General Principles of EU Law, 2 edition (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Wade, W. & Forsyth, C. (2004) Administrative Law, 9 edition (Oxford; Oxford University Press).
Waline, J. (2010) Droit Administratif (Paris: Dalloz).
Wittgenstein, L. (1986) Philosophical Investigations 3RD Edition (Oxford: Basil Blackwell).
It is a condition that the authors assign copyright or license the publication rights in their articles, including abstracts, to Institute for Local Self-Government Maribor. This enables us to ensure full copyright protection and to disseminate the article, and of course Journal, to the widest possible readership in print and electronic formats as appropriate. Authors retain many rights under the Institutes' right policies, which can be found at journal.lex-localis.press. Authors are themselves responsible for obtaining permission to reproduce copyright material from other sources.