The Lawmaking Process as a Combination of Conditional and Unconditional

2020 ◽  
pp. 72-76
Author(s):  
G. N. Utkin
Keyword(s):  
Legislative Process ◽  
Complex Combination ◽  
Law Making

The article substantiates that lawmaking is a process characterized by a complex combination of conditional and unconditional. In spite of the predominance of the conditional in its characterization, there must always be something in it that is self-conditioned, immutable and irresistible, and is therefore capable of being the source of the unconditionality of the prescriptions that result from law-making. In modern States, the importance of conditional lawmaking is compensated by the unconditionality of procedural and procedural requirements underlying the organization of the legislative process.

11. The key functions of Parliament

2019 ◽  
pp. 229-254
Author(s):  
Anne Dennett
Keyword(s):  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Executive Power ◽  
Legislative Process ◽  
Government Action ◽  
The Public ◽  
Public Record ◽  
The Government ◽  
And Control ◽  
Law Making

This chapter identifies Parliament's primary functions of making law and scrutinising government action. Parliament's scrutiny of government has been defined as ‘the process of examining expenditure, administration, and policy in detail, on the public record, requiring the government of the day to explain itself to parliamentarians as representatives of the citizen and the taxpayer, and to justify its actions’. In the absence of a codified constitution and entrenched limits on executive power, the requirement for the government to answer to Parliament for its actions acts as a check and control. The chapter also considers the legislative process, particularly legislative scrutiny. Secondary legislation made by the government can often be subject to much less scrutiny and debate than primary legislation, and sometimes none at all. These scrutiny gaps increase the risk of arbitrary law-making and ‘governing from the shadows’, again raising rule of law concerns.

5. Parliamentary sovereignty

2019 ◽  
pp. 99-123
Author(s):  
Anne Dennett
Keyword(s):  
Legislative Process ◽  
Bill Of Rights ◽  
House Of Commons ◽  
Legislative Power ◽  
Legal Limits ◽  
Parliamentary Sovereignty ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
The Uk ◽  
A Current ◽  
Law Making

This chapter focuses on parliamentary sovereignty. The term ‘Parliamentary sovereignty’ is normally defined as the ‘legislative supremacy of Parliament’. Since the constitutional settlement brought about by the Bill of Rights 1689, the UK Parliament has had unchallenged authority to create primary law. Parliament's legislative supremacy means, therefore, that there is no competing body with equal or greater law-making power and there are no legal limits on Parliament's legislative competence. Parliament has broad legislative power but cannot make unchangeable statutes, and a current parliament can reverse laws made by a previous parliament. Nobody but Parliament can override Acts of Parliament. The Enrolled Bill rule requires that, if a Bill has passed through the House of Commons and House of Lords and received royal assent, the courts will not enquire into what happened before or during the legislative process.

Law-Making by and for the People: A Case for Pre-legislative Processes in India

2019 ◽  
Vol 41 (2) ◽  
pp. 189-206
Author(s):  
Dipika Jain
Keyword(s):  
Citizen Participation ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Legislative Process ◽  
Court Case ◽  
Marginalized Communities ◽  
Deliberation Process ◽  
Societal Needs ◽  
The People ◽  
Transgender Persons ◽  
Law Making

Abstract Recent legislative trends in India reflect the need for a mandatory pre-legislative process. Pre-legislative consultation affords the benefit of legitimacy to laws arrived at through citizen participation. Furthermore, it informs decision-makers of the lived experiences of those most likely impacted by the legislation. Laws that receive pre-legislative consultation are attuned to realities, which increases the likelihood of their effectiveness. This article explores how several of India’s recent laws that received pre-legislative consultation have been rendered more robust and effective than others. As exemplified by current protests by transgender, intersex and gender non-conforming people in India, the Government’s most recent Transgender Bill, which neglected pre-legislative deliberation process, fails the people it purports to protect. As explored in this article, the Bill fails to uphold constitutionally protected principles, as recognized in the recent Supreme Court case that upheld transgender persons’ fundamental rights. As such, the Transgender Bill reflects a need to engage with the intrinsic and instrumental value of pre-legislative consultation and deliberation in India. In locating transnational trends towards employing such a process, this article argues that India would greatly benefit from mandatory pre-legislative consultation and deliberation. By creating a process that allows for citizen participation in law-making, particularly when such laws impact marginalized communities, legislation would reflect societal needs and eschew a top-down, majoritarian approach.

SOME PROBLEMS OF INCREASING SCIENTIFIC LAW-MAKING IN THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

2015 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 12-16
Author(s):  
Борисов ◽  
Aleksandr Borisov ◽  
Щеголева ◽  
Natalya Shchegoleva
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Legislative Process ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Law Making

Nowadays the problems associated with law-making in the Russian Federation as a whole, and its subjects in particular are of interest to science and practice. The authors argue the need to use the potential of scientists for training deputies and for increasing efficiency of the legislative process.

scholarly journals Criticisms toward the job creation bill and ethical reconstruction of legislators based on prophetic values

2021 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 144-160
Author(s):  
Ilham Dwi Rafiqi
Keyword(s):  
Public Participation ◽  
Social Ethics ◽  
Job Creation ◽  
Legislative Process ◽  
Top Down ◽  
Philosophical Approach ◽  
The Public ◽  
New Form ◽  
Law Making ◽  
Research Show

Post the issuance of Law Number 11 of 2020 concerning Job Creation, the public paid more attention by continuing to protest and criticize. This response occurred due to various legislative deviations noticed during the legislative process of the Job Creation Bill by not adhering to the principles and procedures for the formation of laws and regulations. The main cause for this deviation is due to the ethics of the legislators who are not thoroughly compliant and obedient toward the statutory regulations and social ethics. Legislators’ understanding of law and life tends to be influenced by materialistic-positivistic views that bring forth consumptive, hedonistic, and secular demeanors and behaviors. On this basis, this paper tries to criticize and reconstruct the legislators’ ethics in law-making. This study is using a normative juridical method and is supported by a philosophical approach. The outcomes of this research show that the process in the making of the Job Creation Bill tends to override the principle of transparency and public participation with a closed and hasty pattern so that it is a complete ulterior hasty agenda that prioritizes the concept of regulating and monitoring only (top-down). A work ethic based on prophetic values that are supported by the ground principles of a prophetic paradigm that includes humanization, liberation, and transcendence into a new form of construction to be able to create a better and just legislative process.

THEORETICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES OF LEGAL PREDICTION

2021 ◽  
pp. 5-11
Author(s):  
Karen V. Agamirov ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Scientific Activity ◽  
The State ◽  
Social Needs ◽  
Legislative Process ◽  
Atypical Pneumonia ◽  
Due Measure ◽  
Political Economic ◽  
Spiritual Phenomena ◽  
Law Making

The article explores the theoretical and practical aspects of predictability of the future of legal systems based on legal forecasting as a direction of scientific activity, designed to for-mulate the importance of new vectors of legal development for the state, society and the indi-vidual. By combining general theoretic, axiological, personal and instrumental methodological means and expanding the ideological field of jurisprudence, legal forecasting contributes to the realization of social needs and state interests. The conversion of theoretical paradigms of legal forecasting into the practical sphere is ensured by the creation of predictive models of regulations and the development of concrete proposals concerning the modernization of legis-lation to the law-making bodies. At present, there is every reason to speak about the significant shortcomings in the field of legal forecasting both in Russia and worldwide. A clear confirmation of this thesis is the fact that despite the predictability of the coronavirus pandemic (before it was atypical pneumonia, avian influenza, Ebola), no state was ready for full legal regulation in the context of the pan-demic and did not think through the legal ways out of it. Operational law-making was con-ducted everywhere through trial and error, creating internally contradictory and insufficiently effective legal regimes, creating excessive restrictions on human rights and simply legislative confusion, sometimes bordering on absurdities. The haphazardness of the legislative process, which legal forecasting is intended to put a barrier to, is expressed among other things in the number of laws adopted. The existence of a significant number of reference rules, supplements and amendments, "changes to changes" manifold hampers the application of rules, while the development of conceptual draft laws is practically an exception. At the federal level, there is no legal forecasting as a direction of scientific support for lawmaking, and planning is limited to the draft laws submitted to the upcoming session of the State Duma. The situation is no better at the regional level. All this shows that the system of public administration does not in a due measure rely on the powerful predictive potential inherent in the nature of law and legal thought, which includes the understanding of the nature of law and its diverse manifestations in real public life. It follows that the concept of legal forecasting has a universal and timeless significance. It brings together all general theoretical, axiological, personal and instrumental methodological means and provides the conditions for obtaining reliable forecasts regarding the dynamics of legal and related political, economic, social and spiritual phenomena and processes.

6. Parliamentary sovereignty

2021 ◽  
pp. 123-145
Author(s):  
Anne Dennett
Keyword(s):  
Legislative Process ◽  
Bill Of Rights ◽  
House Of Commons ◽  
Legislative Power ◽  
Legal Limits ◽  
Parliamentary Sovereignty ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
The Uk ◽  
A Current ◽  
Law Making

This chapter focuses on parliamentary sovereignty. The term ‘parliamentary sovereignty’ is normally defined as the ‘legislative supremacy of Parliament’. Since the constitutional settlement brought about by the Bill of Rights 1689, the UK Parliament has had unchallenged authority to create primary law. Parliament’s legislative supremacy means, therefore, that there is no competing body with equal or greater law-making power and there are no legal limits on Parliament’s legislative competence. Parliament has broad legislative power but cannot make unchangeable statutes, and a current parliament can reverse laws made by a previous parliament. Nobody but Parliament can override Acts of Parliament. The Enrolled Bill rule requires that, if a Bill has passed through the House of Commons and House of Lords and received royal assent, the courts will not enquire into what happened before or during the legislative process.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document