메뉴 건너뛰기
.. 내서재 .. 알림
소속 기관/학교 인증
인증하면 논문, 학술자료 등을  무료로 열람할 수 있어요.
한국대학교, 누리자동차, 시립도서관 등 나의 기관을 확인해보세요
(국내 대학 90% 이상 구독 중)
로그인 회원가입 고객센터 ENG
주제분류

추천
검색

논문 기본 정보

자료유형
학술저널
저자정보
저널정보
이화여자대학교 법학연구소 법학논집 법학논집 제14권 제3호
발행연도
2010.1
수록면
229 - 247 (19page)

이용수

표지
📌
연구주제
📖
연구배경
🔬
연구방법
🏆
연구결과
AI에게 요청하기
추천
검색

초록· 키워드

오류제보하기
Under the Administration Procedure Act (APA), regulatory agencies are required to go through notice-and-comment rulemaking in promulgating regulations, and then subject its final regulation to judicial review if one or more party seeks to challenge the rule. This federal rulemaking procedure caused delays, costs and inefficiencies, and eventually resulted in the “ossification” of rulemaking. Negotiated rulemaking entered the limelight in the late 1980s and early 1990s as a promising alternative to conventional rulemaking procedures for federal agencies to address the ossification problem. Negotiated rulemaking is based on the idea that it would be more efficient and productive to have the parties seek to reach a consensus up front and forego all the subsequent dispute. Congress adopted the Negotiated Rulemaking Act (NRA) in 1990 that supported and outlined the process for agencies that opt to use it. The flaw of the conventional rulemaking procedure is that it is slow, inconvenient and time-consuming. Regulatory negotiation was expected to provide a more efficient, streamlined regulatory process that would produce better rules faster, and the rules would be subject to less litigation. However, it did not revolutionize regulation for the better, or even have a substantial impact, as it was expected. In addition, both of The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Department roteducation (DOe) reported some failure cases. It means that regulatory negotiation may not work as theoretically expected. Several conditions are required for regulatory negotiation to be effective. First, all affected interest must have an opportunity to participate in the rule formulation process. Second, not only must all interested parties participate in the negotiations, they must negotiate in good faith. Third, the issue should be ready and appropriate for negotiation meaning that the subject matter have to be sufficiently developed and narrow enough in scope that the parties can realistically resolve it. If these prerequisites for successful negotiation are met, regulatory negotiation may still be an opportunity for agencies to slightly improve the slow, expensive, and ineffective conventional system of regulation.

목차

등록된 정보가 없습니다.

참고문헌 (15)

참고문헌 신청

함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문

논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!

이 논문의 저자 정보

최근 본 자료

전체보기

댓글(0)

0