What is Global Administrative Law (DAG)? Why “global”? Is there any truly innovative component of this field that justifies the naming? Universal Administrative Law (DAG) and, in particular, its “universal” qualification usually generates some strangeness among administrative law scholars. In its classical concept, coming from continental Europe, administrative law appeared as a legal form for organizing and exploiting the activities of the state apparatus: a branch, therefore, rooted in the structures of the state apparatus and in the everyday reality of administration. Activity.
In addition, propagandists familiar with the principle of territoriality, which defines the exercise of public power within the boundaries of the territory of a sovereign state, have difficulty locating the so-called “global legal space”, in which power is presumably included. DAG standard.
There is an interconnected suspicion among the “skeptical” internationalists.[1], who are still “cutting their noses” with regard to the supposed independence of the Development Agenda Group in the face of public international law, an area established under the primacy of the sovereignty of national states and central, not to mention the “inability,” treaty figures and law.
The DAG Analytical proposal appeared in 2005 with the publication of seminal paper The emergence of global administrative law القانون[2]. In this paper The main lines of the theoretical field applied to governance mechanisms outside the local level, i.e. global governance, have been defined[3], assuming that the traditional instruments of public international law are no longer sufficient to regulate relations in the global sphere. a paper was a result global administrative law project, A very bold project led by Institute of International Law and Justice (IILJ) Yes New york university, led by a successful partnership between US Governor Richard Stewart and US resident scholar Benedict Kingsbury, as well as the participation of German Nico Krisch, is a clear presence on the European continent.
The analytical potential of the project and its innovative character aroused the interest of interlocutors from all over the world and with the most diverse profiles: enthusiasts, skeptics and critics. On the European continent, seminars were held in Viterbo in Tosya University, with the prominence of Professor Sabino Cassese, established the DAG bridges with the common law of the Continental Europe Matrix. In a more skeptical reading, the DAG also found dialogue with researchers from the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law, set up in Heidelberg, Germany. Not to mention the approaches of preachers located in other countries on the European continent, such as Spain, Portugal, the United Kingdom and France.[4]
However, the dialogue was not limited to the US/EU axis. A third method of dialogue, with a critical purpose, was created by researchers from institutions located in developing countries who intended to lend problems to development agenda theory on the basis of the dilemmas of “Southern globalization”. The main objective was the dissemination of research in order to strengthen the defense of the interests of these countries more effectively in the face of the actions of global and international agencies.
By way of illustration, works produced by Fundação Getulio Vargas Law School in São Paulo stand out.[5]fur Policy Research Center in Delhi (India), University of Los Andes School of Law in Bogota (Colombia), University of San Andres in Buenos Aires (Argentina), Tsinghua University School of Law in Beijing (China), School of Law The University of Cape Town (South Africa).[6]
Faced with such an ambitious project that has been able to simultaneously move the agendas of researchers and institutions with the most diverse positions, an interesting investigative situation is to test the analytical capacity of the DAG in what appears to be the most innovative: the classification and standardization of normative phenomena from non-governmental sources.[7]
Occurrence of the DAG normative proposal on normative categories from non-governmental sources, such as Standards Or private standards, hitherto ignored by current theoretical fields (I refer to public international law and administrative law) could strengthen the guidelines for filling the democratic deficit in the world arena and provide greater transparency for the production of this type of standards, particularly in its form such as The Standards It is rated and transparent regarding the activities of Monotheism of these organizations. Hence, the importance of critical readings from the context of the globalization of the South is also extracted, since Monotheism Verifiable in movements of organizational convergence in the context of legal globalization does not pass unaffected by the intense presence of the element of political discord and unequal relations between states.
“Friendly zombie guru. Avid pop culture scholar. Freelance travel geek. Wannabe troublemaker. Coffee specialist.”
