七、法律化的风险与民主[123]
就全球化进行怀疑式的新功能主义或公共选择分析将认为所有的超国家机构都在谋求“权限最大化”，也就是试图增强他们自己的权力并且拓展他们影响力的范围。[124]这就是人们熟悉的“组织治、组织享”（government by organizations for organizations）的现象。[125]尽管博格纳姆采取的是不那么激愤的历史制度主义路径，[126]她还是得出，权利，包括程序性权利在内，满足的是超国家主体的利益。博格纳姆将这一推论适用于法院与恳求法院帮助促进自身议程的私方当事人身上，不过也适用于非政府组织与利益团体。国家也会促进那些他们所熟悉的权利和程序，像在国内那样尽可能地在国际裁判机构或国际官僚机构保护其国民的利益。例证就是，欧洲法院被推向了经济宪政主义的方向，这不仅仅是出于其自身的地位和立场，而且也是由其主要“对话者”推动的。[127]再者，像国际奥委会或者世界反兴奋剂机构等国际体育组织的程序，也趋向复制英美的正当程序规则，而这些规则是那些与最强大的国家和国际机构共事的运动员所熟悉的。尽管不太容易清除这种态度，但也并不必然会引出一种负面的解读。施耐德视全球化为“法律多元主义”之一种形式的观点，[128]在这里体现的基本上是一种温和的多元主义解决方式，至少具有辅助性原则这一方面的价值，依据辅助性原则，应当在尽可能贴近决定者的层面做出和解释决定。然而这一原则在目前的讨论中显然是缺位的，它当然是任何一种全球行政法体系的基础性原则。[129]
不过这是一种循环论证。其他不那么温和的情形促使人们不是那么担心民主正当性，而是担心责任性的问题。诸如食品安全委员会这样的自我规制机构的程序可能追求的是自我利益；政府官员间的跨国网络发展成为自私自利的小集团等。因为对民族国家在正在形成的全球经济与社会中作为宪法正当性的充分来源或是责任性的代理者的能力存在担心，所以“按照纯粹经济价值以外的价值判断，倘若不对这种权力进行以某种公共利益为导向的审查，那么全球性权力的发展……将永远不可能被认为是正当的”。[130]因为决定者逃避责任性实在是太容易了，民主也是脆弱的。
法律全球化的怀疑者关心的主要是架构而非原则问题。在现代民族国家，权力是“分配的”而且是“有限的”；在全球层面，权力正在扩散到公私主体的网络，逃脱民主政府和公法艰难确立的控制。这个世界不仅“本质上难以渗入以民主为基础的价值和公共利益或共同福祉（collective good）的观念，而且还无法产生人们所希望的公共政策结果”。[131]寻求能够支撑这样一种事业的价值体系一直就是本文首要的主题，不过因篇幅有限，不得不将民主政治这一关键问题略过。然而，能否形成具有这种民主性质的国际社会，仍然是让人非常怀疑的。[132]
全球行政法可以说正在形成的场所当中，首屈一指的是跨国的法院或其他不那么正式的裁判机制，例如世界贸易组织的争端解决专家委员会。这引出了“司法治理”或“法官统治”（government by judges）这种素有争议的问题。无疑跨国治理体系和人权公约的诞生已经导致了对法官全面的赋权。例如，欧洲法院作为负责选定、创制和颁布重要的基本法律原则的制宪者角色是无可争辩的。[133]另外，在人权的背景下，斯拉特谈到了“自由国家的共同体”，他们是由法院来促进人权的价值；她尝试建构一种跨司法沟通的类型，涵盖了法官就权利观念进行“轻松国际交流”的各种方式。[134]
但全球行政法能开启全球政治的天地吗？在一部颇有创见的研究法律与全球化关系的作品中，阿曼表现得很乐观。他认为法律“不只是权利或救济的源头，尽管很重要，但也是创造与维系政治的手段”。[135]他乐观地认为，通过创造民主协商的空间，全球行政法有助于创造一个“政治”社会。但另一方面，他告诫警惕那些试图“在重大时刻把决定从政治领域排除”的方法和机制。[136]然而如本文竭力表明的那样，这正是热情支持发展以普世原则为基础并且走向统一性的全球行政法的立宪主义者所采取的进路。真正的危险在于，公民在所形成的全球空间中没有“自由与论坛以最大化试验和变革的机会”。[137]相反，呈现给他们的是法律化的机构与论坛，其中“政治成为程序的政治，为界定权和管辖权而进行的斗争：问题主要不在于是否要进行利益的权衡，而是最终哪一当局被授权进行权衡”。[138]这就是支持多元主义的最终观点：以多样性作为全球行政法的首要价值，以辅助性作为其基本原则。否则，全球行政法可能做出的贡献也只是会扼杀民主，而将不民主正当化。在谈到早期的集权化活动时，斯图尔特中肯地指出：
颇有反讽意味的是，麦迪逊为解决派系问题而实行集权的做法造就了麦迪逊的梦魇：政府内部派系复杂林立，而且充斥着通常不负责任微观政治……尝试采用新的行政法制度来解决麦迪逊的梦魇已经取得了一些改善，但最终可能只会加重这一梦魇。[139]
【作者简介】
卡罗尔·哈洛，（Carol Harlow），伦敦经济学院荣休教授；徐霄飞，清华大学法学院
宪法与行政法学专业博士生。
【注释】原文为：Carol Harlow,“Global Administrative Law: The Quest for Principles and Values”, 17 The European Journal of International Law, 2006, pp. 187～214。
作者说该文的论述分为九部分，但纵观原全文，实际上只有七部分。原因是作者最初文章为九部分，但发表时，编辑做了删减，由此造成章节数字上的混乱。但这并不影响文章整体的思路、内容与阅读。特提请读者注意。——译校者注。
对于此种消极观点的进一步阐释，参见C. Harlow,“Voices of Difference in a Plural Community”, 50 American J Comparative L, 2002, p. 339 and“Deconstructing Governance”, 23 Yearbook of European Law, 2004, p. 57。
Cassese,“Shrimps, Turtles and Procedure: Global Standards for National Administrations”, IILJ Working Paper No. 2004/4, p. 19.
F. Snyder, Governing Economic Globalisation: Global Legal Pluralism and EU Law, 2002, pp. 10～11.
Kingsbury, Krisch and Stewart,“The Emergence of Global Administrative Law”, 68 Law & Contemporary Problems, 2005, p. 15.
Snyder，同前注③文，p. 11.
Muchlinski,“Globalisation and Legal Research”, 37 The Int''l Lawyer, 2003, pp. 221～237.
进一步的讨论，参见P. Cane, Responsibility in Law and Morality, Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2002。
关于该项规定有约束力的解释与适用，参见Part Ⅱ, Title Ⅶ, Arts, pp. 111～114, 在此并不是评论预言该份文件最终命运。
Shapiro,“Administrative Law Unbounded”, 8 Indiana J Global Legal Studies, 2001, p. 369.
普通法体系中的英国不成文
宪法，明显是个例外，它不是正式意义上的分权
宪法，不过它坚定地承认法官独立并禁止司法决策（judicial policy-making），参见J. Allison, A Continental Distinction in the Common Law: A Historical and Comparative Perspective on English Public Law, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996.
Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 2 LEd 60.
Conseil d''Etat, 19 Feb. 1875, Prince Napoléon, Rec. 155, concl. David.
Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service AC 374.
S. Cassese,“An Introduction to Italian Public Law”, 2 European Public Law, 1995, pp. 299～300.
H. W.R. Wade & C. Forsyth, Administrative Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 8th edn., 2000, pp. 4～5.
《法国宪法》第37条规定了现代法国体制中的规制功能部门。关于规制功能部门演变史，See M. Troper, La séparation des pouvoirs et l''histoire constitutionnelle 。抛开实践，仅从理论上讲，英美法上的委托授权体制与法国体制不同，关于此种差异，参见Lindseth,“The Paradox of Parliamentary Supremacy: Delegation, Democracy, and Dictatorship in Germany and France, 1920s-1950s”, 113 Yale LJ, 2004, p. 1341。
C. Debbasch, Institutions et droits administratifs, 1976, p. 17. 关于美国的情形，“行政法是与行政机关的权力与程序有关的法律，特别是对行政行为进行司法审查的法律”，See, K. C. Davis, Administrative Law Text, St. Paul, Minn: West Pub. Co. 3rd edn., 1972, p. 1。
法国行政法上审查的四个传统子范畴——不合法，不合理，程序性瑕疵，与不正当目的——并非全部被限定在程序性上，尽管在实践中审查的程序性根据主导着判例法。可参见J. M. Auby, Traité de Contentieux Administratif, 1984。
有时人们会说意大利的法律并没有遵守这些原则，不过请参见意大利1990年8月7日颁布的《行政程序法》第241条。以及Cassese,“Shrimps, Turtles and Procedure: Global Standards for National Administrations”, p. 325。
Shapiro,“The Institutionalization of European Administrative Space”in A. Stone Sweet, W. Sandholtz, and N. Fligstein, The Institutionalisation of Europe, 2001, p. 94.
Lenaerts and Vanhamme,“Procedural Rights of Private Parties in the Community Administrative Process”, 34 CML Rev, 1997, p. 53. 也可参见H. P. Nehl, Principles of Administrative Law, 1998。
Shapiro,“APA: Past, Present and Future”, 72 Virginia L Rev, 1986, p. 447; Shapiro,“The Giving Reasons Requirement”, U Chicago Legal Forum, 1992, p. 179.
M. Aronson, B. Dyer, and M. Groves, Judicial Review of Administrative Action, 3rd edn., 2004, p. 1.
Bignami,“Three Generations of Participation Rights in European Administrative Proceedings”, 68 Law and Contemporary Problems, 2005, p. 61,
Larsson,“How Open Can a Government Be? The Swedish Experience”, in V. Deckmyn and I. Thomson , Openness and Transparency in the European Union, Luxembourg: European Commission, 1998. C. Harlow,“Freedom of Information and Transparency as Administrative and Constitutional Rights”, 2 Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies, 1999, p. 285.
P. Birkinshaw, Freedom of Information, London: Butterworths, 3rd edn., 2001.
Taggart,“The Province of Administrative taw Determined”, in M. Taggart, The Province of Administrative Law, Oxford: Hart Publishing, 1997, p. 4.
同上。
有关这种后果，see variously: Aronson,“A Public Lawyer''s Responses to Privatisation and Outsourcing”, in Taggart , The Province of Administrative Law. Freedland,“Government by Contract and Public Law”, Public Law, 1994, p. 86; Freeman,“The Private Role in Public Governance”, 75 NYU L Rev, 2000, p. 543; Daintith,“Contractual Discretion and Administrative Discretion: A Unified Analysis”, 68 MLR, 2005, p. 554。
Taggart, The Province of Administrative Law. Compare Dubois ,“La contestation du droit administratif dans le champ intellectuel et politique”, in J. Chevallier, Le droit administratif en mutation, 1993, M. Freedland and S. Sciarra, Public Services and Citizenship in European Law: Public and Labour Law Perspectives, New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.
Kingsbury, Krisch, and Stewart,“The Emergence of Global Administrative Law”, p. 15.
参见J. Schwarze, Administrative Law under European Influence, Sweet & Maxwel, 1996。
参见F. Neumann, The Rule of Law: Political Theory and the Legal System in Modern Society, Leamington Spa: Berg, 1986。
See Seidel,“Constitutional Aspects of the Economic and Monetary Union”, in F. Snyder, Constitutional Dimensions of European Economic Integration, Cambridge, MA: Kluwer Law International, 1996, p. 476. Streit & Mussler, “The Economic Constitution of the European Community:‘ From Rome to Maastricht’”, in ibid.
Everson,“The Legacy of the Market Citizen”, in J. Shaw and G. More, New Legal Dynamics of European Union, 1995.
J. Gray, False Dawn, The Delusions of Global Capitalism, London: Granta Books, 1998, p. 9.
Stone Sweet,“What is a Supranational Constitution? An Essay in International Relations Theory”, 3 The Review of Politics, 1994, pp. 441～463.
Petersmann,“How to Reform the United Nations System? Constitutionalism, International Law and International Organizations”, 10 Leiden J Int''l L, 1997, pp. 421～463.
Petersmann,“European and International Constitutional Law: Time for Promoting Cosmopolitan Democracy in the WTO”, in G. de Burca and J. Scott, The EU and the WTO, 2001, pp. 81～110.
Muchlinski,“Human Rights, Social Responsibility and the Regulation of International Business: the Development of International Standards by Intergovernmental Organisations”, 3 Non-state Actors and Int''l L, 2003, p. 125.
在此Muehlinski引用了Petersmann与J. H. Jackson的观点：see E. G. Jackson,“The WTO‘Constitution’and Proposed Reforms: Seven Mantras Revisited”, 4 J Int''l Economic L, 2001 ,p. 67。
Muchlinski,“International Business Regulation: An Ethical Discourse in the Making?”, in T. Campbell and S. Miller, Human Rights and the Moral Responsibilities of Corporate and Public Sector Organisations, 2004, p. 99. 还可参见Majone,“The Rise of the Regulatory State in Europe”, 17 West European Politics 1994, 15. 77。
Muchlinski,“Human Rights, Social Responsibility and the Regulation of International Business: the Development of International Standards by Intergovernmental Organisations”, p. 146. 还可参见Petersmann,“Rights and International Economic Law in the 21 st Century: The Need to Clarify Their Interrelationship”, 4 J Int''l Economic L, 2001, p. 4。
Craig,“Formal and Substantive Conceptions of the Rule of Law: An Analytical Framework”, Public Law, 1997, p. 467.
2 J Int''l Commission of Jurists, at pp. 7-43; International Commission of Jurists, The Rule of Law and Human Rights-Principles and Definitions.
Weiler,“The Rule of Lawyers and the Ethos of Diplomats: Reflections on the Internal and External Legitimacy of WTO Dispute Settlement”,
www.jeanmonnetprogram.org/papers No.00/0090。
Cassese,“Shrimps, Turtles and Procedure: Global Standards for National Administrations”, p. 19. 关于司法治理这一概念see R. Hirschl, Towards Juristocracy: The Origins and Consequences of the New Constitution, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2004.
D. Landes,The Wealth and Poverty of Nations, New York: W. W. Norton Co. 1998.
World Bank,Sub-Saharan Africa: From Crisis to Sustainable Growth, 1989.
See S. Mallaby, The World''s Banker, Penguin Press HC, 2004，特别是第七章。人类学家斯科特?古根海姆（Scott Guggenheim）注意到了这种影响，并认为印尼实现真正发展的关键在于“在独裁体制的底层建立起基层民主制度”。
Leftwich,“Governance, Democracy and Development in the Third World”, 14 Third World Quarterly, 1993, pp. 605～611. 也可参见Grindle,“Good Enough Governance: Poverty Reduction and Reform in Developing Countries”, 17 Governance, 2004, p. 525.
Ibid., at p. 609.
Ibid., at p. 605.
D. Held and A. McGrew,Globalization/Anti-Globalization, at pp. 131～132.
Commission on Global Governance, Our Global Neighbourhood, 1995，在该书第66页，指出民主与正当性和实效性相关，法治被称作“行政管理的价值标准”。
关于这种关联，See Malaret Garcia,“Public Service, Public Services, Public Functions, and Guarantees of the Rights of Citizens: Unchanging Needs in a Changed Context”, in Freedland and Sciarra, Public Services and Citizenship in European Law: Public and Labour Law Perspectives.
Hood,“A Public Management for All Seasons”, 69 Public Administration, 1991, p. 3. 胡德认为前者与后者在价值标准上是半斤八两，两者都没有超出公共行政的范围。
Ibid.
关于新公共管理运动在欧洲的散播，参见D. Farnham, New Public Managers in Europe, Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1996。
这最终导致了桑特（Santer）为主席的欧盟委员会集体辞职，参见C. Harlow, Accountability in the European Union, New York: Oxford University Press, 2002, pp. 53～57; Tomkins,“Responsibility and Resignation in the European Commission”, 62 MLR, 1999, p. 744。
参见PUMA Report, Ethics in the Public Service, 访问于
www.oecd.org. 还可参见PUMA Policy Brief No 10, Citizens in Policy-making, Information, Consultation and Public Participation, 载
http://www.sigmaweb.org/LongAbstract/0,2546,en_33638100 _34612958_35063275_119696_1_1_1,00. html。
参见，独立专家委员会，1999年3月15日针对欧盟委员会存在的欺诈、管理不善及裙带关系发布的第一份报告。
European Commission, White Paper on European Governance , COM 428 final OJ C287/1.
Ibid., 在第10页对责任性（accountability）的定义是：“欧盟内部立法与执行过程中的角色应是透明的。欧盟的每个机构应当明确说明并承担它在欧洲所实施的相关行为的责任。但是各成员国政府和介入其他层次制定和执行欧盟政策的其他角色也应当表现出更大的透明性与责任性。”
Cohen and Sabel,“Directly Deliberative Polyarchy”, 3 ELJ, 1997, p. 313; Gerstenberg and Sabel,“Directly-Deliberastive Polyarchy: An Institutional Ideal for Europe?”, in C. Joerges and R. Dehousse , Good Governance in Europe''s Integrated Market, New York: Oxford University Press,2002.; Scott and Trubek,“Mind the Gap: Law and New Approaches to Governance in the European Union”, 8 ELJ, 2002, p. 1.
《欧洲基本权利宪章》第46条（［2000］OJ C364/1），现在被包含在了欧盟宪法条约的第二部分，其规定：“欧盟各机构，应当采取适当的方式，提供相应机会，使公民与代表协会能够获知与公开交流他们关于欧盟所有行动的观点。欧盟各机构应当同代表协会和公民社会保持开放、透明与定期的对话。欧盟委员会应当同相关各方进行广泛的磋商，以确保欧盟的行动是连贯一致和透明的。”
European Commission, White Paper on European Governance , COM 428 final OJ C287/1., p. 16. 还可参见Commission Communication,“Promoting the Role of Voluntary Organisations and Foundations in Europe”, COM 241 final; Commission Communication,“The Commission and Non-governmental Organisations: Building a Stronger Partnership”, COM 11 final; Commission Communication,“General Principles and Minimum Standards for Consulting Noninstitutional Interested Parties”, COM 277。
European Commission, White Paper on European Governance , COM428 final OJ C287/1., pp. 15～17.
Bignami,“Creating Rights in the Age of Global Governance: Mental Maps and Strategic Interests in Europe”, 载
http://law.bepress.commission/expresso/eps/390, p. 21。
参见案例T-135/96 UEAPME v. CouncilECR Ⅱ-2335。
参见著名案例C-68/94 Netherlands v. Council ECR I-2169；以及相应评论，Dyrberg,“Current Issues in the Debate on Public Access to Documents”, 24 EL Rev, 1999, p. 157. 还可参见Curtin,“Citizens'' Fundamental Right of Access to EU Information: An Evolving Digital Passepartout?”, 37 CIVIL Rev, 2000, p. 7。
英格兰典型地属于这种情形，在英格兰为争取资讯自由的斗争非常激烈，法院更倾向保护官方秘密。参见P. Birkinshaw, Freedom of Information。在欧盟也存在相似的限制，参见Harlow,“Freedom of Information and Transparency as Administrative and Constitutional Rights”, 2 Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies, 1999, p. 285。
see Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 US 727; Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 US 555; Friends of the Earth, Inc v Laidlaw Environmental Services, 528 US 167 . 还可以比较参见，Sunstein,“Standing and the Privatisation of Public Law”, 88 Col L Rev, 1988, p. 1432; Sunstein,“What''s Standing After Lujan? Of Citizen Suits,‘Injuries’, and Article Ⅲ”, 91 Michigan L Rev, 1992, p. 163。
Harlow,“Towards a Theory of Access for the European Court of Justice”, 12 Yearbook of European Law, 1992, p. 213. 还可参见相关案例Case T-177/01 Jégo-Quéré et Cie SA v. Commission ECR Ⅱ-2365; Case C-50/00 Unión de Pequenos Agricultores v. Council ECR Ⅱ-2365; Case C-263/02P Commission v. Jégo-Quéré et Cie SA ECR 1-3425。
Aman Jr,“Administrative Law for a New Century”, in M. Taggart , The Province of Administrative Law, Oxford: Hart Publishing, 1997, p. 95. 这种见解经常被认为来自这篇杰出的文章，Stewart,“The Reformation of American Administrative Law”, 88 Harv L Rev, 1975, p. 1667。
关于美国限制虾类及虾类产品进口案，见WTO争端解决结构报告，WT/DS58/AB/R，载
www.sice.oas.org/DISPUTE/wto/58abr.asp。
Ibid.
Charnovitz,“Two Centuries of Participation: NGOs and International Governance”, 18 Michigan J Int''l L, 1997, p. 183; Curtin,“Private Interest Representation or Civil Society Deliberation? A Contemporary Dilemma for European Union Governance”, 12 Social Legal Studies, 2003, p. 56.
正当程序权利起源于刑事程序，它的法语表述是les droits de la défense。在正当程序权利简明的外观下有着源远流长的谱系，在英美文化的脉络里，可以沿着《美国宪法》的第4、5修正案和第14修正案追溯到《英国大宪章》。
参见一项全球性调查研究：S, Guinchard, Droit processuel, Droit commun et droit compare du procès, Dalloz-Sirey, 3rd edn., 2005。
M. Bayles, Procedural Justice: Allocating to Individuals, Massachusetts: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1990.
R v Lord Chancellor ex p Witham2 All ER 779, at pp. 783～784.
参见Richardson,“The Duty to Give Reasons: Potential and Practice”, Public Law, 1986, p. 437。
Case 222/86 UNECTEF v. HeylensECR 4097. 依据《欧盟宪法》，《跨大西洋经济理事会协定》的第253款（还有第190款）规定了说明决定理由的义务。
Case 222/84 Johnston v. Royal Ulster ConstabularyECR 1651.
Heylens, supra note 85.
Anthony,“Community Law and the Development of UK Administrative Law: Delimiting the‘Spill-Over’Effect”, 4 European Public Law, 1998, p. 253.
P. Weil, Le Droit Administratif, Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, Paris, 1973, p. 80.
Abraham,“Les principes généraux de la protection juridictionnelle administrative en Europe: L''influence des jurisprudences européennes”, 9 European Public L Rev, 1997, pp. 577～582.
Case 17/74 Transocean Marine Paint v. CommissionECR 1063. 还可参见H. P. Nehl, Principles of Administrative Procedure in EC Law, Oxford: Hart Publishing, 1998。
关于这两个法院互相分歧的判例法可参见Sherlock at18 EL Rev 465。
Gunichard, Droit processuel, Droit commun et droit compare du procès,pp. 59～87.
L. Tribe, American Constitutional Law, N. Y.: Foundation Press, 1988, p. 666.可参见Mashaw,“Dignitary Process: A Political Psychology of Liberal Democratic Citizenship”, 39 U Florida L Rev, 1987, p. 433。
Richardson,“The Legal Regulation of Process”, in G. Richardson and H. Genn , Administrative Law and Government Action, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994, p. 114.
第10条规定：“人人完全平等地有权由一个独立而公正的法庭进行公正的和公开的审讯，以确定他的权利和义务并判定对他提出的任何刑事指控。”
Bradley,“Administrative Justice: A Developing Human Right?”, 1 European Public Law, 1995, p. 347.
参见Hickman,“The‘Uncertain Shadow’: Throwing Light on the Right to a Court under Article 6ECHR”, Public Law, 2004, p. 122。
Bryan v. UK21 EHRR 342; Zumtobel v. Austria17 EHRR 116.
Kanska,“Towards Administrative Human Rights in the EU: Impact of the Charter of Fundamental Rights”, 10 EL J, 2004, p. 296.
N. Dorsen, Comparative Constitutionalism: Cases and Materials, St. Paul, MN.: West Publishing Company, 2003, p. 10. 也可参见Ackerman,“The Rise of World Constitutionalism”, 83 Virginia L Rev, 1996, p. 771。
Teitel,“New Approaches to Comparative Law: Comparativism and International Governance”, 117 Harv L Rev, 2004, pp. 2570～2593.
Cases T-306/01 and T-315/01, Ahmed Ali Yusuf and A1 Barakaat International Foundation and Yassin Abdullah Kadi v. Council and Commission, 21 Sept. 2005.
Taggart, The Province of Administrative Law, p. 4.
A. Aman Jr, The Democracy Deficit, New York: New York University Press, 2O04, p. 136.
Bell,“Mechanisms for Cross-fertilisation of Administrative Law in Europe”, in J. Beatson and T. Tridimas , New Directions in European Public Law, Oxford: Hart Publishing, 1998.
阿尔伯塔大学（University of Alberta）主办了一个“国际议会监察专员协会”，有关该协会的公告与信息可访问
www.law.ualberta.ca/centres。
Abraham,“Les principes généraux de la protection juridictionnelle administrative en Europe: L''influence des jurisprudences européennes”, pp. 577～582.
Bignami,“Three Generations of Participation Rights in European Administrative Proceedings”, p. 61.
Polakiewicz and Foltzer,“The ECHR in Domestic Law: The Impact of the Strasbourg Case-Law in States where Direct Effect is given to the Convention”, 12 Human Rights L J, 1991, pp. 125～142. Schwarze, supra note 32; A. M. Slaughter, A New World Order, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004, p. 132; Slaughter,“A Typology of Transjudicial Communication”, 1994,28 University of Richmond Law Review, p. 100.
N. Ferguson, Empire: How Britain Made the Modern World, New York: Penguin, 2003, pp. xx～xxii.
Leben,“Is there a European Approach to Human Rights?”, in P. Alston , The European Union and Human Rights, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999, pp. 70～71.
Ibid.
Miller,“A Typology of Legal Transplants: Using Sociology, Legal History and Argentine Examples to Explain the Transplant Process”, 51 American J Comparative L, 2004, p. 838.
Ibid., p. 857.
Ibid., p. 863. 也可参见Moscoti,“Reforming the Laws on Public Procurement in the Developing World: The Example of Kenya”, 54 ICLQ, 2005, p. 621。
P. Sands, Lawless World, London: Penguin, 2005.
Leftwich,“Governance, Democracy and Development in the Third World”, pp. 605～611.
Grindle,“Good Enough Governance: Poverty Reduction and Reform in Developing Countries”, p. 525.
Weiler,“The Rule of Lawyers and the Ethos of Diplomats: Reflections on the Internal and External Legitimacy of WTO Dispute Settlement”, 可访问
www.jeanmonnetprogram.org/papers No. 00/0090。
Cases T-306/01 and T-315/01, Ahmed All Yusuf and A1 Barakaat International Foundation and Yassin Abdullah Kadi v Council and Commission, 21 Sept. 2005.
Hunter Wade,“What Strategies are Viable for Developing Countries Today? The WTO and the Shrinking of Development Space”, 10 Review of International Political Economy, 2003, p. 4.
原文是“Democracy and the Hazards of Juridification”，如果直接翻译成“民主与法律化的风险”在中文语境里容易产生歧义，误以为讨论的还有“民主的风险”。因此，改变原次序，翻译“法律化的风险与民主”。——译者注
Pollack,“Supranational Autonomy”in Sandholtz , The Institutionalisation of Europe, 2001.
Andersen and Burns,“The European Union and the Erosion of Parliamentary Democracy: A Study of Post-parliamentary Governance”, in S. Andersen and K. Eliassen, The European Union: How Democratic Is It? Sage Publications Ltd, 1996, p. 229.
Bignami,“Creating Rights in the Age of Global Governance: Mental Maps and Strategic Interests in Europe”, 访问于
http://law.bepress.commission/expresso/eps/390>, p. 21。
Weiler,“A Quiet Revolution-The European Court of Justice and its Interlocutors”, 26 Comparative Political Studies, 1994, p. 510.
Snyder, Governing Economic Globalisation: Global Legal Pluralism and EU Law, pp. 10～11.
See Carozza,“Subsidiarity as a Structural Principle of International Human Rights Law”, 97 AJIL, 2OO3, p. 38.
Muchlinski,“International Business Regulation: An Ethical Discourse in the Making?”p. 99; Muchlinski,“Globalisation and Legal Research”, p. 240. 也可参见Chalmers,“Post-nationalismand the Quest for Constitutional Substitutes”, 17 J Legal Stud, 2000, p. 178。
Cerny,“Globalization and the End of Democracy”, 36 European Journal of Political Research, 1999, p. 1.
Dahl,“Can International Organizations be Democratic? A Skeptic''s View”, in I. Shapiro and C. Hacker-Cordon , Democracy''s Edges, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999, pp. 19～37.
R. Dehousse, The European Court of Justice: The Politics of Judicial Integration, London: Macmillan Press 1998; Mancini,“The Making of a Constitution for Europe”, 26 CML Rev, 1989, p. 595; Weiler,“A Quie Revolution-The European Court of Justice and its Interlocutors”, 26 Comparative Political Studies, 1994, p. 510. 还有一种不太被认可的解释，参见H. Rasmussen, On Law and Policy in the European Court of Justice, Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1986。
Slaughter,“A Typology of Transjudicial Communication”, p. 132. 还可参见McCrudden,“A Common Law of Human Rights? Transnational Judicial Conversations on Constitutional Rights”, in K. O''Donovan & G. Rubin , Human Rights and Legal History, Essays in Honour of Brian Simpson, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000, pp. 14～29.
A. Aman, The Democracy Deficit, p. 178.
Ibid., p. 138.
A. Aman, The Democracy Deficit, p. 178.
Koskenniemi,“The Effects of Rights on Political Culture”, in P. Alston, The European Union and Human Rights, p. 114.
Stewart,“Madison''s Nightmare”, 57 U Chicago L Rev, 1990, pp. 335～346.
