Advertisement

On Legitimacy for the Exercise of Public Power

  • Gunilla Edelstam
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter deals with legitimacy in connection to the exercise of public power through unilateral decisions. It can for example concern a prohibition, a permit, an allowance, an authorization, an administrative fine, a tax or a duty to perform something (e.g., tearing down a house that was illegally built). The decision implies public power irrespective of whether the individual through the decision receives what he applied for or was denied it. Society is to a large extent governed through such administrative law and a unilateral decision has consequences for the individual concerned. In the chapter is emphasized that legality is one part of legitimacy and that the responsibilities of the officials with regard to the law in action as well as the judicial review by courts are fundamental to legitimacy. Legitimacy is closely connected to trust.

References

  1. BRÅ rapport (report from The Swedish National Council for Crime prevention) 2014:4Google Scholar
  2. Caillosse, J. (2011). Legitimacy in administrative law; Reform and reconstruction. In M. Ruffert (Ed.), Legitimacy in European administrative law: Reform and reconstruction (pp. 9–26). Groningen: Europa Law Publishing.Google Scholar
  3. Edelstam, G. (1995). Förvaltningsmyndigheters utredningsskyldighet – en rättssäkerhetsstudie (Obligation of Administrative Authorities to perform investigations). Stockholm: Fritzes Norstedts Juridik (with a summary in German).Google Scholar
  4. Edelstam, G. (2007). The right of defence in Fraud investigations. In O. Jansen & P. M. Langbroek (Eds.), Defence rights during administrative investigations (pp. 367–413). Antwerpen-Oxford: Intersentia.Google Scholar
  5. Edelstam, G. (2011). Legitimacy issues in administrative law. Historical approach, constitutional approach, fact-finding approach to responsibility from a Swedish perspective. In M. Ruffert (Ed.), Legitimacy in European administrative law: Reform and reconstruction (pp. 115–154). Groningen: Europa Law Publishing.Google Scholar
  6. Edelstam, G. (2012). The implementation of the Services directive in Sweden. In U. Stelkens, W. Weiss, & M. Mirschberger (Eds.), The implementation of the EU Services Directive. Transpositions, problems and strategies (pp. 589–632). The Hague, The Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Edelstam, G. (2016). Investigation and responsibility – Legal aspects of common interest. In M. Ruffert (Ed.), The model rules of EU administrative procedures: Adjudication (pp. 133–140). Groningen: Europa Law Publishing.Google Scholar
  8. Glenn, H. P. (2010). Legal traditions of the World. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gonod, P. (2011). Legitimacy in administrative law: Reform and reconstruction. In M. Ruffert (Ed.), Legitimacy in European administrative law: Reform and reconstruction (pp. 3–7). Groningen: Europa Law Publishing.Google Scholar
  10. Persson, L. G. W. (2015, May 10). Knoll och Tott spaning. Expressen (p. 8).Google Scholar
  11. Petersson, O. (2007). Den offentliga makten. Stockholm: SNS.Google Scholar
  12. Ruffert, M. (2011). Comparative perspectives of administrative legitimacy. In M. Ruffert (Ed.), Legitimacy in European administrative law: Reform and reconstruction (pp. 351–360). Groningen: Europa Law Publishing.Google Scholar
  13. Schmidt Assman, E. (2011). Legitimacy and accountability as a basis for administrative organisation and activity in Germany. In M. Ruffert (Ed.), Legitimacy in European administrative law: Reform and reconstruction (pp. 49–57). Groningen: Europa Law Publishing.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gunilla Edelstam
    • 1
  1. 1.Sodertorn UniversityHuddingeSweden

Personalised recommendations