Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Solving Conflicts Through Administrative Procedure. Citizen Participation, Its Judicial Review, Alternative Dispute Resolution

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Current Issues of Comparative Law – Questions actuelles de droit comparé

Part of the book series: Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law ((GSCL,volume 35))

  • 240 Accesses

Abstract

The functions of administrative procedure have multiplied over the past decades. Administrative law is no longer a mere tool to implement the government’s political agenda as effectively as possible. Rather, in increasingly complex societies, the administration itself has the task of taking public policy decisions that are suitable for the common good. The involvement of society, judicial protection and alternative dispute resolution serve as effective means to mitigate societal conflicts resulting from discretionary administrative action. The comparative analysis of these procedural elements therefore promises interesting insights into the functioning of administrative conflict resolution. Social conflicts in the field of administrative law often evolve in planning and permission procedures for major infrastructure projects. A case study concerning the establishment of an airport was therefore at the center of the workshop, which was conceptualized in an interactive manner. Instead of presenting national reports to the plenum, the world café format of the workshop encouraged continuous discussion between the participants.

Anika Klafki owes special thanks to the Interdisciplinary Legal Research Program of Bucerius Law School that allowed her to take part in the IACL-Congress. Above all, the authors owe special thanks to the national experts Prof. Dr. Chengdong Jin (Law School of Zhejiang University, China), Prof. Dr. Dominique Custos (University of Caen Normandy; Centre de Droit Public Comparé, France) and Prof. Dr. John Reitz (University of Iowa College of Law, USA). This contribution draws upon their excellent workshop materials and the discussions during the workshop.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See from a German perspective Pünder (2015), p. 713.

  2. 2.

    Norris (2011).

  3. 3.

    Barber (1984).

  4. 4.

    Mouffe (1993).

  5. 5.

    For a comparative analysis of the administrative procedure law of the European legal systems, see Pünder (2013), p. 940.

  6. 6.

    For the need to include underlying cultural, political, and societal insights to compare different legal systems, see Watt (2012), pp. 86 ff.

  7. 7.

    For an analysis of the practical application of comparative law in general, see Smits (2006), pp. 511 ff. For a reflection on the utility and applications of comparative law in court reasoning, see Andenas and Faigrieve (2012), pp. 27 ff.

  8. 8.

    The concept was developed by Brown and Isaacs (2005).

  9. 9.

    The term ‘functional method’ in comparative law has been established by Zweigert and Kötz (1987), pp. 30 ff. See for an in-depth critical reflection Michaels (2008), pp. 339 ff. See also Gordley (2012), pp. 107 ff.

  10. 10.

    To obtain the workshop materials of the national legal systems, please contact the national legal experts. For the workshop materials of the USA please contact Prof. John C. Reitz (john-reitz@uiowa.edu), for the materials relating to China please contact Prof. Chengdong Jin (jchdong@zju.edu.cn), for the materials on the French system please contact Prof. Dominique Custos (dominique.custos@unicaen.fr), and for the materials on Germany please contact Dr. Anika Klafki (anika.klafki@law-school.de).

  11. 11.

    For a general comparison of public participation procedures in infrastructure planning law in Europe see Gross (2015).

  12. 12.

    Abeyratne (1993), p. 79.

  13. 13.

    Abeyratne (1993), p. 79.

  14. 14.

    The following analysis only relates to civil aviation. Different rules apply to the establishment of military airports.

  15. 15.

    See Tetzlaff (2002), p. 7.

  16. 16.

    For the current statistics see https://www.forschungsinformationssystem.de/servlet/is/241596/.

  17. 17.

    49 U.S.C. § 47134. See also Reitz, Workshop Materials USA (fn. 10) at 1 f. <05.12.2018>.

  18. 18.

    14 C.F.R. § 152.103(a)(1). See also Reitz, Workshop Materials USA (fn. 10) at 2.

  19. 19.

    See for details Tang (2017), pp. 5 ff.

  20. 20.

    See for France L6311-1 TC. Such airports are listed in a decree. For China see Jin, Workshop Materials China (fn. 10) at 1.

  21. 21.

    Statutes of 13/08/2004. See also Statutes of 07/08/2015.

  22. 22.

    Statute of 20/04/2005, Art 7 (II).

  23. 23.

    See also Custos, Workshop Materials France (fn. 10) at 1.

  24. 24.

    Following the privatization of 13% of the shares of the Paris Airport in 2013, the state owns a 50.6% stake. Reportedly (June 2018), additional privatization of Paris Airport is to be launched in 2018. See also Custos, Workshop Materials France (fn. 10) at 2.

  25. 25.

    Custos, Workshop Materials France (fn. 10) at 2.

  26. 26.

    Civil Aviation Administration of China’s Opinions on Encouraging Social Capital to Invest in Constructing and Operating Civil Airports, issued 3.22.2016. See Jin, Workshop Materials China (fn. 10) at 1, 6.

  27. 27.

    Decree 59-779, 22 June 1959; Order (arrêté) 26 October 1960. See for details Custos, Workshop Materials France (fn. 10) at 2 ff.

  28. 28.

    The Federal Aviation Administration regulations on the certification and operation of an airport are found primarily in Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 139, 14 C.F.R. Part 139.

  29. 29.

    49 U.S.C. § 44706. No airport may be operated without such a certificate, see regulation 14 C.F.R. § 139.101.

  30. 30.

    See Hoagland v. Town of Clear Lake, Indiana, 344 F. Supp.2d 1150, 1158 (N.D. Ind. 2004) (“Many other state and federal courts, applying similar reasoning, have found that regulation of landing sites, or land-use regulations in general, are not subject to field preemption”); Faux-Burhans v. County Commissioners of Frederick County, 674 F. Supp. 1172, 1174 (D. Md. 1987), aff’d (4th Cir. 1988) (county zoning restrictions were not preempted by different, but not conflicting, federal requirements); Gustafson v. City of Lake Angelus, 76 F.3d 778, 790 (6th Cir. 1996) (“[f]ederal preemption of the airspace under the [Federal Aviation] Act does not limit the right of local governments to designate and regulate aircraft landing areas”); Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority v. City of Los Angeles, 979 F.2d 1338, 1340 (9th Cir. 1992) (“non-proprietor municipalities are preempted from regulating airports in any manner that directly interferes with aircraft operations”).

  31. 31.

    See Reitz, Workshop Materials USA (fn. 10) at 2 f.

  32. 32.

    Air Traffic Act (Luftverkehrsgesetz, BGBl. I 2007, 698). Several other laws apply, such as the Regional Deveolpment Act (Raumordnungsgesetz, BGBl. I 2008, 2986) and the Law on Environmental Impact Assessment (Gesetz über die Umweltverträglichkeitsprüfung, BGBl. I 2010, 94).

  33. 33.

    Art. 87d Basic Law (Grundgesetz).

  34. 34.

    §§ 10, 31 (II) Air Traffic Act (Luftverkehrsgesetz).

  35. 35.

    Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters, 25.06.1998. The construction of airports with a basic runway length of 2100 m or more is specifically listed in Annex 1 Nr. 8 lit. a of the convention.

  36. 36.

    For an in depth analysis of German administrative procedure law, see Pünder (2013).

  37. 37.

    42 U.S.C. § 4332 (1)(C).

  38. 38.

    Federal Aviation Administration Order 1050.1F, issued on July 16.2015, available under https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/FAA_Order_1050_1F.pdf. <05.12.2018>.

  39. 39.

    The environmental assessment is a simpler document that requires consideration of whether the environmental impacts will be significant, explores alternatives and mitigation measures, and provides information to determine whether an environmental impact assessment, a full-blown consideration of all environmental impacts and alternatives, is required. It must include an assessment of the project’s impact on noise, air quality, water quality, endangered species, wetlands and flood plains, possible alternatives, and mitigation plans. See Reitz, Workshop Materials USA (fn. 10) at 3.

  40. 40.

    Federal Aviation Administration, Order 1050.1F, 7/16/15, at 2-12 ff.

  41. 41.

    See for details Marrani (2014), p. 107.

  42. 42.

    Custos, Workshop Materials France (fn. 10) at 2 ff.

  43. 43.

    Commission nationale du débat public, CNDP; Article L121-1 of the Environmental Code (Code de l’environnement). A translation of the entire French Environmental Code by M. Faure can be found under http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text.jsp?file_id=180787 <05.12.2018>.

  44. 44.

    Article L121-11 Environmental Code (Code de l’environnement).

  45. 45.

    § 25 para. 3 Administrative Procedure Act (Verwaltungsverfahrensgesetz).

  46. 46.

    See for example Appel (2012), p. 1366. More optimistic Ziekow (2013), p. 754.

  47. 47.

    Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26.05.2003 providing for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment and amending with regard to public participation and access to justice Council Directives 85/337/EEC and 96/61/EC.

  48. 48.

    Annex to Article R122-2 Environmental Code.

  49. 49.

    § 6 in conjunction with Nr. 14.12 Annex 1 of the Law on the Environmental Impact Assessment (Gesetz über die Umweltverträglichkeitsprüfung, BGBl. I 2010, 94).

  50. 50.

    See for example Lippert (2013), pp. 206 ff.

  51. 51.

    Articles R11-14-1 – R11-14-16 Takings Code (Code de l’expropriation pour cause d’utilité pubilque).

  52. 52.

    § 73 Administrative Procedure Act (Verwaltungsverfahrensgesetz).

  53. 53.

    In France, the public inquiry concerning the environmental impact assessment is conducted by a special commissaire enquêteur or an enquiry commission appointed by the President of the administrative tribunal, Article L123-4 Environmental Code (Code de l’environnement).

  54. 54.

    Ordinance of 21.04.2016, L123-20 –L123-33 Environmental Code (Code de l’environnement).

  55. 55.

    See for a timeline of this failed airport project Custos, Workshop Materials France (fn. 10) at 9.

  56. 56.

    For details see Volkert (2016), pp. 26 ff.

  57. 57.

    The Regulation was enacted in January 2007 by the State Council. See for details Jin, Workshop Materials China (fn. 10) at 3.

  58. 58.

    See also Li (2011), p. 166 (‘Up to now, in cases of administrative proceedings concerning government information disclosure, the plaintiff has always lost’).

  59. 59.

    Jin, Workshop Materials China (fn. 10) at 4 f.

  60. 60.

    An English translation of the Administrative License Law of the People’s Republic of China is available under http://www.asianlii.org/cn/legis/cen/laws/allotproc500/ <05.12.2018>.

  61. 61.

    Art. 5, 13, 40 48, 54, 61 Administrative License Law.

  62. 62.

    Art. 47 ff. Administrative License Law.

  63. 63.

    Art. 19 Administrative License Law.

  64. 64.

    Art. 20 (III) Administrative License Law.

  65. 65.

    See for details Jin, Workshop Materials China (fn. 10) at 5 f.

  66. 66.

    Article L121-3 Environmental Code (Code de l’environnement). See also D. Custos, Workshop Materials France (fn. 10) at 2.

  67. 67.

    § 73 (IV) Sentence 5 Administrative Procedure Act (Verwaltungsverfahrensgesetz).

  68. 68.

    For France see Articles L142-1, L142- 2 Environmental Code (Code de l’environnement). For Germany see § 2 Environmental Remedies Act (Umwelt-Rechtsbehelfsgesetz, BGBl. I 2017, 3290). See for a translation of the most relevant provisions Klafki, Workshop Materials Germany (fn. 10) at 6.

  69. 69.

    Law 2016-1547 of 18/11/2016. See Custos, Workshop Materials France (fn. 10) at 6.

  70. 70.

    Lubbers (2018), p. 389.

  71. 71.

    Reitz, Workshop Materials USA (fn. 10) at 5.

  72. 72.

    Reitz, Workshop Materials USA (fn. 10) at 2 f.

  73. 73.

    See Jin, Workshop Materials China (fn. 10) at 1 f.

  74. 74.

    For Germany, see § 15 (III) Regional Planning Law (Raumordnungsgesetz, BGBl. I 2008, 2986); § 73 (II) Administrative Procedure Act (Verwaltungsverfahrensgesetz). For France see Article R122-23 Takings Code (Code de l’expropriation pour cause d’utilité pubilque).

  75. 75.

    Furthermore, under the French Urban Planning Code, the approval or revision of the noise exposure plan or an aeronautic servitudes plan are also subject to public inquiry requirement and consultation with the neighbouring municipalities. See Custos, Workshop Materials France (fn. 10) at 5.

  76. 76.

    See Provident Mutual Life Ins. Co. of Philadelphia v. City of Atlanta, 864 F. Supp. 1274, 1289-90 (N.D. Ga. 1994); Chronister v. City of Atlanta, 99 Ga.App. 447, 447-48, 108 S.E.2d 731, 732 (1959) (“One who operates and controls an airport from a certain runway of which airplanes habitually fly over the plaintiff’s home at altitudes of 50 to 100 feet may be guilty of maintaining a nuisance for which such owner is compensable in damages even though the aircraft flights themselves are made pursuant to and in full conformity with Federal regulations governing landings and take-offs from the air field”). See also Reitz, Workshop Materials USA (fn. 10) at 4.

  77. 77.

    Reitz, Workshop Materials USA (fn. 10) at 5 f. See For a comprehensive explanation of judicial review of administrative action see Lubbers (2018), pp. 387 ff.

  78. 78.

    Cf. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. V. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (2003).

  79. 79.

    Association of Data Processing Service Organizations v. Camp, 397 U.S. 150 (1970).

  80. 80.

    See for a comprehensive explanation of the German standing requirement from a comparative perspective Backes (forthcoming), Chapter 4, Section IV.

  81. 81.

    For a brief explanation of the German judicial review system see Pünder and Klafki (2018), pp. 81 ff. From a comparative perspective see Pünder (2013). See also Pünder and Klafki (forthcoming), Chapter 6 Section VI.

  82. 82.

    See for details Pünder (2016a), §14 para 87.

  83. 83.

    See Custos, Workshop Materials France (fn. 10) at 6.

  84. 84.

    See for a comprehensive description of China’s judicial review system: Bing (1994).

  85. 85.

    Jin, Workshop Materials China (fn. 10) at 5.

  86. 86.

    Jin, Workshop Materials China (fn. 10) at 6.

  87. 87.

    Reitz, Workshop Materials USA (fn. 10) at 6.

  88. 88.

    Article 39 Administrative Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China, adopted at the 2nd Session of the 7th National People’s Congress on 4/4/1989, English translation available under http://www.china.org.cn/english/government/207335.htm <05.12.2018>.

  89. 89.

    Article 57 Administrative Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China.

  90. 90.

    Article 60 Administrative Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China.

  91. 91.

    § 74 Code of Administrative Court Procedure (Verwaltungsgerichtsordnung, BGBl. I 1991, 686).

  92. 92.

    See for example ECtHR, Judgment of 2/9/2010, Case 46344/96 – Rumpf v Germany, where the Court determines ‘structural problems’ of guaranteeing adequate length of court proceedings in Germany.

  93. 93.

    See for instance Conseil d‘État, judgment of 28/06/2002, N° 239575 – Magiera.

  94. 94.

    5 U.S.C. §§ 571 ff.

  95. 95.

    See for criticism Werhan (1996), pp. 439 f.

  96. 96.

    Reitz, Workshop Materials USA (fn. 10) at 6.

  97. 97.

    For details see Custos, Workshop Materials France (fn. 10) at 7.

  98. 98.

    Mediation Law (Mediationsgesetz, BGBl. I 2012, 1577).

  99. 99.

    See for details Pünder (2016b), § 16.

References

  • Abeyratne RIR (1993) The challenge of airports and planning laws. Environ Policy Law 23(2):79

    Google Scholar 

  • Andenas M, Faigrieve D (2012) Intent on making mischief: seven ways of using comparative law. In: Monateri PG (ed) Methods of comparative law. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, p 25

    Google Scholar 

  • Appel I (2012) Staat und Bürger im Umweltverwaltungsverfahren. Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht 1361

    Google Scholar 

  • Backes C (forthcoming) Access to court. In: Backes C, Eliantonio M (eds) Judicial review of administrative action. Hart, Oxford. Chapter 4

    Google Scholar 

  • Barber BR (1984) Strong democracy. Participatory politics for a new age. University of California Press, Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

  • Bing S (1994) Assessing China’s system of judicial review of administrative actions. China Law Rep 8:1

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown J, Isaacs D (2005) The World Café. Shaping our futures through conversations that matter. Berrett-Koehler Publishers, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordley J (2012) The functional method. In: Monateri PG (ed) Methods of comparative law. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, p 107

    Google Scholar 

  • Gross T (2015) Public participation in infrastructure planning - comparative analysis of 10 European Countries. EPLO Publications, Athens

    Google Scholar 

  • Li X (2011) China‘s administrative rule of law in 2009. China Legal Dev Yearb 5:147

    Google Scholar 

  • Lippert A (2013) Die Beudeutung der Öffentlichkeitsbeteiligung bei großen Infrastrukturvorhaben. Zeitschrift für Umweltrecht 203

    Google Scholar 

  • Lubbers JS (2018) Administrative law in the United States. In: Seerden R (ed) Comparative administrative law. Administrative law of the European Union, its Member States and the United States, 4th edn. Intersentia, Cambridge, p 357

    Google Scholar 

  • Marrani D (2014) The intersection between constitution, human rights and the environment: the French Charter for the environment and the new ex post constitutional control in France. Environ Law Rev 16:107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michaels R (2008) The functional method of comparative law. In: Reimann M, Zimmermann R (eds) The Oxford handbook of comparative law, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p 339

    Google Scholar 

  • Mouffe C (1993) The return of the political. Verso, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Norris P (2011) Democratic deficit. Critical citizens revisited. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Pünder H (2013) German administrative procedure in a comparative perspective – observations on the path to a transnational ius commune proceduralis in administrative law. ICON 11:940

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pünder H (2015) More government with the people: the crisis of representative democracy and options for reform in Germany. German Law J 16:713

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pünder H (2016a) Verwaltungsverfahren. In: Ehlers D, Pünder H (eds) Allgemeines Verwaltungsrecht, 15th edn. de Gruyter, Berlin, p 407

    Google Scholar 

  • Pünder H (2016b) Mediation und andere Formen der alternativen Streitbeilegung in Verwaltungsverfahren. In: Ehlers D, Pünder H (eds) Allgemeines Verwaltungsrecht, 15th edn. De Gruyter, Berlin, p 549 ff

    Google Scholar 

  • Pünder H, Klafki A (2018) Administrative law in Germany. In: Seerden R (ed) Comparative administrative law. Administrative law of the European Union, its Member States and the United States, 4th edn. Intersentia, Cambridge, p 49

    Google Scholar 

  • Pünder H, Klafki A (forthcoming) Grounds of review and standard of review. In: Backes C, Eliantonio M (eds) Judicial review of administrative action. Hart, Oxford. Chapter 6

    Google Scholar 

  • Smits JM (2006) Comparative law and its influence on national legal systems. In: Reimann M, Zimmermann R (eds) The Oxford handbook of comparative law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p 511 ff

    Google Scholar 

  • Tang RY (2017) Airport privatization: issues and options for Congress. R43545 Congressional Research Service

    Google Scholar 

  • Tetzlaff T (2002) Öffentlich-rechtliche Grundlagen der Flughafenprivatisierung. Transportrecht 7

    Google Scholar 

  • Volkert C (2016) Plebiszite über Bebauungspläne. Eine Analyse unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des Abwägungsgebots mit Vorschlägen zur praktischen Umsetzung. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Watt G (2012) Comparison. In: Monateri PG (ed) Methods of comparative law. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, p 82

    Google Scholar 

  • Werhan K (1996) Delegalizing administrative law. Univ Ill Law Rev 1996:423

    Google Scholar 

  • Ziekow J (2013) Der Beginn einer neuen Verwaltungskultur. Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht 754

    Google Scholar 

  • Zweigert K, Kötz H (1987) Introduction to comparative law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Bucerius Law School, Chair of Public Law, Administrative Sciences and Comparative Law, Hamburg, Germany

    Hermann Pünder & Anika Klafki

Authors
  1. Hermann Pünder
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anika Klafki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Hermann Pünder or Anika Klafki .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. International Academy of Comparative Law, Paris, France

    Katharina Boele-Woelki

  2. International Academy of Comparative Law, Paris, France

    Diego P. Fernández Arroyo

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Pünder, H., Klafki, A. (2019). Solving Conflicts Through Administrative Procedure. Citizen Participation, Its Judicial Review, Alternative Dispute Resolution. In: Boele-Woelki, K., Fernández Arroyo, D. (eds) Current Issues of Comparative Law – Questions actuelles de droit comparé. Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law, vol 35. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20659-8_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20659-8_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-20658-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-20659-8

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation