Last updated 27/06/24: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 19 November 2018
The importance of effectiveness in lawmaking is acknowledged by scholars and practitioners alike. Yet the concept remains one of the most vague terms in legal vocabulary. The article maintains that effectiveness has concrete content that reflects the systemic coherence and alignment between four fundamental elements of legislation: objectives, content, context and results. From this perspective effective legislation is the result of complex mechanics in the conceptualisation, design and drafting of the law and cannot materialise unless it is a clear concern in the early phases of lawmaking. The article takes a closer look at the fundamental elements of effectiveness and articulates the specific challenges that lawmakers are facing when attempting to design and draft effective rules. The “effectiveness test”, a conceptual tools that adds “effectiveness lenses” to the existing lawmaking toolkit, is developed in more depth to a set of critical questions that lawmakers need to address in order to make conscious decisions on effective drafts.
University of London, School of Advanced Study Institute of Advanced Legal Studies.
1 Kelsen, H, “Law as a Specific Social Technique” (1941) 9 University of Chicago Law Review 75, 79–80 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
2 Stefanou, C, “Comparative Legislative Drafting. Comparing across Legal Systems” (2016) 18(2) European Journal of Law Reform 123, 124–134 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
3 Drinoszi, T, “Legislative Process” in U Karpen and H Xanthaki (eds), Legislation in Europe. A Comprehensive Guide for Scholars and Practitioners (Hart 2017)Google Scholar.
4 Xanthaki, H, “Legislative Drafting: The UK Experience” in F Uhlmann and S Hoefler (eds), Professional Legislative Drafters. Status, Roles, Education (DIKE 2016) 15–38 Google Scholar.
5 Noll, P, Gesetzgebungslehre (Rowohlt, Reinbeck 1973) 314 Google Scholar.
6 Oliver-Lalana, OD, “Due Post-Legislative Process? On the Lawmakers’ Constitutional Duties of Monitoring and Revision” in K Messerschimdt and AD Oliver-Lalana (eds), Rational Lawmaking under Review. Legisprudence According to the German Federal Constitutional Court (Springer 2016) 259 Google Scholar.
7 Ranchordas, S, “Consultation, Citizen Narratives and Evidence-Based Regulation” (2017) 1(2) European Journal of Law Reform Special Issue on Better Regulation at 66–67 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
8 Oliver-Lalana, supra, note 6, at 259.
9 Rachlinski, J, “Evidence-Based Law” (2011) 96 Cornell Law Review 901 at 910Google Scholar.
10 Hage, J, “The (Onto)logical Structure of Law: A Conceptual Toolkit for Legislators” in M Araszkiewicz and K Pleszka (eds), Logic in the Theory and Practice of Lawmaking (Legisprudence Library Vol 2, Springer 2016) 3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
11 Rachlinski, supra, note 9, at 912.
12 Allot, A, The Limits of Law (Butterworths 1980) at 11 Google Scholar.
13 Teubner, G, “Substantive and Reflexive Elements in Modern law” (1983) 17(2) Law & Society Review 239 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
14 Allot, supra, note 12, viii at 11, 28, 30.
15 Hart, HLA, The Concept of Law (2nd edn, Oxford University Press 1997) at 103 Google Scholar.
16 Allot, supra, note 12, at 11.
17 Baldwin, R, Cave, M and Lodge, M (eds), Understanding Regulation. Theory, Strategy and Practice (2nd edn, Oxford University Press 2012) at 25–31 Google Scholar.
18 Popelier, P, “Legal Certainty and Principles of Proper Law Making” (2000) 2(3) European Journal of Law Reform at 321; U KarpenGoogle Scholar, “Introduction” in Karpen and Xanthaki, supra, note 3, at 12.
19 Tuori, K, “Legislation Between Politics and Law” in L Wintgens (ed), Legisprudence (Hart 2002) 99 Google Scholar.
20 Fuller, L, The Morality of Law (revised edn, Yale University Press 1964) at 106 Google Scholar.
21 Landis, J, “Statutes and the Sources of Law” in Harvard Legal Essays Written in Honor and Presented to Joseph Henry Beale and Samyel Williston (Cambridge Mass, Harvard University Press 1934)Google Scholar.
22 Petersen, N, Proportionality and Judicial Activism. Fundamental Rights Adjudication in Canada, Germany and South Africa (Cambridge University Press 2017) 2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
23 Popelier, P and Mazmanyan, A, “Constitutional Courts and Multilevel Governance in Europe. Editors’ Introduction” in P Popelier, A Mazmanyan and W Vandenbruwaene (eds), The Role of Constitutional Courts in Multilevel Governance (Intersentia 2013) at 13 Google Scholar.
24 Indicatively see van Gestel, R and de Poorter, J, “Putting evidence-based law making to the test: judicial review of legislative rationality” (2016) 4(2) The Theory and Practice of Legislation 155 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Popelier, P and De Jaegere, J, “Evidence-based judicial review of legislation in divided states: the Belgian case” (2016) 4(2) The Theory and Practice of Legislation 187 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; the contributions in Messerschimdt and Oliver-Lalana, supra, note 6, for the German experience, and the contributions in Popelier, Mazmanyan and Vandenbruwaene, supra, note 23.
25 Ismer, R and Meßerschmidt, K, “Evidence-based judicial review of legislation: some introductory remarks” (2016) 4:2 The Theory and Practice of Legislation 91 CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 92.
26 H Schulze-Fielitz, “Paths Towards Better Legislation, Detours and Dead Ends” in Messerschimdt and Oliver-Lalana, supra, note 6, at 36.
27 ibid at 35–36.
28 U Karpen, “Efficacy, Efectiveness, Efficiency: from Judicial to Managerial Rationality” in Messerschimdt and Oliver-Lalana, supra, note 6, at 304.
29 U Karpen, “Introduction” in Karpen and Xanthaki, supra, note 3, at 12.
30 H Kelsen, Pure Theory of Law (translated from the 2nd revised and enlarged German edition by Max Knight The Lawbook Exchange 2009) at 11.
31 Hart, supra, note 15, at 103; Raz, J, The Authority of Law (2nd edn Oxford University Press 1980) at 87 Google Scholar.
32 Jones, H, The Efficacy of Law (Rosenthal Lectures Northwestern University Press 1968) at 4 Google Scholar.
33 Mader, L, “Evaluating the Effects: A Contribution to the Quality of Legislation” (2001) 22(2) Statute Law Review 119 CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 126. See also Karpen, supra, note 28, at 304–308.
34 Fluckiger, A, “Effectiveness: a new Constitutional principle” (2009) 50 Legislação: cadernos de ciência de legislação 183 Google Scholar at 190.
35 Sarat, A, “Legal Effectiveness and Social Studies of Law: on the unfortunate resistance of a research tradition” (1985) IX:1 Legal Studies Forum 23 Google Scholarat 23.
36 Allot, supra, note 12, viii at 28, 30.
37 Xanthaki, H, “On Transferability of Legislative Solutions” in C Stefanou and H Xanthaki (eds), Drafting Legislation. A Modern Approach (Ashgate 2008) 1 Google Scholar at 17; H Xanthaki, Drafting Legislation. Art and Technology of Rules for Regulation (2014) at 7.
38 Xanthaki, H, “Quality of Legislation: an achievable universal concept or a utopia pursuit?” in L Mader and M Tavres de Almeida (eds), Quality of Legislation. Principles and Instruments (Nomos 2011) at 80–81 Google Scholar.
39 Voermans, W, “To Measure is to Know: The Quantification of Regulation” (2015) 3(1) The Theory and Practice of Legislation 91 at 110–111Google Scholar.
40 Fluckiger, supra, note 34, at 187, 189.
41 Karpen, supra, note 28, at 306.
42 Fluckiger, supra, note 34, at 187, 189.
43 Jones, supra, note 32, at 5, 14–21, 76.
44 Allot, supra, note 12, viii at 13.
45 Mousmouti, M, “Operationalising Quality of Legislation through the Effectiveness Test” (2012) 6(2) Legisprudence 201 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Mousmouti, M, “Effectiveness as an Aspect of Quality of EU Legislation: Is it Feasible?” (2014) 2(3) The Theory and Practice of Legislation 309 Google Scholar.
46 Ekins, R, “The Intention of Parliament” (2010) Public Law 715 Google Scholar.
47 M Zamboni, “Goals and Measures of Legislation: Evaluation” in Karpen and Xanthaki, supra, note 3, at 97–99.
48 Black, J, “Critical Reflections on Regulation” (2002) 27 Australian Journal of Legal Philosophy 3 Google Scholar.
49 Allot, supra, note 12, viii at 13.
50 For specific examples see Mousmouti, M and Crispi, G, “Good Legislation as a Means of Ensuring Voice, Accountability, and the Delivery of Results in Urban Development” (2014) 6 World Bank Legal Review 257 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
51 Mousmouti, supra, note 46, at 309–327.
52 C-13/05 Chacon Navas v Eurest Colectividades SA [2006] ECR I-6467.
53 Kealy, SJ and Forney, A, “The Reliability of Evidence in Evidence-Based Legislation” (2018) 1 European Journal of Law Reform 40 CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 52.
54 Dutch Ministry of Justice (2004), The Table of Eleven: A Versatile Tool available at <www.sam.gov.lv/images/modules/items/PDF/item_618_NL_The_table_of_Eleven.pdf> (last accessed 8 September 2018).
55 Hathaway, O, “Path Dependence in the Law: The Course and Pattern of Legal Change in a Common Law System” (2001) 86 Iowa Law Review 601 CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 604.
56 Friedman, L, Impact. How Law Affects Behaviour (Harvard University Press 2016) at 45 Google Scholar, 48.
57 Bardach, E, The Implementation Game: What Happens after a Bill becomes a Law (MIT Press 1977)Google Scholar.
58 Flückiger, A, “L’obligation jurisprudentielle d'évaluation législative: une application du principe de précaution aux droits fondamentaux” in A Auer, A Flückiger and M Hottelier, Les droits de l’homme et la constitution: études en l’honneur du Professeur Giorgio Malinverni (Schulthess 2007) at 170 Google Scholar.
59 Art 170 of the Swiss Constitution; Art 24 of the French Constitution.
60 Oliver-Lalana, supra, note 6, at 257–294.
61 Schäffer, H, “Evaluation and Assessment of Legal Effects Procedures: Towards a More Rational and Responsible Lawmaking Process” (2001) 22 Statute Law Review 132 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
62 European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, “Opinion of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights on the Situation of Equality in the European Union 10 Years on from Initial Implementation of the Equality Directives” (FRA Opinion – 1/2013) <fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra-2013-opinion-eu-equality-directives_en.pdf> last accessed 8 September 2018.
63 Allot, supra, note 12.
64 Non-discrimination legislation included the Race Relations Act 1965 amended by Race Relations Act 1968, the Race Relations Act 1976 and the Race Relations Act 2000; Equal Pay Act 1970; Sex Discrimination Act 1975; Disability Discrimination Act 1995; Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003; Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003; Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006; Equality Act 2006.
65 Dunlop, C and Radaelli, C, “The politics and economics of regulatory impact assessment” in C Dunlop and C Radaelli (eds), Handbook of Regulatory Impact Assessment (Edward Elgar 2016) 3 Google Scholar at 14.
66 A Alemanno, “Courts and regulatory impact assessment” in Dunlop and Radaelli, supra, note 65, at 127.
67 Meuwese, ACM, “Regulatory Review of European Commission Impact Assessments. What Kind for Which Better Regulation Scenario?” (2017) 19(1-2) European Journal of Law Reform 16 CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 18.
68 Xanthaki, H, “Drafting Manuals and Quality in Legislation: Positive Contribution towards Certainty in the Law or Impediment to the Necessity for Dynamism of Rules” (2010) Legisprudence IV 2 at 111, 127 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Millard, E, “Les limites des guides de legistique: l’exemple du droit français” in A Flükiger and C Guy-Ecabert (eds), Guider les Parlements et les Gouvernements pour mieux légiférer – Le rôle des guides de legistique (Schulthess 2008)Google Scholar; Cormacain, R, “An Empirical Study of the Usefulness of Legislative Drafting Manuals” (2013) 1(2) The Theory and Practice of Legislation 205 Google Scholar.
69 Mousmouti, supra, note 46, at 201.
