Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
On Law, Politics, and Judicialization$
Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content.

Martin Shapiro and Alec Stone Sweet

Print publication date: 2002

Print ISBN-13: 9780199256488

Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: November 2003

DOI: 10.1093/0199256489.001.0001

Show Summary Details
Page of

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use. date: 26 February 2020

The Giving Reasons Requirement

The Giving Reasons Requirement

(p.228) The Giving Reasons Requirement
On Law, Politics, and Judicialization

Martin Shapiro (Contributor Webpage)

Oxford University Press

To sustain a viable social science of law and courts, testable propositions, appropriate research designs for testing those hypotheses, and comparative materials are needed; Ch. 4, and the two papers within it, discuss and use three strategies for building theory through testing and comparing. This first paper, which was originally published in the University of Chicago Law Forum in 1992, discusses a mode of testing that involves constructing causal hypotheses to explain a major change that has occurred in one particular part of one particular legal system, and testing these comparatively either by predicting future developments in the same legal system, or (as here) by predicting that another legal system now displaying the same hypothesized conditions will experience in the future those results that occurred in the first system. Shapiro examines the ‘giving reasons requirement’ in European Community (EC) law by deriving predictions about European law from the evolution of American judicial review of administrative acts. The first part of the paper examines the giving reasons requirement in relation to administrative discretion and judicial review of administrative action in the United States. The second part goes on to compare US and EC law, looking at whether the EC giving reasons requirement is substantive as well as procedural, and examining the experience of the European Court of Justice with substantive review.

Keywords:   administrative acts, administrative discretion, causal hypotheses, comparison, courts, European Community, European Community law, European Court of Justice, giving reasons requirement, judicial review, law, prediction, social science, substantive review, testing, United States

Oxford Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.

Please, subscribe or login to access full text content.

If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

To troubleshoot, please check our FAQs , and if you can't find the answer there, please contact us .