Your email address will be used for Wildy’s marketing materials only. We will never give your email address to any third party.
Special Discounts for Pupils, Newly Called & Students
Browse Secondhand Online
Wildy's will be closed on Monday 29th May and will re-open on Tuesday 30th May.
Online book orders received during the time we are closed will be processed as soon as possible once we re-open on Tuesday.
As usual Credit Cards will not be charged until the order is processed and ready to despatch.
Any non-UK eBook orders placed after 5pm on the Friday 26th May will not be processed until Tuesday 30th May. UK eBook orders will be processed as normal.
Through a comparative analysis of England, the European Union, and the United States, this book considers legal responses to delegation of governmental power to private parties. Although private delegation has the potential to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of governance, it should not be assumed to have this result. Private delegation creates risks to democracy, accountability, and human rights. Any legal controls must therefore respond to the challenge of enhancing the potential effectiveness of private delegation, while minimising the risks.
The legal responses of the three jurisdictions to private delegation are categorised in a two-fold and functional way: responses which impose controls on the delegator of governmental power, and responses which impose contols on the private delegate of governmental power. The controls imposed by different legal disciplines such as constitutional law, administrative law, regulatory law, and private law are assessed.
Three goals are pursued. First, the relationship between the different legal responses is. The challenge of private delegation is a complex one, which requires a multi-faceted response from a number of different legal disciplines. No one source of legal control is in itself adequate to respond to the challenge. Second, within the discussion of each individual legal control, appropriate responses to private delegation are analused. Third, Donnelly demonstrates that at present, the response of all three jurisdictions to private delegation, is inadequate albeit to differing degrees, is inadequate. A much greater awareness of the risks of private delegation and a greater sense of responsibility on the part of the judiciary are required if these legal systems are to respond appropriately to the challenge of delegation of governmental power to private parties.