Two faces of 'international administrative law

• Author: Jakub Handrlica
• Pages: 363-376

Two faces of “international administrative law”

Associate professor Jakub HANDRLICA1

Abstract

The term “international administrative law” (diritto amministrativo

internazionale, droit administratif international, internationales Verwaltungsrecht) remains

an enigma of public law. Since the 1900s, the term has been traditionally understood in two

different ways. On one hand, some authors (J. Gascón y Marín, P. Kazansky, A, Rapisardi-

Mirabelli) used th is term regarding the administrative competencies of those various

“international administrative unions”. On the other hand, oth er authors (P. Fedozzi, K.

Neumeyer, G. Biscottini) used the term to exclusively refer to the norms of national

administrative law, which address certain foreign elements ; i.e. as a parallel to the

discipline of international private law. This article deals with these two different

understandings of “international administrative law” and with their impact for recent

developments in legal scholarship. The article also addresses currently renewed interest in

the “international administrative law” and its consequences for the newly established

doctrine of “global administrative law”.

Keywords: international administrative law, international administrative unions,

law of international organizations, delimiting norms, global administrative law.

JEL Classification: K23, K32

1. Introduction

In international law, the interest of national self-determination is expressed

through the principles of sovereignty and non-intervention. Sovereignty can be

understood in this context as the right of a State to exercise public power

independently of other States. This public power could take the form of legislation

(jurisdiction to prescribe), the issuing of administrative decisions, and the carrying

out of executive measures (jurisdiction to decide). It is only within its territorial

boundaries that the state retains the monopoly of the legitimate use of force. The

principle of sovereignty in this sense means that there is no general duty for the

State to cooperate in administrative matters. The principle of non-intervention

entails a duty of a State to refrain from involving itself in the internal matters of

other States.2

In the context of administrative law, the two principles mean that one

State’s legal rules and decisions lack any legal effect beyond the state boundaries,

i.e. in another State. Traditionally, such views have been linked to ideas of

territoriality, meaning that public law (including administrative law) by the natural

1 Jakub Handrlica – associate professor of administrative law, Law Faculty, Charles University in

Prague, Czech Republic, jakub.handrlica@prf.cuni.cz.

2 P. Fedozzi, Il Diritto Amministrativo Internazionale: Nozioni Sistematiche, Unione Tipografica

Cooperativa, Perugia, 1901, pp. 10-12.