Acesso Livre Acesso Livre  Acesso restrito Acesso Restrito

The Three Dimensions of Administrative Law

Eduardo Jordão


My claim is that administrative law has three dimensions: legal, managerial and political. I intend to present them and to discuss their relations with each other. I also plan to show how the tridimensional framework can be helpful and contribute to the development of this branch of law. The tridimensional conception of administrative law provides relevant analytical uses. First, it allows one to understand the dilemmas involved in each administrative choice. Second, it gives meaning to the differences found in the solutions that different jurisdictions give to similar legal problems. Third, it permits to identify and rationalize historical fluctuations that happen inside the same jurisdiction. Fourth, the tridimensional framework has the merit of overcoming a monistic conception of administrative law, which for long fails to capture the complexity of contemporary public administration. And it can open room for a more realistic justification of options inside administrative law. I will develop these points further.


administrative law; dimensions; legal; managerial; political

Texto completo:

PDF (English)


ACKERMAN, Bruce. The New Separation of Powers. Harvard Law Review v. 113, p. 633-725, 2000.

ARTHURS, Harry. Rethinking administrative law: a slightly Dicey business. Osgood Hall L.J., V. 17, 1979.

BREYER, Stephen. Judicial Review of Questions of Law and Policy. Admin. L. Rev., v. 38, p. 363, 1986.

BYSE, Clark. Judicial Review of Administrative Interpretation of Statutes: an analysis of Chevron’s Step Two. Admin. L.J, v. 2, p. 255, 1988.

CANANEA, Giacinto della. I fattori sovranazionali e internazionali di convergenza e di integrazione. In: NAPOLITANO, Giulio (a cura di). Diritto Amministrativo comparator. Milano: Giuffré, 2007.

CASSESE, Sabino. Le problème de la convergence des droits administratifs: ver un modèle administratif européen?. In: L'État de Droit: Mélanges en l'honneur de Guy Braibant. Paris, Dalloz, 1996.

CHOFFEL, Denis; ALDRIN, Jérémy. Réflexions autour de la notion « d’accountability » à travers l’application d’une grille d’analyse sur deux études de terrain en management public. Gestion et management public, v. 4, n. 1, 2015/3.

CLARICH, Marcello. Le autorità indipendenti tra regole, discrezionalità e controllo giudiziario. Foro amministrativo: TAR, 2002.

D’ALBERTI, Marco. Diritto amministrativo comparato: trasformazioni dei sistemi amministrativi in Francia, Gran Bretagna, Stati Uniti, Italia. Bologna: Il Mulino, 1992.

DYZENHAUS, David; FOX-DECENT, Evan. Rethinking the Process/Substance Distinction: Baker v. Canada.

FRANKFURTER, Felix. Foreword: Current Developments in Administrative Law. Yale L. J. v. 47, p. 515, 1938.

GABARDO, Emerson. Understanding brazilian administrative law, the related literature, and education: a comparison with the system in the United States. Vienna Journal on International Constitutional Law, v. 9, p. 371-397, 2015.

JORDÃO, Eduardo Jordão. Le juge et l’administration: entre le contrôle et la deference. Bruxelles: Bruylant, 2016.

JORDÃO, Eduardo. Controle judicial de uma administração pública complexa. São Paulo: Malheiros, 2016.

JORDÃO, Eduardo; ROSE-ACKERMAN, Susan. Judicial Review of Executive Policymaking in Advanced Democracies: Beyond Rights Review. Administrative Law Review, v. 66, n. 1, 2014.

JUSTEN FILHO, Marçal. Curso de direito administrativo. 13. ed. São Paulo: Revista dos Tribunais, 2018.

KENNEDY, Duncan. Political ideology and comparative law. In: BUSSANI, Mauro; MATTEI, Ugo (ed.). Comparative Law. Cambridge, CUP, 2012.

KMIEC, Douglas W. Judicial Deference to Execute Agencies and the Decline of the Nondelegation Doctrine. Admin. L.J., v. 2, p. 269, 1988.

MACKLIN, Audrey. Standard of review: the pragmatic and functional test. In: FLOOD, Coleen; SOSSIN, Lorne (Coord.). Administrative Law in Context. Toronto: Emond Montgomery, 2008.

MASHAW, Jerry L. Judicial Review of Administrative Action: Reflections on Balancing Political, Managerial and Legal Accountability. Revista Direito GV, [S.l.], p. 153-170, nov. 2005.

MCGARITY, Thomas O. Some Thoughts on ‘Deossifying’ the Rulemaking Process. Duke Law Journal, v. 41, n. 6, p. 1385-1462, 1992.

MELLO, Celso Antonio Bandeira. Curso de direito administrative. 33. ed. São Paulo: Malheiros, 2018.

MOGLEN, Eben; PIERCE JR., Richard J. Sustein’s New Canons: Choosing the fictions of statutory interpretation. U. Chi. L. Rev., v. 57, p. 1203, 1990.

PIERCE JR., Richard J. Seven Ways to Deossify Agency Rulemaking. Administrative Law Review, v. 47 p. 59-95, 1995.

RISK, Richard C. B. In Memoriam: John Willis. U.T.L.J., v. 47, p. 301, 303, 1997.

STRAUSS, Peter. One Hundred Fifty Cases Per Year: Some Implications of the Supreme Court's Limited Resources for Judicial Review of Agency Action. Columbia Law Review, v. 87, p. 1093, 1987.

SUNSTEIN, Cass. Law and Administration after Chevron. Colum. L. Rev., v. 90, p. 2071, 2072, 1990.

SUNSTEIN, Cass; VERMEULE, Adrian. The New Coke: On the Plural Aims of Administrative Law. The Supreme Court Review, n. 16-23, p. 41-88, 2015.

TOCQUEVILLE, Alexis de. L’Ancien régime et la revolution. Paris, Folio, 1985.

VEDEL, Georges. Droit administratif. 9. ed. 1984.

VERMEULE, Adrian talks about the 'Optimal Abuse of Power'. Northwestern University Law Review, v. 109, p. 673, 2015.



  • Não há apontamentos.

Direitos autorais 2019 Eduardo Jordão

Licença Creative Commons
Este obra está licenciado com uma Licença Creative Commons Atribuição-NãoComercial-SemDerivações 4.0 Internacional.

ISSN 1516-3210 | e-ISSN 1984-4182

Este trabalho está licenciado com uma Licença Creative Commons Atribuição-NãoComercial-SemDerivações 4.0 Internacional.

R. Saldanha Marinho, n. 1762, Bigorrilho, Curitiba-PR, Brasil, CEP 80730-060
Telefone: +55 41 3014-0740