Ceramic 发表于 2025-3-23 12:41:54
tific rationality. However, rational arguments in legislative phase often remain limited because legislation typically follows political rationality aiming at political goals. Moreover, the effects of law, for example the effects of information society legislation, very often are unforeseeable. TherDorsal 发表于 2025-3-23 15:08:47
http://reply.papertrans.cn/83/8237/823654/823654_12.pngHomocystinuria 发表于 2025-3-23 19:51:19
http://reply.papertrans.cn/83/8237/823654/823654_13.pngdissolution 发表于 2025-3-23 23:08:36
http://reply.papertrans.cn/83/8237/823654/823654_14.pngtooth-decay 发表于 2025-3-24 05:42:30
http://reply.papertrans.cn/83/8237/823654/823654_15.png急性 发表于 2025-3-24 09:27:58
http://reply.papertrans.cn/83/8237/823654/823654_16.png遭受 发表于 2025-3-24 13:58:04
http://reply.papertrans.cn/83/8237/823654/823654_17.png全神贯注于 发表于 2025-3-24 15:21:40
n seriously, this ideal expectation urges the question of whether MPs can actually justify their enactments by arguing, i.e. by giving and exchanging reasons for and against legislation, and how we could possibly ascertain the quality of their argumentation. This chapter suggests a structural accounPLAYS 发表于 2025-3-24 20:37:57
democratize lawmaking. This tendency operates in conjunction with a number of conflicting factors of a national and supranational character. As a result, the process of introducing new lawmaking technologies is uneven. In reality, completely opposite variants of the organization of societal impact abackdrop 发表于 2025-3-24 23:58:27
, acceptability and effectivity. In order to study legislation and the foreseeability of effects of law, cognitive conceptual tools are necessary. Following this idea, here legislation has been studied as process and phases: pre-legislative, legislative and post-legislative. In addition to that, the