The Influent of Public policy

Public Policy is all those decisions taken by government authorities, executives, legislatives, and judicial branches. Public Policy is an attempt by government to address a public issue by instituting laws, regulations, decisions, or actions pertain to the problem at hand.

The numerous issues can be addressed by the public policy including crimes, educations, foreign policy, health, and social welfare.

So the influent of public policy is the good and bad policy to the public actors, and also the feedback of good and bad policy of public actors to government. So, what, and how the influent public policy process?

I.                   Government

Normally, while government are driven by election promises, plans, and budgets, government leaders are often responsive to significant changes in the external environment.  For example, they may change course due to public option, international events such as terrorism, or local development that have national repercussions. They can be influenced by factors such as

-          Issues receiving extensive negative media coverage

-          Data, research, and other new evidence

-          Party policies

-          Personal ambitions and goals

-          The advice and action of bureaucracy

-          Their leader, colleagues and staff

-          Community leasers

There are many internal players involved in decision-making often having conflict perspectives and priorities. Information may be in short conflicting, contradictory, and not always shared widely. Decision may need to be taken immediately, await the results of extensive public consultations, or be delayed indefinitely.

            While decision making can appear to be chaotic, governments do follow specific decision-making processes. To have influence, you need to know, respect, and use them

            For example, even when a government wants to move quickly electoral, decision-making and bufgeting cycles may limit it. it’s helpful to know how to identify these decision making “window” or most opportune time to influence public policy.

            Generally, there are four key stages in government decision-making:

1.       agenda setting

2.      Policy design

3.      Cabinet review

4.      Legislative approval

Governments try to garner as much as support or “buy in” each stage. Stages two and four are driven more by bureaucracy while stages one and three rest with the political level.

1.1.Agenda setting

Ideas for the setting of government priorities come from various sources such as party platforms, ministerial statements, public servants, political advisors, party research bureaus, and office of the premier or prime minister. Colleagues, friends, lobby groups, key constituencies, opposition parties, government caucus, the media, academic think tanks, other levels of government, central agencies, consultants, research findings, and task forces also contribute their priorities. Provincial cabinet ministers, with the assistance of such central agencies as the Privy Council Office, would agree on key areas which are then outlined in the Speech from the Throne. Once the Throne Speech is announced in the legislature, ministers then turn to their departmental officials to begin the work of implementation. Officials assess the external demands against priorities, whether resources exist or new resources are needed, legislation is affected or needed, and whether the minister has the authority to act alone.

As planning is in its initial phase here, this is the best opportunity to encourage or prevent policy outcomes.

1.2.Policy design

This stage is primarily driven by bureaucratic staff and is the most significant stage for stakeholder input. Political input at this stage is usually limited to that of an ombudsman function; for example, ensuring citizens have access and are treated fairly. Most policy decisions are made in small steps and in consultation with organized interests. To gain public input, the government may publish a discussion paper, undertake formal or informal consultations, or set up an advisory committee or task force. Governments are usually strongly committed to their goals but flexible on how to achieve them. Even when a government has made political commitments, there’s room to influence the policy design process. Once widespread support is achieved, it will become harder to influence the policy.

1.3.Cabinet review

The heaviest political scrutiny happens at this stage. Politicians assess the implications of a particular policy and ask themselves “will this achieve what we’re here to do”? Political staff usually have limited capacity to evaluate detailed policy which has been formed by public servants and stakeholders, but they will ensure the political ramifications have been considered (e.g. will this allow us to meet our promises, will it receive positive media attention, will our supporters be in agreement, how influential will the opponents be).

1.4.Legislative approvals

As the directions are now set out in a draft legislation or bill, it’s much harder to make changes at this stage except through amendments. To get to this stage, many compromises have usually been made along the way to respond to the varying needs and to get as many different interests “on side” as possible. Consequently, the more support for a government initiative the harder it is to change it. Minor changes are more likely at this stage than major backtracking. As government likes solutions, elected officials don’t want to hear about what they shouldn’t be doing. It’s more useful, therefore, to advise them of the unintended consequences of their planned actions and to offer workable alternatives.

1.5.Evaluation

After the approval to the public, first it just the draft, so the executive branch start their obligation to implement the new law, and take note the value of this new policy, do it impact seriously or not to their people, and also awaiting the outcome does it good or not if good they would like to approve it faster. But if the result is bad mean that they use good policy but bad political, it mean that the impact of that policy is large so they need to correct it. All of feedbacks are used to be from the public sectors such as demonstration, post media, or any public interest.

1.6. Corrective actions

If the government get the feedback, they shall be re-draft or issue the new decision to reform the old one, which is effective than before and keep the benefit of public actors too. Here we call good influent of public policy or good policy and good political which have small impact, it means that the conflict is nearly become null. So it is the useful one to government and also the public actors.

2.      Influent

There are ten top reasons to influent public policy

1.      Governments may be planning changes that can negatively affect public organization’s ability to fulfill its mission

2.      Government has many resources at its disposal that can be beneficial to your mission. These include information, contacts, funding, and regulatory levers. Governments also have ability to influent public option as well as change the conditions affecting charitable donations.

3.      If public actors don’t share their view, some else will. There’s been a dramatic increase in the number of charities in the last twenty years. Most causes have their own advocate competing for a place on the government’s agenda.

4.      Government wants to hear from public organization. They are looking for knowledgeable and reliable partners who are close to the real problems of people and willing to work on solutions.

5.      The public actors can advance their case and build trust. They are what they speak out about. Speaking out on public policy issues can increase the profile of your organization and people understand charities, the more supportive they are.

6.      The public organization has valuable experience and insights that can improve the effectiveness of government decisions and action.

7.      Government may be interested in partnering with you to achieve common goals

8.      Governments do not have the answers; a healthy democracy depends on the full participation of all sectors of society in its public affairs. Citizens, especially those who are marginalized, need a vehicle to participate in discussions about the future of their communities, the type of society they want, and the role of government.

9.      The Public donors may be wondering if the public actors are tacking the root cause of problems by looking at how systems and structures affect the issues they are concerned about. In some case, until the root causes are addressed, there may never be enough volunteers, staff, or resources to resolve the issue.

10.  Effective public policy advocacy can result in public organization advancing its mission far beyond the number of people being served directly by their programs.

And finally, being archive on the public policy front is like building up a saving account. Public actors never know when they might need to draw on their balance. For example, it’s often easier to get people’s attention about issues that may negatively affect your clients or services if your organization has already created a positive impression in the community and with decision-makers.

II.                Public Actors

 Public  tactics could include using the media to raise public awareness and concern, pursuing legal channels or influencing the political system. In developing your strategy and the specific tactics, it’s helpful to ask if it’s best to use a low, medium or high profile approach. Here are some considerations:

1.1.Low Profile

For example, a private or low key approach could involve letter writing3, phone calls, face to face meetings with middle level public servants, sending written briefs, or inviting officials to special events. This approach is best when you need to:

• Do fact finding. Find out about the priorities, concerns, and interests of decision-makers and who has decision-making power.

• Explore options and partnership possibilities.

• Build new relationships, create a positive image, raise profile, build ongoing support and new allies.

• Offer solutions, explore options, partnership opportunities.

1.2.Medium Profile

This approach could involve meeting more senior level officials, appearing before a legislative committee, meeting with members of parliament, aligning with other groups, sending letters to politicians or the media. Increasing your profile may be useful when you want to:

• Offer solutions

• Raise concerns, for example, point out the negative consequences of existing or planned actions

• Sway decision-makers’ thinking

• Let other opinion leaders know where you stand.

1.3.High Profile

Activities that would be considered high profile include meeting with opposition members, publicly criticizing the government, releasing information that could be damaging to the government, launching an ad campaign, or undertaking some political action such as a rally or demonstration. A high profile or more public approach can be riskier in that you can alienate those you are trying to influence or illicit criticism from unexpected sources. However, you may wish to use this approach when you want to:

• Exert power by showing how you can rally others to your cause or make the government look bad.

• Raise public awareness and concern.

• Build wider spread support for your cause.

• Have exhausted all other avenues and there’s urgency. While there are no set prescriptions about how to advocate, a list of possible public policy tactics and the benefits of each are outlined in Appendix J. Keep in mind a few common sense principles: be brief, clear, accurate, persuasive, timely, persistent and grateful

Public Policy is all those decisions taken by government authorities, executives, legislatives, and judicial branches. Public Policy is an attempt by government to address a public issue by instituting laws, regulations, decisions, or actions pertain to the problem at hand.

The numerous issues can be addressed by the public policy including crimes, educations, foreign policy, health, and social welfare.

So the influent of public policy is the good and bad policy to the public actors, and also the feedback of good and bad policy of public actors to government. So, what, and how the influent public policy process?

I.                   Government

Normally, while government are driven by election promises, plans, and budgets, government leaders are often responsive to significant changes in the external environment.  For example, they may change course due to public option, international events such as terrorism, or local development that have national repercussions. They can be influenced by factors such as

-          Issues receiving extensive negative media coverage

-          Data, research, and other new evidence

-          Party policies

-          Personal ambitions and goals

-          The advice and action of bureaucracy

-          Their leader, colleagues and staff

-          Community leasers

There are many internal players involved in decision-making often having conflict perspectives and priorities. Information may be in short conflicting, contradictory, and not always shared widely. Decision may need to be taken immediately, await the results of extensive public consultations, or be delayed indefinitely.

            While decision making can appear to be chaotic, governments do follow specific decision-making processes. To have influence, you need to know, respect, and use them

            For example, even when a government wants to move quickly electoral, decision-making and bufgeting cycles may limit it. it’s helpful to know how to identify these decision making “window” or most opportune time to influence public policy.

            Generally, there are four key stages in government decision-making:

1.       agenda setting

2.      Policy design

3.      Cabinet review

4.      Legislative approval

Governments try to garner as much as support or “buy in” each stage. Stages two and four are driven more by bureaucracy while stages one and three rest with the political level.

1.1.Agenda setting

Ideas for the setting of government priorities come from various sources such as party platforms, ministerial statements, public servants, political advisors, party research bureaus, and office of the premier or prime minister. Colleagues, friends, lobby groups, key constituencies, opposition parties, government caucus, the media, academic think tanks, other levels of government, central agencies, consultants, research findings, and task forces also contribute their priorities. Provincial cabinet ministers, with the assistance of such central agencies as the Privy Council Office, would agree on key areas which are then outlined in the Speech from the Throne. Once the Throne Speech is announced in the legislature, ministers then turn to their departmental officials to begin the work of implementation. Officials assess the external demands against priorities, whether resources exist or new resources are needed, legislation is affected or needed, and whether the minister has the authority to act alone.

As planning is in its initial phase here, this is the best opportunity to encourage or prevent policy outcomes.

1.2.Policy design

This stage is primarily driven by bureaucratic staff and is the most significant stage for stakeholder input. Political input at this stage is usually limited to that of an ombudsman function; for example, ensuring citizens have access and are treated fairly. Most policy decisions are made in small steps and in consultation with organized interests. To gain public input, the government may publish a discussion paper, undertake formal or informal consultations, or set up an advisory committee or task force. Governments are usually strongly committed to their goals but flexible on how to achieve them. Even when a government has made political commitments, there’s room to influence the policy design process. Once widespread support is achieved, it will become harder to influence the policy.

1.3.Cabinet review

The heaviest political scrutiny happens at this stage. Politicians assess the implications of a particular policy and ask themselves “will this achieve what we’re here to do”? Political staff usually have limited capacity to evaluate detailed policy which has been formed by public servants and stakeholders, but they will ensure the political ramifications have been considered (e.g. will this allow us to meet our promises, will it receive positive media attention, will our supporters be in agreement, how influential will the opponents be).

1.4.Legislative approvals

As the directions are now set out in a draft legislation or bill, it’s much harder to make changes at this stage except through amendments. To get to this stage, many compromises have usually been made along the way to respond to the varying needs and to get as many different interests “on side” as possible. Consequently, the more support for a government initiative the harder it is to change it. Minor changes are more likely at this stage than major backtracking. As government likes solutions, elected officials don’t want to hear about what they shouldn’t be doing. It’s more useful, therefore, to advise them of the unintended consequences of their planned actions and to offer workable alternatives.

1.5.Evaluation

After the approval to the public, first it just the draft, so the executive branch start their obligation to implement the new law, and take note the value of this new policy, do it impact seriously or not to their people, and also awaiting the outcome does it good or not if good they would like to approve it faster. But if the result is bad mean that they use good policy but bad political, it mean that the impact of that policy is large so they need to correct it. All of feedbacks are used to be from the public sectors such as demonstration, post media, or any public interest.

1.6. Corrective actions

If the government get the feedback, they shall be re-draft or issue the new decision to reform the old one, which is effective than before and keep the benefit of public actors too. Here we call good influent of public policy or good policy and good political which have small impact, it means that the conflict is nearly become null. So it is the useful one to government and also the public actors.

2.      Influent

There are ten top reasons to influent public policy

1.      Governments may be planning changes that can negatively affect public organization’s ability to fulfill its mission

2.      Government has many resources at its disposal that can be beneficial to your mission. These include information, contacts, funding, and regulatory levers. Governments also have ability to influent public option as well as change the conditions affecting charitable donations.

3.      If public actors don’t share their view, some else will. There’s been a dramatic increase in the number of charities in the last twenty years. Most causes have their own advocate competing for a place on the government’s agenda.

4.      Government wants to hear from public organization. They are looking for knowledgeable and reliable partners who are close to the real problems of people and willing to work on solutions.

5.      The public actors can advance their case and build trust. They are what they speak out about. Speaking out on public policy issues can increase the profile of your organization and people understand charities, the more supportive they are.

6.      The public organization has valuable experience and insights that can improve the effectiveness of government decisions and action.

7.      Government may be interested in partnering with you to achieve common goals

8.      Governments do not have the answers; a healthy democracy depends on the full participation of all sectors of society in its public affairs. Citizens, especially those who are marginalized, need a vehicle to participate in discussions about the future of their communities, the type of society they want, and the role of government.

9.      The Public donors may be wondering if the public actors are tacking the root cause of problems by looking at how systems and structures affect the issues they are concerned about. In some case, until the root causes are addressed, there may never be enough volunteers, staff, or resources to resolve the issue.

10.  Effective public policy advocacy can result in public organization advancing its mission far beyond the number of people being served directly by their programs.

And finally, being archive on the public policy front is like building up a saving account. Public actors never know when they might need to draw on their balance. For example, it’s often easier to get people’s attention about issues that may negatively affect your clients or services if your organization has already created a positive impression in the community and with decision-makers.

II.                Public Actors

 Public  tactics could include using the media to raise public awareness and concern, pursuing legal channels or influencing the political system. In developing your strategy and the specific tactics, it’s helpful to ask if it’s best to use a low, medium or high profile approach. Here are some considerations:

1.1.Low Profile

For example, a private or low key approach could involve letter writing3, phone calls, face to face meetings with middle level public servants, sending written briefs, or inviting officials to special events. This approach is best when you need to:

• Do fact finding. Find out about the priorities, concerns, and interests of decision-makers and who has decision-making power.

• Explore options and partnership possibilities.

• Build new relationships, create a positive image, raise profile, build ongoing support and new allies.

• Offer solutions, explore options, partnership opportunities.

1.2.Medium Profile

This approach could involve meeting more senior level officials, appearing before a legislative committee, meeting with members of parliament, aligning with other groups, sending letters to politicians or the media. Increasing your profile may be useful when you want to:

• Offer solutions

• Raise concerns, for example, point out the negative consequences of existing or planned actions

• Sway decision-makers’ thinking

• Let other opinion leaders know where you stand.

1.3.High Profile

Activities that would be considered high profile include meeting with opposition members, publicly criticizing the government, releasing information that could be damaging to the government, launching an ad campaign, or undertaking some political action such as a rally or demonstration. A high profile or more public approach can be riskier in that you can alienate those you are trying to influence or illicit criticism from unexpected sources. However, you may wish to use this approach when you want to:

• Exert power by showing how you can rally others to your cause or make the government look bad.

• Raise public awareness and concern.

• Build wider spread support for your cause.

• Have exhausted all other avenues and there’s urgency. While there are no set prescriptions about how to advocate, a list of possible public policy tactics and the benefits of each are outlined in Appendix J. Keep in mind a few common sense principles: be brief, clear, accurate, persuasive, timely, persistent and grateful

What is actor? What is State? What is sources of International law?

1). What is state? In term of Actors

v  What is actor? Actors are all legal system that must comply with the rule of that system or face some from of sanction. In international law actors are simply the individuals and collective entities such as state and international organizations, which make behavioral choices, whether lawful or unlawful.  Actors shall be process rights and duties in its manner, enjoys legal personality, and can be the object or subject of international law.

v  What is state? States refer to the nation. State shall be having sovereignty, population, territory, and independence. State shall have right and duties such as:

-          To obey treaties and international law in general

-          To compensate other states and their citizens in case of material harms

-          To protect foreign nationals and their property and treat them as well as their own citizen without regarding matter of voting an holding political office

-          To self-preservation include self-defense

-          To enjoy a right to legal equality and sovereign independence including control over their domestic affairs

-          To recognize and participate in diplomatic intercourse including joining international organizations

-          To sue other states in the ICJ and other course if they have ratified the treaty creating their countries

-          Not intervene the other state affairs or attack them by military

-          Not allow their territory to be used to harm other countries that may cause pollution to reach another territory

What is state in term of actor? A state is a sovereign actor with a central government that rule over a permanent population and territory, protects, and prevents that population, government, and independence in international policies, process right and duties in it manner as above, What is State, then enjoy legal personality such as carries out diplomatic intercourse, or exchange the ambassadors…etc. specially the can be the Subject or Object of international law. The object of international law: the actors receive the effect of international law including benefits and sanctions, an official order, such as the stopping of trade, which is taken against a country in order to make it obey international law. The subject of international law shall have duties and rights including capacity to appear before a penal of arbiter or international court.

      Example: USA and Cambodia, UAS is the Subject because they provide the Exporters to develop Cambodia, and Cambodia is the Object because they receive the Exporters from USA by any international organization or any NGO.

2). What is the Subject of international law?

A Subject of international law also called an international legal person or actors, is a body or entity recognized or accepted as being capable of exercising international right and duties. There are two define of subject of international law, namely, States and international organization.

v  States and international organizations are the main subject of international law which has all capacities such as legal personality, their obligation and rights need not be the same as a state.

     Example: ICJ has recognize some international organizations as proper subject of international law where are they

-          Are a permanent association of state, with lawful objective

-          Has distinct legal powers and purpose from the member states

-          Can exercise powers internationally, not only within a domestic system

In this types of international organization are the EU, UN, WHO…etc. Like The International Committee of the Red Cross, base Switzerland, has a unique status in international law as  inter-governmental organization as guardian of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 for the protection of victims of armed conflict. It is neither an international organization nor non-governmental organization, but has a special legal stats under treaty law by virtue of important functions in upholding legal protections i situation of armed conflict.

3). What is the sources of International law of ICJ?

It is generally accepted that Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice is a complete statement of the sources of international law. Article 38 describes the following four sources:

1.                   international conventions and treaties that establish rules that States expressly recognize;

2.                  international custom as evidence of general practice(s) accepted by States as law;

3.                  general principles of law; and

4.                  Judicial decisions and the teachings of highly qualified publicists of various nations

v  International conventions and treaty:

Treaties, or international conventions, can be bilateral (between two States) or multilateral (between many States). A treaty is a written legal document (instrument) agreed between States and governed by international law. It may be in the form of a single instrument, or two or more related instruments. Although often used interchangeably, the term ‘convention’ is usually reserved for multilateral agreements, such as The Hague, Geneva, and Vienna Conventions. Treaties can also be called agreements, protocols, or instruments. So the processes for concluding a treaty generally include some steps such as: adoption, signature, ratification, accession, entry into force, treat are binding, and reservations to treaties.

v  International Custom

Customary international law describes general practices accepted as law by States. The development of customary international law is an ongoing process, making it more flexible than law contained in treaties. The task of identifying or describing customary international law, involves consideration of the following elements:

-           the degree of consistency and uniformity of the practice;

-          the generality and duration of the practice;

-          the interests of specially affected States; and

-          The degree to which the States who adopt the practice do so from recognition that the practice is required by, or consistent with prevailing international law,

 The shorthand for the belief that the practices required by law are opinio juris et necessitates, a Latin phrase, in English is a legal rule that is necessary to obey. A brief definition is that a customary rule is a general practices accept as law, it still importance today especially in the area of state duties and rights, state immunity, and state succession.

     Example: Jus Cogens: The principles of international law, which included the prohibition of slavery and torture, genocide, the use of armed forced, and piracy on the high sea, and more positively, the principle of racial non-discrimination, and the right to self-determination, we called it compelling law and referred to so-called peremptory norms of general international law. Not every principle of international has the status of Jus Congens. To being understand how compelling principle or rules of international law are and how they become so, it is importance to make sense of how international law is found.

v  General Principle of Law

v  Another source of international law is ‘general principles of law’. The ICJ is directed to consider ‘the general principles of law recognized by civilized nations’ in its decision making: see Statute of the International Court of Justice, Article 38(1)(c).

What are ‘general principles of law’? Does it mean that the ICJ should search for what the legal systems of the world have in common and apply those principles? Or rather, should the ICJ use methods and doctrines of domestic legal decision making to the extent that they are useful in addressing the questions before the Court, to develop an international judicial method? The preferable view seems to be that international tribunals use domestic law selectively where situations are comparable to make the administration of international law work.8

     Another good example is the use by the ICJ of the principles of estoppel or acquiescence to the relations between States. ‘Estoppel’ is a doctrine that comes from an equitable tradition in legal reasoning that concerns itself with fairness, conscionability and justice. Estoppel works like this. ‘State A’ acts or says something to encourage ‘State Z’ to believe in a particular legal or factual situation. State Z relies on what State A did or said. Now State A wants to go back on its word or its representation and State Z will suffer as a result. State Z can estop State A from changing it tune.

v  Judicial ad decisions and writing of publicists

The Statute of the International Court of Justice says that the Court shall apply judicial decisions and the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists as subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law’: Article 38(1)(d). Traditionally, judicial decisions and writing of publicists do not themselves form a source of international law, but help the Court to identify the scope of customary law, proper interpretation of a treaty, or existence of general principles. According to a leading academic, the idea of a hierarchy of sources of international law with judicial decisions and academics at the bottom is misplaced.11 The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is the main court of the UN and its decisions identify and articulate international law rules based on treaty, custom, general principles of law, judicial decisions of international and national courts and tribunals, and the writings of jurists.

-          Judicial decisions

1.      The decisions of the ICJ have no binding force, except for between the parties in a particular case: Statute of the ICJ, Article 59. While this means that there is no formal and consistent system of binding precedent, the ICJ does have regard to its previous decisions and advisory opinions and to the law that it has applied in previous cases. It is also concerned to ensure procedural consistency.

2.      Some ICJ decisions have been influential in developing new rules of international law. For example the Reparations case, which established the legal personality of the UN;12 the Nuclear Tests cases, which concerned the circumstances in which a unilateral declaration is binding on the State that made it;13 and the Anglo- Norwegian Fisheries case concerning how the territorial sea is to be measured along a deeply indented coastline or coastal fringe of islands

3.      Decisions of other bodies, including arbitration panels, specialist tribunals and regional courts such as the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights, assist in application of particular aspects of the law. Decisions of domestic courts, which interpret rules of international law can provide guidance as to the law, and provide evidence of the practice of that State in the development of customary international law.

-          Writing of Publicists and jurists

The writings of publicists and jurists (that is, academics of international public law) are important in the ongoing refinement and development of international law. They inform the shape of legal advice given to governments and therefore inform State practice; they are used in pleadings and in argument before the ICJ by States.

Other sources treated similarly to the writings of eminent publicists, and at least as authoritative15 are:

-                       the reports, research and draft articles produced by the International Law Commission (a subsidiary organ of the UN General Assembly responsible for the progressive development and codification of international law: UN Charter, Article 13(1)(a));

-                       resolutions and working papers of expert bodies

-                      the workings of secretariats providing the legal basis for conferences and working groups such as theHague Codification Conference.