Enforcement is the proper execution of the process of ensuring compliance with laws, regulations, rules, standards, and social norms.[1]
Governments attempt to effectuate successful implementation of policies by enforcing laws and regulations.[2]
Enactment refers to application of a law or regulation, or carrying out of an executive or judicial order.
Theories of enforcement
Enforcement serves a number of functions; the enforcement of social norms can ensure conformity within insular communities,[3] the enforcements of laws can maximize social benefits and protect the public interest,[4] and enforcement may also serve the self-interest of the institutions that oversee enforcement.[5] Enforcement can be effectuated by both public institutions and private, non-governmental actors.[6] Enforcement is often accomplished through coercive means or by utilizing power disparities to constrain action.[7] Some scholars, such as Kate Andrias, have also argued that institutions enforce rules when deciding "when and how to apply" laws and regulations.[8]
Delegation of enforcement powers
Some governments will delegate enforcement powers to subordinate governmental entities or private parties.[9] In the United States, for example, the federal government and state governments often delegate a range of enforcement powers to administrative agencies.[10] There has been considerable debate in legal scholarship about the degree to which governments should oversee and supervise institutions to which enforcement powers have been delegated.[11]
Enforcement mechanisms are a central part of various policies. Enforcement mechanisms co-determine natural resource governance outcomes[12] and pollution-related policies may require proper enforcement mechanisms (and often substitutes) to have a positive effect.[13] Enforcement may include law enforcement or combine incentive and disincentive-based policy instruments.[14] A meta-analysis of policy studies across multiple policy domains suggests enforcement mechanisms are the "only modifiable treaty design choice" with the potential to improve the mostly low effectiveness of international treaties.[15][16]
In 2017, of 265 policies for ocean protection only 13% had specific enforcement mechanisms.[17]
Enforcement mechanisms are major component of governance structures.[18] It has been suggested that an effective global public health security convention would require a governing body (or bodies) to enforce the framework with appropriate enforcement mechanisms.[19] Similar approaches include the concept of "climate clubs" of polities for climate change mitigation. In such, "border adjustments [...] have to be introduced to target those states that do not participate [...] to avoid shifting effects with ecologically and economically detrimental consequences", with such "border adjustments or eco-tariffs" incentivizing other countries to adjust their standards and domestic production to join the climate club.[20] The Paris Agreement may lack enforcement mechanisms.[21]
On a national level, penalties for non-complying countries could include:
Institutions may choose to exercise discretion, thereby enforcing laws, regulations, or norms only in selective circumstances.[22] Some scholars, such as Joseph H. Tieger, have suggested that selective enforcement is an inherent component of all enforcement regimes, because it is impossible for enforcers to observe and catch every violation.[23] Other scholars, such as Margaret H. Lemos and Alex Stein, have suggested that "strategic" enforcement is a cost-effective method of achieving social benefits; by focusing enforcement on the worst violators, other violators will "downscale" their activities so that they do not appear to be the worst offender.[24]
^Amalia D. Kessler, Enforcing Virtue: Social Norms and Self-Interest in an Eighteenth-Century Merchant Court, 22 L. & Hist. Rev. 71 (2011).
^John T. Scholz, Voluntary Compliance and Regulatory Enforcement, 6 L. & Pol'y 385-88 (1984); see also Margaret H. Lemos, State Enforcement of Federal Law, 86 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 698, 701 (2011) ("The public interest promoted by state enforcement is the interest of the state and its citizens, while federal enforcement purports to serve the broader national interest.").
^Zachary D. Clopton, Redundant Public-Private Enforcement, 69 Vand. L. Rev. 285, 288 (2016); Michael Selmi, Public vs. Private Enforcement of Civil Rights: The Case of Housing and Employment, 45 UCLA L. Rev. 1401, 1456 (1998).
^Yeboah-Assiamah, Emmanuel; Muller, Kobus; Domfeh, Kwame Ameyaw (1 January 2017). "Institutional assessment in natural resource governance: A conceptual overview". Forest Policy and Economics. 74: 1–12. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2016.10.006. ISSN1389-9341.
^Dhanshyam, M.; Srivastava, Samir K. (May 2021). "Effective policy mix for plastic waste mitigation in India using System Dynamics". Resources, Conservation and Recycling. 168: 105455. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105455. ISSN0921-3449. S2CID233569368.
^Börner, J.; Wunder, S.; Wertz-Kanounnikoff, S.; Hyman, G.; Nascimento, N. (1 November 2014). "Forest law enforcement in the Brazilian Amazon: Costs and income effects". Global Environmental Change. 29: 294–305. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.04.021. ISSN0959-3780.
^ abcDuff, Johnathan H; Liu, Anicca; Saavedra, Jorge; Batycki, Jacob N; Morancy, Kendra; Stocking, Barbara; Gostin, Lawrence O; Galea, Sandro; Bertozzi, Stefano; Zuniga, Jose M; Alberto-Banatin, Carmencita; Dansua, Akua Sena; del Rio, Carlos; Kulzhanov, Maksut; Lee, Kelley; Scaglia, Gisela; Shahpar, Cyrus; Ullmann, Andrew J; Hoffman, Steven J; Weinstein, Michael; Szapocznik, José (1 June 2021). "A global public health convention for the 21st century". The Lancet Public Health. 6 (6): e428 –e433. doi:10.1016/S2468-2667(21)00070-0. ISSN2468-2667. PMC8099565. PMID33964227.
^See Kenneth Culp Davis, Dialogue on Police Rulemaking: Police Rulemaking on Selective Enforcement: A Reply, 125 U. Penn. L. Rev. 1167 (1977).
^Joseph H. Tieger, Police Discretion and Discriminatory Enforcement, 1971 Duke L. J. 717, 743 (1971) ("The exigencies of police work are such that even the most elaborate set of statutory or regulatory directives could not succeed in removing all occasion for the exercise of judgment.").