A Disabled Market: Free Movement of Goods and Services in the EU and Disability Accessibility

Individuals with a disability who wish to use goods and services can have a variety of specific needs, ranging from accessible written information to standard products and services which have disability accessibility features built into them. In light thereof, this article focuses on the impact which Community law has had, and could potentially have, on ensuring an EU‐wide market in products and services which are accessible to consumers with a disability. The article examines the (possible) impact of a variety of provisions, including the rules relating to the free movement of goods and services (Articles 28 and 49 EC, respectively), the internal market (Articles 94 and 95 EC), non‐discrimination (Article 13 EC), EU citizenship provisions, and the work of the European standardisation bodies such as CEN. The central question throughout the article is does EC law allow for, or discourage, the establishment of mandatory disability accessibility standards at the national or EU level, and have the provisions been used to permit or establish such standards to date?     

The Transposition of EU Law: ‘Post‐Decisional Politics’ and Institutional Autonomy

The transposition of European Union (EU) law into national law is a significant part of the EU policy process. However, political scientists have not devoted to it the attention that it deserves. Here, transposition is construed as part of the wider process of policy implementation. Drawing on implementation theory from the field of public policy, the article outlines three sets of factors (institutional, political, and substantive) that affect transposition. Second, the article examines the manner in which eight member states transpose EU legislation, and identifies a European style of transposition. An institutionalist approach is employed to argue that this style is not the result of a process of convergence. Rather, it stems from the capacity of institutions to adapt to novel situations by means of their own standard operating procedures and institutional repertoires. It concludes by highlighting (a) the partial nature of efforts at EU level to improve transposition, themselves impaired by the politics of the policy process and (b) some ideas regarding future research.     

Prospects and Limits of Democratic Governance in the EU

The EU Treaty contains for the first time a title on democratic principles. These provisions emphasise the importance of national parliaments and the EU parliament for the democratic legitimacy of the EU. The new chapter on democratic principles does not address the central challenge of the EU polity to the traditional understanding of democratic legitimacy, the disjunction of political and economic governance as expressed by the important role of independent institutions like the Commission, the European Central Bank and agencies in EU governance . This is a consequence of the fact that the status of independent regulatory institutions in a democratic polity has not been clarified—neither in the EU nor in the Member States. However, such independent institutions exist in diverse forms in several Member States and could hence be understood as a principle of democratic governance common to the Member States. Such an understanding has not yet evolved. The central theoretical problem is that regulatory theories which explain the legitimacy of independent institutions as an alternative to traditional representation remain outside the methodology of traditional democratic theory. Economic constitutional theory, based on social contract theory and widely neglected in the legal constitutional debate, offers a methodological approach to understanding independent regulatory institutions as part of representative democratic governance.     

‘Light Weapons’ and the Dynamics of Art 47 EU – The EC's Armoury of Ever Expanding Competences

This case note analyses the constitutional scope of the recent Luxembourg ruling of Light weapons and small arms, Case 91/05, Commission v Council delivered on 20 May 2008 (Grand Chamber).     

New Labour – New Penology? Punitive Rhetoric and the Limits of Managerialism in Criminal Justice Policy

This paper argues that New Labour's 'tough' stance on law and order has given rise to a criminal justice policy which is based on fundamental contradictions and which involves a substantial retreat from traditional socialist thinking on crime. The continuation of a populist punitive approach ensures the predominance in policy making of a 'criminology of the other' which, in turn, sustains a 'punishment deficit' which fuels public expectations that crime can be controlled effectively by a policy of deterrence through punishment. This populist punitiveness, it is argued, is at odds with another strand of government penal policy, the attempt to secure greater efficiencies and economies by an intensification of managerialism throughout the criminal justice system.     

Motive Unmasked: The European Court of Justice, the Free Movement of Goods, and the Search for Legitimacy

Abstract: In exempting from scrutiny under Article 30 EC certain measures constituting 'selling arrangements', the author examines whether the European Court of Justice in Keck and Mithouard and its progeny sought more than mere clarification of its jurisprudence on the free movement of goods. To wit, he claims that the Court was motivated by a sense of waning faith in its institutional legitimacy, initiating in Keck an attempt to more vigorously police the Community-Member State jurisdictional divide in favour of Member State prerogatives, banishing the Community judicial and legislative branches from the realm of 'selling arrangements'. After critical assessment of this hypothesis and of the Court's success, a final section queries whether the ECJ has adopted similar strategies in the Competition law and services realms.     

Regulatory Domain and Regulatory Dexterity: Critiquing the UK Governance of ‘Fracking’

This article provides a critique of the UK government's regulatory response to ‘fracking’. It shows how government has adopted two distinct schemas of regulation, which may usefully be classified under the headings ‘regulatory domain’ and ‘regulatory dexterity’. These schemas rely on very different interpretive conventions and are in many ways contradictory. Yet, government uses both ‘domain’ and ‘dexterity’ arguments simultaneously in order to advance its policy in favour of fracking. The article explains how two seemingly different regulatory approaches work together towards the same policy goal, and highlights the role of law in facilitating technological development.