The socialization potential of the CDM in EU–China climate relations

This article hypothesizes that the material incentives associated with the clean development mechanism (CDM) have contributed to the internalization of climate protection norms in China. In current academic research, the CDM has both been extolled as a cost-effective and vilified as an environmentally and ethically inadequate climate mitigation instrument. Few studies so far, however, have looked into the CDM’s potential contribution to socialization-related phenomena such as raising climate change awareness in emerging economies. The relationship with the EU is highly relevant in this context, as the emission reduction credits (CERs) resulting from CDM projects would not have had any meaningful prices without the European Union’s Emissions Trading System (EU ETS). This article aims to fill the current research gap by studying the socialization potential of the CDM in EU–China climate relations in four periods, namely initiation (2001–2005), improvement (2005–2007), consolidation (2008–2010) and habit formation (2010–2014). We argue that there is at least a discernible effect and that the underlying causal mechanism involves the emergence and activities of norm entrepreneurs and habit formation through a process of legal institutionalization.     

China and the EU: Where next in bilateral trade and investment relations?

Trade and investment relations between China and the European Union (EU) have reached a momentous significance. China is the EU’s No. 1 supplier of goods and its second-largest export market. In turn, the EU is China’s largest trading partner. Not only goods but also services trade has large potential to grow, even as China undergoes a structural transition and the EU’s single market faces headwinds from a surge in state-centric political forces within Europe. Transport and trade-related services are bound to expand significantly as China’s integration into the world economy continues. Moreover, Chinese tourists have been flocking to Europe in ever greater numbers, giving a boost to related business. Foreign direct investment (FDI) is becoming the next engine of the China–EU partnership. While the EU is a long-standing investor in China, Chinese direct investment accounts for <1 % of the EU’s total inbound FDI stock. Investment relations have seen tremendous dynamism in line with Chinese companies’ outward expansion and Chinese M&A deals vis-à-vis the EU have grown rapidly in magnitude, scope and sophistication. Finally, plenty of headroom exists for greater adoption of the use of the Chinese Renminbi (RMB) in Europe, supporting financing of both investment and trade. The Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT) currently in negotiation between China and the EU as well as growing rather than declining interdependence of trade and investment highlight the future potential for a comprehensive free trade agreement between the EU and China.

     

Anticipating the future use of safeguards by the EU and the US on China��s textiles & clothing exports

Textiles and clothing (T&C) trade after lapse of quotas in 2005 has revealed China’s overwhelming comparative advantage in the manufacture and export of T&C products. China’s advantage in this sector attracted the use of trade remedies by WTO members under WTO laws, often in a manner contrary to WTO norms. China has also been subjected to origin-specific safeguard regimes. The EU and the US have been leading users of safeguards against China’s T&C exports. The use of safeguards by the EU and the US raises a number of questions that impact on the future use of trade remedies by other countries. The use of safeguards also poses challenges for the multilateral trading system. This paper analyses the use of safeguards against China’s T&C exports with a view to anticipating the future use of safeguards in the quota-free trading environment for T&C.     

Envisaging the Post-Brexit Landscape: An Articulation of the Likely Changes to the EU–UK Competition Policy Relationship

In the light of the outcome of the 23rd June 2016 UK referendum to leave the European Union and the May government’s consequent approach to Brexit, this paper explores the likely changes that these will bring to a key EU–UK relationship, the competition policy relationship. It is suggested that changes are likely not only in public enforcement and private actions but also in the need for a new competition cooperation architecture between the EU and the UK. In order to appreciate how the competition relationship is likely to change after Brexit, an understanding of the current architecture in respect of the said areas is necessary and thus outlined early in the paper. Thereafter, it is argued that, post the implementation period, as the UK will no longer come under the direct jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice or indeed be a member of the Single European Market, a considerable loosening or separation of the strands that shape the current EU–UK competition relationship will occur. This unwinding of the currently intertwined EU and UK competition regimes will affect both public enforcement and private actions, thereby opening up the possibility of further regulatory divergence, unless consciously checked. Moreover, as the separation will see the Commission’s jurisdictional remit no longer include the UK, the domain will become the sole regulatory concern of UK institutions, particularly the Competition and Markets Authority. This will lead to dual regulatory capture, often of significant and complex antitrust and merger cases, given the overlapping nature of EU and UK markets. Clearly, this necessitates the UK regulator having the appropriate staffing to vet such cases, as it moves from essentially a regional player to one on a par with the Commission and regulators in the USA and China. In fact, the dual capture of such cases reinforces the importance of effective cooperation between the EU and UK regulators. However, given that the current competition cooperation relationship will end at the conclusion of the implementation period, the paper articulates a likely new EU–UK competition cooperation architecture, reflecting the fact that the UK would be outside the EU, but still enabling close, effective cooperation. Of course, and echoing the EU, it is also in the UK’s interest to agree similar competition cooperation bilaterals with key non-EU regulators. Yet, because this will take time, and because cooperation can indeed fail, the UK, like the EU, must ensure its competition instruments have the necessary extra-territorial reach.     

The EU or France? The CSDP Mission in Mali the Consistency of the EU Africa policy

The EU’s role in the recent Mali crisis offers a good opportunity to assess the consistency of the EU’s Africa [Africa as used here refers to Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA)—the region of the EU’s most extensive external policy] policy in the post-Lisbon era. Against the background of the EU’s external policy objectives with special reference to SSA, this Article will particularly offer a comprehensive overview of the legal and policy dynamics of the EU’s Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP). This will be discussed especially with reference to how they relate to (in)consistency in implementation as illustrated in the EU’s role in the recent Mali crisis. Although the EU initially made a decision to deploy an EU Training Mission to Mali, the EU did not activate the peacekeeping dimension of the CSDP as required at an advanced stage of the crisis. Instead, this gap was filled by France’s unilateral military intervention in Mali. The EU’s inertia in this regard raises the question of the consistency of its external policy instruments and policy objectives towards the region. Without excluding other possible contributing factors, the analysis submits that the ‘partial’ activation of the CSDP in Mali is mainly attributable to the constitutional specificity of the CSDP especially its lack of permanent and planning conduct structures. In any event, it is argued that these do not render the EU’s role in Mali less inconsistent both in the light of the relevant EU external policy instruments and objectives towards SSA in general, and in the light of the CSDP objectives in particular. In general, the Article uses Mali as a case study to illustrate the extent and therefore the limits of the consistency of the EU’s CSDP and its overall policy towards SSA especially post-Lisbon. Whilst acknowledging the current limits of the law in this context, the Article nevertheless argues that the dire implications of inconsistency for the effectiveness of the EU’s policies and for the credibility of the Union make a search for practical, if not legal solutions, a political imperative. This is necessary especially if the EU wants to protect or indeed rebuild its credibility as an international actor in general, and as an effective partner for crisis management in SSA, in particular [The EU’s credibility in much of the African Caribbean and Pacific states, especially SSA is reportedly already at an all-time low (Mackie J et al. in Policy Manag Insights ECDPM 2, 2010)].     

EU–China Competition Dialogue: A New Step in the Internationalisation of EU Competition Law?

EU has been the protagonist in promoting the internationalization of competition laws based on EU competition law norms. The development of China's Antimonopoly Law shows that EU has succeeded so far in establishing itself as the main reference point for China's competition regulation. The success can be mainly attributed to the EU‐China Competition Dialogue (Dialogue), a new initiative set up by EU and China in 2004. The paper reviews the internationalization of EU competition law and its characteristics. It then examines the Dialogue and how EU exported its competition law norms to one of the latest AML secondary legislations on Antimonopoly Pricing. It argues that the Dialogue's informal nature, EU's routinized technical assistance to Chinese competition authorities and its China‐oriented strategy in communication have been highly important in ensuring that the EU Competition Law becomes the main reference point for the AML. However, the paper argues that it is for the same reasons that EU faces weakness in controlling the reception of EU competition law norms by China. Based on this, the paper further illustrates that EU's understanding of competition law internationalization as reflected under the Dialogue has not undergone fundamental changes.     

Robotisation of the manufacturing industries in the EU: Convergence or divergence?

This paper investigates whether convergence or divergence of robot densities in the manufacturing industries of 24 EU countries occurred over the period from 1995 to 2015. An answer to this question permits immediate conclusions with regard to the success of convergence of labour productivities within the manufacturing industries of the EU, since it is expected that the use of robots will contribute to the growth of labour productivity. The empirical analysis is based on the robot data of the International Federation of Robotics and uses the convergence testing approach proposed by Rodrik (Q J Econ 128(1):165–204, 2013). Taking all results together, empirical evidence points to non-convergence of robot densities for a first period from 1995 to 2005, while there is relatively fast conditional as well as unconditional convergence for the second period from 2005 to 2015.

     

Mental health law and the EU: the next new regulatory frontier?

Over the last decade the EU's engagement with health law and policy has rapidly increased and there is now a growing body of literature highlighting this evolution and the impact of legal and regulatory structures in this area. In contrast the specific impact of EU law and policy in relation to the area of mental health remains the subject of comparatively little engagement. The aim of this paper is to examine whether mental health law and policy will become a major site for EU policy and law in the future. It examines the development of EU policy in this area. It sets this in the context of related legal developments such as the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the new EU Patients Rights Directives. It suggests that while it might be at present premature to envisage that a single body of EU mental health law itself may be unlikely that nonetheless the EU presents what is a potentially very influential site for regulation, law and policy in this area in the years to come.     

Trust in the proposed EU regulation on trust services?

A few months after ICRI's 20th anniversary conference the European Commission adopted on 4 June 2012 a draft regulation “on electronic identification and trusted services for electronic transactions in the internal market”. The proposed legal framework is intended to give legal effect and mutual recognition to trust services including enhancing current rules on e-signatures and providing a legal framework for electronic seals, time stamping, electronic document acceptability, electronic delivery and website authentication. Yet, this draft Regulation provokes many questions with regard to the implicit “trust” concept on which it is based. Starting from their experience in the EU FP7 uTRUSTit project (Usable Trust in the Internet of Things: www.utrustit.eu) and in other ICRI research projects, Jos Dumortier and Niels Vandezande have analyzed the proposed legislative text of the European Commission and wrote a few critical observations. Although obviously not presented at the conference in November 2011, it seemed worthwhile to add this contribution to its proceedings.     

The EU–ACP development cooperation – governance challenges for non‐state actors: the case of Malawi

The European Development Consensus 2005 contains a broad policy re‐statement of the EU’s world view vis‐à‐vis its internal and external relations. It places poverty eradication and sustainable development at the heart of its policy. The context within which poverty eradication is pursued is an increasingly globalised and interdependent world that constantly creates new opportunities and challenges. Combating global poverty is seen by both parties not only as a moral obligation; rather as a building block for a more stable, peaceful, prosperous and equitable world, reflecting the interdependency of its richer and poorer countries. The EU has in its relations with the African, Pacific and Caribbean countries, past and present, pursued a development agenda via successive aid and development cooperation arrangements starting with the Yaoundé I convention, through Lomé to the Cotonou Partnership Agreement (CPA). In this article I reflect on the CPA, based on a corpus of shared objectives, principles and the Lomé ‘acquis’ in relation to Malawi non‐state actors (NSAs). I reflect on the opportunities and challenges it presents and how contemplated social dialogue between government and NSAs on the one hand and the EU can translate into poverty reduction, sustainable development and integration of the local economy to the global economy. I conclude that unlike its predecessors, Yaoundé and Lomé conventions, the CPA acknowledges the complementary role of NSAs in the development process, however NSAs in Malawi face constraints in terms of organisation and capacity building that affects their participation. What I do not do is to offer a discussion of the CPA as a whole, for that is outside the scope of this article, but rather have focused on the governance aspect vis‐à‐vis NSAs.     

The effect of EU structural funds on regional growth: assessing the evidence from Greece, 1990–2005

This paper brings empirical evidence on the impact of EU structural policy on regional income growth. The case of Greece over the period 1990–2005 is taken as an example. This period is characterized by the acceleration of the European integration process, with a central role assigned to the EU structural support to less prosperous regions. Regional growth is approached through the estimation of β-convergence equations using panel methods of estimation. The empirical results reveal a positive impact of structural funds support on regional growth while income convergence is enhanced. In addition, a significant influence of spatial income and unemployment spillovers on regional income growth is evidenced, illustrating the recent growth performance in Greece. Our results leave ample room for European regional policy to operate for the promotion of growth and the reduction of regional disparities.

Inter-Parliamentary Cooperation in EU Affairs and the Austrian Parliament: Empowering the Opposition?

This article takes up recent arguments to strengthen national parliamentary powers in EU decision-making through inter-parliamentary cooperation. By widening the analytical focus from parliaments to the cooperation amongst the parties within parliaments, it seeks to advance the debate in two respects. First, the article aims at providing a more accurate picture about the cooperation going on today. Second, it discusses why the amount of, and the benefits gained from inter-parliamentary cooperation may vary between parties and therefore cooperation may not only affect the power relations between national parliaments and non-parliamentarian actors, but also those within parliaments. Based on the results of a study of the Austrian parliament it is argued that inter-parliamentary cooperation (a) is more important for opposition parties than for governing parties but that (b) parties can make use of its full potential only when their ideology allows them to integrate into a European party network.     

Should the EU Protect Democracy and the Rule of Law inside Member States?

Against the background of recent developments in Hungary, the article discusses the question whether the European Union ought to play a role in protecting liberal democracy in Member States. First, it is argued that the EU has the authority to do so, both in a broad normative sense and in a narrower legal sense (though the latter is more likely to be disputed). The article then asks whether the EU has the capacity to establish a supranational militant democracy; here it is argued that at the moment both appropriate legal instruments and plausible political strategies are missing. To remedy this situation, the article proposes a new democracy watchdog, analogous to, but more powerful than, the Venice Commission. Finally, it is asked whether EU interventions would provoke a nationalist backlash. There is insufficient evidence to decide this question, but the danger of such a backlash probably tend to be overestimated.     

The Review of the Development of Legal Science in China (1949–2009)

The legal science of the People’s Republic of China has experienced the stages of formation, reinstating and innovation over the past 60 years. Today, the legal field is flourishing. While the construction of different branches of law has been accomplished, there is still a long way to go in realizing democracy and rule of law in China. Jurists need to develop a heightened awareness of their social responsibility and the urgency with which to adapt the development of law to Chinese societies. Only under these circumstances can we effectively promote democracy and rule of law in China.     

The role of soft law in advancing the rights of persons with disabilities in the EU: A ‘hybridity’ approach to EU disability law

This article discusses the role of soft law in advancing the rights of persons with disabilities in the European Union (EU). In doing so, it revisits the emergence of the standalone, yet cross-cutting, field of ‘EU disability law’ through the lens of the ‘hybridity theory’ advanced inter alia by Trubek and Trubek. Being speculative in nature, this article construes EU disability law as a fruitful area for an enquiry into the dynamic relationship between hard and soft law. Until the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam, soft law was crucial to attract disability within the sphere of action of the EU and to embed the social model of disability, displaying a value-setting role. In the post-Amsterdam period, soft law and hard law coexisted, being complementary to one another. Both contributed to a common objective, namely that of advancing equality of opportunities for persons with disabilities. After the conclusion of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, the dynamic relationship between hard and soft law has become more complex and akin to what Trubek and Trubek define as ‘transformation’.     

China in the Asia–Pacific Partnership: consequences for UN climate change mitigation efforts?

This article discusses China’s motives for participation in the Asia–Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate (APP), and whether this has or will have consequences for its participation and efforts in the UN track of international climate governance. In order to discuss these issues, it also provides an outline of key national priorities and explains the nature of China’s involvement in both the UN track and the APP. It suggests that the APP is a complement to the UN process, not a competitor, in the case of China. APP participation represents a win–win situation in terms of the transfer of technology and know-how for solving challenges related to energy security and greenhouse gas emissions. For the Chinese leadership, this seems preferable to taking on UN commitments which it fears would impede economic development. The APP’s projects also seem to complement the Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism project in China. This article argues that there is little indication that China would make less of an effort under the UN track.

EU GDPR or APEC CBPR? A comparative analysis of the approach of the EU and APEC to cross border data transfers and protection of personal data in the IoT era

This article examines the two major international data transfer schemes in existence today – the European Union (EU) model which at present is effectively the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Cross Border Privacy Rules system (CBPR), in the context of the Internet of Things (IoT).While IoT data ostensibly relates to things i.e. products and services, it impacts individuals and their data protection and privacy rights, and raises compliance issues for corporations especially in relation to international data flows. The GDPR regulates the processing of personal data of individuals who are EU data subjects including cross border data transfers. As an EU Regulation, the GDPR applies directly as law to EU member nations. The GDPR also has extensive extraterritorial provisions that apply to processing of personal data outside the EU regardless of place of incorporation and geographical area of operation of the data controller/ processor. There are a number of ways that the GDPR enables lawful international transfer of personal data including schemes that are broadly similar to APEC CBPR.APEC CBPR is the other major regional framework regulating transfer of personal data between APEC member nations. It is essentially a voluntary accountability scheme that initially requires acceptance at country level, followed by independent certification by an accountability agent of the organization wishing to join the scheme. APEC CBPR is viewed by many in the United States of America (US) as preferable to the EU approach because CBPR is considered more conducive to business than its counterpart schemes under the GDPR, and therefore is regarded as the scheme most likely to prevail.While there are broad areas of similarity between the EU and APEC approaches to data protection in the context of cross border data transfer, there are also substantial differences. This paper considers the similarities and major differences, and the overall suitability of the two models for the era of the Internet of Things (IoT) in which large amounts of personal data are processed on an on-going basis from connected devices around the world. This is the first time the APEC and GDPR cross-border data schemes have been compared in this way. The paper concludes with the author expressing a view as to which scheme is likely to set the global standard.     

The environment as a strategic priority in the European Union–Brazil partnership: is the EU behaving as a normative power or soft imperialist?

In 2007, Brazil entered the European Union’s (EU) list of strategic partners; a token of recognition of the place Brazil occupies in current global affairs. Although promoting bilateral environmental convergence is a stated priority, cooperation between the EU and Brazil in this policy field is largely under-researched, raising interesting questions as to whether the current state of play could support EU claims for the normative orientation of its external environmental policy. Through an analysis of partnership activities in the fields of deforestation and biofuels, we suggest that while normative intentions may be regarded as a motivating force, critically viewing EU foreign environmental policy through a ‘soft imperialism’ lens could offer a more holistic understanding of the current state of bilateral cooperation. While the normative power thesis can be substantiated with regard to deforestation, we argue that by erecting barriers to shield its domestic biofuels production, the EU is placing trade competitiveness and economic growth above its normative aspirations. Subsequently, the partial adoption of sustainable development as an EU norm leads to policy incoherence and contradictory actions.     

Conclusion: regional parliaments – a distinct role in the EU?

ABSTRACT

Regional parliaments can shape EU policy-making via a range of domestic and European channels. In the context of a renewed interest in the subnational level, this article aims to address three core questions: have regional parliaments really been empowered by the early warning system provisions? Which factors explain differences in strength and mobilisation? Finally, what kind of a role do regional parliaments play in EU policy-making today, now that they have had several years to react to the trend towards multilevel parliamentarism? The authors argue that regional parliaments do indeed have the potential to contribute a distinct perspective to EU policy-making, even if their current level of activity is still low. Their distinctive territorial focus sets them apart from national parliaments. Their level of activity still varies greatly between parliaments depending on a number of factors.