Policy dismantling at EU level: Reaching the limits of ‘an ever-closer ecological union’?

Having explained their adoption, analysts are now trying to understand how EU environmental policies have subsequently evolved over time. In 2003, David Vogel famously speculated that having overtaken the US in the environmental race to the top, EU policies would also eventually succumb to policy gridlock, that is, neither expanding nor dismantling. Empirical research has since confirmed that EU policy expansion is in decline, but less is known about why dismantling has also been very limited. This article breaks new ground by reconfiguring dismantling—a concept developed for national policy systems—to explain the various dismantling strategies deployed at EU level (1992 to 2016). It finds that the absence of significant dismantling is due both to the symbolic nature of early dismantling attempts and the failure of more recent attempts to build coalitions that overcome institutional obstacles to policy change in the EU.     

Breaking the Divide: Setting Environmental Precedent in the Chicago River

Here we argue that sociolegal processes can not only restructure social relationships through setting legal precedent but can also restructure socioenvironmental relationships through setting what we call “environmental precedent.” By environmental precedent we mean the environmental consequences of legal processes, environmental consequences that then become the new, dynamic material reality for future legal processes. We apply the concept of environmental precedent to a legal history of the Chicago River, using this case to illustrate how interactions between sociolegal and environmental processes can set environmental precedent in a way that reshuffles the social and material foundations of future legal processes.     

Foreword: Follow-on Biologics: Implementation Challenges and Opportunities

This Book of the Seton Hall Law Review presents the contributions to Follow-On Biologics: Implementation Challenges and Opportunities, a one-day roundtable event hosted by Seton Hall University School of Law in the fall of 2010. The roundtable fostered an international dialogue regarding the future of follow-on biologics in the United States resulting from the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of March 2010. THE BIOLOGIC PRICE COMPETITION AND INNOVATION ACT OF 2010. The March 23, 2010, enactment of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) and the companion Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act of 2010 ushered in landmark reform of the American health care system. Along with sweeping overhauls of the health care system generally, PPACA also provides a new regulatory challenge for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). A subtitle within PPACA, the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA), bestows upon FDA broad authority to implement an abbreviated approval route to market for biological products (also known as biologics) that are "biosimilar" to an existing marketed product. The brief introduction will provide a basic comparison of biologics and conventional pharmaceutical drugs that will prove central to the FDA's development of this follow-on biologic pathway as well as specifically examine the content and scope of the BPCIA provisions and identify future challenges for the FDA. It will conclude by highlighting details of presentations during the roundtable held at the Seton Hall University School of Law and introduce the two resulting articles contained with this Book of the Seton Hall Law Review.     

Here we go round the review-go-round: Rape investigation and prosecution—are things getting worse not better?

Abstract

Despite numerous reviews, reports and commissions of inquiry, the investigation and prosecution of rape cases remains fraught. Victims are still ambivalent about reporting incidents of sexual violence, while those who do often struggle to be believed and have their cases progress through justice systems. This paper explores some of the reasons why promised reforms materialise so rarely into tangible benefits for the majority of rape complainants, and focuses on six areas: reporting, attrition, adversarial justice systems, victim support, specialisation and attitudes. These are canvassed with particular reference to examples from England and New Zealand demonstrating the barriers to substantive reform and the ways in which gender inequalities and patriarchal beliefs continue to impact upon both the prevalence of sexual violence as well as state responses to its occurrence. The paper contains a cautionary message regarding the potential dangers involved in accepting the rhetoric of reform while the underlying realities remain little changed.