Search results

Intro -- Series Information -- Editorial Office -- Contents -- Editor and Contributors -- Introduction -- 1 Regulating New Technologies in Times of Change -- Abstract -- 1.1 Introduction -- 1.2 Back to the Future -- 1.3 Regulating Technology -- 1.4 Connecting the Dots -- 1.5 Solutions -- 1.6 Conclusion -- References -- 2 Regulating New Technologies in Uncertain Times-Challenges and Opportunities -- Abstract -- 2.1 Introduction -- 2.2 The Scope: Democratic Governance, Market Regulation, and Data -- 2.3 The Contributions -- 2.3.1 Part I: New Technologies and Impacts on Democratic Governance -- 2.3.2 Part II: The Economic Perspective-Market Regulation of New Technologies -- 2.3.3 Part III: The Data in New Technologies -- 2.4 The Way Forward -- References -- New Technologies and Impacts on Democratic Governance -- 3 Between Freedom and Regulation: Investigating Community Standards for Enhancing Scientific Robustness of Citizen Science -- Abstract -- 3.1 Introduction: Citizen Science at the Intersection Between Freedom and Regulation -- 3.2 Defining Citizen Science and Community Standards -- 3.3 Theoretical Justification of Citizen Science as a Legitimate Method and Practice -- 3.4 Tensions Between Expert Science and Citizen Science -- 3.4.1 Insights from the Literature -- 3.4.2 Empirical Insights -- 3.5 A Critical Analysis of Community Standards -- 3.6 Conclusion -- Acknowledgements -- References -- 4 Human Rights in the Smart City: Regulating Emerging Technologies in City Places -- Abstract -- 4.1 Introduction -- 4.2 Visions of the Smart City -- 4.3 Human Rights in the Smart City -- 4.3.1 Human Rights Cities -- 4.3.2 Human Rights as the Foundation of the Smart City -- 4.4 The Smart City Competition -- 4.4.1 Smart City Strategies in Canadian Cities -- 4.4.2 Law and Policy in Smart City Proposals -- 4.5 Implementing Rights in the Smart City.

Abstract
The creation of a more sustainable economy is one of the main targets of the European Green Deal and the new Circular Economy Action Plan. Technological innovation is needed, among other things, to render materials, products, and production processes more sustainable. Given the goals of the European Green Deal, the regulatory concept of "Safe and Sustainable by Design" is increasingly receiving attention. The concept is (arguably) a precautionary and preventative measure that is implemented at the early stages of the design of a technology. Therefore, it is often described as a tool for lowering the risks that follow from efforts to create a more circular economy. The concept was included in the European Chemicals Strategy of the European Commission. The aim of the strategy is to accelerate progress towards the discovery of more sustainable chemicals and towards a toxicity-free environment. In this paper, we will explore the benefits and disadvantages of integrating the "Safe and Sustainable by Design" concept into the regulation of technology. As a form of regulation by technology, this concept can enhance sustainability. We will first describe the origins of the concept and its current use. Then, we will analyse its implications for the circular economy.

AbstractThis article explores the meaning of solidarity in European Union (EU) law in the context of the energy sector and the ongoing energy crisis. Energy provides a powerful and topical sectoral example of the fundamental role and diverse functions of solidarity in EU law. In itsOPALruling in 2021, the Court of Justice of the EU established that energy solidarity constitutes a legally binding principle of EU energy law that should inform EU institutions and the Member States in their energy decisions. This article adds to legal scholarship on solidarity in three ways. First, it further develops the understanding of the ambiguous solidarity concept in EU law through the lens of the energy sector. Secondly, it contributes to the emerging body of energy law scholarship that seeks to advance the discipline of energy law by focusing on its doctrine rather than on its substantive developments. Finally, it provides a timely and novel analysis of the EU's recent emergency responses to address the acute energy crisis from the point of view of solidarity.

Introduction: The Paris Agreement on Climate Change /Leonie Reins and Geert van Calster --The Preamble /Ben Boer --Article 1: Scope of obligations : terms and definitions /Rowena Cantley-Smith --Article 2: Aims, objectives and principles /Navraj Singh Ghaleigh --Article 3: Aims, objectives and principles /Navraj Singh Ghaleigh and Cleo Verkuijl --Article 4: Mitigation /Benoît Mayer --Article 5: Sinks, reservoirs of GHGs and forests /Annalisa Savaresi and Lucia Perugini --Article 6: Voluntary cooperation/NDCs /Matthieu Wemaëre --Article 7: Adaptation /Cathrine Ramstad Wenger --Article 8: Loss and damage /Elisa Calliari, Lisa Vanhala, Linnéa Nordlander, Daniel Puig, Fatemeh Bakhtiari, Md Fahad Hossain, Saleem Huq and M. Feisal Rahman --Article 9: Finance /Michael Mehling --Article 10: Technology development and transfer /Matthew Rimmer --Article 11: Capacity-building /Gokce Mete --Article 12: Education and training /Jelena Bäumler and Thomas Schomerus --Article 13: Enhanced transparency framework for action and support /Harro van Asselt and Kati Kulovesi --Article 14: The global stocktake /Marjan Peeters --Article 15: Compliance mechanism /Lisa Benjamin, Rueanna Haynes and Bryce Rudyk --Article 16: Institutional provisions /Jed Odermatt --Article17: Institutional provisions /Jed Odermatt --Article 18: Institutional provisions /Jed Odermatt --Article 19: Institutional provisions /Jed Odermatt --Article 20: Concluding the Paris Agreement : signature and consent to be bound /Rowena Cantley-Smith --Article 21: Entry into force and ratification /Rowena Cantley-Smith --Article 22: Amending the Paris Agreement /Rowena Cantley-Smith --Article 23: Annexes to the Paris Agreement /Rowena Cantley-Smith --Article 24: Settlement of disputes under the Paris Agreement /Rowena Cantley-Smith --Article 25: Voting rights /Rowena Cantley-Smith --Article 26: Depositary of the Paris Agreement /Rowena Cantley-Smith --Article 27: Reservations to the Paris Agreement /Rowena Cantley-Smith --Article 28: Withdrawal from the Paris Agreement /Rowena Cantley-Smith --Article 29: Authentication and adoption of the Paris Agreement's text /Rowena Cantley-Smith.

"EU Environmental Law discusses the reality for legal practice throughout the EU, as environmental law of the Member States is becoming ever less 'national'. Consequentially European environmental regulation is becoming more complex and interrelated, making it an emerging field of study for European law graduates, and an area of increasing exposure to the legal profession. This book gives readers a thorough overview of core European environmental law, with a section on the basic framework and principles, as well as on substantive law issues giving insight into the legislation in the different sectors and the most topical developments."

Half Title -- Series Information -- Title Page -- Copyright Page -- Contents -- Acknowledgements -- Abbreviations -- Notes on Contributors -- Table of Cases -- Table of Legislation -- Part 1 Conceptualizing Sustainable Energy Democracy in the Context of Law -- Chapter 1 What Is Sustainable Energy Democracy in Law? -- 1 Introduction -- 2 From an Ambiguous Buzzword to a Legal Objective -- 2.1 The Two Aspects of Sustainable Energy Democracy -- 2.2 'Sustainability' in Sustainable Energy Democracy: Decentralization and Distributed Energy -- 2.3 'Democracy' in Sustainable Energy Democracy: The Fair Distribution of the Burdens and Benefits of the Energy Sector -- 3 Legal Categorization of Sustainable Energy Democracy -- 4 Sustainable Energy Democracy in Action - Examples in Law -- 4.1 Conceptualizing Sustainable Energy Democracy in the Context of Law -- 4.2 The Sustainability Aspect of Sustainable Energy Democracy -- 4.3 The Democracy Aspect of Sustainable Energy Democracy -- 5 Conclusions -- Chapter 2 Making Sense of Changing Concepts for the Energy Transition: An Energy Transition Concepts Nexus for the Development of Policy and Law -- 1 Introduction -- 2 A Diversity of Concepts for the Energy Transition -- 2.1 Soft Energy Path -- 2.2 Energy Justice -- 2.3 Just Transition -- 2.4 Energy Democracy -- 3 An Energy Transition Concepts Nexus for Use in Legal Research and Lawmaking -- 4 Conclusions and New Avenues for Research -- Chapter 3 The Role of Science in Regulating Sustainable Energy Democracy -- 1 Introduction -- 2 What Does Energy Democracy Need Science for? -- 3 Trouble in Transition: A Mismatch between Science and Lawmaking in the EU's Approach to Bioenergy -- 3.1 The Science's View on Sustainable Bioenergy -- 3.2 Sustainable Forest Bioenergy in Law -- 4 Connecting the Science-Law Interface to Legitimizing the Sustainable Energy Transition.

Energy democracy has emerged in the context of the clean energy transition and decentralization as an element of that transition. It has emerged relatively recently in Europe and in the United States and has started to raise a number of questions in the area of social sciences and law. These questions relate to the function and role of sustainable energy democracy, but also to the legal nature of the concept of sustainable energy democracy. This chapter sets out to explore and answer these questions. Sustainable energy democracy has no well-established definition, let alone a legally binding one. It is used in different contexts with different meanings. This chapter investigates the concept of sustainable energy democracy in three steps. First, it deciphers the concept and demonstrates how it rests on these two fundamental aspects, being the decentralized generation of sustainable energy on the one hand and the fair distribution of the burdens and benefits of the energy sector on the other. This is achieved through a review of relevant scientific literature and governmental and non-governmental documents. Second, it explains the role of sustainable energy democracy in law. It argues that energy democracy is a legal objective (as opposed to a principle or a rule) and introduces some legal approaches to demonstrate how the objective of sustainable energy democracy can be translated into specific legal instruments. Third, it provides insights into how this translation into concrete legal instruments has been achieved in practice.

AbstractTo date, social sciences have devoted little attention to the processes of expert knowledge production related to the exploitation of unconventional hydrocarbon resources. In this article, we examine an epistemic experiment led by the European Commission, the European Science and Technology Network on Unconventional Hydrocarbon Extraction, which was aimed at producing authoritative knowledge claims on shale energy development. By developing the idiom of 'co-production', the article provides a more fine-grained understanding of the processes through which competing knowledge claims, forms of epistemic authority, and new energy publics co-evolve in a situation of highly-politicized controversy. Drawing on our first-hand observations as participants representing the social sciences in the expert network, this article provides an in-depth ethnographic account of the struggles of the European Union authorities to manage and delimit the controversy. In this way, the analysis develops our understanding of the challenges in improving the deliberation of shale gas as a transnational energy policy issue.

When it first launched in 2005, the European Union emissions trading system (EU ETS) expected to see carbon dioxide prices of around €30/ton and be a cornerstone of the EU's climate policy. The reality was a cascade offalling prices, a ballooning privately held emissions bank, and a decade of muted incentives for investment in the technology and innovation necessary to achieve long-term climate goals. The European Commission responded with various administrative measures, including postponing the introduction of allowances ("backloading") and using a quantitybased criterion for regulating future allowance sales ("the market stability reserve"). While prices have now begun to recover, it is farfrom clear whether these measures are sufficient to adequately support the price of carbon dioxide into the future.

When it was launched in 2005, the European Union emissions trading system (EU ETS) was projected to have prices of around €30/ton CO2 and to be a cornerstone of the EU's climate policy. The reality was a cascade of falling prices, a ballooning privately held emissions bank, and a decade of low prices providing inadequate incentive to drive investment in the technologies and innovation necessary to achieve long-term climate goals. The European Commission responded with administrative measures, including postponing the introduction of allowances (backloading) and using a quantity-based criterion for regulating future allowance sales (the market stability reserve); although prices are beginning to recover, it is far from clear whether these measures will adequately support the price into the future. In the meantime, governments have been turning away from carbon pricing and adopting overlapping regulatory measures that reinforce low prices and further undermine the confidence in market-based approaches to addressing climate change. The solution in other carbon markets has been the introduction of a reserve price that would set a minimum price in allowance auctions. Opponents of an auction reserve price in the EU ETS have expressed concern that a minimum auction price would interfere with economic operations in the market or would be tantamount to a tax, which would trigger a decision rule requiring unanimity among EU Member States. This Article reviews the economic and legal arguments for and against an auction reserve price. Our economic analysis concludes that an auction reserve price is necessary to accommodate overlapping policies and for the allowance market to operate efficiently. Our legal analysis concludes that an auction reserve price is not a "provision primarily of a fiscal nature," nor would it "significantly affect a Member State's choice between different energy sources." We describe pathways through which a reserve price could be introduced.