Risk as a regulatory idea -- Risk regulation in the EU internal market -- EU authorization of GMOs -- the promise of deliberation -- EU authorization of GMOs -- the failure of deliberation -- differentiation through derogations -- contesting internal market discipline -- GMO reform -- the internal market as a site of diversity.
In: Revised version in C. Joerges & C. Glinski (eds) The European Crisis and the Transformation of Transnational Governance –Authoritarian Managerialism versus Democratic Governance, Hart Publishing, 2014 Forthcoming
Reality is complex, and often does not lend itself to generalization or simplifying explanations. Yet at the same time, explaining reality often requires the shaping of notions and concepts of it through generalization and the reduction of complexity. This tension between complexity and particularity on the one hand and generalization and the search for abstracting explanatory patterns on the other is beautifully illustrated by two recently released publications on precaution and risk regulation in the United States and Europe, namely "The Politics of Precaution" by David Vogel1 and "The Reality of Precaution" edited by Jonathan Wiener, Michael Rogers, James Hammitt, and Peter Sand.Both books together can be seen as the latest significant contribution to the ongoing debate on the role of the precautionary principle in risk regulation in a comparative EU-US perspective. Both contributions are significant in that they consolidate the trend towards an empirically informed analysis of the actual practice of the application of precaution in risk regulation.
In: Marjolein Van Asselt, Esther Versluis and Ellen Vos (eds) Science and Politics in EU Risk Governance: Integrating Legal and Social Science Perspectives, (Taylor & Francis/Routledge, 2013), Forthcoming
"After a reform is before another reform." This paraphrasing of a famous saying from the world of football seems to be a very fitting way to describe the status quo of the European policy on genetically modified organisms (GMOs).
In this article I describe and analyse the current regulatory developments at EU level concerning the marketing of foods produced from cloned animals. As they are on the verge of commercialisation in countries outside the EU, especially in the United States, foods from cloned animals are likely to reach the European consumers in the foreseeable future. Yet at the moment there is no specific legal framework that regulates such products in the EU. The European institutions have, however, opened up a debate to determine the appropriate European policy approach towards animal cloning. The recent discussion reveals that the variety of potential yet very uncertain risks associated with animal cloning renders the drafting of suitable legislation difficult. At the same time, Europe's regulation of food risks also entails certain regulatory risks of its own (e.g. risks of political, economic, and legal conflicts within the EU as well as with EU's trade partners). By considering the discussion on animal cloning in the broader context of EU's regulation of genetically modified organisms and of nanotechnology, I identify the legal and political problems of current regulatory options. I argue that such problems should be openly addressed in the regulatory discussion; it is possible for them to be minimised if lessons are drawn from previous regulatory experience.
In: TRANSNATIONAL STANDARDS OF SOCIAL PROTECTION: CONTRASTING EUROPEAN AND INTERNATIONAL GOVERNANCE, C. Joerges & P. F. Kjaer, eds., RECON Report No. 4, Oslo, 2004