EU Intervention Research Articles

EU Intervention in Domestic Labour Law by Phil Syrpis (OUP, Monographs on Labour Law, 2007), 177 pages, 55, ISBN 9780199277209

EU Intervention in Domestic Labour Law by Phil Syrpis (OUP, Monographs on Labour Law, 2007), 177 pages, £55, ISBN 9780199277209 Elise Muir Elise Muir Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar Yearbook of European Law, Volume 27, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 679–685, https://doi.org/10.1093/yel/27.1.679 Published: 01 January 2008

A Critical Assessment of the Evaluation of EU Interventions for Innovation in the SME Sector in Wales

In this paper, the EU Structural Fund intervention framework is critically assessed in an effort to reflect on the problems faced by policy-makers when trying to make sense of the complexity associated with innovation. An assessment is made of the `evidence-based' approach for reporting on EU Structural Fund interventions in the Welsh economy. It is argued that the measurement of quantifiable inputs and outputs fails to engage sufficiently with the process qualities of innovation. Building on this critique, the paper reports on a study of innovation practice and performance in a sample of Welsh manufacturing SMEs to demonstrate empirically the problems of assuming universal best practices and linear models of innovation. The evidence leads to recommendations for policy improvements in two areas: the need to improve the identification and support of innovative practice in SMEs; and the need to improve the monitoring and evaluation of innovation effects from policy interventions.

Trajectories of institutional design in policy networks: European interventions in the Dutch fishery network as an example

This article focuses on the strategies and processes of institutional design. It starts by recognizing that politicians often try to change institutional structures of networks and therefore more theoretical and empirical attention for these strategies is needed. First, the article provides a brief theoretical framework for understanding institutional changes and identifying institutional design strategies. Then it illustrates the framework by in-depth empirical research of the institutional changes in the Dutch fishery network as a result of the interventions of the European Union. The article first elaborates the strategic interventions of the EU and then traces the changes of rules as constructed and reconstructed by the actors in the network. The article ends by assessing the influence of the EU interventions and also by presenting some reflections on the concept of institutional design.

National Parliaments in the European Union: Are There Any Benefits to Integration?

Scholars and observers alike agree that the European Union has weakened national parliaments. This article posits that such a view, while generally accurate, ignores ways in which the EU has helped national parliaments in their function as regulators of society. It identifies two key mechanisms: precedent setting and policy transfer. First, the EU has produced laws on topics considered beyond the traditional remit of national par- liaments. The EU's intervention has justified the production of unprecedented domestic laws that go well beyond the incorporation of EU principles. This has expanded the leg- islative reach of national parliaments. The article considers the experiences of Italy and The Netherlands in the area of antitrust. Second, the EU has fostered an environment conducive to cross-national lesson drawing. The resulting knowledge has helped the design of more effective domestic legislative frameworks. This has confirmed the viability of national parliaments as regulatory institutions. The article examines the Open Method of Co-ordination and its application to the areas of employment and social inclusion. It con- cludes with a discussion of parliaments in future Member States and in Mercosur.

The impact of the Aarhus Convention on ethical management decision making

Within such concepts as corporate social responsibility (CSR) and ethical principles, there is an attempt to be made to ensure that protection of the natural environment is taken seriously. Information on how corporations deal with this issue has been required to achieve CSR standards and ethical acceptance. Previously, such information may have been required either voluntarily or through legal regulation. The new 1998 Aarhus Convention and EU intervention will have an impact in this regard. This paper seeks to address the extent of these developments and suggests that they should be adopted willingly by management as a part of greater corporate transparency to meet basic requirements to comply with CSR.

Does the European Company Prevent the 'Delaware-effect'?

The forces of globalization and economic integration have given a fresh impetus to company law reform in Europe. As recent judgments of the European Court of Justice encourage competitive lawmaking within the European Union, discussions about the role of the European Commission in the development of company law abound. Who is responsible for setting the agenda and controlling the legislative outcome? The further harmonization attempts and the introduction of the European Company Statute questions the necessity of EU intervention in the company laws regulated by the member states. This article analyzes the history of EU company law and locates a stable 'non-competitive equilibrium'. This equilibrium follows from member states' unwillingness to give up their lawmaking authority regarding company law issues. From the outset, member states were determined to prevent the 'Delaware-effect'. Since then, stability has ruled. The agenda-setting in EU company law has changed little during the existence of the EU. Even though the recent enactment of the European Company has triggered discussion about competitive lawmaking, it appears that competitive incentives hardly play a decisive role in the development of company law.

EU Intervention in Ethno-political Conflicts: The Cases of Cyprus and Serbia-Montenegro

EU Intervention in Ethno-political Conflicts: The Cases of Cyprus and Serbia-Montenegro

The Changing Landscape of EU Company Law

This is a time of spirited debate about regulatory competition in Europe. Discussions about competitive lawmaking abound. At the same time, the introduction of the European Company and the further harmonization attempts by the European Commission puts questions about the necessity of EU intervention into the company laws regulated by the member states. We, however, see no cause for excitement on either front. This article explains why not, drawing on analytical tools from law and economics. Analyzing the history of EU company law, we locate a stable noncompetitive equilibrium, which prevails in the EU. This equilibrium follows from member states that founded the EU unwilling to give up their lawmaking authority regarding company law issues. Since then, stability has ruled. The agenda-setting in EU company law changed little during the existence of the EU. Operative incentives, market structure, and regulatory results have been more constant than dynamic, even as recent case law of the European Court of Justice triggered a loud discussion about competitive lawmaking in the EU.

Shaping European spatial planning How Italy's experience can contribute

Despite an intensifying debate in recent years, a shared definition of European spatial planning is still unclear. As a concept that emerged following the acknowledgement of the involvement of the EU in territorial and urban matters, European spatial planning established itself in the making and 'application' of the European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP), undoubtedly the most significant evidence of a new deal for planning throughout Europe.Italy did not play a primary role in the ESDP drafting process, nor has the ESDP seen exemplary application in this country so far. Nevertheless, the important changes that have occurred in Italian planning practices in the past decade seem to owe much to the innovations introduced by EU intervention. These experiences would seem to lead to the sharing of a wider framework for European spatial planning, something perhaps necessary if a brighter future for the ESDP is to be achieved.

Principles of Policymaking in the European Union: An Economic Perspective

How should tasks be divided between the EU and its member states? And what institutional reforms are needed? This paper argues that the single market remains to be better enforced, and this might require further centralisation of tasks. On the other hand, EU meddling with redistribution should be scaled back; this would imply reducing EU intervention in agricultural policy, structural funds and the social charter. EU tasks should instead be expanded outside the first pillar, namely in foreign and defence policies, internal security, immigration. The paper ends by discussing what institutional reforms are needed to accompany this allocation of tasks. (JEL F02 , F3 )

EU regulatory strategy for mobile Internet

This article sets out to explain the development of a European strategy for the introduction of mobile Internet, referred to in Europe as Universal Mobile Telecommunication System (UMTS). Taking into account recent research on the feasibility of reaching common European solutions, two analytical perspectives (bureaucratic politics and political economy) are applied to explain EU policy-making and intervention to support a high technology project in an internationalized market sector. The major argument is that while the European Commission supported mobile Internet to promote its institutional self-interests and expand its regulatory reach, its preferences were restricted by the need to mobilize those private-sector actors with the greatest political industrial influence who provide the greatest political support to the Commission.

The Power of EU Collective Action: The Impact of EU Data Privacy Regulation on US Business Practice

Contemporary critiques of globalisation processes often focus on the potential levelling of regulatory standards and the export by the United States of neoliberal norms of deregulation and market facilitation. This paper, in contrast, examines the extra‐jurisdictional impact of EU regulatory policy on the behaviour of foreign private parties, even in powerful states such as the United States. Shaffer finds that the threat of curtailing access to the EU’s large market provides the EU with leverage. By acting collectively, EU Member States can magnify the impact of European policy on US business practice and enhance EU Member State clout in the negotiation of de jure and de facto foreign standards. The site of analysis is the current dispute between the United States and the European Union over the provision of ‘adequate’ data privacy protection in accordance with the EU Directive on data privacy. The paper explores the many ways in which the Directive affects US practice through changing the stakes of US players – including regulators, businesses, privacy advocates, lawyers and privacy service providers – and thereby shifting the playing field in the United States on which competing interest groups clash. In examining the interaction of EU law, US practice and international trade rules, the author finds that WTO law, rather than constraining the Directive’s extra‐jurisdictional impact, provides the EU with a shield against US retaliatory threats, thereby facilitating a trading up of data privacy standards. The paper concludes by examining the conditions under which cross‐border exchange can lead to a leveraging up of social protections: the desire for firms to expand their markets, Member States’ collective bargaining power buttressed by market clout, the nature of luxury goods, the externalities of foreign under‐regulation legitimising EU intervention, and the constraints of supranational trade rules.

Using an ecological understanding of farmland to reconcile nature conservation requirements, EU agriculture policy and world trade agreements

SUMMARYThe recent trend in the European Union for environmental objectives to be incorporated into agriculture policy is not simply because policy‐makers in Brussels have been convinced of the important biological value of farmland. Environmental payments to farmers have become a mechanism for supporting farmers whilst at the same time not generating increased production. There are two important reasons why production must be controlled: (i) because former production policies have been so successful, many sectors have over‐produced (for example, there are currently 700 000 tons of beef held in EU intervention stores) and this cannot continue; (ii) because the EU has agreed with its world trading partners (through GATT) virtually to remove production subsidies to farmers by the turn of the century. The danger, already apparent, is that environmental objectives will be misused to provide financial support to farms that are of intrinsically low biodiversity and nature conservation value. This will not be admissible under GATT and there is a danger that the misuse of environmental payments will cause major problems in the next round of GATT negotiations. There are therefore good political as well as ecological reasons for much better targeting of environmental support for farmland. Ecological studies that help us to understand the biological processes on farmland may therefore have to be used, not only for developing a more targeted environmental policy but also in the GATT negotiations.

The European commission as a multi‐organization: Social policy and IT policy in the EU

Abstract The underlying theme of this article is that to understand the process of European integration, it is vital to understand the dynamics of the European policy‐making process and the crucial role of the European institutions within this process. In this article the internal dynamics of the policy‐making process within the European Commission in two directorates (DG V [Employment, Industrial Relations and Social Affairs] and DG XIII [Telecommunications, Information Industries and Innovation]) are explored. It is argued that a vital characteristic of the Commission's ability to influence any policy sector is its ability to respond rapidly to any ‘windows of opportunity’, ripe for EU intervention, or indeed to facilitate the appearance of these windows. Yet, the means required to achieve this end, and the degree of success met, vary from sector to sector. If it is accepted that the Commission has an important role to play in EU policy‐making, and ultimately in the integration process, a better understanding of the functioning of its constituent parts, of the interrelationships between them, and of the influence of their activities upon the actions of the Commission as a whole, is vital.

Accountable Accountants: Is Third-Party Liability Necessary?

Previous articleNext article No AccessAccountable Accountants: Is Third-Party Liability Necessary?Victor P. GoldbergVictor P. Goldberg Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by The Journal of Legal Studies Volume 17, Number 2Jun., 1988 Sponsored by The University of Chicago Law School Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/468131 Views: 14Total views on this site Citations: 16Citations are reported from Crossref Copyright 1988 The University of ChicagoPDF download Crossref reports the following articles citing this article:Jorge L. Contreras , ( 2019).https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316416785James J. Park Auditor Settlements of Securities Class Actions, Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 14, no.11 (Feb 2017): 169–198.https://doi.org/10.1111/jels.12144Miguel Alzola Beware of the Watchdog: Rethinking the Normative Justification of Gatekeeper Liability, Journal of Business Ethics 140, no.44 (Mar 2017): 705–721.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3460-3Niels J Philipsen Limiting Auditors’ Liability: The Case for (and Against) EU Intervention, The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance - Issues and Practice 39, no.33 (Jul 2014): 585–597.https://doi.org/10.1057/gpp.2014.3J Pruijssers, J. van Oosterhout, Pursey P.M.A.R. Heugens Organizational Antecedents of Dysfunctional Auditor Behaviors: The Mitigating Role of Audit Firm Governance, SSRN Electronic Journal (Jan 2013).https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2251828Paolo Giudici Auditors’ Multi-Layered Liability Regime, European Business Organization Law Review 13, no.44 (Feb 2015): 501–555.https://doi.org/10.1017/S1566752912000353Joshua Ronen Corporate Audits and How to Fix Them, Journal of Economic Perspectives 24, no.22 (May 2010): 189–210.https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.24.2.189Giuseppe Dari-Mattiacci, Hans-Bernd Schäfer The core of pure economic loss, International Review of Law and Economics 27, no.11 (Mar 2007): 8–28.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irle.2007.04.002Juan José Ganuza, Fernando Gomez Should we trust the gatekeepers?, International Review of Law and Economics 27, no.11 (Mar 2007): 96–109.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irle.2007.04.004Z. Jun Lin, Feng Chen An Empirical Study of Audit 'Expectation Gap' in The People's Republic of China, International Journal of Auditing 8, no.22 (Jul 2004): 93–115.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1099-1123.2004.00084.xGiuseppe Dari Mattiacci The Economics of Pure Economic Loss and the Internalisation of Multiple Externalities, (Jan 2004): 167–190.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7091-0616-7_11Giuseppe Dari-Mattiacci The Economics of Pure Economic Loss and the Internalisation of Multiple Externalities, SSRN Electronic Journal (Jan 2003).https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.386000John A. Siliciano Trends in independent auditor liability: The emergence of a sane consensus?, Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 16, no.44 (Jan 1997): 339–353.https://doi.org/10.1016/S0278-4254(97)00035-5Peter-J. Jost Limited liability and the requirement to purchase insurance, International Review of Law and Economics 16, no.22 (Jun 1996): 259–276.https://doi.org/10.1016/0144-8188(95)00024-0Göran Skogh The Structure and Future of the Insurance Market, (Jan 1991): 79–89.https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-89083-2.50015-6 Note from the Editor, Journal of Accounting, Auditing & Finance 3, no.33 (Jul 2016): 177–182.https://doi.org/10.1177/0148558X8800300301