An Attribute Perspective on Regulatory Regimes in Risk Governance

IF 1.8 Q1 LAW European Journal of Risk Regulation Pub Date : 2023-10-26 DOI:10.1017/err.2023.68
Morten A. Langøy, Geir Sverre Braut
{"title":"An Attribute Perspective on Regulatory Regimes in Risk Governance","authors":"Morten A. Langøy, Geir Sverre Braut","doi":"10.1017/err.2023.68","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Increasing interest from stakeholders has brought new focus on risk governance and risk regulation, such as the regulator’s execution of duty and tangible results on safety and environmental protection in oil and gas industry. One recent example, from 2019, is the Office of the Auditor General Norway’s (OAG) investigation of the Petroleum Safety Authority’s (PSA) follow-up on health, safety and the environment in the petroleum industry, where the regulatory regime in Norway resting on functional requirements was questioned. Simplistically speaking, there are two current traditions or main schools in regulatory regimes: use of functional requirements associated with co-regulation and use of normative requirements associated with prescriptive regulation. In this paper, we introduce a generic model from an attribute perspective on contrasting, gauging or evaluating the two different regulatory regimes. Furthermore, this approach may explain the controversy regarding the favouring of functional or prescriptive regulatory regimes by the different players in the industry. Our case is based on regulations relating to offshore oil and gas operations, in particular focusing on the Norwegian sector. We use the OAG’s investigation of the PSA and the public reaction as our material because this material is proposed to provide a thorough and valid description of how the effects of the Norwegian regulatory regime are perceived from the outside. We believe that the generic concept presented here is applicable when performing investigations in other industries involved in hazardous activities.","PeriodicalId":46207,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Risk Regulation","volume":"81 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Risk Regulation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/err.2023.68","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract Increasing interest from stakeholders has brought new focus on risk governance and risk regulation, such as the regulator’s execution of duty and tangible results on safety and environmental protection in oil and gas industry. One recent example, from 2019, is the Office of the Auditor General Norway’s (OAG) investigation of the Petroleum Safety Authority’s (PSA) follow-up on health, safety and the environment in the petroleum industry, where the regulatory regime in Norway resting on functional requirements was questioned. Simplistically speaking, there are two current traditions or main schools in regulatory regimes: use of functional requirements associated with co-regulation and use of normative requirements associated with prescriptive regulation. In this paper, we introduce a generic model from an attribute perspective on contrasting, gauging or evaluating the two different regulatory regimes. Furthermore, this approach may explain the controversy regarding the favouring of functional or prescriptive regulatory regimes by the different players in the industry. Our case is based on regulations relating to offshore oil and gas operations, in particular focusing on the Norwegian sector. We use the OAG’s investigation of the PSA and the public reaction as our material because this material is proposed to provide a thorough and valid description of how the effects of the Norwegian regulatory regime are perceived from the outside. We believe that the generic concept presented here is applicable when performing investigations in other industries involved in hazardous activities.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
风险治理监管制度的属性视角
越来越多的利益相关者关注风险治理和风险监管,例如监管机构在油气行业安全与环境保护方面的履行职责和切实成果。最近的一个例子是,从2019年开始,挪威审计长办公室(OAG)对石油安全局(PSA)对石油行业健康、安全和环境的后续行动进行了调查,挪威基于功能要求的监管制度受到了质疑。简单地说,目前在监管制度中有两种传统或主要流派:使用与共同监管相关的功能要求和使用与规定性监管相关的规范性要求。在本文中,我们从属性的角度引入了一个通用模型来比较、衡量或评价两种不同的监管制度。此外,这种方法可以解释关于行业中不同参与者偏爱功能性或规范性监管制度的争议。我们的案例是基于与海上石油和天然气作业相关的法规,特别是挪威部门。我们使用OAG对PSA的调查和公众反应作为我们的材料,因为这些材料旨在提供一个彻底而有效的描述,说明挪威监管制度的影响是如何从外部感知的。我们认为,这里提出的一般概念适用于在涉及危险活动的其他行业进行调查时。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
34
期刊介绍: European Journal of Risk Regulation is an interdisciplinary forum bringing together legal practitioners, academics, risk analysts and policymakers in a dialogue on how risks to individuals’ health, safety and the environment are regulated across policy domains globally. The journal’s wide scope encourages exploration of public health, safety and environmental aspects of pharmaceuticals, food and other consumer products alongside a wider interpretation of risk, which includes financial regulation, technology-related risks, natural disasters and terrorism.
期刊最新文献
Management and Enforcement Theories for Compliance with the Rule of Law A Robust Governance for the AI Act: AI Office, AI Board, Scientific Panel, and National Authorities Standards for Including Scientific Evidence in Restrictions on Freedom of Movement: The Case of EU Covid Certificates Scheme Collaborative Governance Structures for Interoperability in the EU’s new data acts Dangerous Legacy of Food Contact Materials on the EU Market: Recall of Products Containing PFAS
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1