Axel Berger, D. Fischer, Rasmus Lema, H. Schmitz, F. Urban
Despite the large-scale investments of both China and the EU in climate change mitigation and renewable-energy promotion, the prevailing view on China–EU relations is one of conflict rather than cooperation. In order to evaluate the prospects of cooperation between China and the EU in these policy fields, empirical research has to go beyond simplistic pictures. This paper suggests a conceptual apparatus that will help researchers better understand the complexities of the real world. The relevant actors operate at different levels and in the public and private sectors. The main message of the paper is that combining the multi-level governance and value-chain approaches helps clarify the multiple relationships between these actors.
{"title":"China–Europe Relations in Climate Change Mitigation: A Conceptual Framework","authors":"Axel Berger, D. Fischer, Rasmus Lema, H. Schmitz, F. Urban","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2024848","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2024848","url":null,"abstract":"Despite the large-scale investments of both China and the EU in climate change mitigation and renewable-energy promotion, the prevailing view on China–EU relations is one of conflict rather than cooperation. In order to evaluate the prospects of cooperation between China and the EU in these policy fields, empirical research has to go beyond simplistic pictures. This paper suggests a conceptual apparatus that will help researchers better understand the complexities of the real world. The relevant actors operate at different levels and in the public and private sectors. The main message of the paper is that combining the multi-level governance and value-chain approaches helps clarify the multiple relationships between these actors.","PeriodicalId":236062,"journal":{"name":"Political Institutions: International Institutions eJournal","volume":"56 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-03-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122898322","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
D. Giovannucci, S. Scherr, D. Nierenberg, Charlotte Hebebrand, Julie Shapiro, J. Milder, K. Wheeler
On our current trajectory, severe disruptions to national and regional food systems are highly likely to happen - the main question is when. This report, commissioned by the UN DESA as a strategic input to SD21 and the Rio discussions, focuses on vital areas and offers a collection of up to date information on the current and likely trends for our global Food and Agriculture systems.With contributions from more than 70 global agri-food leaders in the business, policy, green, and social arenas, the report exposes unforeseen areas of consensus. By opening the silos of partisan thinking to invite reasoned discussion, it also exposes areas of disagreement and lays out a key set of specific "high impact" areas where smart decisions will make the most difference for sustainable and resilient food and agriculture systems.
{"title":"Food and Agriculture: The Future of Sustainability","authors":"D. Giovannucci, S. Scherr, D. Nierenberg, Charlotte Hebebrand, Julie Shapiro, J. Milder, K. Wheeler","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2054838","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2054838","url":null,"abstract":"On our current trajectory, severe disruptions to national and regional food systems are highly likely to happen - the main question is when. This report, commissioned by the UN DESA as a strategic input to SD21 and the Rio discussions, focuses on vital areas and offers a collection of up to date information on the current and likely trends for our global Food and Agriculture systems.With contributions from more than 70 global agri-food leaders in the business, policy, green, and social arenas, the report exposes unforeseen areas of consensus. By opening the silos of partisan thinking to invite reasoned discussion, it also exposes areas of disagreement and lays out a key set of specific \"high impact\" areas where smart decisions will make the most difference for sustainable and resilient food and agriculture systems.","PeriodicalId":236062,"journal":{"name":"Political Institutions: International Institutions eJournal","volume":"117 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124116140","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper adopts a new analytical approach to explaining choices in fiscal politics in Ireland and Spain between 2008 and 2010, in response to international economic crisis. It adopts a comparative cross-national research design to explore why two countries with similar pre-crisis fiscal profiles adopted radically different strategies in the initial phase of the crisis: Ireland adopted an orthodox deficit-reduction strategy, while Spain implemented a ‘heterodox’ stimulus fiscal package. Yet by mid-2010, Spain’s fiscal stance had converged with Ireland’s, as the wider European crisis deepened and the scope for autonomous national policy choice narrowed. The paper tracks this shift in a second stage of the research design, examining within-country variation over time, to provide a nuanced and sophisticated analysis of strategic choices at critical moments. It argues that the shift toward a European politics of austerity is different in a number of important ways from the older politics of fiscal consolidation, and that this has far-reaching implications not only for the evolution of European integration, but also for the balance between democratic politics and transnational markets.
{"title":"The New Politics of Austerity: Fiscal Responses to Crisis in Ireland and Spain","authors":"N. Hardiman, Sebastian Dellepiane","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2013238","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2013238","url":null,"abstract":"This paper adopts a new analytical approach to explaining choices in fiscal politics in Ireland and Spain between 2008 and 2010, in response to international economic crisis. It adopts a comparative cross-national research design to explore why two countries with similar pre-crisis fiscal profiles adopted radically different strategies in the initial phase of the crisis: Ireland adopted an orthodox deficit-reduction strategy, while Spain implemented a ‘heterodox’ stimulus fiscal package. Yet by mid-2010, Spain’s fiscal stance had converged with Ireland’s, as the wider European crisis deepened and the scope for autonomous national policy choice narrowed. The paper tracks this shift in a second stage of the research design, examining within-country variation over time, to provide a nuanced and sophisticated analysis of strategic choices at critical moments. It argues that the shift toward a European politics of austerity is different in a number of important ways from the older politics of fiscal consolidation, and that this has far-reaching implications not only for the evolution of European integration, but also for the balance between democratic politics and transnational markets.","PeriodicalId":236062,"journal":{"name":"Political Institutions: International Institutions eJournal","volume":"86 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-02-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126169342","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Rene Lindstaedt, Jonathan B. Slapin, Ryan J. Vander Wielen
Parliamentary institutions and partisan norms are complex and new members of parliament are unlikely to possess an innate awareness of optimal behaviour. This paper examines how new legislators adopt the behavioural patterns of incumbent members in the Sixth European Parliament. The latter provides an excellent opportunity to study such adaptive behaviour; in addition to newly elected members from 15 former states, new members from ten accession countries took seats for the first time. We examine how voting behaviour differs between new members from the 15 former states, new members from accession countries, and incumbent members. Our analysis shows that new members from former states defect less from their European political group than incumbents, while new accession country members defect more. Over time, the differences between these groups disappear.
{"title":"Adaptive Behavior in the European Parliament: Learning to Balance Competing Demands","authors":"Rene Lindstaedt, Jonathan B. Slapin, Ryan J. Vander Wielen","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1856035","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1856035","url":null,"abstract":"Parliamentary institutions and partisan norms are complex and new members of parliament are unlikely to possess an innate awareness of optimal behaviour. This paper examines how new legislators adopt the behavioural patterns of incumbent members in the Sixth European Parliament. The latter provides an excellent opportunity to study such adaptive behaviour; in addition to newly elected members from 15 former states, new members from ten accession countries took seats for the first time. We examine how voting behaviour differs between new members from the 15 former states, new members from accession countries, and incumbent members. Our analysis shows that new members from former states defect less from their European political group than incumbents, while new accession country members defect more. Over time, the differences between these groups disappear.","PeriodicalId":236062,"journal":{"name":"Political Institutions: International Institutions eJournal","volume":"25 1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-02-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124295063","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2012-02-09DOI: 10.1163/187197311x585969
G. Eckstein
Ground water is the most extracted natural resource in the world. It provides more than half of humanity's freshwater for everyday uses such as drinking, cooking, and hygiene, as well as twenty percent of irrigated agriculture. Despite our increasing reliance, ground water resources have long been the neglected stepchild of international water law; regulation and management of and information about ground water resources are sorely lacking, especially in the international context. Presently, there is no international agreement squarely addressing ground water resources that traverse an international boundary. Moreover, there is only one treaty in the entire world pertaining to the management of a transboundary aquifer, and few nations possess the relevant technical information necessary to enter into such agreements. The result is overexploitation and degradation of many of the world's transboundary aquifers, and considerable harmful impacts on border communities, economies, and ecosystems dependent on transboundary ground water resources. Recently, the United Nations International Law Commission embarked on an effort to address this shortcoming and to consider the international law applicable to transboundary aquifers. This undertaking follows and builds on the Commission's prior work on international watercourses, which culminated in the 1997 U.N. Convention on the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses. It also builds on the work of other organizations, including that of the International Law Association and its Helsinki, Seoul, and Berlin Rules. This paper reviews the work of the Commission in its current effort to codify and progressively develop the international law applicable to transboundary ground water resources. It critically assesses the nineteen Draft Articles formulated by the Commission and considers the various legal, scientific, social, and related implications of those articles. Moreover, it assesses the applicability and soundness of the Draft Articles in relation to the science of ground water resources. Ultimately, the challenge before the Commission is to formulate international legal principles and doctrines that will allow States to overcome the unique problems associated with the utilization, management, allocation, and protection of the world's transboundary aquifers. The goal of this study is to generate discussion on this critically important topic and to spur additional commentaries that may aid the Commission in its effort.
{"title":"Commentary on the U.N. International Law Commission's Draft Articles on the Law of Transboundary Aquifers","authors":"G. Eckstein","doi":"10.1163/187197311x585969","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/187197311x585969","url":null,"abstract":"Ground water is the most extracted natural resource in the world. It provides more than half of humanity's freshwater for everyday uses such as drinking, cooking, and hygiene, as well as twenty percent of irrigated agriculture. Despite our increasing reliance, ground water resources have long been the neglected stepchild of international water law; regulation and management of and information about ground water resources are sorely lacking, especially in the international context. Presently, there is no international agreement squarely addressing ground water resources that traverse an international boundary. Moreover, there is only one treaty in the entire world pertaining to the management of a transboundary aquifer, and few nations possess the relevant technical information necessary to enter into such agreements. The result is overexploitation and degradation of many of the world's transboundary aquifers, and considerable harmful impacts on border communities, economies, and ecosystems dependent on transboundary ground water resources. Recently, the United Nations International Law Commission embarked on an effort to address this shortcoming and to consider the international law applicable to transboundary aquifers. This undertaking follows and builds on the Commission's prior work on international watercourses, which culminated in the 1997 U.N. Convention on the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses. It also builds on the work of other organizations, including that of the International Law Association and its Helsinki, Seoul, and Berlin Rules. This paper reviews the work of the Commission in its current effort to codify and progressively develop the international law applicable to transboundary ground water resources. It critically assesses the nineteen Draft Articles formulated by the Commission and considers the various legal, scientific, social, and related implications of those articles. Moreover, it assesses the applicability and soundness of the Draft Articles in relation to the science of ground water resources. Ultimately, the challenge before the Commission is to formulate international legal principles and doctrines that will allow States to overcome the unique problems associated with the utilization, management, allocation, and protection of the world's transboundary aquifers. The goal of this study is to generate discussion on this critically important topic and to spur additional commentaries that may aid the Commission in its effort.","PeriodicalId":236062,"journal":{"name":"Political Institutions: International Institutions eJournal","volume":"34 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-02-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128873861","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract: In this article, we describe the Canadian response to the transnational challenge while in particular focusing on the 'complexity' of transnational law as one of its most challenging characteristics. First, we set out to find a trace of a specifically Canadian 'legal culture' in response to the challenge that global legal pluralism poses to a legal discourse accustomed to thinking in terms of national positive law and national sovereignty; we will briefly outline the reactions in academia and the judiciary. Second, we turn, in more detail, to another, less theoretical aspect: the fact that the application of law is made technically more difficult by the proliferation of transnational legal sources. In this second section, we will outline the intricacies of the implementation of international instruments in Canadian law and discuss the problematic repercussions of the technical complexification of law in core areas of private law, with a focus on the 'plight' of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG) in Canada. Résumé : Dans cet article, nous décrirons la réponse canadienne à l'enjeu transnational tout en mettant notamment l'accent sur la «complexité» du droit transnational commeétant l'une de ses caractéristiques les plus difficiles. Notre étude est divisée en deux sections qui abordent deux aspects différents de cette complexité. Tout d'abord, nous avons décidé de retracer l'existence d'une «culture juridique» spécifiquement canadienne en réponse au défi que pose le pluralisme juridique mondial à un discourse juridique habitué à penser en termes de droit positif national et de souveraineté nationale. Nous donnerons un aperçu des réactions dans le milieu académique et de la formation juridique et au niveau judiciaire. Deuxièmement, nous nous tournerons vers un aspect moins théorétique: le fait que l'application de la loi soit rendue techniquement plus difficile par la prolifération de sources juridiques transnationales. Dans cette deuxième section, nous exposerons les subtilités de la mise en oeuvre des instruments internationaux en droit canadien et discuterons des répercussions de la complexification des problèmes techniques de la loi dans les domaines essentiels du droit privé, avec un accent sur le traitement défavorable accordé à la Convention des Nations Unies sur les contrats de vente internationale de marchandises au Canada.
{"title":"Canadian Report","authors":"H. Dedek, Alexandra Carbone","doi":"10.54648/erpl2012004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/erpl2012004","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract: In this article, we describe the Canadian response to the transnational challenge while in particular focusing on the 'complexity' of transnational law as one of its most challenging characteristics. First, we set out to find a trace of a specifically Canadian 'legal culture' in response to the challenge that global legal pluralism poses to a legal discourse accustomed to thinking in terms of national positive law and national sovereignty; we will briefly outline the reactions in academia and the judiciary. Second, we turn, in more detail, to another, less theoretical aspect: the fact that the application of law is made technically more difficult by the proliferation of transnational legal sources. In this second section, we will outline the intricacies of the implementation of international instruments in Canadian law and discuss the problematic repercussions of the technical complexification of law in core areas of private law, with a focus on the 'plight' of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG) in Canada. Résumé : Dans cet article, nous décrirons la réponse canadienne à l'enjeu transnational tout en mettant notamment l'accent sur la «complexité» du droit transnational commeétant l'une de ses caractéristiques les plus difficiles. Notre étude est divisée en deux sections qui abordent deux aspects différents de cette complexité. Tout d'abord, nous avons décidé de retracer l'existence d'une «culture juridique» spécifiquement canadienne en réponse au défi que pose le pluralisme juridique mondial à un discourse juridique habitué à penser en termes de droit positif national et de souveraineté nationale. Nous donnerons un aperçu des réactions dans le milieu académique et de la formation juridique et au niveau judiciaire. Deuxièmement, nous nous tournerons vers un aspect moins théorétique: le fait que l'application de la loi soit rendue techniquement plus difficile par la prolifération de sources juridiques transnationales. Dans cette deuxième section, nous exposerons les subtilités de la mise en oeuvre des instruments internationaux en droit canadien et discuterons des répercussions de la complexification des problèmes techniques de la loi dans les domaines essentiels du droit privé, avec un accent sur le traitement défavorable accordé à la Convention des Nations Unies sur les contrats de vente internationale de marchandises au Canada. ","PeriodicalId":236062,"journal":{"name":"Political Institutions: International Institutions eJournal","volume":"7 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125489897","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2012-01-08DOI: 10.4337/9780857934802.00023
D. Sokol, William Blumenthal
More than ninety jurisdictions have some form of merger control regime under their antitrust or competition laws. Numerous other jurisdictions lack a formal merger control mechanism, but reserve the right to review and challenge mergers under their general competition laws, sector-specific laws, or regional trade agreements. Observing the substantive approaches to merger analysis across jurisdictions, one sees many commonalities, but also some important areas of variation. The procedural approaches across merger control regimes are even more varied. This chapter seeks to identify and catalog the key substantive and procedural norms and differences in various systems, to provide a sense of the direction of the academic scholarship on various issues and to offer some analytical underpinnings for optimal merger enforcement based on the reality of merger control in recent years. We conclude with suggestions regarding the future direction of merger control.
{"title":"Merger Control: Key International Norms and Differences","authors":"D. Sokol, William Blumenthal","doi":"10.4337/9780857934802.00023","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4337/9780857934802.00023","url":null,"abstract":"More than ninety jurisdictions have some form of merger control regime under their antitrust or competition laws. Numerous other jurisdictions lack a formal merger control mechanism, but reserve the right to review and challenge mergers under their general competition laws, sector-specific laws, or regional trade agreements. Observing the substantive approaches to merger analysis across jurisdictions, one sees many commonalities, but also some important areas of variation. The procedural approaches across merger control regimes are even more varied. This chapter seeks to identify and catalog the key substantive and procedural norms and differences in various systems, to provide a sense of the direction of the academic scholarship on various issues and to offer some analytical underpinnings for optimal merger enforcement based on the reality of merger control in recent years. We conclude with suggestions regarding the future direction of merger control.","PeriodicalId":236062,"journal":{"name":"Political Institutions: International Institutions eJournal","volume":"26 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-01-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125054369","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
What can parties to a trade agreement achieve by institutionalizing a rules-based dispute settlement procedure? What role can third-party arbitration play in dispute settlement? I study these questions within a mechanism design framework. The model generates predictions regarding the pattern of pre-trial and post-trial settlement negotiations, non-compliance with the arbitrator’s ruling, and retaliations under an optimal trade agreement. It is shown that an Arbitrated-Liability Regime, under which a defecting party is liable for damages only to the extent that an arbitrator specifies, could implement the optimal direct mechanism. Moreover, property rule is not an optimal "escape" provision as it induces too much retaliations. (JEL F13, K33)
{"title":"Arbitration and Renegotiation in Trade Agreements","authors":"Mostafa Beshkar","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1987175","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1987175","url":null,"abstract":"What can parties to a trade agreement achieve by institutionalizing a rules-based dispute settlement procedure? What role can third-party arbitration play in dispute settlement? I study these questions within a mechanism design framework. The model generates predictions regarding the pattern of pre-trial and post-trial settlement negotiations, non-compliance with the arbitrator’s ruling, and retaliations under an optimal trade agreement. It is shown that an Arbitrated-Liability Regime, under which a defecting party is liable for damages only to the extent that an arbitrator specifies, could implement the optimal direct mechanism. Moreover, property rule is not an optimal \"escape\" provision as it induces too much retaliations. (JEL F13, K33)","PeriodicalId":236062,"journal":{"name":"Political Institutions: International Institutions eJournal","volume":"75 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2011-12-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114210631","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The concept of margin squeeze has recently emerged into a stand-alone abuse of dominance under EU competition law. It is no coincidence that this development was triggered by a series of high-profile cases involving former statutory monopolists in newly liberalized telecommunication markets. As this paper shows, the concurrent application of competition law and regulation in these cases had a ‘feedback effect’ on the competition law concept of margin squeeze itself. It has been continually broadened to pursue regulatory goals and impose quasi-regulatory remedies. In the process, imputation tests designed to help regulators determine entry-inducing access prices have become competition law standards applicable beyond the realm of regulated network industries and bottleneck facilities. While this may facilitate the scaling back of sector-specific regulation it does not come without risks to legal and economic coherence. Against this background, this paper reviews the evolution of the margin squeeze doctrine under EU competition law and asks whether it should serve as a blueprint for the transition from regulation to competition. Note: This paper was presented at the 4th Annual Conference on Competition and Regulation in Network Industries, Brussels, November 25, 2011. A revised version has been published in the Journal of European Competition Law & Practice (2012) 3 (2), 149-162.
{"title":"From Regulatory Tool to Competition Law Rule: The Case of Margin Squeeze under EU Competition Law","authors":"Hendrik Auf'mkolk","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1959126","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1959126","url":null,"abstract":"The concept of margin squeeze has recently emerged into a stand-alone abuse of dominance under EU competition law. It is no coincidence that this development was triggered by a series of high-profile cases involving former statutory monopolists in newly liberalized telecommunication markets. As this paper shows, the concurrent application of competition law and regulation in these cases had a ‘feedback effect’ on the competition law concept of margin squeeze itself. It has been continually broadened to pursue regulatory goals and impose quasi-regulatory remedies. In the process, imputation tests designed to help regulators determine entry-inducing access prices have become competition law standards applicable beyond the realm of regulated network industries and bottleneck facilities. While this may facilitate the scaling back of sector-specific regulation it does not come without risks to legal and economic coherence. Against this background, this paper reviews the evolution of the margin squeeze doctrine under EU competition law and asks whether it should serve as a blueprint for the transition from regulation to competition. Note: This paper was presented at the 4th Annual Conference on Competition and Regulation in Network Industries, Brussels, November 25, 2011. A revised version has been published in the Journal of European Competition Law & Practice (2012) 3 (2), 149-162.","PeriodicalId":236062,"journal":{"name":"Political Institutions: International Institutions eJournal","volume":"19 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2011-12-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129979832","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The Dispute Settlement (DS) system is a central feature of the World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement. This compulsory and binding two-level mechanism for the adjudication of disputes between WTO Members is the most active among international courts. The functioning of the DS system has attractive research interest among both lawyers and economists. This paper reports some descriptive statistics of the working of the DS system based on the recently updated Horn and Mavroidis WTO Dispute Settlement Data Set. The data set covers all 426 WTO disputes initiated through the official filing of a Request for Consultations from January 1, 1995, until August 11, 2011, and for these disputes it includes events occurring until July 28, 2011. There are in total approximately 67 000 observations. Each dispute is followed through its legal life via the panel stage, the Appellate Body stage, through to the implementation stage. The paper provides information on fundamental aspects of the use of the DS system, such as: • How active have the different countries been as complainants and as respondents? • Which agreements and which provisions are most commonly cited? • How are the adjudicating panels composed? • How successful have the different participants been?
{"title":"The WTO Dispute Settlement System 1995-2010: Some Descriptive Statistics","authors":"Henrik Horn, Louise Johannesson, P. Mavroidis","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2094281","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2094281","url":null,"abstract":"The Dispute Settlement (DS) system is a central feature of the World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement. This compulsory and binding two-level mechanism for the adjudication of disputes between WTO Members is the most active among international courts. The functioning of the DS system has attractive research interest among both lawyers and economists. This paper reports some descriptive statistics of the working of the DS system based on the recently updated Horn and Mavroidis WTO Dispute Settlement Data Set. The data set covers all 426 WTO disputes initiated through the official filing of a Request for Consultations from January 1, 1995, until August 11, 2011, and for these disputes it includes events occurring until July 28, 2011. There are in total approximately 67 000 observations. Each dispute is followed through its legal life via the panel stage, the Appellate Body stage, through to the implementation stage. The paper provides information on fundamental aspects of the use of the DS system, such as: • How active have the different countries been as complainants and as respondents? • Which agreements and which provisions are most commonly cited? • How are the adjudicating panels composed? • How successful have the different participants been?","PeriodicalId":236062,"journal":{"name":"Political Institutions: International Institutions eJournal","volume":"24 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2011-11-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127715624","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：