Abstract State-Owned Enterprise (SOEs) are business entities owned by governments. Unlike private enterprises which operate on profit-motivation, SOEs often act on motives different from profit-making such as fulfilment of governmental or political purposes. Due to this peculiar feature, activities of SOEs sometime are disruptive of competitive market. In order to regulate activities of SOEs so that international market would not be unduly disturbed, GATT: Article XVII states that SOEs shall operate on a profit-motive in international trade. More recently, CPTPP (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement on Trans-Pacific Partnership) and other FTAs include chapters devoted to the regulation of SOEs which provide that Contracting Parties ensure that their SOEs act on profit-motive so as not to cause disruption to the international market. On the other hand, competition laws of trading nations provide rules for prohibiting abusive conducts of dominant enterprises and this includes the prohibition of abuses by SOEs. However, applications of those two sets of regulations (GATT and CPTPP on one hand and competition laws on the other) are made independently from each other without being coordinated. This article surveys details of regulation of SOEs under CPTPP as a representative example of FTAs regulation and of competition laws of nations and suggests ways in which those two sets of rules can be coordinated in order to increase the effectiveness of legal disciplines imposed on SOEs’ activities.
{"title":"Interplay of Competition Law and Free Trade Agreements in Regulating State-Owned Enterprises","authors":"M. Matsushita","doi":"10.1017/glj.2023.8","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/glj.2023.8","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract State-Owned Enterprise (SOEs) are business entities owned by governments. Unlike private enterprises which operate on profit-motivation, SOEs often act on motives different from profit-making such as fulfilment of governmental or political purposes. Due to this peculiar feature, activities of SOEs sometime are disruptive of competitive market. In order to regulate activities of SOEs so that international market would not be unduly disturbed, GATT: Article XVII states that SOEs shall operate on a profit-motive in international trade. More recently, CPTPP (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement on Trans-Pacific Partnership) and other FTAs include chapters devoted to the regulation of SOEs which provide that Contracting Parties ensure that their SOEs act on profit-motive so as not to cause disruption to the international market. On the other hand, competition laws of trading nations provide rules for prohibiting abusive conducts of dominant enterprises and this includes the prohibition of abuses by SOEs. However, applications of those two sets of regulations (GATT and CPTPP on one hand and competition laws on the other) are made independently from each other without being coordinated. This article surveys details of regulation of SOEs under CPTPP as a representative example of FTAs regulation and of competition laws of nations and suggests ways in which those two sets of rules can be coordinated in order to increase the effectiveness of legal disciplines imposed on SOEs’ activities.","PeriodicalId":36303,"journal":{"name":"German Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2023-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43030023","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 Economic interventionism in the form of subsidization and operation of state-owned enterprises (SOEs) is today among the main frontlines of international trade conflicts. Along with trade restrictions and new legislation designed to impact cross-border investment, mergers, and acquisitions, the use of subsidies and countervailing measures by governments and trade-distorting effects of SOEs have lately caused harsh controversies within and outside the World Trade Organization (WTO) between its members. Going forward, there are reasons to expect these tensions to intensify rather than diminish in number and importance. This Special Issue aims at examining the development of international trade rules regulating state interventionism against the background of the Covid-19 global pandemic and present shifts in global geopolitics and the economy. This introduction, in presenting the state of the art on the questions tackled by this Special Issue and highlighting its contribution to existing literature on the topic, offers different considerations aimed at bringing together various trends emerging from the Articles contained in this Special Issue. It also explores avenues for further research and reflection.
{"title":"Economic Interventionism and International Trade Law in the Covid Era","authors":"L. Borlini","doi":"10.1017/glj.2023.13","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/glj.2023.13","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Economic interventionism in the form of subsidization and operation of state-owned enterprises (SOEs) is today among the main frontlines of international trade conflicts. Along with trade restrictions and new legislation designed to impact cross-border investment, mergers, and acquisitions, the use of subsidies and countervailing measures by governments and trade-distorting effects of SOEs have lately caused harsh controversies within and outside the World Trade Organization (WTO) between its members. Going forward, there are reasons to expect these tensions to intensify rather than diminish in number and importance. This Special Issue aims at examining the development of international trade rules regulating state interventionism against the background of the Covid-19 global pandemic and present shifts in global geopolitics and the economy. This introduction, in presenting the state of the art on the questions tackled by this Special Issue and highlighting its contribution to existing literature on the topic, offers different considerations aimed at bringing together various trends emerging from the Articles contained in this Special Issue. It also explores avenues for further research and reflection.","PeriodicalId":36303,"journal":{"name":"German Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2023-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46136761","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}
International trade law has long been the site of a battle over who or what the state can represent. Today, that battle is taking a new form. While for decades the WTO was considered a centerpiece of the international economic order, the policy landscape is now awash with claims that the US should abandon WTO disciplines, critiques of the WTO as the vehicle for a coherent neoliberalism, and concerns about the implications of trade law for domestic industry, democratic participation, climate action, and national security. While I am a long-standing critic of trade law’s excesses, I don’t see that sudden shift as a cause for celebration. In order to understand why, I argue that it is necessary to pay careful attention to the different forms the battle for the state at the WTO has taken. This article explores the conditions and stakes of three key moments in that battle – the negotiation of the GATT and the era of decolonization, the end of the Cold War and the creation of the WTO, and the recent transformations caused by the decline of US power, the rise of China, and the systemic shock of climate change. I conclude that we cannot automatically apply critiques developed in earlier eras to the current situation.
{"title":"How to Think About the Battle for the State at the WTO","authors":"Anne Orford","doi":"10.1017/glj.2023.3","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/glj.2023.3","url":null,"abstract":"International trade law has long been the site of a battle over who or what the state can represent. Today, that battle is taking a new form. While for decades the WTO was considered a centerpiece of the international economic order, the policy landscape is now awash with claims that the US should abandon WTO disciplines, critiques of the WTO as the vehicle for a coherent neoliberalism, and concerns about the implications of trade law for domestic industry, democratic participation, climate action, and national security. While I am a long-standing critic of trade law’s excesses, I don’t see that sudden shift as a cause for celebration. In order to understand why, I argue that it is necessary to pay careful attention to the different forms the battle for the state at the WTO has taken. This article explores the conditions and stakes of three key moments in that battle – the negotiation of the GATT and the era of decolonization, the end of the Cold War and the creation of the WTO, and the recent transformations caused by the decline of US power, the rise of China, and the systemic shock of climate change. I conclude that we cannot automatically apply critiques developed in earlier eras to the current situation.","PeriodicalId":36303,"journal":{"name":"German Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2023-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44484315","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 The international economic order is undergoing significant change. Most recently, key countries have been seeking to increase their level of economic security, including through increased industrial subsidies. Regulating subsidies is controversial, but undisciplined subsidy payments could be harmful for the healthy functioning of markets and balanced development among nations. In this regard, the GATT-WTO has regulated subsidies, but it has not been fully functional in recent years, and reform efforts do not appear to be bearing fruit soon. Therefore, in parallel with WTO reform efforts, reliance on other approaches, such as discipline through free trade agreements (FTAs), should be considered. Disciplining subsidies through FTAs is inherently difficult, given the cross-border nature of subsidies on the one hand and the geographical limitations of the FTA’s scope of application on the other. In recent years, however, such disciplines in FTAs have begun to appear, starting with EU FTAs. Thus, this article explores the possibilities and limitations of the discipline of subsidies through FTAs, using Japan’s FTAs as a case study, to approach the path to international control of subsidies. Accordingly, this article first reviews the range of related issues and developments, including characteristics of subsidies, the rationale for subsidy discipline in trade agreements, recent challenges to multilateral subsidy discipline, the current status of subsidy discipline through FTAs, and the background of subsidy discipline in EU FTAs. The article then identifies the WTO-plus elements that are distinct to subsidy disciplines in EU FTAs and discusses their implications. Through these, it highlights the perspectives needed when considering subsidy discipline through FTAs, examines Japan’s FTAs in light of these perspectives, and presents the findings and implications thereof. Considerations are given to Japan’s FTA/trade policy as a background for its subsidy discipline through FTAs, the current status and characteristics of subsidy disciplines in Japan’s FTAs, the Agreement Between the European Union and Japan for an Economic Partnership’s (JPN-EU) subsidy-related provisions as drastic change, the effects on the Asia-Pacific region, and future prospects.
{"title":"Disciplining Subsidies Through Free Trade Agreements (FTAs): Emerging Developments in Japan’s FTAs and Their Implications","authors":"Aya Iino","doi":"10.1017/glj.2023.6","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/glj.2023.6","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The international economic order is undergoing significant change. Most recently, key countries have been seeking to increase their level of economic security, including through increased industrial subsidies. Regulating subsidies is controversial, but undisciplined subsidy payments could be harmful for the healthy functioning of markets and balanced development among nations. In this regard, the GATT-WTO has regulated subsidies, but it has not been fully functional in recent years, and reform efforts do not appear to be bearing fruit soon. Therefore, in parallel with WTO reform efforts, reliance on other approaches, such as discipline through free trade agreements (FTAs), should be considered. Disciplining subsidies through FTAs is inherently difficult, given the cross-border nature of subsidies on the one hand and the geographical limitations of the FTA’s scope of application on the other. In recent years, however, such disciplines in FTAs have begun to appear, starting with EU FTAs. Thus, this article explores the possibilities and limitations of the discipline of subsidies through FTAs, using Japan’s FTAs as a case study, to approach the path to international control of subsidies. Accordingly, this article first reviews the range of related issues and developments, including characteristics of subsidies, the rationale for subsidy discipline in trade agreements, recent challenges to multilateral subsidy discipline, the current status of subsidy discipline through FTAs, and the background of subsidy discipline in EU FTAs. The article then identifies the WTO-plus elements that are distinct to subsidy disciplines in EU FTAs and discusses their implications. Through these, it highlights the perspectives needed when considering subsidy discipline through FTAs, examines Japan’s FTAs in light of these perspectives, and presents the findings and implications thereof. Considerations are given to Japan’s FTA/trade policy as a background for its subsidy discipline through FTAs, the current status and characteristics of subsidy disciplines in Japan’s FTAs, the Agreement Between the European Union and Japan for an Economic Partnership’s (JPN-EU) subsidy-related provisions as drastic change, the effects on the Asia-Pacific region, and future prospects.","PeriodicalId":36303,"journal":{"name":"German Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2023-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44101682","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 This Article discusses existing WTO rules on subsidies and state enterprises, relevant caselaw and reform prospects in light of key geopolitical developments and changes in the global economy emerging in the aftermath of the Covid-19 pandemic. Following a general introduction, the Article critically analyzes present WTO rules on industrial subsidies, focusing inter alia on the new problems raised by activist industrial policies pursued by global trading powers, foreign subsidization, the climate change shock and environmental exigencies. It then shifts attention to the application of WTO rules on subsidies to the state sector and the increasing demands for new international trade rules on non-subsidies measures to address the negative spillover effects on trade from government influence on state-owned enterprises (SOEs). With respect to each of these matters, the Article first clarifies the terms of the problem in relation to existing WTO rules and caselaw, and next examines the question of how, and to what extent, “deeper” free trade agreements (FTAs)—those that experts designate as models for WTO reforms on the matter—establish new rules that permit to adequately address the trade concerns raised by SOEs’ commercial and financial activities. Based on this multi-layered analysis, the article concludes by examining prospects of reform of WTO rules on state interventionism.
{"title":"The Covid 19 Exogenous Shock and the Crafting of New Multilateral Trade Rules on Subsidies and State Enterprises in the Post-Pandemic World","authors":"L. Borlini","doi":"10.1017/glj.2023.12","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/glj.2023.12","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This Article discusses existing WTO rules on subsidies and state enterprises, relevant caselaw and reform prospects in light of key geopolitical developments and changes in the global economy emerging in the aftermath of the Covid-19 pandemic. Following a general introduction, the Article critically analyzes present WTO rules on industrial subsidies, focusing inter alia on the new problems raised by activist industrial policies pursued by global trading powers, foreign subsidization, the climate change shock and environmental exigencies. It then shifts attention to the application of WTO rules on subsidies to the state sector and the increasing demands for new international trade rules on non-subsidies measures to address the negative spillover effects on trade from government influence on state-owned enterprises (SOEs). With respect to each of these matters, the Article first clarifies the terms of the problem in relation to existing WTO rules and caselaw, and next examines the question of how, and to what extent, “deeper” free trade agreements (FTAs)—those that experts designate as models for WTO reforms on the matter—establish new rules that permit to adequately address the trade concerns raised by SOEs’ commercial and financial activities. Based on this multi-layered analysis, the article concludes by examining prospects of reform of WTO rules on state interventionism.","PeriodicalId":36303,"journal":{"name":"German Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2023-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48491150","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 Trade law and competition law have grown up in their separate silos. This means that restraints by the states and restraints by private parties are treated in separate boxes, and with few exceptions, they have been treated so through the years. Yet, some of the worst restraints that do some of the greatest damage are best characterized by the synergy between the two. These trade-and-competition, or hybrid public/private, restraints fall under the radar screen, and defendants in litigation play one set of laws off against the other, hiding behind limits and immunities. This is the Blind Spot of the Article’s title – the space between the silos. This Article unearths the Blind Spot, gives examples of what we know and what we need to know, and proposes a methodology to illuminate and eliminate the Blind Spot.
{"title":"Blind Spot: Trade and Competition Law—the Space Between the Silos","authors":"Eleanor M. Fox","doi":"10.1017/glj.2023.9","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/glj.2023.9","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Trade law and competition law have grown up in their separate silos. This means that restraints by the states and restraints by private parties are treated in separate boxes, and with few exceptions, they have been treated so through the years. Yet, some of the worst restraints that do some of the greatest damage are best characterized by the synergy between the two. These trade-and-competition, or hybrid public/private, restraints fall under the radar screen, and defendants in litigation play one set of laws off against the other, hiding behind limits and immunities. This is the Blind Spot of the Article’s title – the space between the silos. This Article unearths the Blind Spot, gives examples of what we know and what we need to know, and proposes a methodology to illuminate and eliminate the Blind Spot.","PeriodicalId":36303,"journal":{"name":"German Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135096507","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}
{"title":"GLJ volume 24 issue 1 Cover and Front matter","authors":"","doi":"10.1017/glj.2023.20","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/glj.2023.20","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":36303,"journal":{"name":"German Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2023-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47483518","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 This Article critically analyzes seven elements of the Biden administration trade policy: (1) buy American; (2) tariffs; (3) World Trade Organization; (4) free trade agreements; (5) China; (6) technology; and (7) Russia. Although President Biden has made a clean break from Trump policies in many areas, this is not the case when it comes to international trade. Regretfully, Biden has chosen to keep in place most of the failed trade policies of his predecessor—the Trump tariffs and the China trade war. It is not too late to shift ground, to negotiate mutual abolition of the Trump tariffs, to open free trade negotiations with the EU and UK, to join the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership, to adopt a multilateral strategy with allies to check Chinese trade excesses, and to reengage with the World Trade Organization. Topping the list of needed reforms of the multilateral trading system are: (1) subsidies; (2) state-owned enterprises; and (3) forced technology transfer. These are best addressed through a WTO plurilateral agreement and/or preferential trade agreements. The Biden administration should prioritize these urgent reforms. Rather than promoting “free” trade and multilateral trade reforms, the Biden administration continues its predecessor’s nationalistic policies so that trade serves domestic political ends. Such state intervention in trade policy consists of the strategic use of tariffs, subsidies, “buy American” rules, and regional trade arrangements without regard to the rules of the multilateral trading system. These new policies represent a decisive retreat from globalization and openness to trade. The Congress, directed by the Biden administration, has adopted a far-reaching industrial policy in the form of four laws that subsidize key sectors of the U.S. economy: American Rescue Plan Act ($40 billion); Infrastructure and Jobs Act ($1.2 trillion); Inflation Reduction Act ($369 billion); and Chips Act ($252.7 billion). This subsidization coupled with “buy American” protectionism constitute a departure from the free trade ideal that has characterized U.S. policy since the end of World War II.
摘要本文批判性地分析了拜登政府贸易政策的七个要素:(1)购买美国货;(2)关税;(三)世界贸易组织;(四)自由贸易协定;(5)中国;(6)技术;(7)俄罗斯。虽然拜登总统在许多领域与特朗普的政策彻底决裂，但在国际贸易方面却并非如此。遗憾的是，拜登选择了保留其前任失败的大部分贸易政策——特朗普的关税和中国贸易战。现在改变立场，就相互取消特朗普关税进行谈判，与欧盟和英国开启自由贸易谈判，加入《全面与进步跨太平洋伙伴关系协定》(Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership，简称tpp)，与盟友一起采取多边战略，遏制中国的过度贸易行为，并重新加入世界贸易组织(wto)，还为时不晚。多边贸易体制需要改革的首要事项是:(1)补贴;(二)国有企业;(3)强制技术转让。这些问题最好通过世贸组织诸边协定和/或优惠贸易协定来解决。拜登政府应该优先考虑这些紧迫的改革。拜登政府没有推进“自由”贸易和多边贸易改革，而是延续了前任政府的民族主义政策，让贸易服务于国内政治目的。这种国家对贸易政策的干预包括战略性地使用关税、补贴、“购买美国货”规则和区域贸易安排，而不考虑多边贸易体系的规则。这些新政策代表着全球化和贸易开放的决定性倒退。在拜登政府的领导下，国会通过了一项影响深远的产业政策，以四项法律的形式补贴美国经济的关键部门:美国拯救计划法案(400亿美元);基础设施和就业法案(1.2万亿美元);通货膨胀减少法案(3690亿美元);和筹码法案(2527亿美元)。这种补贴加上“购买美国货”的保护主义，背离了自二战结束以来美国政策的自由贸易理想。
{"title":"The Biden Administration’s Trade Policy: Promise and Reality","authors":"T. Schoenbaum","doi":"10.1017/glj.2023.7","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/glj.2023.7","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This Article critically analyzes seven elements of the Biden administration trade policy: (1) buy American; (2) tariffs; (3) World Trade Organization; (4) free trade agreements; (5) China; (6) technology; and (7) Russia. Although President Biden has made a clean break from Trump policies in many areas, this is not the case when it comes to international trade. Regretfully, Biden has chosen to keep in place most of the failed trade policies of his predecessor—the Trump tariffs and the China trade war. It is not too late to shift ground, to negotiate mutual abolition of the Trump tariffs, to open free trade negotiations with the EU and UK, to join the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership, to adopt a multilateral strategy with allies to check Chinese trade excesses, and to reengage with the World Trade Organization. Topping the list of needed reforms of the multilateral trading system are: (1) subsidies; (2) state-owned enterprises; and (3) forced technology transfer. These are best addressed through a WTO plurilateral agreement and/or preferential trade agreements. The Biden administration should prioritize these urgent reforms. Rather than promoting “free” trade and multilateral trade reforms, the Biden administration continues its predecessor’s nationalistic policies so that trade serves domestic political ends. Such state intervention in trade policy consists of the strategic use of tariffs, subsidies, “buy American” rules, and regional trade arrangements without regard to the rules of the multilateral trading system. These new policies represent a decisive retreat from globalization and openness to trade. The Congress, directed by the Biden administration, has adopted a far-reaching industrial policy in the form of four laws that subsidize key sectors of the U.S. economy: American Rescue Plan Act ($40 billion); Infrastructure and Jobs Act ($1.2 trillion); Inflation Reduction Act ($369 billion); and Chips Act ($252.7 billion). This subsidization coupled with “buy American” protectionism constitute a departure from the free trade ideal that has characterized U.S. policy since the end of World War II.","PeriodicalId":36303,"journal":{"name":"German Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2023-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45294315","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 The European Union’s new regulatory agenda targeting online platforms such as social media has been presented as a progressive watershed moment after a long period of regulatory restraint. The attempt to construct an internal market lends legal competence to the two centerpieces of this agenda—the Digital Services Act (DSA) and the Digital Markets Act (DMA). This Article analyzes the Union’s attempts to govern online platforms as a part of internal market construction. After examining the underlying aims of the internal market, the Article proceeds to analyze how those aims have been operationalized in existing EU electronic commerce law and more recently in the DSA and DMA proposals. The Article argues that the Union regulatory agenda is not particularly transformative. While the DSA and DMA introduce many novel regulatory mechanisms with an equalizing potential, they also remain faithfully committed to the aims and pre-existing mechanisms of internal market construction that have enabled the rise of platform corporations in the first place. Thus, the proposals risk reproducing and legitimizing various inequalities in the European digital economy. The article seeks to connect alternative visions of platforms with the re-imagination of internal market construction.
{"title":"Social Media Platforms within Internal Market Construction: Patterns of Reproduction in EU Platform Law","authors":"Miikka Hiltunen","doi":"10.1017/glj.2022.80","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/glj.2022.80","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The European Union’s new regulatory agenda targeting online platforms such as social media has been presented as a progressive watershed moment after a long period of regulatory restraint. The attempt to construct an internal market lends legal competence to the two centerpieces of this agenda—the Digital Services Act (DSA) and the Digital Markets Act (DMA). This Article analyzes the Union’s attempts to govern online platforms as a part of internal market construction. After examining the underlying aims of the internal market, the Article proceeds to analyze how those aims have been operationalized in existing EU electronic commerce law and more recently in the DSA and DMA proposals. The Article argues that the Union regulatory agenda is not particularly transformative. While the DSA and DMA introduce many novel regulatory mechanisms with an equalizing potential, they also remain faithfully committed to the aims and pre-existing mechanisms of internal market construction that have enabled the rise of platform corporations in the first place. Thus, the proposals risk reproducing and legitimizing various inequalities in the European digital economy. The article seeks to connect alternative visions of platforms with the re-imagination of internal market construction.","PeriodicalId":36303,"journal":{"name":"German Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48616732","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}
{"title":"GLJ volume 23 issue 9 Cover and Front matter","authors":"","doi":"10.1017/glj.2022.82","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/glj.2022.82","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":36303,"journal":{"name":"German Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46454287","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：