European Journal of Risk Regulation最新文献

Regulation is nothing without enforcement. This particularly holds for the dynamic field of emerging technologies. Hence, this article has two ambitions. First, it explains how the EU’s new Artificial Intelligence Act (AIA) may be implemented and enforced by various institutional bodies, thus clarifying the governance framework of the AIA. Second, it proposes a normative governance model, providing recommendations to ensure uniform and coordinated execution of the AIA and the fulfillment of the legislation. The article explores how the AIA may be implemented by national and EU institutional bodies, encompassing longstanding bodies, such as the European Commission, and those newly established under the AIA, such as the AI Office. It investigates their roles across supranational and national levels, emphasising how EU regulations influence institutional structures and operations. These regulations may not only directly dictate the structural design of institutions but also indirectly request administrative capacities needed to enforce the AIA.

Compared to previous secondary legislation, Article 11 of the Digital Covid Certificates regulations was remarkably explicit in its requirement for Member States to consider scientific evidence when restricting free movement for the certificate holders. However, we argue in this Article that the regulations achieved a partial codification of the existent case law of the CJEU rather than imposing any additional requirements. Namely, the case law had already required Member States to rely on scientific evidence that reflects the international consensus, that is relevant and up to date, and that the evidence had to demonstrate by means of a risk assessment a real risk to the public health. We also discuss these findings in the light of the proportionality and precautionary principles and suggest that understanding the evolution of the EU legal order’s evidentiary requirements is useful in the light of the legislator’s claim of objective and rational policy-making procedures in public health and other crises.

Following the contemporary debate surrounding two alternative perspectives on compliance – enforcement and management – this article suggests an analysis through the lens of the rule of law crisis. Specifically, the financial and techno-managerial strategy developed by the EU for the indirect protection of the rule of law relies on mechanisms that combine characteristics from both the enforcement and management approaches. This article will identify these mechanisms, namely the European Semester, the Conditionality regulation, the European Structural Investment Funds and the Recovery and Resilience Facility, in order to determine their nature, features, and tools for ensuring compliance with the rule of law. The hypothesis of this article relies on the idea that the EU’s tools are characterised by a mismatch between the causes of the identified problems and the chosen solutions. Considering that the deployment of the above measures has not re-established compliance, the EU strategy toes between inducing rule conformity on the one hand and deterring rule of law violations on the other. However, it seems that only the former can restore the rule of law, as the latter is considered ill-equipped to reverse or at least halt instances of backsliding. This mismatch explains why the Justice Scoreboard, the Framework, and the Review Cycle with its Annual Report have not made any difference, and more generally, why management strategies are unfit for dealing with deliberate backsliding.1