罗尔斯对欧盟委员会游说制度限制的看法

Damian Bäumlisberger
{"title":"罗尔斯对欧盟委员会游说制度限制的看法","authors":"Damian Bäumlisberger","doi":"10.2478/jome-2020-0002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In the process of drafting European Union (EU) legislation and supervising its effective national implementation, the European Commission has to cooperate with lobbyists. This exchange involves the risk of arbitrary lobby influence on its decisions at the expense of other EU citizens. Against this backdrop, this article addresses the research question of which normative principles should constrain the Commission’s interaction with lobbyists. Based on the contractarian approach from Rawls’ Law of Peoples, it identifies eight criteria of a Rawlsian lobby consultation system for the Commission, which representatives of EU countries could accept from behind a Rawlsian veil of ignorance and in view of the fundamental interest of their people. These normative criteria can be supervised by independent institutions like the European Parliament and the European Court of Justice. They constitute a procedural approach to the political supervision of the Commission’s interaction with lobbyists that can be enforced without compromising its necessary institutional independence.","PeriodicalId":134384,"journal":{"name":"Journal for Markets and Ethics","volume":"123 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Rawlsian perspective on the institutional limits of lobbying the European Commission\",\"authors\":\"Damian Bäumlisberger\",\"doi\":\"10.2478/jome-2020-0002\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract In the process of drafting European Union (EU) legislation and supervising its effective national implementation, the European Commission has to cooperate with lobbyists. This exchange involves the risk of arbitrary lobby influence on its decisions at the expense of other EU citizens. Against this backdrop, this article addresses the research question of which normative principles should constrain the Commission’s interaction with lobbyists. Based on the contractarian approach from Rawls’ Law of Peoples, it identifies eight criteria of a Rawlsian lobby consultation system for the Commission, which representatives of EU countries could accept from behind a Rawlsian veil of ignorance and in view of the fundamental interest of their people. These normative criteria can be supervised by independent institutions like the European Parliament and the European Court of Justice. They constitute a procedural approach to the political supervision of the Commission’s interaction with lobbyists that can be enforced without compromising its necessary institutional independence.\",\"PeriodicalId\":134384,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal for Markets and Ethics\",\"volume\":\"123 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal for Markets and Ethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2478/jome-2020-0002\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal for Markets and Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2478/jome-2020-0002","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在欧盟立法起草和监督其有效实施的过程中,欧盟委员会不得不与游说者合作。这种交换存在着以牺牲其他欧盟公民利益为代价,随意影响欧盟决策的风险。在此背景下,本文探讨了应以何种规范原则约束委员会与游说者的互动这一研究问题。基于罗尔斯《人民法》中的契约主义方法,本文为欧盟委员会确定了罗尔斯游说协商制度的八个标准,欧盟各国代表可以在罗尔斯的无知面纱背后,从其人民的根本利益出发接受这些标准。这些规范性标准可以由欧洲议会和欧洲法院等独立机构监督。它们是对委员会与游说者的相互作用进行政治监督的一种程序性办法,可以在不损害其必要的机构独立性的情况下加以执行。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
A Rawlsian perspective on the institutional limits of lobbying the European Commission
Abstract In the process of drafting European Union (EU) legislation and supervising its effective national implementation, the European Commission has to cooperate with lobbyists. This exchange involves the risk of arbitrary lobby influence on its decisions at the expense of other EU citizens. Against this backdrop, this article addresses the research question of which normative principles should constrain the Commission’s interaction with lobbyists. Based on the contractarian approach from Rawls’ Law of Peoples, it identifies eight criteria of a Rawlsian lobby consultation system for the Commission, which representatives of EU countries could accept from behind a Rawlsian veil of ignorance and in view of the fundamental interest of their people. These normative criteria can be supervised by independent institutions like the European Parliament and the European Court of Justice. They constitute a procedural approach to the political supervision of the Commission’s interaction with lobbyists that can be enforced without compromising its necessary institutional independence.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Digital Platforms and Competition Policy: A Business-Ethical Assessment Wie werden Ethik und ethisches unternehmerisches Handeln gegenüber den Stakeholdern kommuniziert? Eine Analyse der Geschäftsberichte der DAX30 Unternehmen Drei FAQs zur Wirtschaftsethik in Fratelli tutti Wie wollen wir warum wirtschaften? Wer soll wo handeln? Hat Franziskus Recht? Stakeholder Management, Cooperatives, and Selfish-Individualism Der Wert der Arbeit: Theologische und sozialethische Überlegungen zum Bedingungslosen Grundeinkommen
×
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