加入欧盟后的监管自治——一致性、分歧与法律纪律

IF 0.8 4区 社会学 Q2 LAW European Law Review Pub Date : 2020-05-05 DOI:10.2139/ssrn.3593482
Kenneth A. Armstrong
{"title":"加入欧盟后的监管自治——一致性、分歧与法律纪律","authors":"Kenneth A. Armstrong","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3593482","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The United Kingdom withdrew from the European Union on 31 January 2020 and immediately entered into a period of “transition”. With the EU acquis continuing to apply to the UK during this period, regulatory alignment with the EU is maintained until transition ends. However, this “shadow membership” is not an intimation of the desire of the UK to maintain alignment following transition. Indeed, the UK has stipulated that continuing alignment is incompatible with its direction of travel out of the EU. Rather, in its desire to protect and enhance its “regulatory autonomy”, the UK is set to ditch the discipline on its autonomy experienced during membership—a “free movement” discipline—in favour of a looser “free trade” discipline. In response, the EU has asserted the need to protect its own autonomy by demanding that the UK commit to “level playing-field” requirements aimed at preventing the EU’s balance of market liberalism and regulation and regulatory competition and neutrality from being eroded. The aim of this article is to evaluate whether the ambition to agree a comprehensive economic partnership is compatible with EU and UK attempts to protect their regulatory autonomy.","PeriodicalId":45752,"journal":{"name":"European Law Review","volume":"1 1","pages":"207-221"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2020-05-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Regulatory Autonomy after EU Membership - Alignment, Divergence and the Discipline of Law\",\"authors\":\"Kenneth A. Armstrong\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.3593482\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The United Kingdom withdrew from the European Union on 31 January 2020 and immediately entered into a period of “transition”. With the EU acquis continuing to apply to the UK during this period, regulatory alignment with the EU is maintained until transition ends. However, this “shadow membership” is not an intimation of the desire of the UK to maintain alignment following transition. Indeed, the UK has stipulated that continuing alignment is incompatible with its direction of travel out of the EU. Rather, in its desire to protect and enhance its “regulatory autonomy”, the UK is set to ditch the discipline on its autonomy experienced during membership—a “free movement” discipline—in favour of a looser “free trade” discipline. In response, the EU has asserted the need to protect its own autonomy by demanding that the UK commit to “level playing-field” requirements aimed at preventing the EU’s balance of market liberalism and regulation and regulatory competition and neutrality from being eroded. The aim of this article is to evaluate whether the ambition to agree a comprehensive economic partnership is compatible with EU and UK attempts to protect their regulatory autonomy.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45752,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Law Review\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"207-221\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-05-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3593482\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3593482","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

英国于2020年1月31日退出欧盟,立即进入“过渡期”。在此期间,欧盟协议继续适用于英国,与欧盟的监管保持一致,直到过渡结束。然而,这种“影子成员”并不意味着英国希望在过渡后保持联盟。事实上,英国已经规定,继续与欧盟结盟与其退出欧盟的方向是不相容的。相反,出于保护和增强其“监管自主权”的愿望,英国准备放弃其在欧盟成员国期间所经历的自主权纪律——“自由流动”纪律——而倾向于更宽松的“自由贸易”纪律。作为回应,欧盟坚称有必要保护自身的自主权,要求英国承诺“公平竞争”的要求,以防止欧盟在市场自由主义和监管、监管竞争和中立性之间的平衡受到侵蚀。本文的目的是评估达成全面经济伙伴关系的雄心是否与欧盟和英国保护其监管自主权的努力相一致。
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
Regulatory Autonomy after EU Membership - Alignment, Divergence and the Discipline of Law
The United Kingdom withdrew from the European Union on 31 January 2020 and immediately entered into a period of “transition”. With the EU acquis continuing to apply to the UK during this period, regulatory alignment with the EU is maintained until transition ends. However, this “shadow membership” is not an intimation of the desire of the UK to maintain alignment following transition. Indeed, the UK has stipulated that continuing alignment is incompatible with its direction of travel out of the EU. Rather, in its desire to protect and enhance its “regulatory autonomy”, the UK is set to ditch the discipline on its autonomy experienced during membership—a “free movement” discipline—in favour of a looser “free trade” discipline. In response, the EU has asserted the need to protect its own autonomy by demanding that the UK commit to “level playing-field” requirements aimed at preventing the EU’s balance of market liberalism and regulation and regulatory competition and neutrality from being eroded. The aim of this article is to evaluate whether the ambition to agree a comprehensive economic partnership is compatible with EU and UK attempts to protect their regulatory autonomy.
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
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
10.00%
发文量
1
期刊最新文献
Playing by its own rules? A quantitative empirical analysis of justificatory reasoning in the registered trade mark case law of the European Court of Justice - dataset Beyond Food Safety: EU Food Information Standards as a Facilitator of Political Consumerism and International Law Enforcement Mechanism When Does a Communication to the Public Under EU Copyright Law Need to Be to a ‘New Public’? Regulatory Autonomy after EU Membership - Alignment, Divergence and the Discipline of Law Regulatory Autonomy after EU Membership: Alignment, Divergence and the Discipline of Law
×
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