没有对抗主义的法家主义?:官僚法律主义与欧盟监管实施的政治

IF 3.2 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW Regulation & Governance Pub Date : 2023-03-27 DOI:10.1111/rego.12524
Chase Foster
{"title":"没有对抗主义的法家主义?:官僚法律主义与欧盟监管实施的政治","authors":"Chase Foster","doi":"10.1111/rego.12524","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Many scholars predict that European integration will foster adversarial legalism in Europe. In this article, I empirically assess the Eurolegalism thesis by examining EU regulatory mandates in the competition and securities fields, two policy areas where adversarial legalism is seen as most likely to develop. I argue that the diffusion of adversarial legalism to Europe has faced significant political opposition in the EU policymaking process which has curtailed the use of private enforcement mandates in EU secondary legislation. European policymakers have relied more on administrative enforcement through public regulatory agencies, a mode of policy implementation closer to bureaucratic legalism. In practice, public authorities play the primary enforcement role and private litigation serves the narrower function of compensation following public enforcement actions. Drawing from institutionalist theory, I identify several factors that have encouraged the development of bureaucratic rather than adversarial styles of European legalism, especially member states' commitments to procedural subsidiarity, the negative feedback effects from the US experience with entrepreneurial litigation, and the stickiness of European legal and bureaucratic traditions.","PeriodicalId":21026,"journal":{"name":"Regulation & Governance","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Legalism without adversarialism?: Bureaucratic legalism and the politics of regulatory implementation in the European Union\",\"authors\":\"Chase Foster\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/rego.12524\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Many scholars predict that European integration will foster adversarial legalism in Europe. In this article, I empirically assess the Eurolegalism thesis by examining EU regulatory mandates in the competition and securities fields, two policy areas where adversarial legalism is seen as most likely to develop. I argue that the diffusion of adversarial legalism to Europe has faced significant political opposition in the EU policymaking process which has curtailed the use of private enforcement mandates in EU secondary legislation. European policymakers have relied more on administrative enforcement through public regulatory agencies, a mode of policy implementation closer to bureaucratic legalism. In practice, public authorities play the primary enforcement role and private litigation serves the narrower function of compensation following public enforcement actions. Drawing from institutionalist theory, I identify several factors that have encouraged the development of bureaucratic rather than adversarial styles of European legalism, especially member states' commitments to procedural subsidiarity, the negative feedback effects from the US experience with entrepreneurial litigation, and the stickiness of European legal and bureaucratic traditions.\",\"PeriodicalId\":21026,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Regulation & Governance\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Regulation & Governance\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12524\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Regulation & Governance","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12524","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

许多学者预测,欧洲一体化将在欧洲滋生对抗性的法律主义。在本文中,我通过研究欧盟在竞争和证券领域的监管任务,实证地评估了欧洲法律主义的论点,这两个政策领域被认为是最有可能发展对抗性法律主义的。我认为,对抗性法律主义在欧洲的扩散在欧盟政策制定过程中面临着重大的政治反对,这限制了欧盟二级立法中私人强制执行授权的使用。欧洲决策者更多地依靠公共监管机构的行政执法,这是一种更接近官僚法律主义的政策实施模式。在实践中,公共当局发挥着主要的执行作用,私人诉讼在公共执行行动之后起着较为狭隘的赔偿作用。根据制度主义理论,我确定了几个因素,这些因素鼓励了欧洲法律主义的官僚风格(而不是对抗性风格)的发展,尤其是成员国对程序辅助性的承诺,美国在企业诉讼方面的经验带来的负面反馈效应,以及欧洲法律和官僚传统的粘性。
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
Legalism without adversarialism?: Bureaucratic legalism and the politics of regulatory implementation in the European Union
Many scholars predict that European integration will foster adversarial legalism in Europe. In this article, I empirically assess the Eurolegalism thesis by examining EU regulatory mandates in the competition and securities fields, two policy areas where adversarial legalism is seen as most likely to develop. I argue that the diffusion of adversarial legalism to Europe has faced significant political opposition in the EU policymaking process which has curtailed the use of private enforcement mandates in EU secondary legislation. European policymakers have relied more on administrative enforcement through public regulatory agencies, a mode of policy implementation closer to bureaucratic legalism. In practice, public authorities play the primary enforcement role and private litigation serves the narrower function of compensation following public enforcement actions. Drawing from institutionalist theory, I identify several factors that have encouraged the development of bureaucratic rather than adversarial styles of European legalism, especially member states' commitments to procedural subsidiarity, the negative feedback effects from the US experience with entrepreneurial litigation, and the stickiness of European legal and bureaucratic traditions.
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
7.80
自引率
10.00%
发文量
57
期刊介绍: Regulation & Governance serves as the leading platform for the study of regulation and governance by political scientists, lawyers, sociologists, historians, criminologists, psychologists, anthropologists, economists and others. Research on regulation and governance, once fragmented across various disciplines and subject areas, has emerged at the cutting edge of paradigmatic change in the social sciences. Through the peer-reviewed journal Regulation & Governance, we seek to advance discussions between various disciplines about regulation and governance, promote the development of new theoretical and empirical understanding, and serve the growing needs of practitioners for a useful academic reference.
期刊最新文献
Procedural constraints and regulatory ossification in the US states Digitalization and the green transition: Different challenges, same policy responses? To sandbox or not to sandbox? Diverging strategies of regulatory responses to FinTech Self‐enforcing path dependent trajectories? A comparison of the implementation of the EU energy packages in Germany and the Netherlands From a cultural to a distributive issue: Public climate action as a new field for comparative political economy
×
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