METARULES · Meta-rules and constitutional law: 'co-regulating' legislative processes in Europe?
7РП — „Хора“ (Действия „Мария Кюри“)
- Период
- 2008-03-01 → 2010-02-28
- Финансиране от ЕС
- 148 557 €
- Участници
- 1
- Схема
- MC-IEF
Линиите свързват координатора с партньорите.
Накратко на български
Метаправилата в европейското законодателство изследват неофициалните норми, по които работят transnational регулаторните мрежи. Това е важно, защото много технически правила за управление се създават без достатъчно правно осъзнаване, въпреки че влияят на конституционните ценности.
Кратко обяснение, генерирано от езиков модел по текста на CORDIS. Оригиналът е по-долу.
Резултати накратко
Meta-rules and constitutional law: 'co-regulating' legislative processes in Europe?
Are our regulators regulated? Traditionally most regulation took place in the context of the nation state with constitutional law as the main mechanism for controlling and legitimizing regulatory power. Nowadays the locus of regulation has shifted to transnational and/or private forum and traditional constitutional control solutions no longer suffice. This research project has investigated what has come in its place. The project has mapped the 'meta-rules' which emerge in regulatory reform dialogues and which are usually characterized by a gradual recognition of their need by actors who were never mandated to call into being legal - let alone constitutional - norms. Different actors are involved in shaping horizontal regulatory policy, often through transnational deliberations; these deliberations foster various - and not necessary legal - rationales and participants acquire a particular understanding of norms relating to lawmaking and their bindingness. One problem is that such shifts in horizontal regulatory policies are linked to constitutional structures and values, but they often take place without much legal awareness. The 'multi-level' nature of contemporary rule-making processes has paradoxically triggered horizontal cooperation between legislators and regulatory authorities, for instance through 'transnational regulatory networks'. The contribution that this project has made lies in an 'input-oriented' analysis of law, in a field where the majority of research is 'output-oriented'. Specifically, the project has clarified the workings of the grey and under-researched area that consists of seemingly technical rules that have been introduced to improve legislative processes, guidance on lawmaking and principles of good regulation. It is now clear that some of these norms effectively influence legislative processes. Meta-rules overlap with constitutional norms in terms of subject matter (e.g. 'who gets access to the legislative process'), but they do not follow the usual hierarchy of norms. In the European Union, a large part of these transnational deliberations on meta-rules is happening in the context of the so-called 'Better Regulation' programme. Mandatory impact assessment, systematic simplification, often aided by 'administrative burden reduction targets', and enhanced rules for consultation are just a few examples of the topics covered by networks such as the informal transnational body often referred to as 'Directors of Better Regulation' (DBR). The research indicates that many 'users' of meta-rules overestimate the extent to which they are mandatory and underestimate the extent to which they are contested from a legal point of view. In some cases a meta-rule is merely symbolic (e.g. 'self-regulation should be preferred to legislation'), but in other instances the 'strangeness' of the norm or standard at hand is no impediment to it exercising a kind of 'soft power' (e.g. the success of the administrative burden targets in most member states of the European Union). An example of a 'successful' meta-rule (in the sense that it has established itself against constitutional odds) is the pluralistic, open style of consultation that has now become fashionable in various quarters administrations across Europe. Yet, once a a consultation has been held, the administrations - most of them used to a more neo-corporatist structure - tend to struggle with the question of how to treat the results. An open legal question, that was put forward at the final workshop for the project, is to what extent can (informal) meta-rules trigger (legally relevant) legitimate expectations? The project has also found that cost-benefit analysis has not rooted as much among European lawmakers as some have predicted. The potential users of this norm are unwilling to draw the institutional consequences from 'real' cost-benefit analysis and focus on cost-only tests instead. Website: http://www.ua.ac.be/main.aspx?c=anne.meuwese
Текст от CORDIS, на английски · Данни: CORDIS, © Европейски съюз
Цел на проекта
Given the fundamental importance of legislation to society, legal scholarship has generated remarkably few insights into the norms that effectively govern legislative processes. Between the extra-legal constraints traditionally studied by political science and the formal constitutional framework that is the territory of constitutional law scholarship, a grey area of seemingly bureaucratic rules on lawmaking can be identified. This project refers to these rules as ‘meta-rules’ and aims to analyse the way they interact with constitutional law. The recent proliferation of ‘Better Regulation’ policies in Europe has led to a convergence of meta-rules applied in different legislative arenas and to a growing salience of these norms. Many meta-rules overlap with constitutional norms in terms of subject matter, for instance the issue of who gets access to the legislative process. However, these rules are inspired by the paradigm of the regulatory state rather than by the traditional rationale of democratic lawmaking. An example of a meta-rule is ‘a legislative proposal can only be put forward if it is accompanied by an impact assessment’. Such a requirement follows a different logic than the assumption that ‘the sovereign parliament can initiate laws as it sees fit’ which is often part of traditional constitutional frameworks. Are meta-rules as they emerge from increased transnational cooperation in the framework of EU ‘Better Regulation’ capable of overriding the formal constitutional rules and principles in certain cases? Or do they instead facilitate their implementation in the day-to-day practice of lawmaking? It is proposed to combine macro-level research on meta-rules by expanding existing databases on regulatory policies in Europe with more detailed case-study based analysis. In doing so traditional methods such as elite interviewing and textual interpretation will be combined with methods that are new to legal research, such as quantitative textual analysis.
Оригинален текст от CORDIS (на английски).
Участници
- UNIVERSITEIT ANTWERPEN · AntwerpenКоординаторБелгия
Връзки
Данни: CORDIS, © Европейски съюз
