Regulating the European Risk Society

Chapter

Abstract

This chapter examines how the European Union is addressing the challenges brought about by the emergence of a “risk society.” After reconstructing the genesis and evolution of EU risk regulations, i.e. regulations aimed at the protection of health, safety, and the environment, it identifies the main features of the EU approach towards risk. Although the EU institutions have not adopted a harmonized and consistent analytical approach to risk, notably to scientific risk assessment—given that it is conducted by different bodies following diverging methods—it is possible to discern some common and distinctive features in the risk analysis framework that has been gradually adopted to manage an ever-wider range of societal risks (such as food safety, chemicals, pharmaceuticals, medical devices, crop protection, and GMOs). The chapter argues that, by subscribing to a progressive ideal of regulation based on expertise, an embryonic European risk regulation model is taking shape and developing today. Yet a tension between the necessity for a rational, evidence-based decision-making and the wider demand for a flexible, precautionary-oriented regulatory approach represents the defining feature of the EU decision-making paradigm of risk regulation.

Keywords

Europe Amid Marketing Coherence Sine 

References

  1. Alemanno A. (2007a) Trade in Food – Regulatory and Judicial Approaches in the EC and the WTO, Cameron May, London.Google Scholar
  2. Alemanno A. (2007b) The Shaping of the Precautionary Principle by European Courts: From Scientific Uncertainty to Legal Certainty, L. Cuocolo, L. Luparia (eds.), Valori costituzionali e nuove politiche del diritto, Halley.Google Scholar
  3. Alemanno A. (2008) EFSA at Five, European Food and Feed Law Review, 1/2008.Google Scholar
  4. Allio, L. (2009), The emergence of Better Regulation in the European Union, Ph.D Thesis manuscript, King’s College London, London.Google Scholar
  5. Beck U. (1992) Risk Society: towards a new modernity (Sage Publication, London).Google Scholar
  6. Breyer S. and V. Heyvaert (2000), Institutions for Managing Risk, in R. Revesz, P. Sands, and R. Stewart (eds), Environmental Law, the Economy and Sustainable Development—the United States, the European Union and the international community (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 327 ss.Google Scholar
  7. Breyer S. (1993) Breaking the Vicious Circle, (Harvard University Press ed., Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
  8. Christoforou T. (2004) The Precautionary Principle, Risk Assessment, and the Comparative Role of Science in the European Community and the US Legal Systems, in N.J. Vig and M.G. Faure, eds., Green Giants? Environmental Policies of the United States and the European Union (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2004), pp. 17-51.Google Scholar
  9. Covello, V.T., Slovic, P., & von Winterfeldt, D. (1988) Disaster and crisis communications: Findings and implications for research and policy. In H. Jungermann, R.E. Kasperson, & P.M. Wiedemann (Eds.) Risk Communication (Juelich, FRG: Kernforschungsanlage Juelich), pp. 131-154.Google Scholar
  10. Craig P. (2006) EU Administrative Law, (OUP : Oxford).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. De Burca G. and Scott J. (2000) The Impact of the WTO on EU decision-making, Harvard Jean Monnet Seminar Working Paper 06/00.Google Scholar
  12. de Sadeleer N. (2006) The Precautionary Principle in EC Health and Environmental Law, 12 European Law Journal, 147.Google Scholar
  13. Everson M. & Vos E. (2009) Uncertain Risks Regulated, (Routledge, Oxon).Google Scholar
  14. Jasanoff S. (1986) Risk Management and political culture, New York.Google Scholar
  15. Jasanoff, S. (1990) The Fifth Branch: Science Advisers as Policy Makers, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Joerges C., Ladeur C. and Vos E. (1997) Integrating Scientific Expertise into Regulatory Decision-Making (Oxford, Hart).Google Scholar
  17. Joerges C. (2001) Law, Science and the Management of Risks to Health at the National, European and International Level – Stories on Baby Dummies, Mad Cows and Hormones in Beef, in 7 Columb. Journal of European Law 1.Google Scholar
  18. Majone G. (1984) Science and Transcience in Standard Setting, Science, Technology and Human Values, Volume 9, Issue 1, pp. 15-22.Google Scholar
  19. Majone G. (2002) “What Price Safety? The Precautionary Principle and its Policy Implications”, 40 Journal of Common Market Studies (2002), pp. 89-109.Google Scholar
  20. Marceau G. and Trachtman J. (2002), The Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement, the Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures Agreement, and the General Agreement on Tariff and Trade, A Map of the World Trade Organization Law of Domestic Regulation of Goods, 36 Journal of World Trade, 5 at 811-881.Google Scholar
  21. Noiville, C., and de Sadeleer, N. (2001) ‘La gestion des risques écologiques et sanitaires à l’épreuve des chiffres. Le droit entre enjeux scientifiques et politiques’, Revue du Droit de l’Union Européenne, pp. 389.Google Scholar
  22. Pelkmans J. (2002) European Integration – Methods and Economic Analysis, (Prentice Hall, 2 edition).Google Scholar
  23. Skogstad G. (2001) The WTO and Food Safety Regulatory Policy Innovation in the European Union, in 39 Journal of Common Market Studies 485, 490.Google Scholar
  24. Sunstein C. (2005) Laws of Fear: Beyond the Precautionary Principle (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Torriti J. (2010) The Unstainable Rationality of Impact Assessment, in 31 European Journal of Law & Economics 307–320Google Scholar
  26. Wynne B and Dressel K (2001) Cultures of Uncertainty – Transboundary Risks and BSE in Europe, in Linnerooth-Bayer, Lofstedt R. and Sjostedt G (eds.) Transboundary Risk Management, London: Earthscan, pp. 121-154.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.HEC (École des Hautes Études Commerciales)ParisFrance

Personalised recommendations