Advertisement

The Need for Multi-disciplinary Education About Standardization

  • Olia KanevskaiaEmail author
Chapter
First Online:
  • 429 Downloads
Part of the CSR, Sustainability, Ethics & Governance book series (CSEG)

Abstract

In the modern world of rapid and continuous industrial development, standardization plays a considerable role in shaping the global economy. Standards establish quality benchmarks, resolve connectivity problems, fuel innovation and by these means, enable technological advancement and facilitate international commerce. Standards come in a bewildering variety of forms and types and affect various areas of activities, often causing misunderstandings between, inter alia, engineers, economists and lawyers. Although currently ignored, such cross-sectoral misapprehensions may negatively impact standardization in the long run. In this regard, a relevant point to consider is the intertwining of different sectors and activities in the wake of growing digitalization. To grapple with the technical and regulatory challenges arising from this industry shift, an increased understanding of different standardization areas is required. Taking a legal perspective, this contribution describes experiences of incomprehension and misunderstanding when discussing various standardization issues with economists, software developers and mechanical engineers. It emphasizes the importance of cross-sectoral education on standardization for generating a constructive dialogue between different experts. The contribution concludes that increased awareness of various standardization domains enables experts to learn from each other and facilitates their cooperation within different sectors, pacing standardization to the needs of industry and society.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Abbott, K. W. (1989). Modern international relations theory: A prospectus for international lawyers. Yale Journal of International Law, 14(2), 335–411.Google Scholar
  2. Abbott, K. W., & Snidal, D. (2001). International ‘standards’ and international governance. Journal of European Public Policy, 8(3), 345–370.Google Scholar
  3. Austin, M. T., & Milner, H. V. (2001). Strategies of European standardization. Journal of European Public Policy, 8(3), 411–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baron, J., & Pohlmann, T. (2015). Mapping Standards to Patents Using Databases of Declared Standard-Essential Patents and Systems of Technological Classification. Retrieved from http://www.law.northwestern.edu/research-faculty/searlecenter/innovationeconomics/documents/Baron_Pohlmann_Mapping_Standards.pdf.
  5. Berman, P. S. (2005). From international law to law and globalization. Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, 43, 485–557.Google Scholar
  6. Berman, P. S. (2012). Global legal pluralism: A jurisprudence of law beyond borders. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Biddle, B., White, A., & Woods, S. (2010). How Many Standards in a Laptop? (And Other Empirical Questions). Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1619440.
  8. Brunsson, N., Jacobsson, B., et al. (2000). A world of standards. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Büthe, T. (2010). Engineering uncontestedness? The origins and institutional development of the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC). Business and Politics, 12(3), 1–62.Google Scholar
  10. Cath, C., & Floridi, L. (2016). The design of the internet’s architecture by the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and human rights. In Science and Engineering Ethics.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-016-9793-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cassese, S. (2005). Administrative law without the state? The challenge of global regulation. N.Y.U International Law and Politics, 37, 663–694.Google Scholar
  12. Cervigni, G., & Larouche, P. (2014). Regulating Smart Metering in Europe: Technological, Economic and Legal Challenges. Retrieved from http://www.cerre.eu/sites/cerre/files/140331_CERRE_SmartMetering_Final.pdf.
  13. Chiapello, E., & Medjad, K. (2009). An unprecedented privatization of mandatory standard-setting: The case of European accounting policy. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 20(4), 448–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Contreras, J. L. (2011). An Empirical Study of the Effects of Ex Ante Licensing Disclosure Policies on the Development of Voluntary Technical Standards, conducted for the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST), US Department of Commerce. Retrieved from https://www.nist.gov/sites/default/files/nistgcr_11_934_empircalstudyofeffectsexantelicensing2011_0.pdf.
  15. Contreras, J. L. (Ed.). (2018). The Cambridge handbook of technical standardization law. Competition, antitrust and patents. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Curran, P. D. (2003). Standard-setting organizations: Patents, price fixing, and per se legality. The University of Chicago Law Review, 70, 983–1009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. De Vries, H. J. (1997). Standardization—What’s in a name? Terminology—International Journal of Theoretical and Applied Issues in Specialized Communication, 4(1), 55–83.Google Scholar
  18. De Vries, H. J. (2002). Standardization education. ERS-2002-82-ORG. ERIM Report Series Research in Management. Retrieved from https://www.iso.org/sites/materials/initiatives-in-education/education_initiatives-higher-edu/educational_materials-detail-initiativese245.html?emid=21.
  19. De Vries, H. J. (2003). Learning by example—A possible curriculum model for standardization education. ISO Bulletin July 2003, pp. 25–29.Google Scholar
  20. De Vries, H. J., & Egyedi, T. M. (2007). Education about standardization—Recent findings. International Journal for IT Standards & Standardization Research, 5(2), 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. De Vries, H. J. (2015). Standardization—A developing field of research. In P. Delimatsis (Ed.), The law, economics and politics of international standardization (pp. 19–41). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. De Vries, H., Winter, B., & Willemse, H. (2017). Achieving consensus despite apposing stakes: A case of national input for an ISO standard on sustainable wood. International Journal of Standardization Research, 15(1), 29–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Delcamp, H., & Leiponen, A. (2014). Innovating standards through informal consortia: The case of wireless telecommunications. International Journal of Industrial Organization Elsevier, 36C, 36–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Delimatsis, P. (Ed.). (2015). The law, economics and politics of international standardization. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Delimatsis, P. (2018). Global Standard-Setting 2.0: How the WTO spotlights ISO and impacts the transnational standard-setting process. Duke Journal of Comparative and International Law, 28, 273–326.Google Scholar
  26. European Commission. (2017). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee Setting Out the EU Approach to Standard Essential Patents, COM, 712 final.Google Scholar
  27. European Council. (1985). Resolution on a New Approach to Technical Harmonization and Standards (OJ C 136/1).Google Scholar
  28. European Court of Justice. (2010). Case T-432/05 EMC Development AB v European Commission.Google Scholar
  29. European Court of Justice. (2012). Case C-171/11 Fra.bo SpA v Deutsche Vereinigung des Gas-und Wasserfaches.Google Scholar
  30. European Court of Justice. (2016). Case C-613/14 James Elliott Construction Ltd v Irish Asphalt Ltd.Google Scholar
  31. European Court of Justice. (2017). Case C-219/15, Elisabeth Schmitt v TÜV Rheinland LGA Products GmbH.Google Scholar
  32. Grant, R. W., & Keohane, R. O. (2005). Accountability and abuses of power in world politics. American Political Science Review, 99(1), 29–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hesser, W. (2014). Memorandum on Standardization in Higher Education in Europe. Retrieved from https://www.iso.org/sites/edumaterials/hesser-memorandum.pdf.
  34. Hesser, W., & Czaya, A. (1999). Standardization as a subject of study in higher education. A vision. ISO Bulletin June 1999, pp. 6–12.Google Scholar
  35. Hesser, W., & Siedersleben, W. (2007). Standardization goes East. The European—Asian academic network. International and multi-media based. ISO Focus November 2007, pp. 21–24.Google Scholar
  36. International Organization for Standardization and International Electrotechnical Commission. (2004). Guide 2: Standardization and Related Activities—General Vocabulary.Google Scholar
  37. Keil, T. (2002). De-facto standardization through alliances—lessons from Bluetooth. Telecommunications Policy, 26(3), 205–2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Krechmer. K. (2006). Open Standards Requirements. International Journal of IT Standards and Standardization Research, vol. 4 (1).Google Scholar
  39. Krechmer, K. (2007). Teaching standards to Engineers. International Journal of IT Standards and Standardization Research, Vol. 5(2).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lane, C. (1997). The social regulation of inter-firm relations in Britain and Germany: Market rules, legal norms and technical standards. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 21(2), 197–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Larouche, P. (2012). A vision of global legal scholarship. TILEC Discussion Paper (No. 2012-034). Retrieved from https://pure.uvt.nl/ws/files/1461065/2012_034_1_.pdf.
  42. Lundell, B., Gamalielsson, J., & Katz, A. (2015). On implementation of open standards in software: To what extent can ISO standards be implemented in open source software? International Journal of Standardization Research, Vol. 13(1).Google Scholar
  43. O’Sullivan, E., & Brévignon‐Dodin, L. (2012). Role of standardization in supporting emerging technologies. A Study for the Department of Business, Innovation & Skills (BIS) and the British Standards Institution (BSI). Retrieved from https://www.ifm.eng.cam.ac.uk/uploads/Resources/Reports/OSullivan_Dodin_Role_of_Standardisation_June_2012__2_.pdf.
  44. Pelkmans, J. (2001). The GSM standard: Explaining a success story. Journal of European Public Policy, 8(3), 432–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Peters, A., Koechlin, L., Förster, T., & Fenner Zinkernagel, G. (Eds.). (2009). Non-state actors as standard setters. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Posner, R. A. (1987). The decline of law as an autonomous discipline. Harvard Law Review, 100, 1962–1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Purcell, D. E., & Kelly, W. E. (2003). Adding value to a standards education: Lessons learned from a strategic standardization course. ISO Bulletin July 2003, pp. 33–34.Google Scholar
  48. Russel, A. L. (2006). Rough consensus and running code’ and the internet-OSI standards war. IEEE Annals of the History of Computing, pp. 48–61. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9ffa/d637b841df9e1904aea2265d0a88fd855d58.pdf.
  49. Schepel, H. (2005). The constitution of private governance: Product standards in the regulation of integrating markets. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  50. Schneiderman, R. (2015). Modern Standardization: Case Studies at the Crossroads of Technology, Economics and Politics. Standards Information Network.Google Scholar
  51. Siems, M. M. (2009). The taxonomy of interdisciplinary legal research: Finding the way out of the desert. Journal of Commonwealth Law and Legal Education, 7, 5–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Simcoe, T. (2012). Standard setting committees: Consensus governance for shared technology platforms. American Economic Review, 102(1), 305–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Spivak, S. M., & Kelly, W. E. (2003). Introduce strategic standardization concepts during higher educational studies…and reap the benefits! ISO Bulleting, 2003, 22–24.Google Scholar
  54. Spruyt, H. (2001). The supply and demand of governance in standard-setting: Insights from the past. Journal of European Public Policy, 8(3), 371–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Thorstensen, V., Weissinger, R., & Sun X. (2015). Private Standards—Implications for Trade, Development, and Governance. Retrieved from http://e15initiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/E15-Regulatory-Thorstensen-et-al.-final.pdf.
  56. Way, J. (2011). A Brief History of HTML5. Retrieved from https://code.tutsplus.com/articles/a-brief-history-of-html5–net-23064.
  57. Werle, R. (2001a). Institutional aspects of standardization—Jurisdictional conflicts and the choice of standardization organizations. Journal of European Public Policy, 8(3), 392–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Werle, R. (2001). Standards in the international telecommunications regime. HWWA Discussion Paper 157, SSN 1616-4814. Retrieved from https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/19394/1/157.pdf.
  59. West, J. (2003). How open is open enough? Melding proprietary and open source platform strategies. Research Policy, 32(7), 1259–1285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. West, J. (2007). The economic realities of open standards: Black, white and many shades of gray. In S. Grrenstein & V. Stango (Eds.), Standards and public policy (pp. 87–122). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  61. World Trade Organization. (2017). Russian Federation—Measures on the Importation of Live Pigs, Pork and Other Pig Products From the European Union. Report of the Appellate Body, adopted on February 23, 2017. WT/DS475/AB/R.Google Scholar
  62. World Trade Organization. (2000). Annex 4: Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations with Relation to Articles 2, 5 and Annex 3 of the TBT Agreement (G/TBT/9.). Issued on November 20, 2000.Google Scholar
  63. Wiegmann, P. M., De Vries, H. J., & Blind, K. (2017). Multi-mode standardisation: A critical review and a research agenda. Research Policy, 46(9), 1370–1386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Wu, X. (2017). Interplay between Patents and Standards in the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Sector and its Relevance to the Implementation of the WTO Agreements. WTO Working Paper ERSD – 2017-08 (2017). Retrieved from https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/reser_e/ersd201708_e.pdf.

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Tilburg Law and Economics Center (TILEC) and Tilburg Law School (TLS)TilburgThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations

Cite chapter

Buy options