Hard law represents rules that are binding and precise and delegate the power either to explain or adjudicate to third parties. Soft law, on the other hand, does not have a status of a binding rule but nonetheless influences the behavior of public. The literature still debates whether the hard and soft law are either complementary or antagonistic. Especially with development of EU, we can see that soft law has gained momentum. We will see more soft law in the areas of uncertainty or in areas where the changes are day-to-day occurrence or where soft law usually paves the way for the hard law.
- Abbot K, Moravcsik A, Slauther A-M, Snidal D (2000) The concept of legalization. Int Organ 54:17–35Google Scholar
- Gersen JE, Posner EA (2008) Soft law: lessons from congressional practice. Stanford Law Rev 61:573–627Google Scholar
- Shaffer GC, Pollack MA (2010) Hard vs. soft law: alternatives, complements and antagonists in international governance. Minn Law Rev 94:712–799Google Scholar
- Trubeck DM, Cottrell P, Nance M (2006) Soft law, hard law and European integration: toward a theory of hybridity. In: Scott J, de Búrca G (eds) New governance and institutionalism in Europe and in the US. Hart Publishing, Oxford, pp 65–94Google Scholar