Lawmaking in Multi-level Settings: Legislative Challenges in Federal Systems and the European Union

Prof. Dr. Patricia Popelier; Prof. Helen Xanthaki LL.B. (Hon.), M.Jur., Ph.D. (Durham); Dr. William Robinson; Prof. João Tiago Silveira; RA Prof. Dr. Felix Uhlmann LL.M.

doi:10.5771/9783748900863

, to see if you have full access to this publication.

Edited Book No access

Lawmaking in Multi-level Settings

Legislative Challenges in Federal Systems and the European Union

Editors:
Series:: International Association of Legislation (IAL) / Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesetzgebung (DGG), Volume 18
Publisher:: 2019

Summary

Law making is difficult enough in a simple national setting but even harder in multi-level settings such as federal states or the EU. At the central level, laws must respect the autonomy and diversity of the component units, yet be effective, coherent, simple and accessible. At the decentralized level, law makers must, within a given time, implement in their own legislative framework laws drawn up at the central level.

The challenges are discussed in this volume of selected papers from the International Association of Legislation’s 2018 Conference at Antwerp University. It covers all multi-tiered systems, but a major focus is on the EU, where the tension between autonomy and efficacy is most evident.

Part I examines the topic at the broadest level, including all types of multi-tiered systems. Part II focuses on the EU perspective and Part III on the perspective of the Member States.

The authors are experts in various disciplines and practitioners, ensuring a multi-disciplinary approach.

Search publication

Bibliographic data

Edition: 1/2019
Copyright Year: 2019
ISBN-Print: 978-3-8487-5957-6
ISBN-Online: 978-3-7489-0086-3
Publisher: Nomos, Baden-Baden
Series: International Association of Legislation (IAL) / Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesetzgebung (DGG)
Volume: 18
Language: English
Pages: 317
Product Type: Edited Book

Titelei/Inhaltsverzeichnis No access Pages 1 - 8
Introduction to Lawmaking in Multi-Level Settings No access Pages 9 - 14
Authors:
1. Authors:
  1. Authors:
    1. 1. Multi-level Systems No access
      Authors:
    2. 2. Upper and Lower Level No access
      Authors:
  2. Authors:
    1. Authors:
      1. 1.1. Hierarchical Systems No access
        Authors:
      2. 1.2. Non-hierarchical Systems No access
        Authors:
    2. Authors:
      1. 2.1. Co-legislator No access
        Authors:
      2. 2.2. Execution No access
        Authors:
      3. 2.3. Implementation No access
        Authors:
    3. Authors:
      1. 3.1. Predominantly Upper Level No access
        Authors:
      2. 3.2. Predominantly Lower Level No access
        Authors:
      3. 3.3. Both Upper and Lower Level No access
        Authors:
      4. 3.4. Hybrid Systems No access
        Authors:
  3. Authors:
    1. 1. Effectiveness and Quality No access
      Authors:
    2. 2. Autonomy and Quality No access
      Authors:
  4. Authors:
    1. Authors:
      1. 1.1. Notification, Reporting, Oversight and Permission Requirements No access
        Authors:
      2. 1.2. Enforcement and Sanctioning Instruments No access
        Authors:
    2. 2. Participation in the Lawmaking Process No access
      Authors:
    3. 3. Coordination Instruments No access
      Authors:
  5. V. Conclusion No access
    Authors:
2. Authors:
  1. Authors:
    1. Complexity, terminology and limitations No access
      Authors:
  2. Authors:
    1. 1. The federal level in federations No access
      Authors:
    2. 2. European Union law No access
      Authors:
    3. 3. Public international law No access
      Authors:
    4. 4. What all three upper levels share: A common appetite for effectiveness No access
      Authors:
  3. Authors:
    1. 1. Vertical substitute performance No access
      Authors:
    2. Authors:
      1. 2.1. The importance of admissibility rules No access
        Authors:
      2. 2.2. Direct applicability and vertical direct effect No access
        Authors:
      3. 2.3. Invalidation by upper level courts No access
        Authors:
      4. Authors:
        a) Between appeals to the legislator and judge-made law No access
        Authors:
        b) Requiring consistent interpretation No access
        Authors:
      5. 2.5. Common concerns with court enforcement No access
        Authors:
    3. 3. Financial liability (as a sub-type of court enforcement) No access
      Authors:
    4. Authors:
      1. 4.1. Approval requirements No access
        Authors:
      2. 4.2. Loyalty principles, duties to consult, inform and involve No access
        Authors:
      3. 4.3. Financial and other incentives No access
        Authors:
      4. 4.4. Oversight mechanisms No access
        Authors:
      5. 4.5. Common concerns with oversight and cooperation No access
        Authors:
  4. IV. Conclusions No access
    Authors:
3. Authors:
  1. I. Introduction. Law-making in multi-level settings: a problem of coordination No access
    Authors:
  2. II. Legislative initiative and inter-institutional programming in the EU No access
    Authors:
  3. III. The Early Warning System and the principle of subsidiarity in the jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice No access
    Authors:
  4. IV. Challenges of multi-level law-making in Italian regionalism: the role of the Constitutional Court No access
    Authors:
  5. V. Quality of legislation between the State and Regions in Italy: the multi-level legislator unbound No access
    Authors:
  6. VI. Conclusions No access
    Authors:
1. Authors:
  1. I. Law-making in multi-level contexts: setting the scene No access
    Authors:
  2. Authors:
    1. 1. Impact Assessment No access
      Authors:
    2. 2. Consultation No access
      Authors:
  3. III. Subsidiarity in legislative practice No access
    Authors:
  4. IV. Conclusions No access
    Authors:
2. Authors:
  1. I. Introduction No access
    Authors:
  2. II. The 2016 Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law Making No access
    Authors:
  3. III. The Task Force on Subsidiarity, Proportionality and “Doing Less More Efficiently” No access
    Authors:
  4. IV. Access to documents No access
    Authors:
  5. V. Conclusion No access
    Authors:
3. Authors:
  1. I. Introduction No access
    Authors:
  2. Authors:
    1. 1. Ambiguity due to formal reasons No access
      Authors:
    2. Authors:
      1. 2.1. Vagueness, especially as to the scope, or reliance on clarification in the recitals No access
        Authors:
      2. 2.2. Inclusion of soft-law provisions in legally binding acts or political planning and indicative lists No access
        Authors:
      3. 2.3. Provisions which have not been updated or unclear links between legal acts No access
        Authors:
      4. 2.4. Indirect amendments No access
        Authors:
    3. III. Incompleteness No access
      Authors:
    4. Authors:
      1. 1. No legally binding form No access
        Authors:
      2. Authors:
        2.1. Regulations as concealed directives No access
        Authors:
        2.2. Amendment of EU directives by EU regulations No access
        Authors:
        2.3. Hybrid nature of decisions No access
        Authors:
  3. V. Conclusion No access
    Authors:
4. Authors:
  1. I. Introduction No access
    Authors:
  2. II. Languages of the Member States’ national law as compared to language(s) of EU law No access
    Authors:
  3. III. Levels and stages of EU drafting and transposition No access
    Authors:
  4. IV. Linguistic and terminological choices at EU level – drafting of EU law No access
    Authors:
  5. V. Linguistic and terminological choices at a national level – transposing EU law No access
    Authors:
  6. VI. Conclusions No access
    Authors:
5. Authors:
  1. I. Introduction No access
    Authors:
  2. II. The ‘murky’ EU soft law No access
    Authors:
  3. III. Normative content as a key factor for determining the legal nature of EU (soft law) acts No access
    Authors:
  4. Authors:
    1. 1. Structure No access
      Authors:
    2. 2. Degree of detail and precision No access
      Authors:
    3. 3. Strength of obligations No access
      Authors:
    4. 4. Compliance/enforcement mechanisms No access
      Authors:
    5. 5. Persuasive force of arguments No access
      Authors:
  5. V. A legally problematic ‘hardening’ phenomenon of EU (Commission’s) soft law instruments No access
    Authors:
  6. VI. Better lawmaking through an argumentative ‘toolbox’ No access
    Authors:
  7. VII. Conclusion No access
    Authors:
6. Authors:
  1. I. Introduction No access
    Authors:
  2. II. The spectrum between directives and recommendations No access
    Authors:
  3. Authors:
    1. 1. The system governing harmonization under Hungarian law No access
      Authors:
    2. 2. Implementation of recommendations: a mixed picture No access
      Authors:
  4. IV. Outlook: Do directive-like recommendations have some added value? No access
    Authors:
7. Authors:
  1. I. Introduction No access
    Authors:
  2. II. Literature review No access
    Authors:
  3. III. Public consultation as process: conceptual foundations No access
    Authors:
  4. Authors:
    1. 1. Multilevel governance and the European Union No access
      Authors:
    2. 2. Innovations in governance: towards ‘better regulation’ No access
      Authors:
  5. Authors:
    1. Examination of the questionnaire section about the ‘research exception’ No access
      Authors:
    2. End users/consumers No access
      Authors:
    3. Institutional users No access
      Authors:
    4. Authors/performers No access
      Authors:
    5. Publishers/producers/broadcasters No access
      Authors:
    6. Intermediaries/distributors/other service provider No access
      Authors:
  6. VI. Assessment No access
    Authors:
  7. VII. Conclusion No access
    Authors:
  8. ANNEX 1 – Type of respondents No access
    Authors:
  9. ANNEX 2 – Member States No access
    Authors:
1. Authors:
  1. I. Introduction: National Parliament (enter)in(g) the EU’s institutional framework No access
    Authors:
  2. Authors:
    1. Exerting influence on the transposition of EU Directives No access
      Authors:
    2. Authors:
      1. 1. Input for the position of the executive No access
        Authors:
      2. 2. ‘Cards’ No access
        Authors:
      3. 3. Political dialogue No access
        Authors:
  3. III. National Parliaments and the transposition of EU Directives No access
    Authors:
  4. IV. National Parliaments & comitology No access
    Authors:
  5. V. Key points and observations No access
    Authors:
  6. Annex 1 EU Legislation enacted by the Commission No access
    Authors:
2. Authors:
  1. I. The interconnection between national and EU legal drafting No access
    Authors:
  2. II. A “de facto” harmonization of legal drafting techniques in the EU? No access
    Authors:
  3. III. Then… How to reconcile the drafting rules and practices of the Member-States with the rules and practices of the EU? No access
    Authors:
3. Authors:
  1. I. Introduction No access
    Authors:
  2. II. Harmonisation through Directives No access
    Authors:
  3. III. Harmonisation through Regulations No access
    Authors:
  4. IV. Clarity, Accessibility and Consistency No access
    Authors:
  5. V. Dealing with Regulations No access
    Authors:
  6. VI. Concluding Remarks No access
    Authors:
4. Authors:
  1. I. Introduction No access
    Authors:
  2. II. Transition from Directive 95/46/EC to the GDPR No access
    Authors:
  3. III. The GDPR is not the ultimate exhaustive regulation No access
    Authors:
  4. IV. Further complications on the Member State level caused by the GDPR No access
    Authors:
  5. V. Delays in the implementation process No access
    Authors:
  6. VI. Conclusion No access
    Authors:
1. Authors:
  1. I. Introduction No access
    Authors:
  2. II. Law-makers intend to change the future No access
    Authors:
  3. III. Law-makers provide innovation for huge, diverse though interested audiences No access
    Authors:
  4. IV. Multilevel legal environments in a sharing world No access
    Authors:
1. The Editors No access Pages 311 - 312
2. The Authors No access Pages 313 - 317