Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

The Best of Both Worlds: Maximising the Legitimacy of the EU's Regulation of Geoengineering Research

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Janine Sargoni
Affiliation:
University of Bristol, Janine.Sargoni@bristol.ac.uk.
Corresponding

Extract

This paper suggests how the regulation of Solar RadiationManagement (SRM) field research in Europe could be designed to maximise the possibility of securing legitimacy. It argues that legitimacy is maximised when regulatory frameworks are legal, and also responsive, flexible, deliberative and inclusive. By adopting an ‘incorporated’ approach to assessing the risk of Solar Radiation Management (SRM) field research, the EU can import elements of ‘directly deliberative polyarchy’ into its otherwise orthodox constitutional regulatory approach thereby maximising legitimacy. The argument is new in so far as it juxtaposes two conceptions of procedural legitimacy – one institutional and the other functional – in the context of significant scientific uncertainty in the technocratic regulatory paradigm of the EU. The significance of the work is that it draws on these conceptions of legitimacy to advance a pragmatic model of institutional design which comprises procedures that maximise legitimacy with minimal disruption to the EU's institutional balance of powers.

Type
Special Issue on Regulating Climate Engineering in the European Union
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

References

1 Shepherd, John et al, Geoengineering the Climate: Science, Governance and Uncertainty, (London: Royal Society, 2009), at p. xi.Google Scholar

2 Ibid.

3 There are now a range of different terms used for geoengineering and its component activities, such as ‘climate engineering’ in Asbjorn Aaheim et al. “The European Transdisciplinary Assessment of Climate Engineering (EuTRACE): Removing Greenhouse Gases from the Atmosphere and Reflecting Sunlight away from Earth.” (2015); ‘Climate Intervention’ in Committee on Geoengineering Climate, Climate Intervention: Reflecting Sunlight to Cool Earth. (National Academies Press, 2015), at p. 2. The debate about the classification of geoengineering techniques is ongoing. See Clare Heyward, “Situating and Abandoning Geoengineering: A Typology of Five Responses to Dangerous Climate Change.” 46.01 Political Science & Politics (2013); Boucher, Olivier et al., “Rethinking Climate Engineering Categorization in the Context of Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation”, 5 Clim Change (2014), pp. 23 et sqq.Google Scholar; Duncan McLaren, “Why We Shouldn't Be in a Hurry To Redefine Climate Engineering”, 15th December 2015, available on the internet at http://dcgeoconsortium.org/2015/12/15/why-we-shouldnt-be-in-a-hurry-to-redefine-climate-engineering-duncan-mclaren/ (last accessed 6th January 2016).

4 Committee on Geoengineering Climate, Climate Intervention: Carbon Dioxide Removal and Reliable Sequestration. (National Academies Press, 2015).Google Scholar

5 Committee on Geoengineering Climate, Reflecting Sunlight to Cool Earth, supra note 3.

6 Cafaggi, Fabrizio, “New Foundations of Transnational Private Regulation”, 38(1) JLS (2011), pp. 20 et sqq.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

7 Ibid, p. 23; Abbott, K.W. and Snidal, Duncan, “The Governance Triangle: Regulatory Standards Institutions and the Shadow of the State” in Mattli, W. and Woods, N. (eds), The Politics of Global Regulation (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2009), pp. 44 et sqq.Google Scholar; Calliess, Gralf-Peter and Zumbansen, Peer, Rough Consensus and Running Code (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2010).Google Scholar

8 Weber, Max, Economy and Society, Roth, Gunter & Wittich, Claus (eds) (California: University of California Press, 1978)Google Scholar

9 Lenoble, Jacques and Maesschalck, Marc, “Renewing the Theory of Public Interest: The Quest for a Reflexive and Learning-based Approach to Governance” in De Schutter, Olivier and Lenoble, Jacques (eds), Reflexive Governance: Redefining the Public Interest in a Pluralistic World, (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2010), pp. 321.Google Scholar

10 The technocratic/deliberative distinction of regulatory paradigms is found in other work, such as the Rational-Instrumental and Deliberative-Constitutive paradigms in Fisher, Elizabeth, Risk Regulation and Administrative Constitutionalism, (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2010)Google ScholarPubMed; Transactional and Political paradigms in Morgan, Bronwen, “The North-South Politics of Necessity: Regulating for Basic Rights Between National and International Levels”, 29 J Consum Policy (2006), pp. 465 et sqq.CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and ‘private autonomy’ and ‘collaborative enterprise’ in Prosser, Tony, The Regulatory Enterprise, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

11 Committee on Geoengineering Climate, Reflecting Sunlight to Cool Earth, supra note 3, p. 47–147.

12 Parker, Andy, “Governing Solar Geoengineering Research as it Leaves the Laboratory”, Phil. Trans. R. Soc A (2014), 2730:20140173Google Scholar; Hamilton, Clive. “No, We Should Not Just ‘At Least Do the Research’”, 496 Nature (2013), pp. 139 et sqq.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

13 Schäfer, Stefan et al.Field Tests of Solar Climate Engineering.” 3.9 Nature Climate Change (2013), pp. 766766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

14 See papers 10-14 of the Theme Issue ‘Climate Engineering: Exploring Nuances and Consequences of Deliberately Altering the Earth's Energy Budget’ of Phil Trans R. Soc.A 2014: David Morrow, “Ethical Aspects of the Mitigation Obstruction Argument Against Climate Engineering Research.” Phil Trans R. Soc.A 372.2031 (2014): 20140062; Adam Corner and Nick Pidgeon. “Geoengineering, Climate Change Scepticism and the ‘Moral Hazard’ Argument: an Experimental Study of UK Public Perceptions“ Phil Trans R. Soc.A 372.2031 (2014): 20140063; Stefan Schäfer and Sean Low, “Asilomar Moments: Formative Framings in recombinant DNA and Solar Climate Engineering Research.“ Phil Trans R. Soc.A 372.2031 (2014): 20140064.

15 I have replaced the term ‘value’ with subject matter in order to reduce its ambiguity. In the context of this paper, value is associated with my definition of political activity and used contra science.

16 “Annex II Glossary of Terms” in Pachauri, R.K. and Reisinger, A (eds), Climate Change 207: Synthesis Report – An Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Geneva, Switzerland: 2007), pp. 7589.Google Scholar

17 Of course, this analysis of uncertainty could apply equally to non-physical effects of SRM research.

18 I use the term ‘significant’ in its ordinary, not statistical, sense. In this paper the meaning of the word significant is differentiated from its use in statistics because it relates to scientific uncertainty rather than statistical uncertainty. Scientific uncertainty may or may not be calculated statistically. So, whilst the phrase significant scientific uncertainty could comprise statistical uncertainty, it does not denote it necessarily.

19 Knight, Frank H., Uncertainty, Risk and Profit, (London: London School of Economic and Political Science, 1933)Google Scholar; For conceptions of uncertainty in the IPCC see Ha-Duong, Minh et al.Uncertainty Management in the IPCC: Agreeing to Disagree.” 17.1 Global Environmental Change (2007), pp. 8 et sqq.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

20 Parker, “Governing Solar Geoengineering Research”, supra note 12, pp. 3–4.

21 Examples include: the cooling effect of stratospheric sulphate aerosols, Committee on Geoengineering Climate, Reflecting Sunlight to Cool Earth, supra note 3, pp. 69–71; the delay of ozone recovery, Ibid, p. 86; and changes to precipitation, Ibid., p. 75.

22 Examples include: the reduction of sunlight intensity, Ibid, p. 95; changes to precipitation, Ibid; and acidity of snow and rain, Ibid.

23 Ibid, p. 98.

24 Ibid, p. 95.

25 Ibid.

26 “Summary for Policymakers” in Stocker, T.F., Qin, D., Plattner, G.-K., Tignor, M., Allen, S.K., Boschung, J., Nauels, A., Xia, Y., Bex, V. and Midgley, P.M. (eds.),. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 2013), at Chapter 1, Box TS1.Google Scholar

27 Ibid, p. 4.

28 “Summary for policymakers” in Field, C.B., Barros, V.R., Dokken, D.J., Mach, K.J., Mastrandrea, M.D., Bilir, T.E., Chatterjee, M., Ebi, K.L., Estrada, R.C. Genova, Girma, B., Kissel, E.S., Levy, A.N., MacCracken, S.,Mastrandrea, P.R., and White, L.L. (eds.), Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and NewYork, NY, USA, 2014), pp. 132, et sqq., at p. 11Google Scholar

29 Rougier, Jonathan, Sparks, Steve and Hill, Lisa J., Risk and Uncertainty Assessment for Natural Hazards, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013), at p. 4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

30 Ibid, at p. 2.

31 Jennings, Steve, “Time's Bitter Flood: Trends in the Number of Reported Natural Disasters”, 7(1) Oxfam Policy and Practice: Climate Change and Resilience (2011).Google Scholar

32 Sillman, Jana et al., “Climate Emergencies do not Justify Engineering the Climate5 Nature Climate Change (2015) pp. 290 et sqq.CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Curry, Charles L. et al.A Multimodel Examination of Climate Extremes in an Idealized Geoengineering Experiment.” Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres 119.7 (2014): 39003923.Google Scholar

33 IPCC 2013, supra note 26, at p. 29.

34 David Keith et al., “Field Experiments on Solar Geoengineering: Report of a Workshop Exploring a Representative Research portfolio.“ Phil. Trans. R. Soc A:372.2031 (2014): 20140175.

35 Ibid.

36 Ibid.

37 1 EJRR (2010), pp. 5 et sqq.

38 Emeritus Professor of Public Policy at the European University Institute.

39 Majone, “Foundations of Risk Regulation”, supra note 37, pp. 5.

40 Ibid.

41 Ibid.

42 The transboundary-ness of risks may or may not align with technology development vs. process studies. Likewise, research vs. deployment may or may not align with EU vs. unknown regulation.

43 These may be effects that are localised and minimal, such as increased air-moisture levels resulting from small-scale test of crop-leaf albedo.

44 Parker, “Governing Solar Geoengineering Research”, supra note 12.

45 Ibid.; Keith et al, “Field Experiments on Solar Geoengineering”, supra note 34.

46 Ibid.

47 Ibid.

48 Ibid.

49 An example might be the Stratospheric Particle Injection for Climate Engineering (SPICE) project, details found at http://www.spice.ac.uk/.

50 For example, the proposed SCoPex at Committee on Geoengineering Climate, Reflecting Sunlight to Cool Earth, supra note 3, p. 161; John A Dykema et al. “Stratospheric Controlled Perturbation Experiment: a Amall-scale Experiment to Improve Understanding of the Risks of Solar Geoengineering.” 372.2031 Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A: (2014): 20140059.

51 Parker, “Governing Solar Geoengineering Research”, supra note 12.

52 Cafaggi, “New Foundations”, supra note 6.

53 Scott, Colin, Cafaggi, Fabrizio and Senden, Linda, “The Conceptual and Constitutional Challenge of Transnational Private Regulation38(1) JLS (2011).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

54 Cafaggi, Fabizio, Renda, Andrea and Schmidt, Rebecca, “Transnational private regulation” in OECD, International Regulatory Co-Operation: Case Studies, Vol. 3: Transnational Private Regulation and Water Management, (OECD Publishing, 2013).Google Scholar

55 Asbjorn Aaheim et al, “EuTRACE 2015, supra note 3, pp. 90–92.

56 Scott et al, “The Conceptual and Constitutional Challenge of Transnational Private Regulation”, supra note 53, at p. 8

57 Majone, “Foundations of Risk Regulation”, supra note 37, p. 6

58 UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee 2010, The Regulation of Geoengineering, Fifth Report of Session 2009-10 (UK Parliament, HC 221), at pp. 20–21, where the Committee found there to be a “gap in the regulatory framework”.

59 Reynolds, Jesse, “The Regulation of Climate Engineering3(1) Law, Innovation and Technology (2011) pp. 113136, at p. 130CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Parker, “Governing Solar Geoengineering Research”, supra note 12.

60 UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee 2010, supra note 58, pp. 49–52 Conclusions and Recommendations, et sqq. Ev27-31 Evidence of Joan Ruddock, Minister for State of Department of Energy and Climate Change.

61 Such as law schools, geography departments, earth science schools and meteorological centres http://www.iagp.ac.uk/ last accessed on 17th May 2015.

62 UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee 2010, supra note 58, at Ev. 31 - Evidence of Pidgeon.

63 Scott et al, “The Conceptual and Constitutional Challenge of Transnational Private Regulation”, supra note 53, at p. 3.

64 Ibid.

65 Cafaggi, “New Foundations”, supra note 6, at p. 21.

66 Ibid., at pp. 20–21.

67 Solar Radiation Management Governance Initiative (SRMGI), Solar Radiation Management: The Governance of Research, (2012) at p. 12.

68 Others have been the Oxford Geoengineering Programme and then Geoengineering Governance Research.

69 SRMGI 2012, supra note 67, at p. 4.

70 Ibid., at p. 4.

71 On the possibility of accruing carbon credits through SRM see Sargoni, Janine and Lockley, Andrew, “Environment Policy: Solar Radiation Management and the Voluntary Carbon Market.” 17(4) Environmental Law Review (2015), pp. 266 et sqq.CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On commercialisation of geoengineering research and vested interests in using geoengineering research, see SRMGI 2012, supra note 67, at p. 17; Rayner, Steve et al, “The Oxford Principles”, Climate Change (2013), pp. 499 et sqq CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at para. 7.2. For vested interests of SRM research see Long, Jane and Scott, Dane, “Vested Interests and Geoengineering Research.” 29(3) Issues in Science and Technology (2013), pp. 45 et sqq.Google Scholar

72 Such as the private global non-profit organisations such as the Carbon War Room, http://www.carbonwarroom.com/ last accessed on 14 May 2015; and Zennstrom Philanthropies http://www.zennstrom.org/ last accessed on 14 May 2015.

73 Such as the Fund for Innovative Climate and Energy Research (FICER), funded by Bill Gates and managed by the University of Calgary.

74 For a typology of actors see Cafaggi et al, “Transnational Private Regulation: OECD”, supra at note 54.

75 UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee 2010, supra note 58, at Ev. 30; http://www.understanding-risk.org last accessed on 14 May 2015.

76 Ibid, p. 25 et sqq., para. 55.

77 Ibid, p. 33 et sqq., para. 84.

78 Asilomar Scientific Organizing Committee, “The Asilomar Conference Recommendations on Principles for Research into Climate Engineering Techniques.” Washington DC, Climate Institute, (2010); Margaret Leinen, “The Asilomar International Conference on Climate Intervention Technologies: Background and Overview.” Stanf J Law Sci Policy IV (2011), pp. et sqq. 1–5; Schäfer and Low, “Asilomar Moments”, supra note 13.

79 Rayner et al, “The Oxford Principles”, supra note 71.

80 Ibid.

81 Ibid. at pp. 502–503.

82 Casey, Donal and Scott, Colin, “The Crystallisation of Regulatory Norms”, 38(1) JLS (2011), pp. 76. et sqq.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

83 Hubert, Anna-Maria and Reichwein, David, ‘An Exploration of a Code of Conduct for Responsible Scientific Research Involving Geoengineering: Introduction, Draft Articles and Commentaries’ (Potsdam: IASS Working Paper, 2015), p. 6.Google Scholar

84 Tim Kruger, “A Commentary on the Oxford Principles: Opinion Article”, Geoengineering Our Climate? Working Paper and Opinion Article Series, 2013.

85 Rayner et al, “The Oxford Principles”, supra note 71, at p. 500.

86 Steve Rayner and Catherine Redgwell.

87 Steve Rayner, Julian Savulescu and Tim Kruger.

88 Nick Pidgeon.

89 Catherine Redgwell, University College London, now at All Souls College, University of Oxford.

90 Rayner et al, “The Oxford Principles”, supra note 71, at p. 509.

91 Granger Morgan, Robert Nordhaus and Paul Gottlieb, “Needed: Research Guidelines for Solar Radiation Management”, Issues in Science and Technology (2013) 37–44.

92 Parson, E. and Keith, D., “End the Deadlock on the Governance of Geoengineering Research339 Policy Forum (2013) 12781279, at p. 1278.Google ScholarPubMed

93 Morgan, Nordhaus and Gottlieb 2013, supra note 91, at p. 41; UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee 2010, supra note 58, at p. 29.

94 Syrett, Keith, The Foundations of Public Law: Principles and Problems of Power in the British Constitution (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan 2011)Google Scholar; Koppell, J., “Global Governance Organizations: Legitimacy and Authority in Conflict18 Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 2008, 177203, at p. 190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

95 Cassese, S., “Administrative Law Without the State – The Challenge of Global Regulation”, 37 New York University Journal of International Law and Policy (2004) 663.Google Scholar

96 Black, Julia, “Constructing and Contesting Legitimacy and Accountability in Polycentric Regulatory Regimes2 Regulation and Governance (2008) 137164, at, p. 145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

97 Majone, Giandomenico, “The Rise of the Regulatory State in Western Europe17 West European Politics (1994) 77 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Majone, Giandomenico, “From Positive toe the Regulatory State: Causes and Consequences of Changes in the Mode of Governance”, 17(2) Journal of Public Policy (1997) 139167 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

98 Eberlein, B. and Grande, E., “Beyond Delegation: Transnational Regulatory Regimes and the EU Regulatory State”, 12(1) Journal of European Public Policy (2005) 89112, at p. 106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

99 Scott et al, “The Conceptual and Constitutional Challenge of Transnational Private Regulation”, supra note 53, at p. 6.

100 Hubert and Reichwein, “Draft Articles for Code of Conduct”, supra note 83.

101 Article 191 TFEU.

102 Article 168 TFEU.

103 Article 114 TFEU.

104 By contrast, the US regulates biotechnology through the existing regulations for specific products, eg biotech crops are regulated under the Plant Protection Act which gives the US department of Agriculture and its agency the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services authority to regulate biotechnology products of plants and plant pests.

105 Details of the relevant legislation can be found at http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/gmo/legislation/index_en.htm.

106 Directive 2009/41/EC (Recast) [2009] OPJ L125/75

107 Directive 2001/18/EC 90/220/EEC [2002] OJ L106/1

108 For an overview of the regulation of GMOs generally see Lee, Maria, ‘The EU Regulation of GMOs: Law and Decision-Making for a New Technology’ (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

109 Article 5 TEU.

110 Article 114 TFEU on for the approximation of laws in order to establish the proper functioning of the internal market, is the legislative base of competence of the EU to pass the Deliberate Release Directive, whereas the Contained Use Directive is attributed to article 192 of Title XX on the protection of the environment, rather than exclusively on the functioning of the internal market.

111 Commission Policy Officer Interview.

112 Commission Policy Officer Interview.

113 Regulation 178/2002/EC.

114 The Deliberate Release Regulations were created pursuant to, but also amended, the EPA and repealed the previous 1992 deliberate release regulations, see the Explanatory Note on GMO (Deliberate Release) Regulations 2002/2443.

115 Under section 118 EPA, it is a criminal offence to fail to comply with section 111 EPA.

116 Reg 11 Deliberate Release Regulations.

117 Schedules in the Regulations link with appendics in the directive, in so far as they require the same technical information, although differently numbered.

118 Section 126 EPA.

119 Deliberate Release Regulation 20.

120 Deliberate Release Regulation 21.

121 Part B Deliberative Release Directive.

122 Part C Deliberate Release Directive. For marketing biotech products that are not grown in the EU but imported see article 5(5) Food and Feed Regulation, 1829/2003/EC.

123 Some amendments to Annex II have been proposed as General Guidance by EFSA. A differentiated procedure can be used by member state, in which case it will be the ERA confirmed by that member state as approved by the Commission. See Annex A on legal position on ERA in Annex II.

124 C-9/56, Meroni & Co., Industrie Metallurgiche, Spa v High Authority of the European Coal and Steel Community [1957–58] ECR 133.

125 Article 4 of the Treaty of Rome, article 7 EC Treaty, now repealed by article 13 TEU listed Community institutions and that they must act ‘within the limits of the powers conferred upon them by this Treaty’.

126 Griller, Stefan and Orator, Andreas, “Everything Under Control? The “way forward” for European Agencies in the Footsteps of the Meroni Doctrine”, 35(1) European Law Review (2010) 335.Google Scholar

127 Majone, Foundations of Risk Regulation 2010, supra note 37, at p. 16.

128 Majone, Giandomenico, “The new European Agencies: Regulation by Information”, 4(2) Journal of European Public Policy (1997) 262275, at p. 262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

129 T-13/99, Pfizer Animal Health SA v Council of the European Union [2002] ECR II-03305

130 Ibid. at para. 7.

131 National Research Council, Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the Process, (Washington DC: National Academic 1983), available on the internet at http://www.nap.edu/read/366/chapter/1 (last accessed 14 May 2015).

132 Gabbi, S., “The Interaction between Risk Assessors and Risk Managers: The Case of the European Commission and of the European Food Safety Authority”, 3 European Food and Feed Law Review (2007) 126135.Google Scholar

133 Fisher, Risk Regulation, supra note 10, at p. 28.

134 Majone, “Foundations of Risk Regulation”, supra note 37, at p. 18.

135 Ibid.

136 http://www.spice.ac.uk/ (last accessed 12th May 2015).

137 http://www.spice.ac.uk/project/about-the-project/ (last accessed 12th May 2015).

138 Working Packages 1 and 3 are laboratory based, but Working Package 2 takes place outdoors.

139 Supra note 55.

140 For example, process studies, scaling tests and climate response tests in Keith et al, “Field Experiments on Solar Geoengineering”, supra note 34.

141 Two other funders are Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) and the Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC) which all comprise part of group of Research Councils in the UK (RCUK).

145 IAPG, “The Public and Other Stakeholder Perception of Geoengineering: Facilitating Responsible Innovation” Briefing Note 2, available on the internet at: http://iagp.ac.uk/sites/default/files/IAGP_Briefing_Note_2.pdf (last accessed on 14 May 2015).

146 European Commission DG for Research and Innovation Science in Society “Options for Strengthening Responsible Research and Innovation” EUR25766 (2013), at p. 3.

147 Stilgoe, Jack, Owen, Richard and Macnaghten, Phil, “Developing a Framework for Responsible Innovation”, 42 Research Policy (2013) 15681580 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Von Shomberg, ReneProspects for Technology Assessment in a Framework of Responsible Research and Innovation”, in Dusseldorp, M. and Beecroft, R. (eds), Technikfolgen Abschätzen Lehren (VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, 2012)Google Scholar

148 Ibid.

149 Ibid p. 1570.

150 Ibid p. 1577.

151 Charles, F. Sabel and Zeitlin, Jonathan, “Learning from Difference: The New Architecture of Experimentalist Governance in the EU14(3) European Law Journal (2008) 271327 Google Scholar

152 De Schutter, Olivier and Lenoble, Jacques (eds), Reflexive Governance: Redefining the Public Interest in a Pluralistic World, (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2010), pp. xix.Google Scholar

153 F Sabel, Charles and Zeitlin, Jonathan, “Experimentalist Governance”, in Levi-Faur, David (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Governance, ( Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), pp. 169 et sqq.Google Scholar

154 Cohen, Joshua and Sabel, Charles, “Directly-Deliberative Polyarchy3(4) European Law Journal (1997), pp. 313 et sqq.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

155 Sabel and Zeitlin, “Learning from Difference”, supra note 151

156 Ibid., p. 280.

157 Ibid., p.. 276.

158 Stilgoe, Owen, Macnaghten, Developing a Framework 2013, supra note 147, at p. 1577.

159 Lenoble, Jacques and Maesschalck, Marc, “Renewing the Theory of Public Interest: The Quest for a Reflexive and Learning-based Approach to Governance” in De Schutter, Olivier and Lenoble, Jacques (eds), Reflexive Governance: Redefining the Public Interest in a Pluralistic World, (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2010), pp. 321.Google Scholar

160 Ibid; De Schutter and Lenoble, Reflexive Governance, supra note 152; Part of the Sixth European Framework Programme for Research and Development REFGOV papers found on the interest at: http://sites.uclouvain.be/cpdr-refgov/ (last accessed 14 May 2015).

161 Von Shomberg, Prospects for Technology Assessment, supra note 147.

162 Sabel and Zeitlin, Learning from Difference 2008, supra note 151, at p. 277.

163 Fisher, Risk Regulation, supra note 10, at p. 7.

164 Sunstein, Cass, Designing Democracy: What Constitutions Do (New York, Oxford University Press, 2001).Google Scholar

165 Fisher, Risk Regulation, supra note 10, at p. 33.

166 Pidgeon, Nick, Parkhill, Karen, Corner, Adam and Vaughan, Naomi, “Deliberating Stratospheric Aerosols for Climate Geoengineering and the SPICE Project”, 3 Nature Climate Change (2013), pp. 451457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

167 Ibid, at p. 454.

168 5 U.S.C. § 551.

169 5 U.S.C. § 533.

170 5 U.S.C. § 552b(e)(3).

171 5 U.S.C.

172 Committee on Geoengineering Climate, Reflecting Sunlight to Cool Earth, supra note 3, at p. 190.

173 Keith et al, “Field Experiments on Solar Geoengineering”, supra note 34.

174 Pelkmans, Jacques and Simoncini, Marta, “Mellowing Meroni: How ESMA can help build the Single MarketCentre for European Policy Studies: Commentary 18th February 2014 (2014), pp. 15.Google Scholar

175 Case C-270/12 United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v European Parliament and Council of the European Union [2014]

176 European Parliament and Council Regulation (EU) No 236/2012 on short-selling and certain aspects of credit default swaps, OJ 2012 L 86.

177 Ibid., at para. 54.

178 Ibid, at para. 53.

179 Ibid, at para. 45.

180 Ibid, at para 35: ESMA's measures “require a high level of technical and economic expertise and information”.

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 58 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 20th January 2017 - 27th January 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Hostname: page-component-898fc554b-54xgk Total loading time: 0.341 Render date: 2021-01-27T18:07:03.467Z Query parameters: { "hasAccess": "0", "openAccess": "0", "isLogged": "0", "lang": "en" } Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false }

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

The Best of Both Worlds: Maximising the Legitimacy of the EU's Regulation of Geoengineering Research
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

The Best of Both Worlds: Maximising the Legitimacy of the EU's Regulation of Geoengineering Research
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

The Best of Both Worlds: Maximising the Legitimacy of the EU's Regulation of Geoengineering Research
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *