Influence of the EU Chemicals Regulation on the US Policy Reform Debate: Is a ‘California Effect’ within REACH?

2012 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 95-115 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dirk A. Heyen
Keyword(s):  
European Commission ◽  
Policy Reform ◽  
Business Case ◽  
Export Market ◽  
Chemicals Regulation ◽  
The Us ◽  
Reach Regulation ◽  
Eu Chemicals Regulation ◽  
The Eu ◽  
Reform Debate

AbstractIn 2006, the EU adopted the REACH Regulation – the world’s most demanding chemicals regime so far. Even before it entered into force, the European Commission declared its ambition to make REACH a global standard, and several authors see a potential for far-reaching influence via the ‘California effect’, as conceptualized by David Vogel. Economic preconditions are indeed fulfilled with the chemicals industry being highly globalized, the EU as an attractive export market and REACH applying to imports. Following Vogel, firms exporting to the EU might have an incentive to lobby for similar requirements in their country. This article examines whether American chemical producers do, indeed, push for EU-like provisions in the debate on US policy reform. While there is some influence on the US, it is shown that REACH does not (yet) trigger a ‘California effect’. The business case does not seem to be strong enough.

The EU will ramp up efforts to counter China’s BRI

2021 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
European Commission ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
High Impact ◽  
The Political ◽  
Political Will ◽  
Content Type ◽  
The Us ◽  
Tackle Climate Change ◽  
The Eu

Significance Member states have asked the European Commission to spend the next nine months developing a plan containing “high impact and visible projects” to rival the BRI. While EU efforts to counter the BRI are not new, the political will has never been as strong as it is now. Impacts China will seek to make the BRI more attractive, such as by launching more initiatives to tackle climate change. Europe will remain distant from the US position on China, unless Germany gets a Green chancellor or Macron loses the 2022 election. The deterioration of the EU's relations with Hungary and Poland over rule-of-law issues could push those countries closer to China.

Abuse of Dominance: How Far are the EU and the US?

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 31-52
Author(s):  
Alberto Heimler
Keyword(s):  
Economic Analysis ◽  
European Commission ◽  
Antitrust Enforcement ◽  
Discussion Paper ◽  
The Past ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Abuse Of Dominance ◽  
The Eu

Abstract In recent years economic analysis has become more and more important in antitrust enforcement in Europe. First in merger control, then in vertical agreements the case by case approach based on a substantive appreciation of the restrictions of competition is becoming more and more prevalent. On abuse of dominance the difference between the US and the EU is still relevant. However, especially after the December 2005 publication by the European Commission of the Discussion paper on the application of Article 82 of the Treaty to exclusionary abuses the gap has been reduced, at least in terms of the general approach to abuse cases. In practice, even though the role of economic analysis is much more refined and relevant than in the past, the European Commission continues to be more interventionist than US antitrust enforcers. This outcome depends very much on the widespread use of presumptions and truncated analysis on both sides of die Atlantic. A number of examples are provided on predation, discounts, refusal to deal, tying and bundling.

scholarly journals Winner and Loser in Terms of the FTAs and the Trade War: Case Study of the Japanese Market

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
ONUR BIYIK
Keyword(s):  
Market Share ◽  
Low Income ◽  
Negative Impact ◽  
Trade Flow ◽  
Value Added ◽  
Export Market ◽  
The Us ◽  
Trade War ◽  
Pacific Island Nations ◽  
The Eu

Abstract The US raised trade war issues under protecting national security against China in July 2018. Likewise, the trade war has spread out across other regions such as India, the EU, Canada, Mexico, Russia, and Turkey through an additional tariff on products such as steel and aluminum. Clearly, the uncertainty has shown an increase since this friction created a pessimistic environment for the future world economy and did hurt economic development. Therefore, it has had negative effects for welfare -especially those (low-income consumers) who prefer to buy cheap imported goods. Contrary to protectionism, Japan has signed new FTAs with the EU and the US. In that context, this paper quantitatively examines the Japanese new FTAs under the trade war. It employs the general equilibrium approaches to not only investigate the economic structure of each country trade flow but also address the FTAs and the impacts of the welfare and sectoral value chains of the trade war. Essentially, the paper scenarios depend on the official list of the FTAs and the trade war-related goods. As a result of the FTAs under the trade war, the new Japanese trade agreements have provided some opportunities for its market as well as targeted countries. For instance, the Japanese benefit from the EU-Japan FTA would be $4.11 billion U.S.D. and the EU would gain $768 million U.S.D. within the 15-year. Moreover, the US not only would get a huge advance but also could get back its export market share from Pacific island nations in Japan when Japan would eliminate the tariff on concerned sectors for the US goods. For example, the US and Japan would improve their welfare by $4.09 billion U.S.D. and $398 million U.S.D., respectively through the limited USA-Japan FTA. That is, the US market would comparatively earn much more than Japan. Lastly, those who participate in the FTAs would boost their GDP, welfare, and value-added (productivity). For example, not only would Japan provide some opportunities for its market and then enhance its welfare and GDP, but also the EU and the US would boost their macro variables. However, from the perspective of the other regions/countries, those regions/countries which are not in the trade deal could lose their export market share in Japan, the US, and the UE and would, therefore, have a negative impact on their GDP and welfare.

Hazard v. Risk in EU Chemicals Regulation

2010 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
pp. 239-250 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kristina Nordlander ◽  
Carl-Michael Simon ◽  
Hazel Pearson
Keyword(s):  
World Trade Organization ◽  
Human Health ◽  
World Trade ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Chemicals Regulation ◽  
Trading Partners ◽  
Hazard Classification ◽  
Eu Chemicals Regulation ◽  
The Eu

Hazard is the potential of something to cause harm; risk is the likelihood of harm occurring. Chemicals regulation is largely focused on minimising risks associated with chemicals — and rightly so. However, in the EU the hazard classification of individual chemicals can impact significantly the regulation of products containing those chemicals, regardless of the actual risks that the products may pose to human health or the environment. This can lead to undesirable consequences, such as restrictions on the use of safe products, substitution towards less safe products, and disincentives to innovate. Such hazard-based regulation tends to be at odds with World Trade Organization rules and has raised significant concern with EU trading partners. This journal is an ideal forum for discussing how the EU can move towards a better and more coordinated legal framework for the regulation of chemicals.

Regulation of Chemicals

2019 ◽  
pp. 577-606
Author(s):  
Lucas Bergkamp ◽  
Adam Abelkop
Keyword(s):  
Risk Management ◽  
Toxic Substances ◽  
Chemical Safety ◽  
Chemical Risk ◽  
Chemicals Regulation ◽  
The Us ◽  
Key Concepts ◽  
Chemicals Policy ◽  
Toxic Substances Control Act ◽  
Reach Regulation

This chapter examines the regulation of chemicals, with emphasis on commonalities and differences in regulatory approaches. It begins with a brief overview of key concepts that underlie chemicals regulation, explaining what chemicals regulation is, the hazards and risks associated with chemicals, policy principles, informational inputs, and how chemicals are identified. The chapter then considers the general components of chemicals regulation, namely: screening and prioritization, risk assessment and decision analysis, and risk management. It also discusses regulatory fragmentation, risk management through the supply chain, and the complementary roles of regulation and liability systems. Finally, it shows how common aspects of chemical risk laws fit into the EU’s Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation, and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) Regulation and the US Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) as amended by the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (LCSA).

Laws in Progress? Reconceptualizing Accountability Strategies in the Era of Framework Norms

2013 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 363-385 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emilia Korkea-aho
Keyword(s):  
National Level ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Judicial Control ◽  
Specific Focus ◽  
Chemicals Regulation ◽  
The Law ◽  
Rule Making ◽  
Peer Control ◽  
Eu Chemicals Regulation ◽  
The Eu

AbstractEU law is teeming with framework norms – ‘laws in progress’. They provide little clarity for those to whom they apply, engendering rule-making in networks to assist those charged with implementing and applying laws at the national level. Taking as its specific focus the particular process through which the concept of an ‘article’ was constructed and constituted in a set of negotiations around the EU Chemicals Regulation, REACH, this article shows that networks not only make framework norms operational but also transform them in the process. The fact that networks have an important role in laying out what the law says throws the effectiveness of traditional forms of accountability in doubt. In particular, judicial control is in need of rethinking in order to accommodate norms that change and the networks that change them. This article suggests looking at the connections between internal peer control and externally operating judicial control as a way to keep up with the progress of laws in progress.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document