Regulating the Release of GMOs: Contrasts between the European Union and Norway

2008 ◽  
Vol 26 (5) ◽  
pp. 968-981 ◽  
Author(s):  
Valborg Kvakkestad ◽  
Arild Vatn

The European Union (EU) and Norway have assessed the release of genetically modified organisms as commercial products quite differently. Of twenty-four notifications approved by the EU, Norway has approved four, rejected ten, and has ten pending. We analyse whether these differences could be explained by different value judgments. Three aspects of the formulation and implementation of the regulations are discussed: the effects to be prevented and encouraged, response to uncertainty and ignorance, and the burden of proof necessary. Norwegian rejections are found to be explicable by the combination of no real benefit to society, lack of scientific knowledge, and involved risks. EU approvals are based upon seeing no reason to believe that there will be any adverse effects on health and the environment. We conclude that problems arise when value conflicts are understood and treated solely as technical issues, as normal in the EU.

2018 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 300-307
Author(s):  
George Pavlidis

In order to enhance the existing legal framework on asset recovery, the European Union (EU) will have to apply a ‘no safe haven’ policy to the proceeds of corruption and use all appropriate legal tools. We argue that a new EU instrument on asset recovery, modelled after the Swiss Law on Asset Recovery, would be a valuable addition to the EU’s legal arsenal against corruption, in compliance with its commitments under the United Nations Convention against Corruption. Such an EU instrument will deal specifically with the EU’s power to block the assets of foreign politically exposed persons (PEPs) and eventually facilitate restitution of these assets. Following the model of the Swiss law, a reversal of the burden of proof as to the origin of PEPs’ assets could be introduced in the new EU instrument. Judicial review should be wide enough to ensure fairness to the affected PEPs, balancing the new powers of the Council of the EU.


2014 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 286-292 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alberto Alemanno

At a time of increasing recognition worldwide of the role of Chief Science Advisers as of critical importance in improving dialogue between science and policy, the European Union, notably the European Commission, is currently considering – under the pressure of civil society organisations – whether to maintain or scrap this recently–created position. After contextualizing this debate within the broader efforts undertaken by the Barroso Commission to strengthen science in EU policymaking, this article discusses what role, if any, a Chief Scientist may play within the EU systemof scientific advice. After denouncing the lack of a public debate about the merits of this post at the time of its creation, the article takes as a point of departure the criticisms made against this position and assesses them in the light of the mandate entrusted to the Chief Scientist Advisor. It argues that the major point of disagreement on this post revolves around the question of whether the Chief Scientist Advisor, as it currently stands, helps or hinders the EU incorporating the ‘best science’ into policy. After identifying the flaws of the actual mandate and the challenges faced by the first holder of the position, it argues that the burden of proof rests with the EU Commission to prove the merits, and more specifically, the rationale for having yet another source of scientific advice in the EU.


Author(s):  
Anna Moskal

In order to address the negative consequences of double taxation of the same income or capital belonging to a EU citizen, bi- and multilateral tax treaties have been concluded between the Member States. The EU legislator has enacted legislation introducing measures such as Directive 2003/49/EC, Directive 2011/96/EU and the EU Arbitration Convention to counteract the adverse effects of double taxation. Considering the imperfections in the previous procedures, the Council of the EU has issued Directive 2017/1852 on double taxation dispute resolution mechanisms in the EU, aiming to eliminate the existing shortcomings and to create a harmonized framework for dispute resolution. The aim of this article is to present the phenomenon of double taxation in the EU, to identify the shortcomings of the current mechanisms and to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the procedure provided for in Directive 2017/1852. Procedura wzajemnego porozumienia przewidziana w Dyrektywie 2017/1852 jako remedium na problem podwójnego opodatkowania w Unii EuropejskiejW praktyce obrotu gospodarczego UE niejednokrotnie dochodzi do podwójnego opodatkowania tego samego dochodu lub kapitału należącego do obywatela UE. W celu zniwelowania negatywnych konsekwencji podwójnego opodatkowania państwa członkowskie zawarły między sobą liczne bi- i multilateralne umowy podatkowe. Prawodawca uchwalił akty prawne wprowadzające środki przeciwdziałające niekorzystnym skutkom podwójnego opodatkowania, to jest Dyrektywę 2003/49/WE, Dyrektywę 2011/96/UE i tak zwaną unijną konwencję arbitrażową. Mając na uwadze niedoskonałości w dotychczasowych procedurach, Rada UE wydała Dyrektywę 2017/1852 w sprawie mechanizmów rozstrzygania sporów dotyczących podwójnego opodatkowania w UE, która dąży do wyeliminowania istniejących niedociągnięć oraz stworzenia sharmonizowanych ram rozstrzygania sporów. Celem artykułu jest przedstawienie zjawiska podwójnego opodatkowania w UE, wskazanie wad obecnie obowiązujących mechanizmów oraz dokonane analizy procedury przewidzianej w Dyrektywie 2017/1852.


2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 11-20
Author(s):  
Anisa ◽  
Chelsilya ◽  
Grace Yohana ◽  
Mucco Eva ◽  
Morry Zefanya ◽  
...  

Current technological advances have been present in all aspects of human life, including technological advances in biotechnology. Biotechnology not only raises hope for science but also raises heated debates among scientists, especially between the European Union and the US. This debate arises because of differences in perspective between the EU and the US. The EU has stringent rules regarding the development efforts of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). At the same time, the US thinks that GMOs are part of agriculture, so there is no need for any special laws to regulate them. Various side effects also come hand in hand with the birth of GMOs. They are ranging from adverse effects on human health, the health of food products, and even environmental damage. The development of GMOs can damage the ecosystem of species that exist in the environment. Still, more complex problems arise due to GMOs like economic problems and monopolies.   Keywords: The  GMOs, The EU, The US.


2020 ◽  
pp. 125-144
Author(s):  
Monika Szkarłat

The European Union can be described as a particular hybrid integration structure that combines features of a state and intergovernmental organisation. Its institutional framework, legal system and division of competences are examples of a supranational organisation or a transnational decision-making system. The decision-making process is an outcome of network interactions between multiple actors, whose relations are non-hierarchically ordered. Genetically modified organisms (GMO) as an example of modern biotechnology application is a highly polarising subject in the EU, as well as globally. Thus, the policy towards GMO is an exemplification of legal and political hybridity of the EU. The analysis of the EU’s legal and political hybridity will be narrowed down to the GM plants case and methodologically organised around the concept of decision-making analysis that is composed of five categories: decision-making situation, actors, decision-making process, decision, implementation of the decision


Author(s):  
V. Yu. Slepak ◽  
A. A. Ariyants

Since the end of the 20th century in Europe, there has been a tendency to accumulate scientific knowledge, increase the level of competitiveness of European research and the mobility of scientists themselves. The goals and objectives set by the European Union are realized through the creation of a single European research area and the implementation of special framework programs. It is determined that today the European Union is one of the world leaders in research and innovation. It is scientific knowledge, experience, high standards of research, developed research infrastructure that guarantee many years of successful cooperation between the EU and other countries. Contacts between Russia and the EU in the field of scientific and technical cooperation are developing quite actively. Both in the EU and in Russia, the development of effective innovation policies and programs is important for the development of a knowledge-based economy and an increase in the efficiency of investments in research and development.


Author(s):  
David Benson ◽  
Andrew Jordan

Although manifestly not a state, the European Union (EU) has evolved from its origins as a trade-based economic organization to become a supra-national political body that regulates across multiple policy sectors in a state-like manner. Nowhere is this regulatory influence more pronounced than in relation to the environment, where the EU now effectively determines the national policy of its member states in areas as diverse as air quality, water pollution, habitat protection, and genetically modified organisms. Countries outside of the EU are also increasingly influenced by its policy norms. Indeed, the EU is widely recognized as an international environmental policy entrepreneur, particularly in relation to climate policy. What is even more remarkable is that this broad environmental acquis communautaire, or corpus of policy and law, has been assembled in the space of just four decades. Up until the early 1970s, environmental concerns were primarily governed at the national and/or sub-national levels in Europe. Environmental measures that were adopted by the European Economic Commission (EEC) were overtly aimed at trade harmonization within a common market. As new, and more costly, regulatory measures were adopted, conflicts erupted with member states. These battles continued into the 1990s, with member states invoking the principle of subsidiarity to slow down the pace of integration. By the 2000s, EU policy had reached a state of maturity. Despite attempts by more economically liberal governments and industrial actors to roll back policy expansion, the EU sought to shift the emphasis of policymaking toward more holistic responses to sustainable development issues. Economic austerity has, to an extent, slowed the pace of policy expansion but the future of the sector is likely to witness greater experimentation with novel policy instruments and a gradual merging of environmental, climate and energy policy objectives. In this respect, EU environmental policy remains a work in progress. A growing literature on these topics has emerged since the late 20th century. Firstly, several key texts have been published to provide an overview of the sector. Secondly, the literature has also focused more specifically on political decision-making, including the institutional aspects of policymaking. Thirdly, scholars have researched individual policies or policy subsectors, often using them to understand integration through time. Fourthly, empirical work has formed the basis of theory testing or theory building, using perspectives imported from comparative (national) politics and European integration. Finally, research has engaged with the process of environmental governing across multiple institutional levels, including understanding the implementation of measures and how member states are being Europeanized. This overview of the published literature is structured according to these strands.


Author(s):  
Maria Weimer

This book offers a topical inquiry into the legal and political limits of European Union regulation in the field of risk and new technologies surrounded by techno-scientific complexity, uncertainty, and societal contestation. It uses agricultural biotechnology as a paradigmatic example to illustrate the complex intersection between environmental, public health, economic, and social concerns in risk regulation. The text analyses the drawbacks of the European Union approach to agricultural biotechnology showing that its reductionism, that is, the narrow understanding of the risks associated with genetically modified organisms (GMOs) as well as the exclusion of broader societal concerns related to environmental and social sustainability, has undermined both the legitimacy and effectiveness of EU regulation in this area. Resistance to this approach, however, has also triggered legal innovations prompting us to rethink EU internal market law, including the way in which it manages the tensions between unity and diversity, and between social and economic concerns. This book examines how far the EU can go in harmonizing regulatory approaches to risk. At the same time, it proposes new ways of rethinking EU risk regulation to make it more responsive to different perspectives on risk and technology.


2017 ◽  
pp. 114-127
Author(s):  
M. Klinova ◽  
E. Sidorova

The article deals with economic sanctions and their impact on the state and prospects of the neighboring partner economies - the European Union (EU) and Russia. It provides comparisons of current data with that of the year 2013 (before sanctions) to demonstrate the impact of sanctions on both sides. Despite the fact that Russia remains the EU’s key partner, it came out of the first three partners of the EU. The current economic recession is caused by different reasons, not only by sanctions. Both the EU and Russia have internal problems, which the sanctions confrontation only exacerbates. The article emphasizes the need for a speedy restoration of cooperation.


2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (10) ◽  
pp. 1980-1996
Author(s):  
T.S. Malakhova

Subject. Foreign economic and trade ties among countries are getting tighter and less predictable in the early 21st century. This directly stems from a growing disparity of partners, especially if it goes about their future cooperation as part of integration groups or international organizations. Communities of experts suggest using various approaches to locally adjusting integration phases, especially implementing the two-speed integration in the European Union. Objectives. The study is an attempt to examine an improvement of foreign economic cooperation and suggest its implementation steps for the European Union. This all is due to considerable inner controversies and problems within the EU, which grow more serious year by year. Methods. The methodological framework comprises the historical logic, dialectical principles, scientific abstraction method. The process and system approach was especially important for justifying the implementation of the above steps. It was used to examine foreign economic relations of partners in the European Union. Results. The article sets forth the theoretical and methodological framework for the geostrategic economic bloc, including a conceptual structure model. I present steps to implement a foreign economic cooperation of partners in the EU in terms of its form. Conclusions and Relevance. Should the form of the foreign economic relations among the EU countries be implemented, counties at the periphery of the EU will be able to become active parties to the integration group.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document