Remote Control: TPP’s Administrative Law Requirements as Megaregulation

2019 ◽  
pp. 384-412 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Mertenskötter ◽  
Richard B. Stewart

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) includes many and varied administrative law obligations for the parties’ domestic regulation and administration which form an integral part of its megaregulation project. These treaty requirements for regulatory procedures operate as instruments of transnational remote control by empowering private actors to use the procedures to pursue and defend their interests in other states. To create this remote control, TPP uses rules and structures for regulatory decision-making that reflect a US understanding of administrative law and its implicit regulatory capitalist model for the structuring of state–market relations. To explain how remote control works, we synthesize McNollgast’s conception of regulatory procedures in the purely domestic context as instruments of political control and Putnam’s theorization of international treaty negotiations as a two-level game. We show how procedural obligations in TPP are designed to stack the deck to favor certain interests—business firms rather than environmental and social interests—and why treaty negotiators may find it easier to agree on procedures than on substantive commitments.

Author(s):  
Karl-Heinz Ladeur

The most important phenomena attributable to the project of “global administrative law” (GAL) consists of rules, principles, practices, or procedures that have a more informal character and are generated from networks of public and private actors. The main characteristics of those rules is that they tend to be generated below the level of formal international treaties and that norm production occurs—at least in part—outside traditional formal modes of decision-making. However, some GAL norms including standards on products and services in particular, can have far reaching consequences as their factual weight is much more influential than domestic norms. GAL also develops new forms of procedure (e.g., voting) that are different from traditional international forms.


Author(s):  
Bronwyn Ashton ◽  
Cassandra Star ◽  
Mark Lawrence ◽  
John Coveney

Summary This research aimed to understand how the policy was represented as a ‘problem’ in food regulatory decision-making in Australia, and the implications for public health nutrition engagement with policy development processes. Bacchi’s ‘what’s the problem represented to be?’ discourse analysis method was applied to a case study of voluntary food fortification policy (VFP) developed by the then Australia and New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council (ANZFRMC) between 2002 and 2012. As a consultative process is a legislated aspect of food regulatory policy development in Australia, written stakeholder submissions contributed most of the key documents ascertained as relevant to the case. Four major categories of stakeholder were identified in the data; citizen, public health, government and industry. Predictably, citizen, government and public health stakeholders primarily represented voluntary food fortification (VF) as a problem of public health, while industry stakeholders represented it as a problem of commercial benefit. This reflected expected differences regarding decision-making control and power over regulatory activity. However, at both the outset and conclusion of the policy process, the ANZFRMC represented the problem of VF as commercial benefit, suggesting that in this case, a period of ‘formal’ stakeholder consultation did not alter the outcome. This research indicates that in VFP, the policy debate was fought and won at the initial framing of the problem in the earliest stages of the policy process. Consequently, if public health nutritionists leave their participation in the process until formal consultation stages, the opportunity to influence policy may already be lost.


Author(s):  
Jessica M. Franklin ◽  
Kai‐Li Liaw ◽  
Solomon Iyasu ◽  
Cathy Critchlow ◽  
Nancy Dreyer

2015 ◽  
Vol 98 (5) ◽  
pp. 502-505 ◽  
Author(s):  
A Segec ◽  
B Keller-Stanislawski ◽  
NS Vermeer ◽  
C Macchiarulo ◽  
SM Straus ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document