The new EU Regulatory Framework for GM Food (Part II)

2005 ◽  
Vol 2 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Bernd van der Meulen
Keyword(s):  
Regulatory Framework ◽  
Final Part ◽  
Gm Food ◽  
Administrative Review ◽  
Emergency Measures ◽  
New Framework ◽  
The Eu

AbstractIntroductionPart 1 of this article describing the EU new regulatory framework for GM food was published in the last issue of this journal. Part 1 dealt with the new authorisation procedure. In that context some attention was given to the developments that led to the new framework and to administrative review. The main topics discussed in this final part are the traceability requirements and labelling requirements. These are followed by supervision and emergency measures. At the end transitional measures are treated.

The new EU Regulatory Framework for GM Food (Part I) Procedural aspects: safety assessment, authorisation and administrative review

2005 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Bernd van der Meulen
Keyword(s):  
Safety Assessment ◽  
Genetically Modified ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Regulatory Framework ◽  
Genetically Modified Food ◽  
The Core ◽  
Gm Food ◽  
Administrative Review ◽  
Emergency Measures ◽  
New Framework

IntroductionOn 18 April 2004, a little more than a year before the publication of this article, the core provisions of the new regulatory framework for genetically modified food products entered into force.This article is of a descriptive nature. It goes into the new framework as far as food is concerned. Feed will not be discussed. This article is published in 2 parts. Part 1 deals mainly with the new authorisation procedure. In this context some attention will first be given to the developments that led to the new framework and at the end of part 1 to administrative review. The main topics discussed in part 2 are the traceability requirements and labelling. Further some attention will be given to emergency measures, legal protection and transitory measures.

Heritage values and legal rules

2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 345-363 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeremy C. Wells ◽  
Lucas Lixinski
Keyword(s):  
Regulatory Framework ◽  
Participatory Action ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Legal Rules ◽  
Regulatory Frameworks ◽  
Heritage Studies ◽  
Decision Making Processes ◽  
Critical Heritage ◽  
Fundamental Shift ◽  
New Framework

Purpose Existing regulatory frameworks for identifying and treating historic buildings and places reflect deference to expert rule, which privileges the values of a small number of heritage experts over the values of the majority of people who visit, work, and reside in historic environments. The purpose of this paper is to explore a fundamental shift in how US federal and local preservation laws address built heritage by suggesting a dynamic, adaptive regulatory framework that incorporates heterodox approaches to heritage and therefore is capable of accommodating contemporary sociocultural values. Design/methodology/approach The overall approach used is a comparative literature review from the fields of heterodox/orthodox heritage, heterodox/orthodox law, adaptive management, and participatory methods to inform the creation of a dynamic, adaptive regulatory framework. Findings Tools such as dialogical democracy and participatory action research are sufficiently pragmatic in implementation to envision how an adaptive regulatory framework could be implemented. This new framework would likely require heterodox definitions of law that move beyond justice as a primary purpose and broaden the nature of legal goods that can be protected while addressing discourses of power to benefit a larger group of stakeholders. Practical implications The authors suggest that an adaptive regulatory framework would be particularly beneficial for architectural and urban conservation planning, as it foregrounds considerations other than property rights in decision-making processes. While such a goal appears to be theoretically possible, the challenge will be to translate the theory of an adaptive regulatory framework into practice as there does not appear to be any precedent for its implementation. There will be issues with the need for increased resources to implement this framework. Originality/value To date, there have been few, if any, attempts to address critical heritage studies theory in the context of the regulatory environment. This paper appears to be the first such investigation in the literature.

scholarly journals THE APPLICATION OF THE PERSONAL IDENTIFICATIONAL NUMBER FOR EU CITIZENS RESIDING IN THE REPUBLIC OF BULGARIA - PRACTICAL ASPECTS

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michal Stojanov ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Legal Framework ◽  
Regulatory Framework ◽  
Administrative Services ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Eu

Bulgaria's membership in the EU is accompanied by the formation of innumerable bene-fits and commitments that the country receives as inevitable effects of its integration. Participa-tion in the EU is a prerequisite for improvement and supranational unification in the regulation of certain elements in the national legal framework and in the organization of administrative services in the country. However, for more than a decade there have been areas in which the established regulatory framework is not adequately reflected in the work of the Bulgarian ad-ministrative structures. The paper examines the application of the identifier Personal Number for EU citizens permanently residing in the Republic of Bulgaria, where it is found that it is insuffi-ciently applied, which results in bad practices and practical difficulties.

Fundamental review of the trading book: state of art on implementation of Standardised Approach

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 10-20
Author(s):  
Nicoletta Figurelli ◽  
◽  
Carlo Frazzei ◽  
Alessandro Garufi ◽  
Tommaso Giordani ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Management ◽  
Best Practices ◽  
Financial Institutions ◽  
Regulatory Framework ◽  
Regulatory Requirements ◽  
Basel Committee ◽  
Key Points ◽  
Front Office ◽  
State Of Art ◽  
The Eu

Following the publication of the regulatory framework for the Fundamental Review of the Trading Book (FRTB) by both the Basel Committee (BCBS) and the EU Regulator, the Financial Institutions have started the mandatory actions to comply with the new regulatory requirements. This article aims to provide an overview of the key challenges that banks have had to face in recent years, with a particular focus on the most significant methodological key points and the main impacts on business from the technicalities of the new regulatory framework, in order to provide guidelines and best practices on Standardized Approach (SA) topics shared between Risk Management and Front Office

Non-compliance behavior of de-risking force the EU to enhance anti-money laundering regulation

2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kalle Johannes Rose
Keyword(s):  
Money Laundering ◽  
Financial Institutions ◽  
Law And Economics ◽  
Negative Impact ◽  
Regulatory Framework ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Functional Methods ◽  
Compliance Behavior ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
The Eu

Purpose Recent research shows that because of money-laundering risks, there has been an increase in the off-boarding of certain types of corporate clients in the financial sector. This phenomenon known as “de-risking” has been argued to have a negative impact on society, because it increases the possible risk of money laundering. The purpose of this paper is to analyze whether the de-risking strategy of financial institutions results in an expansion of the regulatory framework concerning anti-money laundering focusing on off-boarding of clients and, if so, is there a way to avoid further regulation by changing present behavior. Design/methodology/approach This paper applies functional methods to law and economics to achieve higher efficiency in combating money laundering. Findings In this paper, it is found that the continuing of de-risking by financial institutions because of the avoidance strategy of money-laundering risks will inevitably result in further regulatory demands regarding the off-boarding process of clients. The legal basis for the introduction of further regulatory intervention is that some of the de-risking constitutes a direct contradiction to the aim of the present regulatory framework, making the behavior non-compliant to the regulation. Originality/value There has been very little research concerning de-risking related to money laundering. The present research has focused on the effect on society and not the relationship between the financial institutions and the regulator. This paper raises an important and present problem, as the behavior of the financial institutions constitute a response from the regulator that is contradicting the thoughts behind the behavior of the financial institutions. It is found that the paper is highly relevant if an expansion of regulation is to be hindered.

Introduction

2018 ◽  
pp. 1-22
Author(s):  
Ines Wagner
Keyword(s):  
Labor Market ◽  
Labor Markets ◽  
Regulatory Framework ◽  
Nation State ◽  
Employment Relations ◽  
Labor Market Regulations ◽  
The Eu

The introduction concisely explicates the main points of discussion relevant for the chapters of this book. It shortly analyzes the implications of the de-territorialization of “bounded” national labor markets, sets the scene for how the regulatory framework and is used and its implications for labor market regulations, points to the possibilities for resistance within transnational workspaces, and presents the shifting relationship between the changes in the territorial nation state and its institutional apparatus and among the changes in employment relations in the EU. It shortly outlines the methods and approach.

scholarly journals Assessing the EU Framework Regulation for the Screening of Foreign Direct Investment—What Is the Effect on Chinese Investors?

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 36-70
Author(s):  
Paweł Mateusz Gadocha
Keyword(s):  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
The Public ◽  
Freedom Of Movement ◽  
Chinese Investment ◽  
Legal Questions ◽  
Relevant Effect ◽  
Cooperation Mechanism ◽  
New Framework ◽  
The Eu

Abstract An increase of Chinese investment into the territory of the European Union has raised EU regulators’ concerns regarding the public security of the EU. As a result, the new Framework Regulation 2019/452 establishing a framework for the screening of FDI into the EU was adopted as a legal instrument aimed at their control, applicable from 11 October 2020. Adopted within the scope of Common Commercial Policy of the EU, the Framework Regulation, however, might not become an effective legal measure, as its application by Member States both in light of the freedom of movement of capital and the relevant CJEU jurisprudence raises significant legal questions. This article broadly discusses the newly introduced cooperation mechanism between Member States and the European Commission, as well as the relevant effect of the Framework Regulation upon Chinese investment and the pending negotiations of the EU-China BIT.

Schizophrenic Stakes of GMO Regulation in the European Union

2012 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 202-211 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claudio Mereu
Keyword(s):  
Genetically Modified Organisms ◽  
Detailed Examination ◽  
Regulatory Framework ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Eu Legislation ◽  
European Institutions ◽  
Depth Analysis ◽  
The World ◽  
European Regulatory ◽  
The Eu

EU legislation on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) is the most stringent legislation governing the matter in the world, laying down strict conditions relating to labelling, traceability, threshold and release on the market. In light of a recent Commission proposal to amend Directive 2001/18, which currently regulates the release of GMOs on the European market, this article asks whether and on what basis such stringency is justified. This is done through an in depth analysis of the EU regulatory framework for GMOs while at the same time highlighting the multiple interests at stake (environmental, scientific, industrial, political, national and European).This article argues that the European institutions should proceed to amend Directive 2001/18 on the basis of a detailed examination of the benefits as well as the risks that GMOs present. This article, however, raises concern that the European regulatory framework will focus exclusively on the risks or on political concerns relating to GMOs instead, for it is a fear of GMOs that seems to permeate the system from top to bottom.

Comment on Risk versus Hazard – How to Regulate in the 21st Century

2011 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 193-195
Author(s):  
Dennis Paustenbach ◽  
Julie Panko
Keyword(s):  
21St Century ◽  
Regulatory Process ◽  
Regulatory Framework ◽  
Individual Member ◽  
Technical Knowledge ◽  
Market Place ◽  
Current State ◽  
European Regulatory ◽  
The Individual ◽  
The Eu

In this issue of the journal, Dr. Ragnar Lofstedt examines the current state of the EU regulatory framework with respect to chemicals and illustrates how the hazard-based approach sealed the fate of two important chemicals in the EU market-place. He also explores how the attitudes, technical knowledge and economic influences of the individual member states determine the outcome of environmental and chemical regulations. Lastly, Dr. Lofstedt provides some recommendations to improve consistency in the European regulatory process and ensure greater scientific, as well as, risk-based regulations.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document