Making European Tort Law: The Game and its Players
In the last decades, building a common European tort law has become a primary goal for many European institutions and research groups. On the one hand, EU institutions frequently highlight the need of simplifying the current diversity in European tort law, and try to achieve this goal injecting the European legal framework with (so far quite incoherent) pieces of legislation. On the other hand, many research groups aim to enhance the Europanization process through means that are much differentiated one to the other. Some of these groups (like the European Group on Tort Law and the Study Group on a European Civil Code) adopt a top-down approach, and seek to draft a ‘soft’ European tort law. Others (e.g. the ‘Ius Commune Casebook for a Common Law of Europe’ project and the ‘Common Core of European Private Law’ project) follow a bottom-up path, committed as they are to develop a better knowledge on tort law across the European law-users. Despite the number and the qualities of such enterprises, there is no agreement on what should be done nor on who should do it. It is from this debate that the paper takes off, aiming to offer an overview of the endeavours currently under way, of the different techniques and methodologies they adopt, and of the possible outcomes that they are likely to produce in the short run as well as in the long run.
Whose Administrative Law is it Anyyway?
The emergence of global norms of administrative law reshapes the administrative state. In many areas, covering diverse topics such as trade, financial regulation, public health, and the environment, various international agencies have acquired increasing influence over domestic regulatory processes. The integration with the global arena requires the state to forgo some of its regulatory powers. This Article focuses on the normative challenges posed by this new reality. Part I explicates the way in which the argument presented differs from the global administrative law literature. Whereas global administrative law studies the meta-norms that regulate the activities of global administrative bodies, we focus on the way in which international norms reshape decision-making processes within domestic bureaucracies. This Article develops an analytical schema that captures the distinct impacts of global administrative law on the domestic level. This schema distinguishes between three forms of influence: the substitution of domestic administrative discretion by global standards, the emergence of universal standards of administrative due process, and the globally inspired transference of enforcement responsibilities. Part II maps the various mechanisms through which transnational regulatory processes intervene in the local realm, reshaping the contours of domestic administrative law. The Article takes a pluralistic approach by highlighting the diverse sources and paths through which global law influences the domestic realm. Thus we focus both on the influence of the WTO system, as reflected in the three recent rulings against the U.S. (the Tuna-Labeling, Clove-Cigarettes, and Country of Origin Labeling (“COOL”) Requirements cases) and on the influence of private transnational institutions such as the International Organization for Standardization, certification bodies such as Social Accountability International (“SAI”), and regulatory scientific institutions such as the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radia-
The Limits of Expanding Liability, Eight Fundamental Cases in a Comparative Perspective
Preliminary Observations. The Tilburg Hypotheticals. The Tilburg Hypotheticals in General. The "Auditor - Case" H. Koziol. Comparative Report on Case 2 W.V. Horton Rogers. Comparative Law Report on Cases 3 and 4 J.F. Sinde Monteiro. Country Reports. Austria. Answers to the Hypotheticals under Austrian Law H. Koziol. Belgian Report (Part 1) H. Cousy, A. van der Spikken. Belgian Report (Part 2) T. Vansweevelt. Questionnaire, Responses in the Context of English Law W.V. Horton Rogers. France. Solutions proposees pour les differents cas pratiques imagines par les auteurs du questionnaire: France G. Viney. Germany: Antworten unter deutschem Recht C. von Bar. Greece: Tort Liability in Particular Circumstances: Greece K.D. Kerameus, K. Roussos. Italy: Answers to the Hypotheticals under Italian Law F.D. Busnelli. The Netherlands: The Hypotheticals, Seen from a Dutch Perspective J. Spier. Portugal: Portuguese Report, Responses to the Questionnaire J.F. Sinde Monteiro. Sweden: Responses B.W. Dufwa. Switzerland P. Widmer. United States D.B. Bobbs.