Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Who Recognises Technical Standards in TTIP?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Institutionalisation beyond the Nation State

Part of the book series: Studies in European Economic Law and Regulation ((SEELR,volume 10))

  • 513 Accesses

Abstract

Current discussions on the relationship of technical standards to the Transatlantic, Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) concern the questions whether TTIP can provide a transatlantic level playing field for technical standards and whether this will negatively affect technical standards in the European Union (EU) and the United States (US). This piece will take a different approach by switching the perspective to an individual one, namely to the question who decides on standards. It follows the hypothesis that steering principles on mutual recognition and harmonisation of technical standards largely depend on who will be given the power to decide on conformity and level of technical standards in the TTIP. The analysis follows the framework for legal institutional analysis identified in the introduction to this book. The introduction highlights that, as legal applications of regime theory and organisation theory, the acts of autonomy and power by institutions are the real subjects of legal investigation of institutionalisation. This largely reflects an approach to institutionalism voiced by Neil Komesar in the 1990s. As a result, I will identify and map the respective decision-makers and will illustrate the potential impact of these choices on technical standard setting.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Fahey (2018).

  2. 2.

    Komesar (1997).

  3. 3.

    See on TTIP e.g. the survey conveyed by Barker and Workman (2013).

  4. 4.

    ibid.

  5. 5.

    Cremona (2015), pp. 351–362.

  6. 6.

    See for a comprehensive treatise Hanson (2005), pp. 108, 112, 115.

  7. 7.

    Mathis (2014), p. 138 et sqq.

  8. 8.

    Brownsword et al. (2017).

  9. 9.

    See illustratively Posner (2006), p. 1049.

  10. 10.

    See eg. Ferdi de Ville (2016), Shaffer (2016), pp. 403 et sqq.

  11. 11.

    See Mavroidis and Wolfe (2017).

  12. 12.

    Komesar (1997).

  13. 13.

    Ibid, p. 4 et seqq.

  14. 14.

    Similarly already Shaffer (2016), p. 415. (‘Not surprisingly, each side would like to convince the other to move toward its particular regulatory approach to enhance “coherence”.’).

  15. 15.

    Maduro seeks to remedy this by pointing out the discursive function, which he calls the contrapunctual analysis of EU law, see Maduro (2003), p. 532.

  16. 16.

    See for a detailed treatise in this respect Delimatsis (2015), pp. 113–120.

  17. 17.

    See Fahey, Introduction.

  18. 18.

    See Art. 16 (2) Abkommen zwischen der Schweizerischen Eidgenossenschaft einerseits und der Europäischen Gemeinschaft und ihren Mitgliedstaaten andererseits über die Freizügigkeit https://www.admin.ch/opc/de/classified-compilation/19994648/index.html accessed 29 May 2017.

  19. 19.

    Petersmann (1998), pp. 75, 81.

  20. 20.

    See on this point Hanson (2005), pp. 108, 112, 115.

  21. 21.

    See Pelkmans (1987), p. 249.

  22. 22.

    See in particular the so-called New Legislative Framework consisting of Regulation (EC) 765/2008 setting out the requirements for accreditation and the market surveillance of products, Decision 768/2008 on a common framework for the marketing of products, which includes reference provisions to be incorporated whenever product legislation is revised. In effect, it is a template for future product harmonisation legislation and Regulation (EC) 764/2008 laying down procedures relating to the application of certain national technical rules to products lawfully marketed in another EU country.

  23. 23.

    As witnessed by the presumption of conformity, see Council Resolution on a new approach to technical harmonisation and standards, [1985] OJ C 136/1. On a judicial treatment see lately C-613/14, James Elliott Construction Ltd v Irish Asphalt Ltd, ECLI:EU:C:2016:821, Para 38.

  24. 24.

    See for a brief overview Schepel (2013), pp. 521, 522–525.

  25. 25.

    Hanson (2005), p. 115.

  26. 26.

    See the US Code of Federal Regulations.

  27. 27.

    See for a thorough overview Hanson (2005), pp. 119–123.

  28. 28.

    Ibid, p. 115.

  29. 29.

    Ibid, p. 119.

  30. 30.

    Ibid, pp. 119–123, providing ample examples.

  31. 31.

    See for a comprehensive analysis van Gestel and Micklitz (2013), pp. 145–181; also with a view on services standards Delimatsis (2016), pp. 513–544.

  32. 32.

    Hanson (2005), p. 115.

  33. 33.

    Ibid, p. 108.

  34. 34.

    Purnhagen (2014), pp. 334–339.

  35. 35.

    Hanson (2005), p. 115.

  36. 36.

    Ibid, p. 115.

  37. 37.

    See for a thorough description of the iron triangle Mitnick (2008), p. 1196.

  38. 38.

    Dockner (2014).

  39. 39.

    See on the difference and importance of these two approaches in regulatory cooperation already Shaffer (2016), pp. 403 et sqq; as well as van Zeben (2014), p. 84 et sqq.

  40. 40.

    See for an illustration how many different standardisation bodies are in involved in the US to decide on equivalent New Approach Directives. Table 6.1 in Hanson (2005), p. 111.

References

  • Barker T, Workman G (2013) The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership: Ambitious but Achievable - A Stakeholder Survey and Three Scenarios. Atlantic Council and Bertelsmann Foundation, http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/images/publications/ttip_ambitious_achievable.pdf. Accessed 29 May 2017

  • Brownsword R, Scotford E, Yeung K (2017) Law, regulation and technology: the field, frame, and focal questions. In: Brownsword R, Scotford E, Yeung K (eds) The Oxford handbook of law, regulation and technology. OUP, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Cremona M (2015) Guest editorial: negotiating the transatlantic trade and investment partnership (TTIP). Common Market Law Rev 52(2):351 et sqq

    Google Scholar 

  • De Ville F (2016) Regulatory cooperation in TTIP – A risk for democratic policy making? FEPS Policy Brief 2016, http://www.policy-network.net/uploads/media/154/9340.pdf. Accessed 29 May 2017

  • Delimatsis P (2015) Relevant international standards’ and ‘recognised standardisation bodies’ under the TBT Agreement. In: Delimatsis P (ed) The law, economics and politics of international standardisation. CUP, Cambridge, p 113 et sqq

    Google Scholar 

  • Delimatsis P (2016) Standardisation in services: European ambitions and sectoral realities. Eur Law Rev 41:513 et sqq

    Google Scholar 

  • Dockner E (2014) Regulatory capture: why? How much? What to do about it? Proceedings of the 42nd Economic Conference OeNB, 97 https://www.oenb.at/dam/jcr.../vowitag_2014_dockner.pdf. Accessed 29 May 2017

  • Fahey E (2018) Introduction: institutionalisation beyond the Nation State: new paradigms? Transatlantic relations: data privacy and trade law. In: Fahey E (ed) Institutionalisation beyond the Nation State, studies in European Economic Law and Regulation 10. Springer, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanson D (2005) CE marking, product standards and world trade. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham

    Google Scholar 

  • Komesar N (1997) Imperfect alternatives: choosing institutions in law, economics, and public policy. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Maduro M (2003) Contrapunctual law: Europe’s constitutional pluralism in action. In: Walker N (ed) Sovereignty in transition. Hart, Oxford, p. 532 et sqq

    Google Scholar 

  • Mathis J (2014) Addressing transatlantic regulatory barriers: can the US and the EU create an effective equivalency instrument? In: Fahey E, Curtin D (eds) A transatlantic community of law - legal perspectives on the relationship between the EU and US legal orders. CUP, Cambridge, p 138 et sqq

    Google Scholar 

  • Mavroidis PC, Wolfe R (2017) Private standards and the WTO: reclusive no more. World Trade Review, 16:1 et sqq

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitnick BM (2008) Iron triangles. In: Kolb RW (ed) Encyclopedia of business ethics and society. Sage, Newcastle upon Tyne, p 1196 et sqq

    Google Scholar 

  • Pelkmans J (1987) The new approach to technical harmonization and standardization. J Common Market Stud 25:249 et sqq

    Google Scholar 

  • Petersmann E-U (1998) How to promote the international rule of law? Contributions by the WTO Appellate review system. In: Cameron J, Campbell K (eds) Dispute resolution in the World Trade Organisation. Cameron May, London, p 75 et sqq

    Google Scholar 

  • Posner R (2006) The role of the judge in the twenty-first century. Bost Univ Law Rev 86:1049 et sqq

    Google Scholar 

  • Purnhagen K (2014) The virtue of Cassis de Dijon 25 years later – it is not dead, it just smells funny. In: Purnhagen K, Rott P (eds) Varieties of European economic law and regulation. Springer, p 334 et sqq

    Google Scholar 

  • Schepel H (2013) The new approach to the new approach: the juridification of harmonized standards in EU law. Maastricht J Int Comp Law 20(521):522–525

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaffer G (2016) Alternatives for regulatory governance under TTIP: building from the Past. Columb J Eur Law 22:403 et sqq

    Google Scholar 

  • van Gestel R, Micklitz H (2013) European integration through standardization: how judicial review is breaking down the club house of private standardization bodies. Common Market Law Rev 50:145 et sqq

    Google Scholar 

  • van Zeben J (2014) A ‘bottom-up’ perspective on EU-US relations: the role of sub-national authorities. In: Fahey E, Curtin D (eds) A transatlantic community of law – legal perspectives on the relationship between the EU and US legal orders. CUP, Cambridge, p 84 et sqq

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands

    Kai Purnhagen

Authors
  1. Kai Purnhagen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kai Purnhagen .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for the Study of European Law (ISEL), The City Law School, City University of London, London, United Kingdom

    Elaine Fahey

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Purnhagen, K. (2018). Who Recognises Technical Standards in TTIP?. In: Fahey, E. (eds) Institutionalisation beyond the Nation State. Studies in European Economic Law and Regulation, vol 10. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-50221-2_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-50221-2_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-50220-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-50221-2

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation