The Meta-Regulation of Transnational Private Regulation

This article starts from the assertion that Transnational Private Regulatory Regimes (TPRERs) construct relationships of recognition with the plurality of public and private normative orders and actors that surround them. We argue that the strategies and norms adopted to manage these relationships are reflexive responses to competing legitimacy demands and to issues of regulatory conflict and that they have a meta-regulatory character. More specifically, we explore two disciplines and professional fields, Better Regulation (BR) and Private International Law (PIT), as direct sources of meta-norms and as more indirect sources of inspiration for meta-regulatory strategies. Building on literature that has cast transnational governance and conflict of laws thinking as abstract repositories of potentially useful meta-regulatory ideas, we explore the actual potential for – and limitations of – the migration of disciplinary practices and perspectives in the context of TPR.

[1]  C. Twigg-Flesner,et al.  The role of the conflict of laws in European private law , 2010 .

[2]  Marie-Laure Djelic,et al.  Transnational Governance: Institutional Dynamics of Regulation , 2008 .

[3]  T. Prosser,et al.  Reflexive Governance: Redefining the Public Interest in a Pluralistic World , 2010 .

[4]  Symeon C. Symeonides.  Rome II and Tort Conflicts: A Missed Opportunity , 2008 .

[5]  Christian Joerges,et al.  Sozialstaatlichkeit in Europe? A Conflict-of-Laws Approach to the Law of the EU and the Proceduralisation of Constitutionalisation , 2009, German Law Journal.

[6]  R. Michaels.  The New European Choice-of-Law Revolution , 2008 .

[7]  Nico Krisch.  The Pluralism of Global Administrative Law , 2006 .

[8]  C. Forsyth.  The Eclipse of Private International Law Principle? The Judicial Process, Interpretation and the Dominance of Legislation in the Modern Era , 2005 .

[9]  B. Morgan.  Social Citizenship in the Shadow of Competition: The Bureaucratic Politics of Regulatory Justification , 2003 .

[10]  A. Peters,et al.  Non-state actors as standard setters , 2009 .

[11]  C. Joerges,et al.  From Intergovernmental Bargaining to Deliberative Political Processes: The Constitutionalisation of Comitology , 1997 .

[12]  Timothy Smith,et al.  Rival private governance networks: Competing to define the rules of sustainability performance , 2010 .

[13]  C. Harlow.  Global Administrative Law: The Quest for Principles and Values , 2006 .

[14]  C. Radaelli.  Regulating Rule‐Making via Impact Assessment , 2010 .

[15]  Bettina Lange,et al.  Regulatory Spaces and Interactions: An Introduction , 2003 .

[16]  R. Weintraub.  The Choice-of-Law Rules of the European Community Regulation on the Law Applicable to Non-Contractual Obligations: Simple and Predictable, Consequences-Based, or Neither?* , 2008 .

[17]  E. Petersmann,et al.  Constitutionalism, multilevel trade governance and social regulation , 2006 .

[18]  S. Picciotto.  Networks in International Economic Integration: Fragmented States and the Dilemmas of Neo-Liberalism , 1997 .