bluuebunny/crossref_metadata_2025_split huggingface dataset:
Metropolitan locales, global commerce, and East Indies capital and credit in the eighteenth century
Authors: Catterall Douglas 
Published: February 2017

AbstractEncompassing events from 1680 to the mid 1750s, this article examines the organization and adaptation to capital and credit crises of East Indies trade participants in two metropolitan locales – one whose core bounded the North and Baltic Seas, and the other centred around the South China Sea. It shows that in both locales commercial and governmental actors relied not only on state or company, but also on decentralized, port-based practices, institutions, and networks to solve problems and support a shared information culture. Thus, the rules of what I term ‘commercial commons’, rather than an imperial conflict, characterized many East Indies endeavours of this era. East India companies operated in multiple transnational, distributed, and port-based metropolitan locales for their access to capital and credit, and to police financial failure.
The intellectual orders of a market economy
Authors: MIKE KÁROLY 
Published: February 2017

AbstractNot only do ideas matter in economic development but so do the institutions of intellectual debates in which ideas are formed. Scholars usually point to intellectual debates whose institutions are largely exogenous to the economy (e.g. those of religion or science). I suggest that economists should also consider intellectual debates that are initiated by economic actors. I set out to understand the role of intellectual debate in the economy and, drawing on Polanyi's concept of ‘intellectual order’, the institutions that emerge endogenously to support it. Professional communities and public intellectual spheres are shown as the most important examples. Three historical cases are given as illustrations. I conclude that these intellectual orders should be included among the fundamental ‘institutions of capitalism’, along with the catallactic institutions of property and contract.
Nanomaterials under REACH: Legal Aspects
Authors: Montfort Jean-Philippe , Indirli Giovanni , Georgieva Daniela , Carrega Claire-Marie 
Published: February 2017

At the time that REACH was being drawn up, the issue of nanomaterials was only in its infancy, so no specific provisions were adopted in the REACH Regulation to address them. While everyone recognises the important industrial and competitiveness potential of nanomaterials, the uncertainties over their potential impact on human health and the environment are also highlighted, triggering calls for a review and possible adaptations to the regulatory system in place. With respect to REACH, the Commission has started to consider possible legislative changes; however, these are likely to take several years to materialise. In the meantime, some Member States are considering initiatives to impose national rules, including reporting schemes and labelling requirements. The legality of these measures is questionable, however, considering that REACH today applies to nanomaterials, as also to any other chemical substance and that the REACH Regulation is regarded as totally harmonising the market access conditions for chemical substances in the EU.Our article summarises the current regulatory status of nanomaterials under REACH and specifies the legal framework under which the legality of national initiatives contemplated by the Member States to regulate nanomaterials must be reviewed. It is the view of the authors that Member States cannot rely on the argument that REACH does not contain specific provisions on nanomaterials, nor require registration of substances manufactured or imported below 1 tonne, to consider that the matter is not totally harmonised under EU law and thus justify the adoption of national measures to regulate nanomaterials. However, Member States can use the REACH processes, including the evaluation, authorisation and restriction processes to propose conditions for or restrictions of the marketing and use of nanomaterials at the EU level, in the conditions specified in the Regulation. They can also trigger the application of the safeguard clauses of REACH and of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It is only within that strict framework that reference to the precautionary principle can be made to justify the introduction of national measures.
Registration Requirements for Monomer Substances Integrated in Polymers under the REACH-Regulation
Authors: Heselhaus Sebastian 
Published: February 2017

1. The concept of ‘monomer substances’ in Article 6 (3) of Regulation (EC) No. 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No. 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No. 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC, relates only to reacted monomers which are integrated in polymers (official headnote).2. Article 6 (3) of Regulation (EC) No. 1907/2006 infringes neither the principle of proportionality nor the principle of equal treatment (author's headnote).
Member States under a Strict Obligation to Draw Up External Emergency Plans
Authors: Walkila Sonya 
Published: February 2017

Case C-392/08 European Commission v. Kingdom of Spain nyrFailing to draw up external emergency plans for all relevant establishments in accordance with Directive 96/82/EC on the control of major accident hazards involving dangerous substances may result in a Member State being deemed to have failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 11(1)(c) thereof (author's headnote).
Smart Regulation: The European Commission’s Updated Strategy
Authors: McColm Helen 
Published: February 2017

On 8 October 2010, the European Commission issued a communication paper on Smart Regulation in the European Union. The paper reports on progress made, future priorities and strategy in the field of regulatory reform, for the information of interested outsiders. It is the latest in a series of such communications, issued on a regular basis since the first major, systematic action plan in 2002.However, this most recent communication comes at a time when the context has changed noticeably. First, the financial crisis sparked by the credit crunch has altered attitudes to regulation. More attention is now being paid to the effectiveness of regulation and its overall quality than before. The Communication acknowledges this and underlines that regulation is essential to ensure that markets deliver sustainable prosperity for all. Second, a number of the Commission’s tools have been in place for some time, allowing it to draw useful lessons from its own experiences as well as from those of other countries. Its impact assessment system recently underwent a major examination by the European Court of Auditors.
Cancun, Climate Change, and Intellectual Property Rights: No News is Good News for Green Patents
Authors: Lane Eric L. 
Published: February 2017

With the close of another round of United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) treaty talks, this one held in Cancun from November 29–December 10, it is important to look at how green patents fared in the negotiations and the final agreement.But first, some background is necessary to set the stage for Cancun.Last year, when I became aware during the run up to the Copenhagen meeting that intellectual property IP) rights were being debated, the first question that popped into my mind was: why are IP rights even on the agenda in the climate change treaty discussions?To me, IP seemed tangential at best to the problems of shaping policies to mitigate climate change, taking a back seat to a maximum temperature rise target, greenhouse gas emissions targets, carbon taxes, cap and trade, and other policy tools directed relating to climate change.
Lessons from the EU's REACH Program
Authors: Abelkop Adam , Graham John D. , Wise Lois R. 
Published: February 2017

In the casual political rhetoric about environmental regulation, it is often claimed that the U.S. government regulates on the basis of risk while the European Union (or EU member states) regulates on the basis of hazard. The implication is that the U.S. government relies on a more rigorous, scientific process of assessment than does the EU, which allegedly helps explain why the EU is more pro-regulation than is the United States.An alternative view, advanced originally by the late Professor Aaron Wildavsky of the University of California-Berkeley and amplified in a recent book by Professor Jonathan Wiener of Duke University, and colleagues, is that societies engage in a process of “risk selection.” What worries some societies does not worry others.
A Comment to Ragnar Lofstedt
Authors: Renn Ortwin 
Published: February 2017

The fast development of technology and industrial processes during the last hundred years has caused increasing expectations by the public, customers and politics concerning the safety of operations and the risks of substances and activities related to production and consumption of goods. A highly differentiated and complex system of laws and regulations exists on the regional, national, and international level. In Germany alone, manufacturers are confronted with more than 10,000 regulations. Companies that trade all over the world are obliged to comply with a multitude of laws and regulations which partially are in conflict with each other.In addition to the legal requirements, manufacturers of products and developers of technologies face increasing demands for more information and participation from the consumers, special stakeholder groups, and the public at large. The need for risk communication has been voiced since the late 1960s. The main targets have been large technical installations such as nuclear power plants or waste incinerators.
Faced with a Recall – How good is your Insurance?
Authors: Ekstrand Susie Stærk , Nilsson Kristine Lilholt 
Published: February 2017

Any business having experienced a product recall knows how costly this can be. Sometimes the main costs of the recall are concentrated around counteracting bad publicity, but if several or large numbers of batches are affected by the recall, the costs of the recall itself can mount up considerably.In many large companies the overall responsibility for quality assurance and product safety is placed in a different part of the organization from the one responsible for product liability insurance and recall insurance.As a consequence inside the organization there is not always a common understanding of what the insurance should cover and what the insurance actually does cover – or of whether and when the insurance company should become involved in the process.
Smoke Without Fire – The Spanish Raw Tobacco Cartel Cases
Authors: Coelho Gonçalo Miguel Banha 
Published: February 2017

Case T-29/05, Deltafina SpA v. Commission and Alliance One International, Inc., formerly Standard Commercial Corp. and Others v. CommissionThe General Court partially annuls the Commission's decision on Case COMP/C.38.238/B.2 and reduces the amount of the fine imposed by the Commission on Deltafina SpA from EUR 1 188 000 to EUR 6 120 000 (author's headnote).
Direct or Indirect Regulation of Hedge Funds: A European Dilemma
Authors: Dardanelli Giorgio Tosetti 
Published: February 2017

This paper deals with the debate on the methods to regulate hedge funds, with a particular focus on direct or indirect regulation. After having briefly examined the pros and the cons of directly regulating these investment schemes, it comes to the conclusion (largely shared by most scholars) that hedge funds should not be directly regulated, while regulation should concern their management companies and, most of all, their counterparts (lenders in the first place) with a view to managing systemic risk. In addition, regulation should also set precise thresholds for access which should aim at protecting unsophisticated investors from hazardous moves, without, however, falling into the trap of regulating hedge fund themselves.The attention is then turned to the European Union and to its Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive (AIFMD). An analysis is conducted on some of the most significant approaches to hedge fund regulation which have fuelled (and are partly still fuelling) the debate within EU institutions in its struggle to provide Member States with a valid response to the financial crisis, and on some key provisions of the first level AIFMD. In this light the author concludes that, despite the declared intent to regulated fund managers, the directive often seems to regulate hedge fund themselves. This does not seem to be in line with the thoughts of most scholars and market operators on hedge fund regulation and also looks at odds with other pieces of EU legislation (in particular with the so-called “Newcits”).
Biotechnology
Authors: Mereu Claudio 
Published: February 2017

Regulation n. 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market entered into force on 14 December 2009 and applies as of 14 June 2011, subject to some transitional measures set out in Article 80. It shall replace gradually the current legislation on plant protection products which is laid down in Council Directive 91/414/EEC and related implementing Regulations.Broadly speaking, the harmonized authorization system for active substances used in plant protection products, as originally set out in Directive 91/414/ EEC, is maintained. Indeed, the placing on the market of plant protection products is still subject to a two-steps process whereby active substances are approved at the EU-level (with the inclusion into a “positive list” – Annex I to the new Regulation) while formulated products are authorised at the national level based on “Uniform Principles” laid down in a new implementing Regulation 546/2011. However, the criteria underlying each of these two steps have changed remarkably.
Food
Authors: Träsch Jennifer 
Published: February 2017

In 2006 the Hungarian system of food safety regulation was described as “chaotic” , fragmented and lacking accountability. Now, five years later and almost seven years after Hungary's accession to the European Union (EU) it is time to take stock again. Food safety regulation has undergone a “threefold change” and follows a separated model. Competences for risk assessment, risk management and risk communication are well distributed and the Hungarian Food Safety Office (HFSO)/Magyar Élelmiszer-biztonsági Hivatal (MÉBiH) fits into the overall structure now. But there are still problems concerning its legal position, weak status and especially insufficient independence.This report shows the evolution of the Hungarian system and highlights the brand new developments and the current situation, challenges and organisation of the HFSO.
Science and the Precautionary Principle in International Courts and Tribunals, by Caroline E. Foster. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011, 400 pp., £70.00, Hardback.
Authors: Nappert Sophie 
Published: February 2017

Beneath the calm and measured prose of Dr. Caroline Foster lies a tsunami for the field of risk assessment in international adjudication.Dr. Foster, a senior lecturer at the Faculty of Law, University of Auckland, looks boldly in the eye the difficult question of the influence of scientific evidence on international courts and tribunals. In an era where international law is endeavouring to come to terms with environmental protection, sustainable development, and public health and safety regulations and policies, international tribunals are called upon to adjudicate matters of extreme scientific complexity and, in this context, to understand the scientific approach to risk. One can no longer escape the realisation that judges and arbitrators on international tribunals rely on scientific expertise, and that this has a significant impact on their decision-making. This is one of the central tenets of Dr. Foster's book, and the basis for her analysis.
Shackles for Bees? The ECJ's Judgment on GMO-Contaminated Honey
Authors: Lamping Matthias 
Published: February 2017

Case C-442/09, Bablok and Others (not yet reported)An old German proverb says: What the farmer doesn't know he doesn't eat. In the case of the Bablok decision delivered by the European Court of Justice on 6 September 2011, it is not the farmers, but the judges who seem to be wary about the unknown. According to their judgement, substances derived from genetically modified plants require market authorisation to be placed on the market as food, even if the substance itself is not fertile anymore. Since the Court takes the view that pollen is an ingredient of honey rather than a natural component, honey contaminated with pollen from genetically modified organisms will fall within the classification of foodstuffs requiring marketing authorisation. So whenever a bee collects pollen from a genetically modified plant, this can make the entire honey harvest unmarketable. Not even the slightest contamination will be tolerated, irrespective of whether it was intentional. Because the prohibition to put unauthorised honey on the market applies abstractly, regardless of whether there is a concrete risk for the health of consumers, the judgement will have considerable impact on the coexistence of conventional, ecological and genetically-modified farming.
Risk Governance and Risk Assessment – Key tools for an effective European Parliament
Authors: Harbour Malcolm 
Published: February 2017

For more than 10 years, I have had the privilege of being Vice President of STOA, the European Parliament's Science and Technology Options Assessment arm. During that time, I have been part of the team that has refocused STOA towards the crucial role of monitoring trends in science and technology, commissioning research to examine the implications for policy makers, and organising events to disseminate results.During the same period, my work as a legislator has made me more and more aware of the need to examine science and technological trends, in order to ensure that the legislation that we amend and approve is truly “fit for purpose”. We are not afraid to recommend changes where we think that technological developments will make suggested provisions redundant or ineffective. To give a recent example, in our review of the Directive on Consumer Rights, we insisted on including new provisions to safeguard consumers buying faulty digital products or services. These were not included in the original text, but were subsequently agreed by the Member States and the European Commission.
Appellate Body Report, United States – Clove Cigarettes
Authors: McGrady Benn 
Published: February 2017

In September 2011, the World Trade Organization (WTO) released the report of a panel tasked with considering a complaint brought by Indonesia concerning prohibitions on certain flavored tobacco products implemented by the United States (US). The panel concluded that the US violated WTO law and recommended that the US be asked to bring its laws into conformity with WTO law.The US appealed the panel's decision. The Appellate Body of the WTO upheld the panel report on April 4, 2012. This case note gives a brief overview of the Appellate Body's report and examines the implications for tobacco control and public health more generally.
The EU Adventures of ‘Herculex’
Authors: Weimer Maria , Pisani Gaia 
Published: February 2017

The EU authorization process of the insect-resistant maize 1507, branded by its developer company Pioneer-DuPont as ‘Herculex’, is perhaps the most interesting and emblematic example of the current regulatory crisis of GMO regulation in Europe. The case is particularly controversial, because it concerns the first risk assessment regarding the cultivation of a GMO issued by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) since its establishment in 2005. It involves a long and complicated authorization process marked by persistent contestation of both the EFSA's risk assessment and the Commission's risk management; a total of six EFSA opinions; administrative delay; and ultimately a judicial condemnation of the Commission’s behavior by the EU General Court.This case is of particular relevance, because it registers a slight yet meaningful change in the EFSA's approach to GMO risk assessment including the way the EFSA has dealt with competing scientific opinions, risks and uncertainty involved in GMO regulation. Moreover, in the field of GMO authorizations under the new legislative framework, the European Parliament (EP) has actively intervened in the administrative authorization process. It should be noted that the outcome of this process remains unclear at the moment, given that at the time of writing the Commission has not yet taken its final decision on Maize 1507. The present report aims to offer an overview of this year-long and controversial process including the approaches taken by the relevant institutions involved therein.
The Role of Science in 21st Century EU Policy–Making
Authors: Girling Julie 
Published: February 2017

Today,more than ever, citizens expect value formoney, not only from their elected representatives, but also from the laws and regulations passed to protect them. As the European economy faces continued challenges and limited economic growth, citizens rely on policy-makers to encourage innovation and stimulate growth and jobs. This requires flexible legislation which fosters start-ups, encourages SMEs during those early days, but which also simultaneously maintains the high levels of consumer health and safety that they have become accustomed to.Public accountability is also increasing – and rightly so. Citizens don't just want legislation that delivers – they alsowant transparency and open dialogue. They want decision-makers to explain why certain policy choices weremade over others, and what benefits they can expect fromsuch choices. This requirement for information must also be seen against a backdrop of increasing demands on consumers’ time and a tendency to deal in “twitterati” style soundbites. This often results in consumers feeling the need for analysis and validation of information via a third party, sometimes a journalist, sometimes anNGOor government agency.
No Patents on Seeds Files an Opposition against Monsanto's Patent EP 2 134 870 B1 Covering the Selection of Soybean Plants and Seeds
Authors: Gambini Emanuela 
Published: February 2017

On 25th November, 2014, the coalition “No Patents on Seeds” filed an opposition against the European patent EP 2 134 870 B1, held by the U.S. Company Monsanto Technology. The patent, granted on 26th February, 2014, by the European Patent Office, covers “utility of SNP [single nucleotide polimorfism] markers associated with major soybean plant maturity and growth habit genomic regions” and includes “methods for screening plants and seeds from the genus Glycine withmarkers associated with genomic regions that are related to the plant maturity and growth habit of Glycine plants”.“No Patents on Seeds” claims that the patent should be completely revoked, as it falls within the exclusion of essentially biological processes for the production of plants from patentability under art. 53(b) of the European Patent Convention (EPC2000) and is not a patentable invention according to art. 52(2)(a) EPC. This case note gives an overview of the opposition and discusses its implications.