Source: https://www.bloomsburyprofessional.com/uk/the-legitimacy-and-responsiveness-of-industry-rule-making-9781509918102/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 17:30:17
Document Index: 638356940

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 6', 'art 6', 'art 6', 'art 6', 'art 6', 'art 6', 'art 6', 'art 6']

The Legitimacy and Responsiveness of Industry Rule-making: Karen Lee: Hart Publishing
Home > Hart > Constitutional & Administrative Law > The Legitimacy and Responsiveness of Industry Rule-making
About The Legitimacy and Responsiveness of Industry Rule-making
Rule-making is no longer an activity undertaken exclusively by public actors. Private actors are increasingly allowed by legislatures and regulatory bodies to take part in (and in some cases assume responsibility for) the formation of legally binding rules, for example in the US, UK, Australia and the EU.
Departing from traditional forms of rule-making by involving private actors may enhance the ability of regulatory systems to achieve social goals, as regulatory scholars argue. However, because private actors are permitted to act in their own best interests, their involvement also raises doubts about the legitimacy of the underlying rule-making processes and the rules that are formulated.
The principal aim of this book is to highlight that the tension between the responsiveness that leading international regulatory scholars advocate in order to improve regulatory effectiveness, and the law and its formal, substantive, procedural and institutional values, is not as great as may first appear. Drawing on three in-depth case studies of the experience of the Australian telecommunications industry with self-regulatory rule-making – a form of rule-making that bears the hallmarks of 'responsive regulation', 'democratic experimentalism', 'smart regulation' and other strategies of proceduralization – it is argued that industry rule-making can, as a matter of practice, be responsive and legitimate at the same time. In doing so, the book formulates and applies criteria against which industry rule-making should be evaluated and identifies a number of indicia that point to when industry rule-making is likely to be simultaneously legitimate and responsive.
I. Approach and Scope of Book
Part I. Background to Case Studies
2. The Adoption of Part 6 of the Telecommunications Act 1997 (Cth)
III. The Regulatory Design of Part 6
3. The Challenges of Industry Rule-making
II. The Rule-making Framework of the Communications Alliance
III. The Procedural and Institutional Legitimacy of Traditional Rule-making
IV. The Difficulties and Threats Posed by Industry Rule-making
Part II. Empirical Study of Part 6 Rule-making
4. The Conceptual Approach and Institutional Context
II. Conceptual Approach
5. The Consumer Contracts Code
I. Working Committee Composition and Context
6. The Information on Accessibility Features for Telephone Equipment Code
7. The Mobile Premium Services Code
Part III. Substantive Analysis of Case Studies
8. The Procedural and Institutional Legitimacy of Part 6 Rule-making
II. The Politic of Part 6 Rule-making
III. The Procedural and Institutional Legitimacy of Part 6 Rule-making
9. The Responsiveness of Part 6 Rule-making
II. Defining Responsiveness
III. The Responsiveness of Part 6 Rule-making
10. Activating and Sustaining Legitimate and Responsive Industry Rule-making: The State of Play
II. The Indicia of Legitimate and Responsive Rule-making
III. Matters Requiring Further Empirical Investigation
“While [the book's] focus is very specific to the telecommunications sector, the theory discussed and the very practical nature of many of her findings are, I believe, relevant to many sectors. In this technology driven era we find ourselves in, with the accompanying convergence between sectors and globalisation that is happening and the constant drive for innovation, industry based rule-making is likely to be an important part of the mix for how we regulate our society … It is great to see such intelligent attention applied to this issue. It is an important contribution to debates about how we and our society regulate conduct.” – Delia Rickard, Deputy Chair of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission,
Karen Lee is Lecturer in Law at the University of New England, Australia.