Publications by Paul Verbruggen
In this article we discuss the value of the RIT model for analyzing complex governance relationsh... more In this article we discuss the value of the RIT model for analyzing complex governance relationships in the regulation of food safety. The RIT model is about the analysis of regulatory interactions among actors beyond the dichotomy of regulators and targets (Abbott, Levi-Faur, and Snidal 2017). We examine the current landscape of food safety regulation through the lens of this model, addressing the question of what the model has to offer to the analysis of regulatory governance in that field. By exploring food safety regimes involving the European Union and the Global Food Safety Initiative, we highlight the diverse and complex relationships among the actors in public, private, and hybrid regimes of food safety regulation. We extend the basic RIT model to better fit the reality of (hybrid) governance relationships in the modern regulation of food safety, arguing that the model enables disaggregation of these regimes into analytical subunits or “regulatory chains,” in which each actor contributes to and affects the regulatory process. Finally, we critically assess what the RIT model adds to alternative theoretical approaches in identifying, mapping, and explaining the different roles actors play vis-à-vis others in regulatory regimes.
Full citation:
Verbruggen, P., Wolters, P., Hildebrandt, M., Sieburgh, C., Jansen, C. (2016) ‘To... more Full citation:
Verbruggen, P., Wolters, P., Hildebrandt, M., Sieburgh, C., Jansen, C. (2016) ‘Towards Harmonised Duties of Care and Diligence in Cybersecurity – White Paper’, in Cyber Security Council (ed), European Foresight Cyber Security Meeting 2016 (The Hague), pp. 78-107.
This White Paper was commissioned by the Dutch Cyber Security Council as part of the National Coordinator for Security and Counterterrorism, residing under the Ministry of Security and Justice of the Netherlands. It provides a framework for discussion around the need to harmonise legal standards for duties of care and diligence in cybersecurity related to ICT goods and services, and offers proposals to better protect the interests of consumers of such goods and services.
The free movement of goods and services are central to the functioning of the Internal Market of ... more The free movement of goods and services are central to the functioning of the Internal Market of the European Union (EU). While many scholars have devoted their attention to analysing those circumstances and the way in which they have been articulated in the case law of the Court of Justice of the EU (Court of Justice), considerably less attention has been paid to the exact consequences in private law of the application of the free movement of goods and services. Does such application to private law relationships create, modify or extinguish rights and obligations, does it affect existing private law remedies, and if so, how? If we remember that trade in goods and services typically takes place based on private law arrangements, namely contracts, we must admit that the decisions rendered by the Court of Justice will also have an impact on underlying contracts and related private law rights and obligations of individuals. It means that all judgements of the Court of Justice in the area of goods and services (may) have implications on pre-existing private law rights or have created new rights for private parties wanting to contract with others in the Internal Market. Taking this fact as the point of departure, this Chapter provides a systematic analysis of private law implications of the application of the freedom of goods and services. It is argued in this Chapter that the impact of these freedoms on private law rights and remedies, and the underlying relationships that are governed by them, is pervasive and multi-faceted, yet not well understood in legal scholarship and practice. The Chapter assesses via which doctrines these freedoms create, modify or extinguish rights and obligations in ‘horizontal’ relations (i.e. relations governed by private law) and whether and how private law remedies are affected in that process as well. Anticipating those consequences is important for legal practice as they may offer genuine and powerful arguments to solve the underlying private law dispute.
Regulatory standards developed by non-state, private actors are regularly incorporated in contemp... more Regulatory standards developed by non-state, private actors are regularly incorporated in contemporary international commercial contracts. In this way, lead firms in the supply chain, such as large retailers and brand-name companies, seek to ensure specific qualities of the goods and services they sell to consumers locally, yet source globally. The qualities these standards aim to ensure vary and can be multiple, and concern (matters of) authenticity, safety, security, sustainability, traceability and welfare or any combination of these. Compliance with private standards is significant, both for the lead firm and its suppliers down the chain. For lead firms it is the principle way in which it can deliver on the qualities of the products and services they source globally, while for suppliers compliance is a preliminary condition to access primary commodity markets, to earn a supply contract and to keep it. Assessing and ensuring compliance, however, may be problematic first of all because the qualities private standards aim to ensure are often credence qualities. Secondly, most of the standards used are process-based, and can be unclear or ambiguous. This triggers important (socio-)legal questions concerning the substantive and procedural aspects of compliance with private regulatory standards in commercial contracts that this Chapter seeks to discuss. In addressing these questions the Chapter reviews (empirical) studies on the use of private standards in contracts, private certification schemes and case law on the interpretation of private standards.
Public food safety authorities in Europe and elsewhere have recently developed forms of coordinat... more Public food safety authorities in Europe and elsewhere have recently developed forms of coordination and collaboration with private compliance systems in the monitoring and enforcement of public food safety laws. Such policies bring with them the risk of regulatory capture, loss of transparency and fuzzy accountability relationships. In this paper we analyse how the Netherlands Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority (NVWA) assesses and monitors the functioning of private food safety control systems so it can use these private systems in its own enforcement activities. We do so by discussing two national private systems that have been formally accepted by the NVWA and are as such subject to its meta-control. The article examines the safeguards that the public enforcement agency uses while coordinating its own activities with private food safety controls, the advantages and risks involved in this strategy, and the extent to which this policy can be improved. From this we draw lessons for public agencies elsewhere willing to engage with private compliance mechanisms. The study is based on the analysis of policy documents, public and private regulation and open-ended interviews with representatives of the public and private sector in the Netherlands.
This Special Issue aims to develop a deeper understanding of the interplay between public and pri... more This Special Issue aims to develop a deeper understanding of the interplay between public and private regulation in food governance. It starts from the observation that the traditional concept of law as command-and-control legislation and law enforcement by national governmental bodies, including inspectorates and courts, is not adequate to capture today’s world of food governance. Nowadays, a broad range of public and private entities acting at national and international level seek to shape and influence the production, trade and handling of food and the risks involved therein. Drawing on data from Europe and the United States, the contributions to this Special Issue seek to unravel the intimate, yet complex ties between public and private actors within governance arrangements regulating food safety and sustainability. The papers are focused around the various phases of the policy cycle for food governance, thus addressing the interaction in stages of agenda-setting and rule-making, adoption and implementation, monitoring and enforcement, and evaluation and review. In descriptive terms, each contribution lays out the ‘who’ (actors), the ‘what’ (activity), the ‘why’ (rationale) and the ‘how’ (instruments) of food governance. In evaluative terms, the papers discuss and explain the results and challenges of the design of the public-private governance arrangements. Jointly, the contributions offer original and invaluable empirical insights explaining the rise, design and challenges of mixed governance arrangements in the food sector.
On 5 March 2015 the Court of Justice of the European Union gave an important judgment that may he... more On 5 March 2015 the Court of Justice of the European Union gave an important judgment that may help to bolster the importance of the Product Liability Directive and its national implementing regimes for the legal practice of product liability law. In two joined cases, the Court held that products, such as the implantable medical devices in this case, can be considered defective if they were found to belong to the same group or formed part of the same product series that had a potential defect, without there being any need to establish that the product in question had such a defect. Moreover, the Court held that the damage incurred because of the removal of these defective devices from the human body came within the scope of the concept of damages as described by the Directive and could be claimed under its implementing laws. Will this decision “resuscitate” the Directive, which has been considered a dead letter in the legal practice of European product liability law? In this paper we assess this claim and outline the consequences of the Court’s judgment in Boston Scientific Medizintechnik.
Of het nu gaat om het toezicht op banken en de financiële sector, toezicht in de openbare ruimte,... more Of het nu gaat om het toezicht op banken en de financiële sector, toezicht in de openbare ruimte, toezicht op ziekenhuizen en zorginstellingen, toezicht op voedsel, of toezicht op de advocatuur en het notariaat – ze waren stuk voor stuk in het nieuws, en voorwerp van maatschappelijk, politiek én academisch debat.
In dat debat rijst regelmatig de vraag hoeveel toezicht er nodig of wenselijk is. De discussie over de juiste mate van toezicht houdt sterk verband met het spanningsveld tussen enerzijds de behoefte om risico’s en onzekerheden zoveel mogelijk uit te sluiten, en anderzijds de wens de vrijheid van burgers en organisaties niet onnodig in te perken. Regelmatig wordt gepleit voor nieuwe vormen van toezicht of verscherping van bestaand toezicht, vooral wanneer zich een incident of ramp heeft voorgedaan. Tegelijkertijd is een controlemaatschappij met alom aanwezige camera’s, registraties en toezichthouders een schrikbeeld voor velen.
In deze bundel houden auteurs het toezicht op diverse domeinen tegen het licht. Aan de orde komen de politie, traditionele inspectiediensten (de Inspectie voor de Gezondheidszorg en de Nederlandse Voedsel- en Warenautoriteit), en marktoezichthouders (de Autoriteit Financiële Markten en het Bureau Financieel Toezicht). Eveneens wordt aandacht besteed aan enkele minder voor de hand liggende toezichthouders zoals private certificatie-instellingen, de Orde van Advocaten en de rechter-commissaris als toezichthouder op de afwikkeling van faillissementen. Wat zijn de kernwaarden van toezicht of wat zouden de kernwaarden moeten zijn? Welke kansen zijn er om met toezicht publieke belangen (beter) te dienen? Welke knelpunten bestaan in de wijze waarop het toezicht momenteel is georganiseerd en functioneert?.
Bijdragen van Brenninkmeijer, Busch, Docters van Leeuwen, Dute , de Groot-van Leeuwen, Havinga, van Hees, Roes, Terpstra, Verbruggen en de Waele
SSRN Electronic Journal, 2014
Both public and private actors are involved in the monitoring and enforcement of compliance with ... more Both public and private actors are involved in the monitoring and enforcement of compliance with public food safety norms. Public authorities in countries such as the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and Canada have recently started to develop forms of coordination and collaboration with private food safety control systems. Such policies bring with them the risk of regulatory capture, loss of transparency and fuzzy accountability relationships. Here we analyse how the Netherlands Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority (de Nederlandse Voedsel-en Warenautoriteit -NVWA) assesses and monitors the functioning of private food safety control systems (meta-control) so it can use these private systems in its own enforcement activities. We do so by discussing two national private systems that have been formally accepted by the NVWA: Bureau de Wit and RiskPlaza. The paper examines the safeguards that the public enforcement agency deploys while coordinating its own activities with private food safety controls, the advantages and risks involved in this strategy, and the extent to which this policy can be improved. The study is based on the analysis of policy documents, public and private regulation and open-ended interviews with representatives of the public and private sector in the Netherlands.
In recent years scholars from various disciplines have turned their attention to transnational re... more In recent years scholars from various disciplines have turned their attention to transnational regimes of regulation that are chiefly developed outside state-driven frameworks. The rise of such “transnational private regulation” has also led to the emergence of private metaregulation.
The term ‘meta-regulation’ commonly refers to processes through which a regulatory body oversees another and sets standards for its activities or performance of regulation. In the public domain, meta-regulation has been associated with the devolution of regulatory activities by a statutory body to private actors with the view to enhance voluntary rule compliance, awareness of responsibilities among the regulated and reduce public enforcement costs. However, in the transnational private domain the rationale for meta-regulation appears to be a different one. We contend that meta-regulation in this domain is less concerned with the goal of enhancing rule compliance and efficiency in enforcement, but instead is more prominently concerned with the bolstering of the integrity, legitimacy and accountability of private regulatory regimes and the coordination between such regimes. To furnish this argument the paper develops a comparative analysis of two sectoral private meta-regulators involved in transnational private regulation: the Global Food Safety Initiative in the food industry and the European Advertising Standards Alliance in the advertising industry. These two organisations have developed guidelines, benchmarks and performance indicators for other private bodies involved in transnational regulatory activities. The comparative analysis is focused around four principled and interlinked questions: (i) What has driven the emergence of meta-regulation in the private regulatory domain?; (ii) What are the forms and functions of private meta-regulation?; (iii) What is its relationship with public regulation and regulators?; and (iv) How and to what extent does private meta-regulation contribute to the legitimization of transnational private regulation?
Recht der Werkelijkheid, 2014
Regulation & Governance, 2013
This paper examines to what extent the background presence of state regulatory capacity – at time... more This paper examines to what extent the background presence of state regulatory capacity – at times referred to as the “regulatory gorilla in the closet” – is a necessary precondition for the effective enforcement of transnational private regulation. By drawing on regulatory regimes in the areas of advertising and food safety, it identifies conditions under which (the potential of) public regulatory intervention can bolster the capacity of private actors to enforce transnational private regulation. These involve the overlap between norms, objectives, and interests of public and private regulation; the institutional design of regulatory enforcement; compliance with due process standards; and information management and data sharing. The paper argues that while public intervention remains important for the effective enforcement of transnational private regulation, governmental actors – both national and international – should create the necessary preconditions to strengthen private regulatory enforcement, as it can also enhance their own regulatory capacity, in particular, in transnational contexts.
Journal of Risk Research, 2013
Food safety regulation is a key policy area that has witnessed an increasing alignment of risk an... more Food safety regulation is a key policy area that has witnessed an increasing alignment of risk and regulation. This paper examines the emergence and operation of co-regulation – a hybrid form of regulation in which public and private actors coordinate their respective regulatory activities – within the increasingly risk-based approaches to food safety management. On the basis of an analysis of emerging co-regulatory arrangements to food safety in the European Union, the paper contends that there are considerable difficulties in implementing such hybrid arrangements and deepens the basic preconditions under which they can attain the social goal of safe food supply. Specifically, it is argued that a regulatory framework that fosters public oversight and warrants data sharing and information exchange between the public and private actors involved is needed for the attainment of that goal. This framework has to be responsive to changing risk profiles and industry environments to ensure that food safety controls are risk-based, transparent and not captured by industry interests. This is particularly crucial for encouraging voluntary compliance as well as efficient allocation of limited regulatory resources.
Enforcement of Transnational Regulation, 2012
SSRN Electronic Journal, 2012
SSRN Electronic Journal, 2011
SSRN Electronic Journal, 2009
The papers collected in this Working Paper are the fruit of the Seminar 'The Impact of the Intern... more The papers collected in this Working Paper are the fruit of the Seminar 'The Impact of the Internal Market on Private Law of the Member States', which was organized by Profs. Fabrizio Cafaggi, Hans-Wolfgang Micklitz, and Norbert Reich at the European University Institute in the spring semester of 2009. The papers collectively aim to improve the understanding of the multi-level interplay between primary EC law and national private law. As such, the authors address the pressing topics of the shifting public -private divide in Community law, the impact of fundamental rights on Internal Market and national private law, the restrictive effect of national private law on the market freedoms, and the duty of national courts to ex-officio raise Community law in domestic legal disputes.
European Law Journal, 2009
Abstract: Within the Better Regulation programme of the EU, co-regulation is promoted as an impo... more Abstract: Within the Better Regulation programme of the EU, co-regulation is promoted as an important strategy to improve the regulatory environment within Europe. It is assumed that co-regulation can enhance the legitimacy of EU governance in the field where this strategy is used. The purpose of this article is to assess the truth of this premise and to analyse whether co-regulation strengthens the legitimacy of EU governance. To this end, the criteria of input and output legitimacy are applied to the European social dialogue as a form of co-regulation in the EU policy area of social law. In this article, a link is made between the tendency to prescribe co-regulation as a specific regulatory strategy in EU legislative policy and the existing knowledge on the purposes and effects of co-regulation and the conditions under which co-regulation can function as a regulation strategy.
Uploads
Publications by Paul Verbruggen
Verbruggen, P., Wolters, P., Hildebrandt, M., Sieburgh, C., Jansen, C. (2016) ‘Towards Harmonised Duties of Care and Diligence in Cybersecurity – White Paper’, in Cyber Security Council (ed), European Foresight Cyber Security Meeting 2016 (The Hague), pp. 78-107.
This White Paper was commissioned by the Dutch Cyber Security Council as part of the National Coordinator for Security and Counterterrorism, residing under the Ministry of Security and Justice of the Netherlands. It provides a framework for discussion around the need to harmonise legal standards for duties of care and diligence in cybersecurity related to ICT goods and services, and offers proposals to better protect the interests of consumers of such goods and services.
In dat debat rijst regelmatig de vraag hoeveel toezicht er nodig of wenselijk is. De discussie over de juiste mate van toezicht houdt sterk verband met het spanningsveld tussen enerzijds de behoefte om risico’s en onzekerheden zoveel mogelijk uit te sluiten, en anderzijds de wens de vrijheid van burgers en organisaties niet onnodig in te perken. Regelmatig wordt gepleit voor nieuwe vormen van toezicht of verscherping van bestaand toezicht, vooral wanneer zich een incident of ramp heeft voorgedaan. Tegelijkertijd is een controlemaatschappij met alom aanwezige camera’s, registraties en toezichthouders een schrikbeeld voor velen.
In deze bundel houden auteurs het toezicht op diverse domeinen tegen het licht. Aan de orde komen de politie, traditionele inspectiediensten (de Inspectie voor de Gezondheidszorg en de Nederlandse Voedsel- en Warenautoriteit), en marktoezichthouders (de Autoriteit Financiële Markten en het Bureau Financieel Toezicht). Eveneens wordt aandacht besteed aan enkele minder voor de hand liggende toezichthouders zoals private certificatie-instellingen, de Orde van Advocaten en de rechter-commissaris als toezichthouder op de afwikkeling van faillissementen. Wat zijn de kernwaarden van toezicht of wat zouden de kernwaarden moeten zijn? Welke kansen zijn er om met toezicht publieke belangen (beter) te dienen? Welke knelpunten bestaan in de wijze waarop het toezicht momenteel is georganiseerd en functioneert?.
Bijdragen van Brenninkmeijer, Busch, Docters van Leeuwen, Dute , de Groot-van Leeuwen, Havinga, van Hees, Roes, Terpstra, Verbruggen en de Waele
The term ‘meta-regulation’ commonly refers to processes through which a regulatory body oversees another and sets standards for its activities or performance of regulation. In the public domain, meta-regulation has been associated with the devolution of regulatory activities by a statutory body to private actors with the view to enhance voluntary rule compliance, awareness of responsibilities among the regulated and reduce public enforcement costs. However, in the transnational private domain the rationale for meta-regulation appears to be a different one. We contend that meta-regulation in this domain is less concerned with the goal of enhancing rule compliance and efficiency in enforcement, but instead is more prominently concerned with the bolstering of the integrity, legitimacy and accountability of private regulatory regimes and the coordination between such regimes. To furnish this argument the paper develops a comparative analysis of two sectoral private meta-regulators involved in transnational private regulation: the Global Food Safety Initiative in the food industry and the European Advertising Standards Alliance in the advertising industry. These two organisations have developed guidelines, benchmarks and performance indicators for other private bodies involved in transnational regulatory activities. The comparative analysis is focused around four principled and interlinked questions: (i) What has driven the emergence of meta-regulation in the private regulatory domain?; (ii) What are the forms and functions of private meta-regulation?; (iii) What is its relationship with public regulation and regulators?; and (iv) How and to what extent does private meta-regulation contribute to the legitimization of transnational private regulation?
Verbruggen, P., Wolters, P., Hildebrandt, M., Sieburgh, C., Jansen, C. (2016) ‘Towards Harmonised Duties of Care and Diligence in Cybersecurity – White Paper’, in Cyber Security Council (ed), European Foresight Cyber Security Meeting 2016 (The Hague), pp. 78-107.
This White Paper was commissioned by the Dutch Cyber Security Council as part of the National Coordinator for Security and Counterterrorism, residing under the Ministry of Security and Justice of the Netherlands. It provides a framework for discussion around the need to harmonise legal standards for duties of care and diligence in cybersecurity related to ICT goods and services, and offers proposals to better protect the interests of consumers of such goods and services.
In dat debat rijst regelmatig de vraag hoeveel toezicht er nodig of wenselijk is. De discussie over de juiste mate van toezicht houdt sterk verband met het spanningsveld tussen enerzijds de behoefte om risico’s en onzekerheden zoveel mogelijk uit te sluiten, en anderzijds de wens de vrijheid van burgers en organisaties niet onnodig in te perken. Regelmatig wordt gepleit voor nieuwe vormen van toezicht of verscherping van bestaand toezicht, vooral wanneer zich een incident of ramp heeft voorgedaan. Tegelijkertijd is een controlemaatschappij met alom aanwezige camera’s, registraties en toezichthouders een schrikbeeld voor velen.
In deze bundel houden auteurs het toezicht op diverse domeinen tegen het licht. Aan de orde komen de politie, traditionele inspectiediensten (de Inspectie voor de Gezondheidszorg en de Nederlandse Voedsel- en Warenautoriteit), en marktoezichthouders (de Autoriteit Financiële Markten en het Bureau Financieel Toezicht). Eveneens wordt aandacht besteed aan enkele minder voor de hand liggende toezichthouders zoals private certificatie-instellingen, de Orde van Advocaten en de rechter-commissaris als toezichthouder op de afwikkeling van faillissementen. Wat zijn de kernwaarden van toezicht of wat zouden de kernwaarden moeten zijn? Welke kansen zijn er om met toezicht publieke belangen (beter) te dienen? Welke knelpunten bestaan in de wijze waarop het toezicht momenteel is georganiseerd en functioneert?.
Bijdragen van Brenninkmeijer, Busch, Docters van Leeuwen, Dute , de Groot-van Leeuwen, Havinga, van Hees, Roes, Terpstra, Verbruggen en de Waele
The term ‘meta-regulation’ commonly refers to processes through which a regulatory body oversees another and sets standards for its activities or performance of regulation. In the public domain, meta-regulation has been associated with the devolution of regulatory activities by a statutory body to private actors with the view to enhance voluntary rule compliance, awareness of responsibilities among the regulated and reduce public enforcement costs. However, in the transnational private domain the rationale for meta-regulation appears to be a different one. We contend that meta-regulation in this domain is less concerned with the goal of enhancing rule compliance and efficiency in enforcement, but instead is more prominently concerned with the bolstering of the integrity, legitimacy and accountability of private regulatory regimes and the coordination between such regimes. To furnish this argument the paper develops a comparative analysis of two sectoral private meta-regulators involved in transnational private regulation: the Global Food Safety Initiative in the food industry and the European Advertising Standards Alliance in the advertising industry. These two organisations have developed guidelines, benchmarks and performance indicators for other private bodies involved in transnational regulatory activities. The comparative analysis is focused around four principled and interlinked questions: (i) What has driven the emergence of meta-regulation in the private regulatory domain?; (ii) What are the forms and functions of private meta-regulation?; (iii) What is its relationship with public regulation and regulators?; and (iv) How and to what extent does private meta-regulation contribute to the legitimization of transnational private regulation?