Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T01:43:54.835Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

16 - Regulatory connection II: disconnection and sustainability

from Part V - Regulatory connection

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 August 2012

Roger Brownsword
Affiliation:
King's College London
Morag Goodwin
Affiliation:
Universiteit van Tilburg, The Netherlands
Get access

Summary

Introduction

Recommendation 16 of the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee’s report Nanotechnologies and Food reads as follows:

Given the pace at which novel technologies develop we recommend that, in addition to its on-going monitoring of the state of the science, the Food Standards Agency should formally review the suitability of legislation every three years to ensure that regulatory oversight and risk assessment keeps pace with the development of these technologies.

While this shows an admirable awareness of the challenge, we might wonder whether regular review and revision is the best that we can do to maintain connection. Is there no better way?

Ideally, we want regulation to bind to the technology and to evolve with it. In pursuit of this ideal, regulators (at any rate, regulators in first-generation environments) seem to face a choice between taking a traditional hard law approach or leaving it to self-regulation and, concomitantly, a softer form of law. Where the former approach is taken, the hard edges of the law can be softened in various ways – for example, by adopting a ‘technology neutral’ drafting style, by delegating regulatory powers to the relevant minister and by encouraging a culture of purposive interpretation in the courts. Conversely, where self-regulation and softer law is preferred, the regime can be hardened up by moving towards a form of co-regulatory strategy. However, no matter which approach is adopted, there is no guarantee that it will be effective and the details of the regulatory regime will always reflect a tension between the need for flexibility (if regulation is to move with the technology) and the demand for predictability and consistency (if regulatees are to know where they stand).

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Slobogin, ChristopherTechnologically-Assisted Physical Surveillance: The American Bar Association’s Tentative Draft StandardsHarvard Journal of Law and Technology 10 1997 383Google Scholar
Samuelson, PamelaRegulating the Global Information SocietyLondonRoutledge 2000Google Scholar
Koops, Bert-JaapStarting Points for ICT Regulation – Deconstructing Prevalent Policy One-LinersThe HagueTMC Asser Press 2006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dorbeck-Jung, BärbelAmerom, Marloes vanInternational Governance and LawCheltenhamEdward Elgar 2008Google Scholar
Royal Society and the Royal Academy of EngineeringNanoscience and Nanotechnologies: Opportunities and UncertaintiesLondonRoyal Society 2004Google Scholar
Rosenberg, Isaac B.Involuntary Endogenous RFID Compliance Monitoring as a Condition of Federal Supervised Release: Chips Ahoy?Yale Journal of Law and Technology 10 2008 331Google Scholar
Hoven, Jeroen van denNanoethicsHoboken, NJWiley 2007Google Scholar
Reed, ChrisThe Law of Unintended Consequences: Embedded Business Models in IT RegulationJournal of Information & Technology Law (JILT) (1) 2007Google Scholar
2007
2007
2007
Brownsword, RogerThe Regulatory Challenge of BiotechnologyCheltenhamEdward Elgar 2007Google Scholar
Brownsword, RogerBioethics Today, Bioethics Tomorrow: Stem Cell Research and the “Dignitarian Alliance”University of Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics and Public Policy 17 2003 15Google ScholarPubMed
2005
2008
Türk, Alexander H. 2009
Koops, Bert-JaapStarting Points for ICT Regulation: Deconstructing Prevalent Policy One-LinersThe HagueTMC Asser Press 2006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reed, ChrisTaking Sides on Technology NeutralitySCRIPTed 4 2007 263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reed, ChrisOnline and Offline Equivalence: Aspiration and AchievementInternational Journal of Law and Information Technology 18 2010 248CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×