Skip to content

The Best of Both Worlds: Maximising the Legitimacy of the EU's Regulation of Geoengineering Research

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Standard

The Best of Both Worlds : Maximising the Legitimacy of the EU's Regulation of Geoengineering Research. / Sargoni, Janine.

In: European Journal of Risk Regulation, Vol. 2016, No. 1, 03.2016, p. 87-108.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Harvard

Sargoni, J 2016, 'The Best of Both Worlds: Maximising the Legitimacy of the EU's Regulation of Geoengineering Research', European Journal of Risk Regulation, vol. 2016, no. 1, pp. 87-108.

APA

Vancouver

Author

Sargoni, Janine. / The Best of Both Worlds : Maximising the Legitimacy of the EU's Regulation of Geoengineering Research. In: European Journal of Risk Regulation. 2016 ; Vol. 2016, No. 1. pp. 87-108.

Bibtex

@article{7fd82d62d08f4a17ae22f2560654dc6d,
title = "The Best of Both Worlds: Maximising the Legitimacy of the EU's Regulation of Geoengineering Research",
abstract = "This paper suggests how the regulation of Solar Radiation Management (SRM) field research in Europe could be designed to maximise the possibility of securing legitimacy. It argues that legitimacy is maximised when regulatory frameworks are legal, and also responsive, flexible, deliberative and inclusive. By adopting an ‘incorporated’ approach to assessing the risk of Solar Radiation Management (SRM) field research, the EU can import elements of ‘directly deliberative polyarchy’ into its otherwise orthodox constitutional regulatory approach thereby maximising legitimacy. The argument is new in so far as it juxtaposes two conceptions of procedural legitimacy – one institutional and the other functional – in the context of significant scientific uncertainty in the technocratic regulatory paradigm of the EU. The significance of the work is that it draws on these conceptions of legitimacy to advance a pragmatic model of institutional design which comprises procedures that maximise legitimacy with minimal disruption to the EU’s institutional balance of powers.",
author = "Janine Sargoni",
year = "2016",
month = "3",
language = "English",
volume = "2016",
pages = "87--108",
journal = "European Journal of Risk Regulation",
issn = "1867-299X",
publisher = "Lexxion",
number = "1",

}

RIS - suitable for import to EndNote

TY - JOUR

T1 - The Best of Both Worlds

T2 - Maximising the Legitimacy of the EU's Regulation of Geoengineering Research

AU - Sargoni, Janine

PY - 2016/3

Y1 - 2016/3

N2 - This paper suggests how the regulation of Solar Radiation Management (SRM) field research in Europe could be designed to maximise the possibility of securing legitimacy. It argues that legitimacy is maximised when regulatory frameworks are legal, and also responsive, flexible, deliberative and inclusive. By adopting an ‘incorporated’ approach to assessing the risk of Solar Radiation Management (SRM) field research, the EU can import elements of ‘directly deliberative polyarchy’ into its otherwise orthodox constitutional regulatory approach thereby maximising legitimacy. The argument is new in so far as it juxtaposes two conceptions of procedural legitimacy – one institutional and the other functional – in the context of significant scientific uncertainty in the technocratic regulatory paradigm of the EU. The significance of the work is that it draws on these conceptions of legitimacy to advance a pragmatic model of institutional design which comprises procedures that maximise legitimacy with minimal disruption to the EU’s institutional balance of powers.

AB - This paper suggests how the regulation of Solar Radiation Management (SRM) field research in Europe could be designed to maximise the possibility of securing legitimacy. It argues that legitimacy is maximised when regulatory frameworks are legal, and also responsive, flexible, deliberative and inclusive. By adopting an ‘incorporated’ approach to assessing the risk of Solar Radiation Management (SRM) field research, the EU can import elements of ‘directly deliberative polyarchy’ into its otherwise orthodox constitutional regulatory approach thereby maximising legitimacy. The argument is new in so far as it juxtaposes two conceptions of procedural legitimacy – one institutional and the other functional – in the context of significant scientific uncertainty in the technocratic regulatory paradigm of the EU. The significance of the work is that it draws on these conceptions of legitimacy to advance a pragmatic model of institutional design which comprises procedures that maximise legitimacy with minimal disruption to the EU’s institutional balance of powers.

M3 - Article

VL - 2016

SP - 87

EP - 108

JO - European Journal of Risk Regulation

JF - European Journal of Risk Regulation

SN - 1867-299X

IS - 1

ER -