This article outlines the concept of Global Experimentalist Governance (GXG). GXG is an institutionalized transnational process of participatory and multilevel problem solving, in which particular problems (and the means of addressing them) are framed in an open-ended way, and subjected to periodic revision by various forms of peer review in light of locally generated knowledge. GXG differs from other forms of international organization and transnational governance, and is emerging in various issue areas. The Montreal Protocol on ozone-depleting substances is used to illustrate how GXG functions. The conditions for the emergence of GXG are specified, as well as some of its possible benefits.
The essays in this symposium present an apparently sharp contrast in the respective state of antidiscrimination law in Europe and the United States at present. In Europe, antidiscrimination norms are proliferating, within both the European Union and the Council of Europe systems, and elaborate networks and programs of implementation are being established and funded. The grounds of discrimination are widening, the norms are being strengthened and the new laws are being actively litigated. In the United States, by comparison, decades of social and political backlash have significantly weakened the corpus of antidiscrimination law that emerged from the civil rights movement, and the courts have become an arena for ideological battle. Yet, even if certain juridico-cultural differences in conceptions of equality and discrimination between the two jurisdictions are evident, none of the likely explanations for such a stark contrast between the state of antidiscrimination law and policy in each seems fully convincing. On a closer analysis, it seems that the future of antidiscrimination law and policy in Europe faces equally daunting challenges, even if the body of law in question is decades younger and less tested than its U.S. counterpart. One of the themes emerging from this collection of essays, however, is that there are similarities in the way problems of entrenched inequality are being addressed and in some of the solutions being tested both in the United States and in Europe. In particular, there has been a shift away from traditional judicial remedies and towards renewed administrative as well as other more innovative approaches in both jurisdictions. In the United States, this seems to be prompted in part by disillusionment with the current legal stalemate, while in Europe some of the novel approachesincluding the spread of equality bodies, parity democracy, and proactive public duties-are being promoted by international and European institutions. A. A Stark Transatlantic Comparison The past decade and a half has witnessed a dramatic development and expansion of European antidiscrimination law. At the regional level, both the European Union and the Council of Europe have adopted important new instruments. Notably, the European Union has enacted a Charter of Fundamental Rights and an ambitious series of legislative measures, 1 and the Council * Professor, NYU Law School. The papers contained in this symposium issue of the AJCL emerged from two workshops held at the European University Institute, Florence in 2010, and at Harvard Law School in 2011. Ruth Rubio-Marín and I are very grateful to these two institutions for the support they provided for the workshops. Thanks are also due to all of the participants at these events for their advice and comments. 1 CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, Official Journal of the EU (2010) C 83/389. The EU has adopted several major pieces of antidiscrimination legislation since 2000, notably Council Directive 2000/78/EC of Nov. 27, 2000, establishing a general f...
This article considers the impact of subsidiarity on the role of the Court of Justice as a policy actor. It considers briefly the meaning of the subsidiarity principle in the EC Treaty, and examines how the Court has engaged with this principle. Both the Court's use of subsidiarity as a means of reviewing the other institutions, and its sensitivity to the principle in relation to its own interpretative role are analysed. The problematic tension between the institutional constraints of the Court's role and methodology, and the requirements of the expanding culture of subsidiarity are explored.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.