Improving consultation to ensure the European Union's democratic legitimacy: From traditional procedural requirements to behavioural insights

IF 1.4 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW
Nicoletta Rangone
{"title":"Improving consultation to ensure the European Union's democratic legitimacy: From traditional procedural requirements to behavioural insights","authors":"Nicoletta Rangone","doi":"10.1111/eulj.12439","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Consultation is a crucial tool for better regulation, as well as being essential for the accountability and legitimacy of decision-makers. The European minimum requirements for consultation are fundamental conditions in order to attain these goals. However, they may not be enough, and consultation should also be designed to neutralise or reveal cognitive limitations, both of decision-makers as well as of stakeholders. This paper claims that enriching the better regulation approach with cognitive insights can in fact increase consultation effectiveness and thus become a critical piece in the puzzle to improve the legitimacy of the European Commission. Moreover, it suggests some techniques to tackle this complexity, which need to be further assessed by ad hoc experiments.</p>","PeriodicalId":47166,"journal":{"name":"European Law Journal","volume":"28 4-6","pages":"154-171"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/eulj.12439","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/eulj.12439","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Consultation is a crucial tool for better regulation, as well as being essential for the accountability and legitimacy of decision-makers. The European minimum requirements for consultation are fundamental conditions in order to attain these goals. However, they may not be enough, and consultation should also be designed to neutralise or reveal cognitive limitations, both of decision-makers as well as of stakeholders. This paper claims that enriching the better regulation approach with cognitive insights can in fact increase consultation effectiveness and thus become a critical piece in the puzzle to improve the legitimacy of the European Commission. Moreover, it suggests some techniques to tackle this complexity, which need to be further assessed by ad hoc experiments.

改善磋商以确保欧盟的民主合法性:从传统程序要求到行为洞察
协商是改善监管的关键工具,也是决策者问责制和合法性的关键。欧洲协商的最低要求是实现这些目标的基本条件。然而,这些可能还不够,磋商还应旨在消除或揭示决策者和利益相关者的认知局限性。本文声称,用认知洞察力来丰富更好的监管方法实际上可以提高咨询效率,从而成为提高欧盟委员会合法性的关键部分。此外,它还提出了一些解决这种复杂性的技术,这些技术需要通过特别实验进一步评估。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
21.10%
发文量
13
期刊介绍: The European Law Journal represents an authoritative new approach to the study of European Law, developed specifically to express and develop the study and understanding of European law in its social, cultural, political and economic context. It has a highly reputed board of editors. The journal fills a major gap in the current literature on all issues of European law, and is essential reading for anyone studying or practising EU law and its diverse impact on the environment, national legal systems, local government, economic organizations, and European citizens. As well as focusing on the European Union, the journal also examines the national legal systems of countries in Western, Central and Eastern Europe and relations between Europe and other parts of the world, particularly the United States, Japan, China, India, Mercosur and developing countries. The journal is published in English but is dedicated to publishing native language articles and has a dedicated translation fund available for this purpose. It is a refereed journal.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信