Sunday Dinners and Hot Baths in a ‘Wild Wild North’? The Nordic Discussions on Lobbying Regulation and Implications for the EU Transparency Agenda

IF 0.5 Q3 LAW
Emilia Korkea‐aho
{"title":"Sunday Dinners and Hot Baths in a ‘Wild Wild North’? The Nordic Discussions on Lobbying Regulation and Implications for the EU Transparency Agenda","authors":"Emilia Korkea‐aho","doi":"10.54648/euro2021016","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Nordic countries are known as frontrunners of transparency, and the European Union’s transparency regime owes many of its ideals, if not the reality, to Northern influences. Nonetheless, although perceived as a transparency-enhancing measure, none of the Nordic countries has adopted lobbying regulation. Assessing the Nordic parliamentary and governmental debates from the 1980s onwards, this article offers an analysis of a complex relationship between legislative transparency and lobbying regulation in the five countries. The Nordic countries have different ideas of whose transparency lobbying regulation is meant to increase. In Sweden, Denmark and Norway, lobbying regulation is seen as a policy measure to enhance transparency about lawmakers’ activities, while the Icelandic and Finnish debates consider lobbying regulation as a way to increase information about the role lobbyists play in law-making. Although all the Nordic countries exhibit varying degrees of an elitist small country mentality where lobbying regulation would interfere with ‘informal governance’ by way of Sunday dinners and hot baths, the difference in transparency emphases is crucial. It helps to understand the divergent Nordic policy paths and to contextualize both EU and Member State discussions on lobbying regulations and transparency.\nEU Courts, Right to trial within a reasonable time, Excessive duration of court proceedings, Effective remedies, Damages liability of the EU, Economic harm, Non-material harm, Conditions for liability, Requirements for establishing harm and causation, Significance for EU damages liability law","PeriodicalId":43955,"journal":{"name":"European Public Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Public Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54648/euro2021016","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The Nordic countries are known as frontrunners of transparency, and the European Union’s transparency regime owes many of its ideals, if not the reality, to Northern influences. Nonetheless, although perceived as a transparency-enhancing measure, none of the Nordic countries has adopted lobbying regulation. Assessing the Nordic parliamentary and governmental debates from the 1980s onwards, this article offers an analysis of a complex relationship between legislative transparency and lobbying regulation in the five countries. The Nordic countries have different ideas of whose transparency lobbying regulation is meant to increase. In Sweden, Denmark and Norway, lobbying regulation is seen as a policy measure to enhance transparency about lawmakers’ activities, while the Icelandic and Finnish debates consider lobbying regulation as a way to increase information about the role lobbyists play in law-making. Although all the Nordic countries exhibit varying degrees of an elitist small country mentality where lobbying regulation would interfere with ‘informal governance’ by way of Sunday dinners and hot baths, the difference in transparency emphases is crucial. It helps to understand the divergent Nordic policy paths and to contextualize both EU and Member State discussions on lobbying regulations and transparency. EU Courts, Right to trial within a reasonable time, Excessive duration of court proceedings, Effective remedies, Damages liability of the EU, Economic harm, Non-material harm, Conditions for liability, Requirements for establishing harm and causation, Significance for EU damages liability law
在“狂野的北方”吃周日晚餐和洗热水澡?北欧关于游说监管的讨论及其对欧盟透明度议程的影响
北欧国家被称为透明度的领跑者,欧盟的透明度制度的许多理想(如果不是现实的话)都归功于北方的影响。尽管如此,尽管被认为是一项提高透明度的措施,但没有一个北欧国家通过游说监管。本文评估了20世纪80年代以来北欧议会和政府的辩论,分析了这五个国家立法透明度和游说监管之间的复杂关系。北欧国家对提高游说监管的透明度有不同的想法。在瑞典、丹麦和挪威,游说监管被视为提高立法者活动透明度的政策措施,而冰岛和芬兰的辩论则认为游说监管是增加游说者在立法中所扮演角色信息的一种方式。尽管所有北欧国家都表现出不同程度的精英小国心态,游说监管会通过周日晚餐和热水澡的方式干扰“非正式治理”,但透明度重点的差异至关重要。它有助于理解北欧不同的政策路径,并将欧盟和成员国关于游说法规和透明度的讨论纳入背景。欧盟法院,在合理时间内进行审判的权利,法院诉讼持续时间过长,有效补救措施,欧盟的损害赔偿责任,经济损害,非物质损害,责任条件,确定损害和因果关系的要求,对欧盟损害赔偿责任法的意义
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
1.20
自引率
16.70%
发文量
9
×
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