对响应:消费者和公民参与共同监管规则制定在澳大利亚通信部门

Q3 Social Sciences
Karen Lee, D. Wilding
{"title":"对响应:消费者和公民参与共同监管规则制定在澳大利亚通信部门","authors":"Karen Lee, D. Wilding","doi":"10.1177/0067205X21993148","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article begins the process of evaluating the adequacy of the procedural and substantive requirements that Australian communications regulators (and hence industry bodies) must satisfy before co-regulatory codes of practice can be registered. It considers if the procedural requirements relating to consumer and public consultation, included in the statutory frameworks that authorise and govern co-regulation in the media, online and telecommunications sectors, ensure co-regulatory rule-making is sufficiently responsive to the interests of consumers and citizens. Drawing on publicly available information about seven industry bodies that have drafted codes of practice and round table discussions with industry, consumers and regulators, the article highlights that the current engagement practices of industry bodies often fall short of the ‘democratic credentials’ of responsiveness. It suggests that the code registration criteria relating to consumer and public consultation must be overhauled if these weaknesses are to be rectified.","PeriodicalId":37273,"journal":{"name":"Federal Law Review","volume":"49 1","pages":"272 - 302"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-02-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/0067205X21993148","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Towards Responsiveness: Consumer and Citizen Engagement in Co-Regulatory Rule-Making in the Australian Communications Sector\",\"authors\":\"Karen Lee, D. Wilding\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/0067205X21993148\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article begins the process of evaluating the adequacy of the procedural and substantive requirements that Australian communications regulators (and hence industry bodies) must satisfy before co-regulatory codes of practice can be registered. It considers if the procedural requirements relating to consumer and public consultation, included in the statutory frameworks that authorise and govern co-regulation in the media, online and telecommunications sectors, ensure co-regulatory rule-making is sufficiently responsive to the interests of consumers and citizens. Drawing on publicly available information about seven industry bodies that have drafted codes of practice and round table discussions with industry, consumers and regulators, the article highlights that the current engagement practices of industry bodies often fall short of the ‘democratic credentials’ of responsiveness. It suggests that the code registration criteria relating to consumer and public consultation must be overhauled if these weaknesses are to be rectified.\",\"PeriodicalId\":37273,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Federal Law Review\",\"volume\":\"49 1\",\"pages\":\"272 - 302\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-02-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/0067205X21993148\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Federal Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/0067205X21993148\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Federal Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0067205X21993148","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

本文开始评估澳大利亚通信监管机构(以及行业机构)在注册共同监管行为守则之前必须满足的程序和实质性要求的充分性。它考虑了与消费者和公众咨询相关的程序要求,包括在授权和管理媒体、在线和电信部门共同监管的法律框架中,是否确保共同监管规则制定充分响应消费者和公民的利益。根据七个起草了行为准则的行业机构的公开信息,以及与行业、消费者和监管机构的圆桌讨论,这篇文章强调,行业机构目前的参与实践往往缺乏回应的“民主证书”。它建议,如果要纠正这些弱点,就必须彻底改革与消费者和公众咨询有关的代码注册标准。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Towards Responsiveness: Consumer and Citizen Engagement in Co-Regulatory Rule-Making in the Australian Communications Sector
This article begins the process of evaluating the adequacy of the procedural and substantive requirements that Australian communications regulators (and hence industry bodies) must satisfy before co-regulatory codes of practice can be registered. It considers if the procedural requirements relating to consumer and public consultation, included in the statutory frameworks that authorise and govern co-regulation in the media, online and telecommunications sectors, ensure co-regulatory rule-making is sufficiently responsive to the interests of consumers and citizens. Drawing on publicly available information about seven industry bodies that have drafted codes of practice and round table discussions with industry, consumers and regulators, the article highlights that the current engagement practices of industry bodies often fall short of the ‘democratic credentials’ of responsiveness. It suggests that the code registration criteria relating to consumer and public consultation must be overhauled if these weaknesses are to be rectified.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Federal Law Review
Federal Law Review Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
27
×
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