venerdì 18 maggio 2012

New Book: F.Cengiz, "Antitrust Federalism in the EU and the US", Routledge, 2012

Product Description

The EU and the US are the preeminent examples of multi-level polities and both have highly developed competition policies. Despite these similarities however, recent developments suggest that they are moving in different directions in the area of antitrust federalism. This book examines multi-level governance in competition policy from a comparative perspective. The book analyses how competition laws and authorities of different levels - the federal and the state levels in the US and the national and the supranational levels in the EU - interact with each other. Inspired by the increasingly divergent policy developments taking place on both sides of the Atlantic, the author asks whether the EU and the US can draw policy lessons from each other’s experiences in antitrust federalism. Antitrust Federalism in the EU and the US reveals the similarities and differences between the European and American models of antitrust federalism whilst employing policy network models in its comparative analysis of issues such as opacity and accountability in networks. The book is essentially multidisciplinary in its effort to initiate dialogue between the Law and Political Science literatures in this field. This book will be of particular interest to academics, students and practitioners of Competition Law, Constitutional Law and Political Science.

About the Author

Firat Cengiz is assistant professor in the European and International Law Department of Tilburg Law School in the Netherlands and is a senior member of the Tilburg Law and Economics Center (TILEC).

Nudging Europe - Why the EU Should Embrace Behavioral Research into its Policy-Making

Alberto Alemanno

HEC Paris - Law Department

European Voice

In recent years, findings in behavioural sciences have highlighted the complex cognitive framework in which people make decisions. In particular, behavioural research, by refuting the neoclassical assumption of human full rationality, has revealed a set of psychological biases capable of explaining why too often people make choices that seem to go against their best interests. These findings have important implications not only for the well-being of European citizens but also for regulatory policy. While advertisers and marketers have for years exploited these patterns of irrationality to promote sales, public authorities are new to the game. Under both US President Barack Obama and UK Prime Minister David Cameron, policymakers have recently been encouraged to draw on behavioural and social-science insights in the design or implementation of new regulations, an approach commonly called ‘nudge'. Although the results of the first nudging experiments are mixed, there seems to be an emerging consensus around the idea that regulation cannot work effectively or efficiently if regulators do not consider how people respond. Besides a few isolated initiatives displaying some behavioural consideration (eg, revision of the tobacco products directive, consumer information regulation, behavioural advertising), the EU has not yet shown a commitment to integrating behavioural research into its policymaking. Given the potential of this regulatory approach to produce effective, low-cost and choice-preserving policies, this seems inadequate, especially given the EU's commitment to smart regulation, a commitment stated in its Europe 2020 Strategy. This article argues that one way to take seriously the findings of behavioural research would be for the European Commission to introduce a behavioural test into its regulatory impact-assessment system.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 1
Keywords: Nudge, Regulatory Impact Assessment, Libertarian Paternalism, EU Law,

Full text available at: 

Current Intelligence

Enrico Bonadio

City University London - The City Law School; City University London

Lorraine Neale

affiliation not provided to SSRN

Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice (2012)

The Patents County Court in Slater v. Wimmer decided a case regarding a dispute as to ownership of copyright in a film. The Court reaffirmed that under Section 10(1A) of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 the producer and principal director are considered joint authors of the copyright in a film if they are different persons, and that consequently under Section 11(1) they are first joint owners of the copyright therein. It then held that in the absence of express contractual terms it is unnecessary to imply terms to the contrary. It followed that they require permission from the co-owner to exploit the work.
Keywords: Copyright, Joint Authorship, Films

Full text available at: 

domenica 6 maggio 2012

Conference "Law, Sacrifice and Morality : A Comparative View"

Organizers: Institute of Jewish Studies and Centre for Law and Cosmopolitan Values (University of Antwerp).
With the support of Institutum Iudaicum.

15-16 May 2012
Universiteit Antwerpen - Hof van Liere (Prinsstraat 13, 2000 Antwerpen)

The idea of self-transcendence, or of leaving aside one’s own self-interest and adopting the point of view of the other, is a central theme in moral philosophy and religious studies. Sacrifice, moreover, is an essential phenomenon for legal and political life. This workshop addresses the role that sacrifice plays in a political and legal order, with particular emphasis on the establishment and preservation of constitutional law. This question will be approached from the perspective of legal, political and religious studies.
The workshop raises the following questions: First, does a political and legal order need to be grounded on a sacrificial logic? The second question, arising from contemporary pluralism, considers how a given political order copes with moral conflicts arising from the performance of sacrifice. The third question considers how different monotheistic religions deal with the phenomenon of sacrifice and the extent to which they recognize a sacrificial logic. Finally, we ask how it can be prevented that sacrifice turns into a practice of idolatry, or, conversely, into a political order completely devoid of any sacrificial aspect (as the European Union has sometimes been described).
This workshop marks the beginning of a cooperation between the Institute of Jewish Studies and the Centre for Law and Cosmopolitan Values as pertains to the common research endeavor on the topic of ‘Law and Religion’.
Speakers and Respondents:Prof. Moshe Halbertal (Keynote)
Prof. Paul Kahn
Prof. Johan van der Walt
Prof. Wolfgang Palaver
Prof. Luc Anckaert
Dr. Paula Schwebel
Prof. Arthur Cools
Prof. Vivian Liska
Dr. Marco Goldoni

Garcia Pelayo Seminar Jörg Broschek, May 8, 2012 (11.30-13-30), CEPC, Madrid‏

Jörg Broschek (Technische Universität Darmstadt) is going to present a paper entitled  “Conceptualizing and Theorizing Constitutional Change in Federal Systems”, at the next García Pelayo seminar.

The event will take place on Tuesday, 8th of May. The discussant will be Cesar Colino (UNED).

The event will take place at 11.30 and the venue, as usual, will be the conference room at the CEPC, Plaza de la Marina Española 9.

If you are interested in attending our seminar please send us an email with your ID number at: or

Simoncini on Air Traffic Management and EU Law

Air Traffic Management in the Single European Sky: Standardisation of safety and liability issues


This paper aims to analyse the European system of Air Traffic Management (ATM) as a specific case study of risk regulation in the framework of the European integration process. At the present, the implementation of the Single European Sky is a growing area of EU policy, which shows the potential and the difficulties of coordinating national competences in a supranational regulatory framework. This search for coordination has a direct impact on air traffic safety itself and it involves the development of risk mitigation policies at both the EU level and at the level of individual Member States. The existing trade off between risk and safety as conveyed by technology affects both the instruments and the content of risk management. Since the failure of safety measures when providing air services could result in disaster, regulation needs to address this issue. Two main questions assist in the implementation of the regulatory framework: what level of protection is appropriate against such uncertainty and the risks of possible catastrophic impact, and who bears the risk in case the delivered safety system fails. Precautionary safety standards on the one hand and liability remedies on the other are therefore addressed as the key issues for the regulation and distribution of risks. By focusing on these issues, the fragmentation of the current legal framework in ATM illustrates the current legal difficulties in the integration of the European skies.

sabato 5 maggio 2012

The Tobacco Challenge – Legal and Consumer Protection by Geraint Howells (Book Review)

Alberto Alemanno

HEC Paris - Law Department

Common Market Law Review, Vol. 49, No. 6, 2012

Due to its emotive nature, the debate about smoking has always been (and still is) a topic that is capable of polarizing opinions, including those of legal scholars. As a result the relevant literature, whether legal or scientific, tends to be inherently biased either against or in favour of tobacco products. The Tobacco Challenge by Professor Geraint Howells, one of the leading experts in European Consumer Law, provides a welcome and notable exception to this trend. This book offers a balanced account of the legal, moral and public health challenges facing governmental efforts aimed at curbing tobacco consumption. Yet its merits go well beyond that of offering an objective examination and reconstruction of such a complex area of law and policy. Howells’s analysis is also refreshing, innovative and brave enough to challenge some of the main tenets of the health community’s dominant thinking. Although repetitive at times, this book deserves praise for revamping the moribund legal debate on tobacco regulation in Europe and beyond. Indeed, as the tobacco control discourse has been hijacked by the imperative of ‘de-normalization’, i.e. to change the broad social norms around using tobacco, the opportunities for the legal system to pause, question and contribute to actual tobacco control efforts have been significantly reduced in recent times.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 5
Keywords: EU Law, Tobacco control, Torts, Risk regulation, Lifestyle risk, plain packaging, TRIPS, WTO

Full text available at: