The EU’s openness towards stakeholders is central to the legitimacy of its law-making. With the rapid globalisation of EU legislative activities, openness towards actors from third countries requires analysis. With reference to the notion of ‘lobbying’, this article outlines a framework for identifying the role of third country actors in EU policy processes. The two arguments brought forward suggest that third country lobbying is facilitated by the openness of Union law- and policy-making, and that third country actors contribute to EU decision-making at all stages. The article concludes with a set of questions that third country lobbying raises concerning the EU’s legitimate law-making authority in Europe and beyond.
The lobbying of other countries' political and legal elites has emerged as a security risk globally. The securitization of foreign lobbying has prompted the adoption of specialized legal regimes, that is, foreign transparency laws, to enable the scrutiny of how foreign actors lobby. This article analyzes and compares such laws in the United States, Australia and the European Union (EU) with respect to three issues: (1) the definition of a foreign actor, (2) the definition of a type of foreign lobbying and (3) the definition of a protected normative good. While the impetus to legislative reform has often rested on a concern with authoritarian governments, the foreign transparency laws capture diverse kinds of foreign influence activities and actors. They may thus catch in their nets actors or types of influence never intended to be caught in the first place. This has particularly significant implications for the EU as a polity and foreign policy actor.
With the establishment of an administrative network to manage implementation of the Water Framework Directive (WFD), a more consensual approach to judicial enforcement seemed like a natural next step. This anticipation was partially derived from the experimentalist nature of the WFD, requiring concerted action in the specification and application of its open-ended and broad provisions. This article assesses how important changes in WFD implementation practices shape the role played by the Court of Justice with respect to Article 258 Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The examination of the WFD litigation reveals interesting tensions. Network-based implementation practices keep Member States accountable for the progress of implementation and make a subsequent legal action swifter. At the same time, implementation practices remove from courts those issues that may be better solved by network participants. The results show how the function and exercise of judicial enforcement is influenced by the ways in which legislation is implemented.
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.