Decentralisation and Integration into the Community Administrations: A New Perspective on European Agencies

Abstract

This paper focuses on the adoption of a number of Community regulations, each for a specific sector, to be implemented not just by a supranational administration (central or peripheral), but by a plurality of national, supranational and sometimes mixed authorities, with a special role assigned to a Community office set up by the same legislation for a given sector, and granting it legal personality. The purpose of this paper is to verify whether the various regulations by sector ought not to be regarded as variants of an emergent general model of joint exercise of certain Community functions. It is argued that such general model is still in the making, but it is in the process of becoming consolidated, notwithstanding the variety of approaches adopted by European legislators. Such a pattern is characterised by specific, differentiated organisational and procedural features. This conclusion is relevant in several different ways, the first of which is that it provides new conceptual tools for interpreting and explaining the process of administrative integration between supranational and national public authorities, in particular by specifying the taxonomy of the patterns through which a Community function can be carried out by two different authorities acting jointly. Second, the decentralised integration model should be considered as a sound and feasible option for the administrative evolution of the Community legal system.

De Novo Bodies and EU Integration: What is the Story behind EU Agencies' Expansion?

“…Legal perspectives have also challenged the assumption that the creation and diffusion of agencies represent a confirmation of a predominantly intergovernmental Union. Instead, it is contented that the emergence of such agencies marks the creation of a new European administrative space where ‘a plurality of national, supranational and sometimes mixed authorities’ cluster around aptly created EU‐level bodies (Chiti, ). Further, the literature has categorized agencies under different labels, such as according to the functions they perform (Wonka and Rittberger, ), or their rulemaking powers (Chiti, ), suggesting that labelling them solely as advisory bodies might be too narrow.…”

Applying Precaution in EU Authorisation of Genetically Modified Products—Challenges and Suggestions for Reform

“…As these networks inform its constitution, it cannot be seen as something starkly autonomous from them, but something that both contributes to their constitution and is constituted by them'. 104 For the purpose of this paper, it suffices to say that the mission of EFSA can be characterised as 'decentralised integration' 105 of national scientific authorities and other organisations carrying out similar tasks in the area of food safety and GMOs. Furthermore, it can be described as the integration of expert networks through which different actors of the GMO regime from different societal spheres are linked together and cooperate in order to generate knowledge and safety standards.…”

Conceptualising Australia's tradition of pragmatic federalism

“…The international literature has now long moved from debates between centralisation as opposed to decentralisation, and instead the debate now focuses on rescaling (Blatter 2006;Chiti 2004;. This recognises that processes of centralisation often coexist with decentralisation and that shifts in regulatory scales, such as upwards, are often not accompanied by the erasure of past (lower scales of) regulatory activities (Blatter 2006).…”