1988
DOI: 10.1515/9783112326343
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Environmental Protection Policy

Abstract: All rights reserved, including those of translation into foreign languages. No pan of this book may be reproduced in any form -by photoprint, microfilm, or any other means -nor transmitted nor translated into a machine language without written permission from the publisher.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
8
0

Year Published

1991
1991
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 16 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 1 publication
0
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Since then, a broad and blossoming literature (e.g. Rehbinder and Stewart, 1985;Pridham, 1994;Jänicke, 2005;Liefferink et al, 2009;Knill et al, 2012;Börzel, 2017) has emerged. The main scope of this literature was an assessment of variations in the development of environmental policy, the speed of adoption of policies, the regulatory tools and strictness, and policy achievements such as environmental quality at the international level over time (Knill et al, 2012:36).…”
Section: 'Leader-laggard' Debatementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Since then, a broad and blossoming literature (e.g. Rehbinder and Stewart, 1985;Pridham, 1994;Jänicke, 2005;Liefferink et al, 2009;Knill et al, 2012;Börzel, 2017) has emerged. The main scope of this literature was an assessment of variations in the development of environmental policy, the speed of adoption of policies, the regulatory tools and strictness, and policy achievements such as environmental quality at the international level over time (Knill et al, 2012:36).…”
Section: 'Leader-laggard' Debatementioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the EU, the fragmentation of power between the Commission, Council, and EP, and between member states within the Council, have encouraged the enactment of legislation that often specifies in great detail goals member states must achieve, deadlines they must meet, and procedures they must follow (Prechal, 1995, pp. 15-18, 109-113;Rehbinder & Stewart, 1985). The EP favors strict enforcement of EU law, and it favors inflexible, detailed laws that both limit member state discretion and encourage the Commission to take enforcement actions (Dehousse, 1992, p. 392).…”
Section: Member State Discretionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…(Krämer 1995:143) Second, the Commission's approach fails to provide complainants with any form of legal certainty, as infringement procedures are not subject to judicial or administrative review. (Krämer 1996;Macrory 1992;Rehbinder and Stewart 1985) As a high-ranking DGXI official put it, ''Deciding when to bring a case is an art.'' 20 After a case has been initiated, the Commission retains complete discretion over if and when to proceed with a case or to drop it.…”
Section: The Politics Of Discretion In the Eumentioning
confidence: 99%