1,721,017 research outputs found
The consolidation process of the EU regulatory framework on nanotechnologies: within and beyond the EU case-by-case approach
Get PDFThe field of nanotechnologies has been the subject of a process of wide-ranging regulation,
which covers two different trends. From the 2000s the European Commission and
Parliament agreed on a type of adaptive, experimental and flexible approach, which had its
apex with the Commission code of conduct on responsible nano-research developed
through a set of consultations. In 2009 this initial agreement subsequently broke down and
the EU started to develop a set of regulatory initiatives of a sectoral nature in several fields
(cosmetics, food, biocides). Thus, the current arrangement of governance in the field of
nanotechnologies appears to be a hybrid, which mixes forms belonging to the new
governance method (consultations, self-regulation, agency, comitology committees,
networking), working like a lung in the framework of EU policy, with more traditional tools
belonging to the classic governance method (regulations, directives). This model of
governance based on a case-by-case approach runs the risk of lacking coherence since it is
exposed to sudden changes of direction when risks emerge and it has a weak anticipatory
dimension due to both its excessive dependency on data collection and its insufficient use of
upstream criteria, such as human rights, which should be used earlier, to allow anticipated
intervention with a less intense use of hard law solutions
Responsibilisation Phenomena: the EC Code of Conduct for Responsible Nanosciences and Nanotechnologies
No full textThe European Commission Code of conduct for responsible nanosciences and nanotechnologies research (EC CoC) is a case of soft regulation of an emerging technology field. It can be deemed an instrument of meta-regulation aimed at fostering self-regulatory behaviours, and as an example of the distribution of responsibilities among stakeholders within the Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) framework. Between 2007 and 2011 three major consultations concerning the Code were launched, and can be regarded as a tool to implement the compliance with the EC CoC and thus to foster the allocation of obligations. They also permit to analyze the genesis of the EC CoC from its initial drafting to its adoption and thus to follow the development of the RRI’s ‘normative anchor points’ within a Community instrument, their influence on the principles and guidelines of the Code, and their perception among stakeholders. In sum, they make it possible to study one possible path for ‘anchor points’ to enter the regulation and to affect the stakeholders’ behaviour.
The consultations address concerns with regard to the language and structure of the EC CoC which have negatively affected the perception of stakeholders. This aspect can also have limited the process of compliance with the Code’s principles and guidelines. This case study shows the importance of the communication of principles within a self-regulatory instrument (EC CoC) designed as meta-regulation, as well as of those goals, such as ‘normative anchor points’, that drive its formulation
Soggetto vulnerabile, innovazione tecnologica ed etica della cura
No full textIn the field of technoscientific innovation the approach of ethics of care has succeeded
due to its proposal of more flexibility, context-sensitivity and participation. In order to
deepen the reasons of this success, two versions are considered in this essay: ecofeminism
and virtue ethics. However, a set of shortcomings become apparent within this
philosophical perspective, such as the indeterminacy of the concept of care (the lack of
criteria for assessing the conduct), the shift of the concept of vulnerability from human
being to non-human entities (Nature or technology) and the rise of the question of
justice, to the extent that some vulnerable people’s needs are neglected within the
deliberatory processes on technology
Prova, processo, interpretazione
Get PDFQuesto testo intende varcare la soglia del processo per approfondire un aspetto lasciato in buona parte inesplorato dall’odierna teoria ermeneutica. Muovendo dalle riflessioni avviate da Ricoeur negli anni Ottanta su intrigue e trace, e offrendone una applicazione originale al giudizio di fatto, intende mostrare come l’interpretazione giudiziale venga a strutturarsi nel processo e a saldare progressivamente in se stessa descrizione e spiegazione. Ciò significa tra l’altro che una teoria dell’interpretazione non può non porsi come obiettivo anche quello di una teoria ermeneutica dell’argomentazione
Inescapable Frameworks: Ethics of Care, Ethics of Rights and the Responsible Research and Innovation Model
Get PDFNotwithstanding the EU endorsement, so far Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) is discussed as regards its definition, its features and its conceptual core: innovation and responsibility. This conceptual indeterminacy is a source of disagreements at the political level, giving rise to a plurality of outcomes and versions upheld within the same model of governance. Following a Charles Taylor's suggestion, this conceptual opening of the RRI model can be explained by the existence of plural, clashing moral frameworks: discourse ethics, Aristotelian ethics, care ethics, dignitarian ethics, rights-based moralities etc. Given the diffusion in the RRI literature of references to care ethics and its justification of participation and responsibility, I will compare the conceptual premises of this philosophical line with those of ethics of rights, which have been criticised by advocates of care ethics. I will argue that public engagement based on only needs cannot lead to responsible outcomes since it produces however the exclusion of some needs, covered instead by rights. In order for participation to be effective, rights or an alliance between the two perspectives is required
Anchoring European Governance: Two Versions of Responsible Research and Innovation and EU Fundamental Rights as ‘Normative Anchor Points’
No full textAmong the various experiments in ‘new governance’, the model of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) is emerging in the European landscape as quite promising. Up to now there have been two versions of RRI: a socio-empirical version which tends to underline the role of democratic processes aimed at identifying values on which governance needs to be anchored; and a normative version which stresses the role of EU goals (among which fundamental rights) as ‘normative anchor points’ of both governance strategies and policy-making. Both versions are unsatisfactory. The first since it suggests movable anchorage which could clash with prefixed values, such as individual rights. The second since it does not safeguard fundamental rights in the process of balancing ‘anchor points’. This result is counterintuitive because it exposes governance to the risk of facing adverse court decisions in the defense of individual rights, thus losing its anticipative attitude. In order to avoid this outcome the paper argues that it is only through better integration between the system of human rights and that of EU fundamental rights that the anticipative feature of RRI can be preserved
Diritti umani, processi di costituzione d’identità e cittadinanza in Europa
No full textAnalyzing the concept of freedom of movement both in accordance with the norms of the European Convention of Human Rights and in the case law of the Court of Strasbourg, it has emerged that there are some malfunctions in the regulation and control of the migratory phenomenon in Europe that are structural and inevitable. This paper means to show how the absence of the right of immigration can create some malfunctions in the Human Rights law and how this is connected with our concept of identity. Indeed, we can say that inasmuch as we identify ourselves with the liberal-democratic regimes which form our communities, the characteristic institutions of such regimes represent a fundamental reference for the processes of identity building. In a context of multilevel constitutionalism the influence of international institutions and treaties allows human rights to enter into the formalized processes of identity building. The processes contributing to the self-comprehension of a political community need the formal structures of identity building, such as citizenship, to operate correctly. From that point of view malfunctions in the formal structures cannot but have effects on the same processes of identity building
The Self and the Other in Post-modern European Societies
No full textAnalyzing the concept of moral identity vis-à-vis the migratory phenomenon, it has emerged that Human Rights can play a relevant role in the formalized processes of identity building as well as the informal ones. Indeed, inasmuch as we construct our moral identity also in relation with the liberal-democratic regimes that define our communities, the institutions of such regimes represent a fundamental reference for the processes of identity building. In this regard the genealogy of the Self should be written again by including a new moral source. In a context of multilevel constitutionalism, due to binding treaties, Human Rights have become legal norms and they can constitute the formalized processes of identity building. The processes contributing to the self-comprehension of a political community need the formal structures of identity building to operate correctly. In this context Human Rights are at stake, especially in the framework of freedom of movement. Thus, the malfunctions in the systems of norms of Human Rights cannot but have any effect on our concept of identity. This is especially the case when we observe the stress that migratory processes cause to the normative structures of liberal-democratic countries. This paper aims to show how the absence of the right of immigration can create some malfunctions in the Human Rights law and how this is connected with our concept of identity
Governing Nanotechnologies in Europe: Human Rights, Soft Law, and Corporate Social Responsibility
No full textScholars and decision-makers share the need of renewed regulatory frameworks for emerging technologies. Broadly speaking, a consensus has become obvious about the complexity of such frameworks, which are formed by a plurality of regulatory sources and instruments ranging, e.g., from hard national legislation to soft voluntary codes of conducts and guidelines. Indeed, soft law is often considered the most salient feature of this regulatory landscape and is sometimes enthusiastically acknowledged as an adaptive, flexible and democratic regulatory instrument or, on the contrary, regarded as an ‘injury to the rule of law’.
By referring to the legal trends in the European Union and by drawing on examples from the fields of nanotechnology and synthetic biology, the paper discusses the insufficiency of the command-and-control regulation and introduces the notion of epistemic and scientific uncertainty as a proper perspective to frame the interplay of hard and soft law as well the role of the latter in the broader governance framework
- …
