• Contenu principal
  • Menu
OpenEdition Books
  • Accueil
  • Catalogue de 16076 livres
  • Éditeurs
  • Auteurs
  • Facebook
  • X
  • Partager
    • Facebook

    • X

    • Accueil
    • Catalogue de 16076 livres
    • Éditeurs
    • Auteurs
  • Ressources numériques en sciences humaines et sociales

    • OpenEdition
  • Nos plateformes

    • OpenEdition Books
    • OpenEdition Journals
    • Hypothèses
    • Calenda
  • Bibliothèques

    • OpenEdition Freemium
  • Suivez-nous

  • Lettre d’information
OpenEdition Search

Redirection vers OpenEdition Search.

À quel endroit ?
  • Presses universitaires Saint-Louis Bruxe...
  • ›
  • Collection générale
  • ›
  • The European Green Deal and the Impact o...
  • ›
  • Part I. EU Green Deal – Tools, Methods a...
  • ›
  • Instruments of the EU Climate Policy
  • Presses universitaires Saint-Louis Bruxe...
  • Presses universitaires Saint-Louis Bruxelles
    Presses universitaires Saint-Louis Bruxelles
    Informations sur la couverture
    Table des matières
    Liens vers le livre
    Informations sur la couverture
    Table des matières
    Formats de lecture

    Plan

    Plan détaillé Texte intégral I. Introduction II. Terminology Concerning Instruments III. The Choice of Legal Instruments IV. The Position and Role of these Instruments V. Conclusions Notes de bas de page Auteur

    The European Green Deal and the Impact of Climate Change on the EU Regulatory Framework

    Ce livre est recensé par

    Précédent Suivant
    Table des matières

    Chapter I

    Instruments of the EU Climate Policy

    Filip Křepelka

    p. 15-36

    Résumé

    This chapter explores the concept of instruments of the EU climate policy by addressing three formal aspects of law expressing the policy on mitigating a climate crisis: terminology concerning instruments (part II), the choice of legal instruments (part III) and position and role of these instruments (part IV). Thus, it aspires to complete the reflection of legal scholars, focusing on the substance of rapidly developing climate law.

    Note de l’auteur

    The article is a result of the research project GA19-17403S (2019-2021) Nahrazování směrnic nařízeními v Evropské unii [Replacement of Directives with Regulations in the European Union], funded by the Grantová agentura České republiky [Grant Agency of the Czech Republic]. I am thankful to Alicja Sikora-Kalėda for the opportunity to take part with the SustEULaw Project.

    Texte intégral I. Introduction II. Terminology Concerning Instruments A. The Importance of Language(s) B. A Misleading Role without Impact (European Climate Pact) C. The Unexplored Potential of Languages (European Green Deal) D. Emerging Statist Terminology (European Climate Law and several acts) III. The Choice of Legal Instruments A. Resorting to Instruments in EU Lawmaking B. Euro-multi-crises and Responses to Them C. Existing EU Climate Laws D. Intensification of Climate Policies (‘Fit for 55%’) E. The Choices Among Legal Instruments and their Substantiation IV. The Position and Role of these Instruments A. Constitutionalisation and ‘Mimesis’ B. Regulatory ‘Delicacy’ C. Possible escalation V. Conclusions Notes de bas de page Auteur

    Texte intégral

    I. Introduction

    1The climate change policy of the European Union has become the defining task1 of this generation, and it is crucial for EU law teachers not to ignore its legal dimension. This analysis is of horizontal relevance for other contributions in explaining the legal and political aspects of the climate crisis in the European Union, relying, in turn, on a myriad of texts explaining global warming, its causes and consequences, and responses to it.

    2This chapter builds on the prevailing opinion that, due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide, global warming is anthropogenic. It is caused by emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases (GHG). We consider the reduction of GHG emissions as demanding. Until recently, humankind has been unsuccessful as these emissions increase further. One may blame the insufficient deployment of sustainable technologies and unwillingness to moderate production/consumption, but population growth and economic development is the simplest explanation. Predictions are bleak.2

    3The effort required will be unprecedented. Nations differ widely as concerns their emissions and their capacity to reduce them. Sustainable technologies have their pitfalls, while moderation is unpopular. Undoubtedly, outright denial is the major factor. However, lip service, hypocrisy, and naivety may undermine the credibility of efforts even more than doubts. Many people continue to ignore the issue. The ‘climate crisis’ is looming in a double sense: environmental damage and the inability to address it.

    4This chapter addresses three formal aspects of law expressing the policy on mitigating the climate crisis: terminology concerning instruments (part II), the choice of legal instruments (part III) and the position and role of these instruments (part IV). Thus, it aspires to complete the reflection of legal scholars, focusing on the substance of the rapidly developing climate law. Concerning both phenomena, this text expands on the author’s previous research on transformations of directives in regulations,3 its extension to ‘normative’ decisions, and the terminology for secondary law instruments. Meanwhile, Vagelis Papakonstatinou and Paul de Hert inspire by hinting at three interrelated phenomena they see in the laws materialising EU digital strategy, namely (1) ‘act-ification’ in adopted and proposed regulations, (2) regulatory brutality and (3) GDPR mimesis.4 Similarly, Päivi Leino-Sandberg, calling for ‘disenchantment’ in EU legal scholarship,5 is inspiring. Level-headedness is desirable. The European Union has stylised itself as the climate policy champion, but we should not forget the capacity and limits of this supranational polity ridden by several crises.

    II. Terminology Concerning Instruments

    A. The Importance of Language(s)

    5Unsurprisingly, attention to language(s) diminishes during crises and emergencies. One may lament this. The appropriate language could increase acceptance of measures, while an inappropriate one discourages and misleads. Law is a language-based phenomenon. This attention to language is desirable, especially if we insist on ‘the rule of law’, and even increase expectations.

    6Undoubtedly, English dominates among officials, experts, and scholars. This dominance also encompasses the European Union, in spite of Brexit. It is used in this text and others. Nevertheless, the European Communities have developed a unique supranational law that applies directly, and enjoys precedence if colliding with national laws, as the linguistic situation in Europe does not enable the selection of one or several languages. Its Member States rely on linguistically defined nations. Therefore, we need to care for the translations. Recent translation statistics reveal that English was the language of most source documents. We presume that EU institutions drafted documents using this language. Therefore, it is justifiable to focus on English in this comparison.

    B. A Misleading Role without Impact (European Climate Pact)

    7According to the Commission’s website, the European Climate Pact (ECP) comprises particular initiatives to discuss problems and share methods and solutions. It encompasses individual and collective pledges. It encourages establishing groups and circles, assisted by ‘ambassadors’. Sociologists and political scientists may evaluate how vibrant this initiative is. Nevertheless, one fears that its impact is negligible. The European and international general public is unaware of the ECP. There is also no visible interest in media and science. The website contains no official proclamation. There is no decision in a formal sense establishing ECP and allocating money to it. There is no institution or structure charged with this initiative. Other languages provide perfunctory information.

    8The European Green Deal discussed later defines ECP as its component.6 Translations generally use words from the Latin pactum, which we use for one category of international treaties. Its outline confirms our findings. Indeed, ECP shall be an initiative of the European society, supported by the European Union and its Member States. The ECP is not a pact from a legal viewpoint. Foremost, it is not an international treaty. It does not even comply with the original meaning of consensus or compact. Declaring individual pledges to it would be an exaggeration. Therefore, this choice of terminology is unfortunate. One may expect that the Commission will relaunch or reshuffle this initiative in the years to come. The limited significance of the ECP would enable abandoning this improper terminology.

    C. The Unexplored Potential of Languages (European Green Deal)

    9Contrary to ECP, the European Green Deal (EGD) is widely known, so its language is more crucial for our consideration. EGD is a Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the European Committee of the Regions,7 published in official languages. This document outlines the situation on Earth, the contribution of European nations and economies, the efforts of the community of nations and their insufficiency, the pledges of the European Union and plans for achieving them.8 The von der Leyen Commission adopted the EGD after its appointment and confidence vote by the European Parliament; it constitutes its political programme, one of its six priorities.9 Nevertheless, the European Parliament and the Council approved it in one way or another. Three versions mention ‘Europe’ with the preposition ‘for’, while most others use the adjective ‘European’. The former choice emphasises Europe as the beneficiary, while the prevailing adjective indicates activity. Euro-sceptics would criticise equating the supranational polity with Europe, but this is normal. Distinguishing colours in languages is an exciting theme for linguists being accessible to laypeople.10 Nonetheless, all European languages have one word for this basic colour. These colours have multiple meanings, and ‘Green’ is no exception, indicating the environment and its protection. Both the supporters and opponents of this policy understand it this way.

    10The translation of Deal deserves our attention: Bulgarian пакт, Croatian plan, Czech dohoda, Danish den Afvale, Greek Συμφωνία, Spanish el Pacto, German der Deal, French le Pacte, Slovak dohovor, Slovenian dogovor, Polish Ład, Dutch de deal, Swedish den Given, Lithuanian kursas, Latvian kurss, Hungarian megallapodás, Finish kehityksen ohjelma, Estonian kokkulepe, Portuguese Pacto, Maltese Il-patt, Romanian Pactul and Italian il Deal. The absent Irish/Gaelic version confirms that the EGD is not a legal instrument, as this official language had restricted use.11 Several authors consider it soft law.12 We may see it as an interinstitutional political accord initiated by the Commission and affirmed by the European Council, i.e. the heads of national executives13 and the European Parliament.14

    11Dictionaries reveal that ‘deal’ stands for a contract, transaction, and its substance, respectively, reflecting negotiations by people as one may distinguish between good and bad deals. The translators’ choice of equivalents for ‘pact’, ‘agreement’, or ‘treaty’, as they refer to particular types of international treaties, is thus not flawed. The versions opting for ‘pact’ are blurred, as in-built ECP relies on the same word. In spite of this, it would also be better to avoid other cited words, as the EGD could not be considered an international treaty.

    12It is noteworthy that several translators did not translate this substantive. It indicates the proliferation of Anglicisms. One could ask native speakers whether ‘deal’ is adequate in their languages as its usage varies. Mentioning the entire phrase is possible, as people worldwide understand these English words. It is frequent in Czechia, more than the official Zelená dohoda pro Evropu. Nevertheless, it can also indicate some alienation. Several translators decided to translate it as a plan or course. Undoubtedly, these words may better reflect the expected response. Greek deserves our attention owing to its contribution to other languages. According to dictionaries, one may translate this word as an agreement, compact or contract, but other languages understand the most elaborate music played by orchestras requiring conductors. Indeed, the EGD is an immensely complex plan.

    13The ‘New Deal’ of Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s administration in 1932–1938 was the policy mitigating the Great Depression. Most historians and the general public consider it successful after the societal disaster of laissez-faire. This term has emerged recently. Yet, the ‘Green New Deal’ is a programme solely endorsed by progressive Democrats,15 not centrist ones to which President Joseph Biden belongs, not to mention Republicans. Due to the persistent deadlock in American federal politics, one should not take its transformation into national policies for granted. Despite whatever flaws of democracy in the European Union, the EGD reflects its policy. The deal stood for an immense challenge difficult to escape, close to destiny, which requires a committed reaction. The climate crisis is this challenge. Therefore, the best translations use words denoting these aspects cumulatively. One could ask native speakers whether it can be reflected by the Polish Ład or Swedish Given. Still, the author’s native Czech has one suitable equivalent, úděl, used for the mentioned American policy.

    14This text does not suggest any correction. The EGD is a once-a-generation political document. References made to it will reflect its political importance. One may expect future Commissions to address the crisis with new programmes, reflecting successes and failures.

    D. Emerging Statist Terminology (European Climate Law and several acts)

    15Putting political documents aside, lawyers would focus on the third document as it is law in its strict notion: Regulation 2021/1119 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 2021 establishing the framework for achieving climate neutrality (‘European Climate Law’). This is a legislative act, as the directly elected body and the body where national executive officials approved it.

    16Although used solely in its short title, in brackets and with quotation marks, ‘law’ is of our interest. Several versions used their equivalents of ‘statutes’ (German Gesetz, French loi, Bulgarian закон, Croatian zakon, Danish lov, Portuguese lei, Romanian legea, Dutch wet, Swedish lag, Finnish laki, Maltese il-liġi). Others preferred alternatives (Italian normativa, Spanish legislation, Slovenian pravila, Greek νομοθέτημα), denoted law in its entirety (Polish prawo) as the second meaning of ‘law’ (perhaps, Irish (Gaelic) an dlí), created descriptions (Czech právní rámec, Slovak právný rámec), or preferred ‘(legal) act’ (Latvian akts, Lithuanian teises aktas). Contrary to the different substantives of most versions, several translators reiterated ‘regulation’ (Estonian määrus, Hungarian rendelete).16 Unfortunately, English can confuse with its bisemous law, variably using the terms act, statute or code, while right denotes entitlement.17 Other languages distinguish ‘statutes’ as legislative acts of parliaments from the laws as systems or one phenomenon existing worldwide. Some translators dared to use this word, but others avoided it.

    17Translators knew that this choice was a sensitive one. The Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe expected European (framework) laws for regulations and directives – legislative acts to be adopted by the envisaged ordinary legislative procedure by the European Parliament and the Council.18 Legal scholars welcomed the change, as there were good reasons for it. Nonetheless, this courageous recast of primary law collapsed in referenda. The Member States wanted to save the substance. Therefore, the Lisbon Treaty avoided symbolism, including in its title. Acts are less sensitive, as the Treaty on Functioning of the European Union expects them.19 The Commission proposed this in short titles of several regulations concerning the single digital market. Recently, this also enters EU climate law, as the Commission has proposed the Net Zero Industry Act20 and the European Critical Raw Materials Act.21

    18We embrace this statist terminology. It is even more suitable today than it was twenty years ago. It is time to discuss its officialising in the envisaged revision of founding treaties.

    III. The Choice of Legal Instruments

    A. Resorting to Instruments in EU Lawmaking

    19The European Union inherited secondary law instruments from the European (Economic) Community. Their typical presentation as five items22 reflects the provision in founding treaties, but is prone to confusion. Let us apply the optics of the (Continental) legal theory. We push aside non-binding acts (recommendations, opinions) as endlessly discussed soft law. We distinguish the binding acts into individual (most decisions) versus normative acts (regulations and directives), and the latter as direct and intermediated legal instruments.

    20The European Union has gradually changed its policy and practice regarding their choice. The preference for directives is history. Recently, the European Union has begun the increasing enactment of regulations. This tendency is an understandable one. Directives have developed into a complex and confusing instrument, earning entire monographs.23 Foremost, many months are necessary for the transposition of directives. Unfortunately, little care was taken of the nature of their framework, as the Court of Justice admitted that directives could specify everything, leaving no space for national solutions.24 It degraded national parliaments to rubber-stamping replicated texts. Member States, from time to time, failed to transpose them. Therefore, their control by the Commission has become systematic. Furthermore, an over-complex doctrine addressing their absent or perfunctory transposition has developed with the Court of Justice case law.25

    21A similar tendency concerns the decisions we may consider normative, as they establish the standards. A third legislative instrument has emerged from them. It appears that the European Community resorted to this third instrument when legislating at the edge of competences, fearing the rejection of regulations and directives. These decisions envisage mere cooperation between Member States. Member States implement the most regulations, so their accompanying legislation concerning institutions, procedures and sanctions is necessary. In spite of this, they establish rights and duties for individuals. Therefore, no transposition is needed. On the contrary, Member States should refrain from it. Uniform standards set with them invite streamlining interpretation in international discourse. During this decades-long process, regulations have thus gradually become a principal instrument, de facto a European Gesetze/lois (if we use German and French terms).

    B. Euro-multi-crises and Responses to Them

    22The excessive public debt of several Member States endangering the single currency, immigration exhausting integration capacity and asylum systems, illiberal democracy and undermining the rule of law in other Member States, absent foreign and security policy, subnational and supranational separatism (Brexit), the Covid-19 pandemic and, most recently, skyrocketing energy prices,26 have become notorious ‘euro-crises’.

    23Endogenous crises are side effects of integration. Still, the Council of Europe, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and even the United Nations Organization or the World Trade Organization also face crises, so one may conclude that internationalism has culminated. Exogenous crises are those we do not attribute to European integration but may also expose the limits of this integration. Several crises were acute, so the response needed to be swift. The already identifiable preference for regulations in the secondary law increases in these cases, while no transposition is necessary for their effects on individuals. The climate crisis looms in parallel to the above-mentioned crises, but can also escalate them. Environmental degradation, often with population growth, triggers instability, unrest and wars outside Europe. Refugees multiply, while we can label some as environmental ones. Expenditures triggered by these developments destabilise budgets. Meanwhile, illiberal policies become attractive.

    24One may discuss the responsibility of modern civilisation, as the West developed technologies relying on burning fossil fuels in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Europe formed the core of this civilisation. Wealthy nations release the highest GHG emissions per capita, and have accumulated the most historical emissions. Developing (poor) countries with low per capita emissions, and absent history thereof, increasingly tend to frame it as the liability of the developed (wealthy) nations. In any case, these countries will need assistance to develop sustainable technologies.27 The European Union may serve as one channel for the distribution of this assistance and compensation. Nonetheless, it would not play any decisive role as it controls limited resources.

    C. Existing EU Climate Laws

    25Worldwide, traditional environmental policies and laws address environmental threats, and damage of local and regional significance. It is possible to trace the damage to a particular behaviour, suppress it with sanctions and draw liability. As nations have demonstrated different levels of sensitivity to these damages, national policies have diverged, curtailing international cooperation. International environmental law began with bilateral treaties and developed towards multilateral standards, while a universal minimum has emerged relatively recently.28

    26The role of our supranational polity in environmental protection has grown incrementally. One may explain this with the systematisation of the response to cross-border threats, their repercussions for competition in increasingly integrated markets, and the increasing sensitivity of people towards environmental issues.29 One may discuss whether Member States preferred the involvement of the European Union, due to the oscillating popularity of restrictions and limits inherent to environmental policies. The European Union could impose these restrictions and limits more easily owing to the insulation of ‘Brussels’ from political pressure.30

    27The climate crisis differs from other environmental threats and damages caused by its global effects and their origins in the burning of fossil fuels, as an omnipresent activity on which the entire modern civilisation relies. Moreover, its detrimental effects have emerged over several decades. Unsurprisingly, the reaction is delayed and perfunctory. The only comparable danger has been the depletion of the ozone layer by freons. Nonetheless, the remedy differed, as substitutes were available. Nations were capable of agreeing on restrictions and their enforcement within two decades.31

    28Early attention to climate change dates back to three decades ago. This early policy reflected the recurrent attention of the international community at the time, and the building up of global institutional infrastructure for it under the auspices of the United Nations. Crucial components of this early climate policy were the requirement for generating energy from renewable resources,32 and the taxation of fossil fuels besides the traditional gasoline and diesel taxes.33 In addition, the European Community developed a mechanism of tradable allowances for carbon dioxide emissions for specified large emitters – the Emissions Trading System (ETS).34 Traditional environmental policies, such as spatial planning, protecting ecosystems, air, and water, protecting species or managing waste, gained new justification.

    29EU climate policy is divisive. The most developed Member States were willing and capable of pursuing the more ambitious measures, while new post-socialist Member States barely followed the minimum requirements. Indeed, Member States reduced their GHG emissions during the last three decades. However, the issue here is the contribution to the measures adopted by the European Union and implemented by them, the national standards above this minimum, modernisation and deindustrialisation encompassing the relocation of not only labour-intensive but also energy-intensive production to other countries. Considering the per capita GHG emissions by consumption – the carbon (dioxide) footprint – would be sobering.

    D. Intensification of Climate Policies (‘Fit for 55%’)

    30The increased perception of urgency due to multiplying extreme climate events resulted in climate emergency proclamations. The European Parliament – newly elected at the time – declared this in 2019.35 This proclamation had no direct legal repercussions under existing EU law. Nonetheless, it was politically significant, signalling the attention of the international community to the climate crisis, and serving as mutual reassurance among the institutions.

    31Despite this sense of urgency, preparing the legislative package36 for achieving the promised reduction of GHG emissions in 2030 by 55% – ‘Fit for 55%’ – required 18 months, which we can explain with the Covid-19 pandemic as an unexpected public health crisis.

    32The ECL anchors net zero, i.e. climate neutrality, as the binding goal for 2050 and the interim goal for 2030.37 In reality, it increases the commitments stipulated by the Effort Sharing Regulation (ESR) adopted in 2018,38 which, in turn, builds on previous commitments. The ESR implemented the European Union’s commitments in the Paris Agreement, agreed upon in 2015 by the quasi totality of countries. ‘Fit for 55%’ encompassed several initiatives promising the halving of GHG emissions by 2030. Deliberations in the European Parliament, the Council, and both advisory committees took place in parallel. It was not easy to forecast the completion of this lawmaking. Readers should check for the latest developments in Eur-Lex. Nonetheless, most proposals succeeded in 2023.

    33The second Emission Trading System (ETS) will expand the allowances for transportation and buildings.39 Specific measures begin addressing air and sea transport, as these two industries have escaped efforts to reduce their GHG emissions until recently.40 Rigorous emission standards should effectively exclude new cars with combustion engines from the year 2035, but final version of the amendment will allow these cars as long as they use climate-neutral fuel.41 The Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) shall compensate the lower prices of products whose manufacturing results in GHG emissions imported from countries lacking similar measures, and enjoying an unfair advantage in this way.42

    34An effort to stabilise agriculture and forestry shall increase their carbon dioxide sink capacity.43 Limits on using industrial fertilisers and pesticides shall improve the quality of soils and waters.44 Recycling waste shall become omnipresent in order to reduce the demand for natural resources and dependence on their imports. The ‘ecodesign’ of products will evaluate GHG emissions concerning their production, durability, and recyclability.45 Investors shall enjoy orientation on the effects of the projects for the environment and climate.46 Incentives shall support restrictions and requirements. The supranational contribution to its funding already has its legal framework.47

    E. The Choices Among Legal Instruments and their Substantiation

    35Competence provisions at the time of the enactment of regulations, directives and ‘normative’ decisions were decisive. The European (Economic) Community and the European Union could use only those ones that had been enabled. Subsequent changes to founding treaties have largely homogenised the instruments available. Legislative traditions concerning particular agendas have developed. Both environmental policy and taxation are agendas where directives have prevailed until recently, spared from the mentioned trend. On the contrary, external trade, agriculture and regional policy have been fields where regulations were commonplace instruments for decades. With allowances, quantified emissions are exempt from the prohibition whose breach of this is subject to sanctions. The legal standard must also specify this prohibited activity. EU lawmakers have built on the standards suppressing pollution or stipulating its maximal levels, respectively. Unsurprisingly, the ETS-2 introduced for buildings and transportation should also become a directive.

    36It is interesting to look at the United States of America regarding this regulatory expansion. Democratic administrations have established limits for carbon dioxide emissions, until recently, on the mandate of the Environmental Protection Agency to suppress pollution. However, the conservative majority of the Supreme Court has recently squashed this approach, considering that the mandated reduction of carbon dioxide emissions is a major political issue that Congress must address with its statutes.48

    37We need not speculate whether the recent preference for regulations in new policies, such as LULUCF and its envisaged adjustment, standards for the decarbonisation of air transport and maritime transport, or addressing pesticides, reflects the mentioned preference for this instrument in agriculture or the recent trend. In any case, the feasibility of this approach is debatable, as Member States will further specify the measures desirable for stabilising the sink capacity of fields, pastures and forests. The regulation adopted a few years ago, whose amendment is envisages by the EGD, is thus a regulation with directive-like provisions.

    38Preference for regulations concerns translating supranational commitment to the national level. EU lawmakers originally addressed the issue with the 2009 Effort Sharing Decision (ESD).49 Nevertheless, they reiterated these commitments with a regulation, while the ECL has increased the pledge toward climate neutrality. Shortly, Member States shall comply with two regulations and one ‘normative’ decision, as lawmakers did not formally abolish the ESD. The explanatory memorandum for the ESR fails to explain this change of instrument. EU lawmakers addressed the ESD to the Member States, and the ESR also applies primarily to them. ‘(the) Choice of the instrument’ paragraph in the explanatory memorandum for the ECL emphasises its application to Member States and EU institutions.50

    39We can generalise the findings concerning the recent choice of instruments in EU climate law. One cannot talk about the overwhelming switch to regulations if several principal standards retain the other mentioned instrument. Despite this, the tendency to enact regulations is apparent. One is able to explain this approach with substance and politics. The EGD has envisaged, and ‘Fit for 55%’ has delivered, parametrical changes with new, recast or amended regulations, directives and decisions. These changes may be revolutionary from the technological or economic perspectives. Nonetheless, ‘Fit for 55%’ regulations and directives do not trigger any legal revolution. The existing regulations, directives and decisions have already established the requirements and restrictions. Retaining directives also reflect the prevailing reliance on the Member States concerning their enforcement.

    40Let us consider the psychological dimension of the recently adopted and proposed secondary law. We embrace the transformations of directives into regulations. Transparency is one argument for them, as the general public is more aware of the supranational origin of the standard. Recent enthusiasm results in the support for measures, and smooth approvals in the European Parliament, while the unanimity requirement in the Council results in considerable unofficial pressure on the wavering Member States. However, this text warns about undue optimism. EU climate policies may quickly become unpopular. Under these conditions, EU climate laws may become a ‘hot potato’. Blurring the origins of standards for the general public, which the Member States will enforce, may become the solution.

    IV. The Position and Role of these Instruments

    A. Constitutionalisation and ‘Mimesis’

    41Let us return to the ECL as sporadic ‘European Law’. This exceptionalism deserves our attention. The Portuguese minister presiding over the Council stated, in May 2021, that the ECL would be the ‘law of laws’.51 This indicates that one does not consider it the usual ‘European law’; regulations co-adopted by the European Parliament and the Council would have been created if the explicit constitutionalisation had succeeded with the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe almost twenty years ago.

    42Lawyers would consider this proclamation problematic. The ECL may be politically unchangeable, but future legislative acts may amend it implicitly. The principles lex posterior derogat legi priori, and lex specialis derogat legi generali apply, respectively. Cementing the commitment to reduce GHG emissions requires amending founding treaties or concluding an additional one – similarly to debt brakes.

    43Prominent scholars argued, decades ago, that EC/EU law had undergone constitutionalisation. Meanwhile, the topic has become fashionable for legal scholars and political scientists.52 Some scholars believe that the European Union demonstrates over-constitutionalisation, which results in de-politicised integration biased toward liberalism.53 Nevertheless, many experts, academics, journalists, politicians, and activists intentionally or unwittingly appreciate this arrangement as protection against populism and disintegration. Perhaps, the sensitivity of ‘Constitution’ as the term for the foundational document echoes these attitudes. Unsurprisingly, environmental protection has gained constitutional significance during recent decades. Therefore, Alicja Sikora fittingly uses these lenses to analyse the ascent of EU environmental law to prominence.54 Other legislative acts will serve this goal, while the ECL will be an argument for their enactment and against their possible rolling back.

    44One may expect that this resorting to the ECL will go hand in hand with invoking the Paris Agreement, despite the nuanced approach toward international treaties in the European Union and its Member States. The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), the most prominent transformation of directives in regulations, has achieved similar quasi-constitutional status as the exclusive expression of personal data protection.55

    45The cited ‘mimesis’ is an innovative optic for understanding the phenomenon we also perceive in EU climate policy. According to Papakonstantinou and Hert, enacted and proposed regulations on digital services ‘mimic’ the GDPR. This ‘mimesis’ has two manifestations. The first one is EU lawmakers invoking synergy, while critical observers identify an inconsistency. The second one is replicating regulatory methods and concepts established in the GDPR.

    46Concerning the latter, ETS-2 will follow the existing ETS regarding allowances, their gradual reduction and commercialisation. Nonetheless, we can generalise. EU climate laws will often allot entitlement for GHG emissions with allowances, reduce it with disincentives, and promote the desirable alternative with incentives. Taxation and sanctions blur in climate laws, as the behaviour – the burning of fossil fuels and other activities resulting in GHG emissions – is indispensable for satisfying our needs but is undesirable. Another frequent aspect of climate laws will be evaluations resulting in certifications. One may investigate the existing and proposed ones in the cited acts to find the common denominator in these procedures.

    B. Regulatory ‘Delicacy’

    47Papakonstantinou and Hert describe the regulations (labelled as ‘acts’ in their short titles) specifying the Single Digital Market (SDM) with new regulatory concepts while trumping emerging national laws as regulatory brutality. Authors consider this phenomenon to be intensifying features inherent to EU law enjoying a direct effect, particularly on its regulations. This evaluation enriches the usual discourses on proposed EU legislation. Stakeholders’ associations mostly welcome the Commission’s proposals. Many commentators deem these initiatives magnificent, while others denounce them as overregulation. Discussions on details follow in some cases, but much remains without them, with repercussions for the subsequent implementation of introduced standards.

    48Until recently, the European Union has avoided such regulatory brutality in its climate legislation. Despite the tendency to enact regulations, we cannot describe it as an outright preference for this first legislative instrument. The relevant standards do not trump existing national laws, which may apply in parallel as they contribute to the effort. Still, it is Member States who will enforce these laws. Foremost, EU climate laws avoid imposing restrictions and requirements directly on individuals. Their policies affect manufacturers and service providers, and the effect on people is economic, manifesting in the increased prices of particular goods and services. For these reasons, we may describe the approach as a regulatory delicacy instead. Despite this sensitive approach, the European Union is increasingly assuming another role. This champion of liberalism, especially as concerns cross-border mobility of goods, services, and persons, is gradually becoming an omnipresent supervisor curtailing many activities.

    C. Possible escalation

    49With the EGD, the European Union promises new technologies to maintain the current lifestyle.56 However, this techno-optimism may prove unsuccessful, as sustainable technologies have pitfalls if used en masse. Modesty may be necessary for mitigating the climate crisis. The modesty required by climate activists57 would encompass, among others, an end to the burning of fossil fuels, rigorous protection of forests and other vegetation, excluding fertilisers and pesticides from agriculture, refraining from meat consumption, and discontinuing emissions-intense services. In parallel, colossal investment and personal efforts shall genuinely harness sustainable technologies concerning energy production and savings.

    50Undoubtedly, such self-restraint for an indefinite period, beyond our lifespans, will not take place without the support of a significant part of society based on profound psychological change. In parallel, it would require unprecedented restrictions and requirements by States. Unsurprisingly, many people would perceive such policies as brutal in the original notion of this word.

    51The ‘Rights of the Nature’ may be a fascinating theme of Rechsphilosophie. Indulging in it, however, is escapism from discussing the requirements and restrictions imposed on individuals and collectives. One may despise the welcoming attitude of courts towards climate litigation on behalf of indigenous people or against rich countries and fossil-fuel industries as judicial activism. Nonetheless, this approach is honest, as it considers these requirements and restrictions. Requirements and restrictions imposed during wars resemble them most closely. Legal scholars should discuss radical proposals, such as the restrictions and requirements suggested by German economist Helge Peukert to the Letzte Generation movement.58

    52One may doubt whether the European Union would be strong enough to introduce such radical measures. This supranational organisation, dependent on its Member States, was built for good weather. The cited crises have one common denominator: serious divisions among the European nations. Taboos in EU policies concerning aviation,59 which elites enjoy, would undermine the legitimacy of any radical actions imposing restrictions on Europeans.

    V. Conclusions

    53The mentioned constitutionalisation of climate policy may help resist the undesirable postponing and diluting of requirements and restrictions, occasionally with judicial intervention. Nonetheless, multiplying climate litigation60 – with variable results and embarrassed reception – primarily indicates stalled democratic processes.61 Therefore, we should not support it. As its wave reaches European courts,62 one should not ignore the limited legitimacy of the Council of Europe and the European Union as structures joining European nations.

    54Concerning the European Union’s climate response formulated in the EGD, and stipulated with the ECL and other ‘Fit for 55%’ regulations and directives, several politicians, journalists, experts and scholars have resorted to stern warnings when using the phrase ‘make or break’.63 Indeed, much is at stake. Therefore, one should take all aspects into consideration, including the formal ones.

    55The appropriate choice of words is desirable. Namely, one should not use substantives for legal instruments in the titles of political documents. Nonetheless, the tendency to label several legal instruments as ‘laws’ and ‘acts’ in official short titles or their presentation is understandable as they are of political significance. This tendency deserves legalisation in the envisaged reform of the founding treaties. Many recently adopted and proposed legal acts are regulations. The tendency is laudable, as this instrument has several advantages over directives and normative decisions: transparency, simplification, and more straightforward implementation. Nonetheless, one should be cautious about the capability of the European Union to intensify the effort.

    Notes de bas de page

    1 See: communication EGD (infra), Introduction – turning an urgent challenge into a unique opportunity, 1.

    2 Before the Covid-19 pandemic, N. Gronewald, ‘New U.N. climate report offers “bleak” emissions forecast’ (2019) Science.

    3 F. Křepelka, ‘Transformations of Directives into Regulations: Towards a More Uniform Administrative Law?’ (2021) 27 European Public Law 781–805.

    4 V. Papakonstatinou, P. de Hert, ‘The Regulation of Digital Technologies in the EU: The Law-Making Phenomena of “Act-ification”, “GDPR Mimesis” and “EU law Brutality”’ (2022) Technology and Regulation Journal.

    5 P. Leino-Sandberg, ‘Enchantment and critical distance in EU legal scholarship: What role for institutional lawyers?’ (2022) European Law Open 231–56.

    6 4 Time to act – Together: a European Climate Pact, 22 EGD (infra).

    7 Commission, ‘The European Green Deal’ (Communication) COM(2019) 640 final.

    8 For the economic synthesis of the EGD, see: S. Wolf, J. Teitge, J. Mielke, F. Schütze and C. C. Jaeger, ‘The European Green Deal – More Than Climate Neutrality’ (2021) Inter Economy 99–107.

    9 European Parliament, Directorate-General for Parliamentary Research Services, E. Bassot, The six policy priorities of the von der Leyen Commission: state of play in spring 2021: in-depth analysis (Brussels, European Parliament, 2021).

    10 T. Regier, and P. Kay, ‘Language, thought, and color: Whorf was half right’ (2009) Trends in Cognitive Science 439–46.

    11 See: Council Regulation (EC) 920/2005 of 13 June 2005 amending Regulation No 1 of 15 April 1958 determining the language to be used by the European Economic Community […] and introducing temporary derogation measures from those Regulations (2005) OJ L 156/3.

    12 A. Sikora, ‘European Green Deal – legal and financial challenges of the climate change’ (2020) ERA Forum.

    13 Conclusions of the European Council, 10.12.2019, 12.12.2019, EUCO 29/19 CO EUR 31, Conc. 9.

    14 Resolution on the EGD, 2019/2956(RSP) – 15.01.2020, 482 for, 136 against, with 95 abstentions.

    15 R. Galvin and N. Healy, ‘The Green New Deal in the United States: What it is and how to pay for it’ (2020) Energy Research & Social Science 67.

    16 For a detailed analysis of translations of ECL, see: F. Křepelka, ‘Several Acts and One Law as an Impulse for Reviving European (Framework) Laws’ (2022) 30(4) Časopis pro právní vědu a praxi 832.

    17 For discussing translations in the historical perspective, see: GP Fletcher, ‘In Honour of “Ius” et “Lex”. Some Thoughts on Speaking about Law’. Lecture in honour of Leon Petrażycki Inauguration of ‘Ius et Lex’ (2001) Ius et lex Legal Magazine: http://www.iusetlex.pl/pdf/fletcher.pdf.

    18 I-33 TECE.

    19 Ch 2 Legal acts of the Union, adoption procedures and other provisions and its Section 1 ‘The Legal Acts of the Union’, Art. 288 TFEU.

    20 Commission, Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on establishing a framework of measures for strengthening Europe’s net-zero technology products manufacturing ecosystem (Net Zero Industry Act) COM(2023) 161 final.

    21 Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on establishing a framework for ensuring the secure and sustainable supply of critical raw materials and amending Regulations (EU) 168/2013, (EU) 2018/858, 2018/1724 and (EU) 2019/1020 COM/2023/160 final. The cited eponymous title is not the official short one, but the Commission presents it as such.

    22 Art. 288 TFEU, formerly Art. 249 TEC and Art. 188 TEEC, respectively.

    23 Foremost, S. Prechal, Directives in EC Law (2nd edn, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2006).

    24 Rarely cited: Case C-38/77, Enka BV v Inspecteur der Invoerrechten en Accijnzen Arnhem, ECLI:EU:C:1977:190.

    25 See: C. Callies and M. Ruffert (eds), EUV AEUV mit Europäischer Grundrechtecharta. Kommentar. 5th edn 2437-8 (München, C HBeck 2016), para 2467, also the criticism in I. Ward, A Critical Introduction to European Law (3rd edn, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2009) 60–65.

    26 In the encyclopaedic style M. Riddervold, J. Trondal and A. Newsome (eds), The Palgrave Handbook of EU Crises (London, Palgrave MacMillan, 2021).

    27 For prevailing progressive interpretations see: R. Lord, S. Goldberg, L. Rajamani and J. Brunnée (eds), Climate Change Liability. Transnational Law and Practice (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2011).

    28 Among recent treatises, P. Sands, J. Peel, A. Fabra and R. MacKenzie, Principles of International Environmental Law (4th edn, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2018).

    29 Among others, see: S. Kingston, G. Heyvaert and A. Čavoški, European Environmental Law (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2017).

    30 For a recent political analysis, see: H. Selin and S. Vandeveer (2015), ‘Broader, Deeper and Greener: European Union Environmental Politics, Policies, and Outcomes’ (2015) Annual Review of Environment and Resources 40.

    31 From recent reflections: J. A. Pyle, J. Keeble, N. L. Abraham et al., ‘Integrated ozone depletion as a metric for ozone recovery’, (2022) 608 Nature 719–23.

    32 Directive 2001/77/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2001 on the promotion of electricity produced from renewable energy sources in the internal electricity market and Directive 2003/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 May 2003 on the promotion of the use of biofuels or other renewable fuels for transport.

    33 Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity [2023] OJ L283/51.

    34 Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC [2003] OJ L275/32.

    35 European Parliament Resolution on the Climate and Environment Emergency of 28 November 2019: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2019-0078_EN.html.

    36 For an excellent synthesis of the prominent components of ‘Fit for 55%’, see: S. Schlacke, H. Wentzien, E.-M. Thierjung and M. Köster, ‘Implementing the EU Climate Law via the “Fit for 55” package’ (2022) Oxford Open Energy.

    37 Art. 6, 8 ECL, for legal scrutiny see: J. Przyborowicz, ‘European Climate Law – New legal revolution towards climate neutrality in the EU’ (2022) Opolskie Studia Administracyjno-Prawne 39–53.

    38 Regulation (EU) 2018/842 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018 on binding annual greenhouse gas emission reduction by Member States from 2021 to 2030, contributing to climate action to meet commitments under the Paris Agreement […] [2018] OJ L156/26.

    39 Commission, Proposal COM(2021) 551 final, already enacted as Directive (EU) 2023/959 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 May 2023 amending 2003/87/EC establishing a system for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Union, and Decision (EU) 2015/1814 concerning the establishment and operation of a market stability reserve for the Union greenhouse gas emission trading system [2023] OJ L130/134.

    40 Commission, Proposal COM(2021) 561 final, already enacted as the Regulation (EU) 2023/2405 of the European Parliament and of the Council on ensuring a level playing field for sustainable air transport (ReFuelEU Aviation), [2023] OJ L 2023/2405/1; and Proposal COM(2021) 562 final [2021], already enacted as Regulation (EU) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 September 2023 on the use of renewable and low-carbon fuels in maritime transport […] [2023] OJ L234/48.

    41 Commission, Proposal COM(2021) 556 final, already enacted as the Regulation (EU) 2023/851 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 April 2023 amending Regulation (EU) 2019/631 as regards strengthening the CO2 emission performance standards for new passenger cars and new light commercial vehicles in line with the Union’s increased climate ambition [2023] OJ L 110/55.

    42 Commission, Proposal COM(2021) 564 final already enacted as the Regulation (EU) 2023/956 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 May 2023 establishing a carbon border adjustment mechanism [2023] OJ L130/52.

    43 Commission, Proposal COM(2021) 544 final [2021], already enacted as Regulation (EU) 2023/839 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 April 2023 amending Regulation (EU) 2018/841 as regards the scope, simplifying the reporting and compliance rules, and setting out the targets of the Member States for 2030, and Regulation (EU) 2018/1999 as regards improvement in monitoring, reporting, tracking of progress and review ([2023] OJ L107/1).

    44 Commission, Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the sustainable use of plant protection products and amending Regulation (EU), COM(2022) 305 final.

    45 Commission, Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for setting ecodesign requirements for sustainable products and repealing Directive 2009/125/EC.

    46 Regulation (EU) 2020/852 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2020 on the establishment of a framework to facilitate sustainable investment, and amending Regulation (EU) 2019/2088 [2020] OJ L198/13.

    47 Regulation (EU) 2021/1056 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 June 2021 establishing the Just Transition Fund [2021] OJ L231/1.

    48 Judgment West Virginia v Environmental Protection Agency, decided 30 June 2022, 597 U.S.20–1530, 2022 WL 2347278, 2022 U.S: LEXIS 3268.

    49 Decision No 406/2009/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the effort of Member States to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions to meet the Community’s greenhouse gas emission reduction commitments by 2020 [2009] OJ L140/136.

    50 The objectives of the present proposal can best be pursued through a Regulation. This will ensure the direct applicability of the provisions. Requirements are placed on Member States to contribute to achieving the long-term objective. Moreover, many of the provisions are directed to the Commission (assessment, reporting, recommendations, additional measures, review) and also to the European Environment Agency, and could therefore not be implemented by national transposition. A legislative rather than a non-legislative approach is needed to anchor the long-term objective into EU law.

    51 Press release of the Council [05.05.2021], available at the European climate law: Council and Parliament reach provisional agreement – Consilium (europa.eu): the Portuguese Minister of Environment and Climate Action João Pedro Matos Fernandes stated: ‘…The ECL is the law of laws that sets the frame for the EU’s climate-related legislation for the 30 years to come…’.

    52 K. Tuori, European Constitutionalism (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2015), T. Isiksel, Europe’s Functional Constitution: A Theory of Constitutionalism Beyond the State (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2016) expanding on the previous generation. J. H. H. Weiler, Do the new clothes have an Emperor? (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1999) and T. C. Hartley, Constitutional Problems of the European Union (Oxford, Hart Publishing, 1999).

    53 D. Grimm, ‘Democratic Costs of Constitutionalisation’ (2015) European Law Journal 460–73.

    54 A. Sikora, Constitutionalisation of Environmental Protection in EU Law (Zutphen, Europa Law Publishing, 2020).

    55 A. Voss, ‘Fixing the GDPR: Towards Version 2.0. Position Paper’: www.axel-voss-europa.de/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/GDPR-2.0-ENG.pdf.

    56 Similarly: A. Čavoški, ‘The European Green Deal and technological determinism’ (2022) Environmental Law Review 201–13.

    57 Perhaps the most prominent author and journalist calling for profound psychological, societal and political transformation of humankind is Briton George Monbiot.

    58 H. Peukert published on 4 May 2023 sixty-seven (67!) proposals as a programme for the German environmental activist movement ‘Letzte Generation’ in Letzte Generation: Wie radikal müsste es sein? OXI Blog: https://oxiblog.de/letzte-generation-wie-radikal-muesste-es-sein/. Unsurprisingly, his calls for far-reaching restrictions and prohibitions concerning nutrition, housing, transportation and industry, sparked outrage in media.

    59 S. Gössling and C Scott, ‘Why sustainable transport policies will fail: EU climate policy in the light of transport taboos’ (2014) Journal of Transport Geography 197–207.

    60 J. Setzer, H. Narulla, C. Higham and E. Bradeen, Climate Litigation in Europe: A summary report for the European Union Forum of Judges for the Environment (London and Brussels, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment and Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science and the European Union Forum of Judges for the Environment, 2022).

    61 For discussing this phenomenon, see: C. Eckes (2021) ‘Tackling the Climate Crisis with Counter-majoritarian Instruments: Judges Between Political Paralysis, Science, and International Law’ (2021) European Papers. European Forum 1307–24.

    62 J. Hartmann, Blog post: ‘European Climate Litigation: A Tale of Two Courts. Global Network for Human Rights and the Environment’ (2021): https://gnhre.org/?p=15098.

    63 Among others, N. Tocci, ‘The Green Deal Could Make –or Break –the European Project. The EU Must Not Let Populists and Nationalists Derail the Plan’ (2022) Foreign Affairs.

    Auteur

    • Filip Křepelka

      Professor, Masaryk University, Prague, Czechia

    Précédent Suivant
    Table des matières

    Creative Commons - Attribution - Pas d'Utilisation Commerciale - Pas de Modification 4.0 International - CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

    Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence Creative Commons - Attribution - Pas d'Utilisation Commerciale - Pas de Modification 4.0 International - CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.

    Voir plus de livres
    L’identification dans la théorie freudienne

    L’identification dans la théorie freudienne

    Jean Florence

    1984

    L’imaginaire selon Castoriadis

    L’imaginaire selon Castoriadis

    Thèmes et enjeux

    Sophie Klimis et Laurent Van Eynde (dir.)

    2006

    Imaginaire et création historique

    Imaginaire et création historique

    Philippe Caumières, Sophie Klimis et Laurent Van Eynde (dir.)

    2006

    Socialisme ou Barbarie aujourd’hui

    Socialisme ou Barbarie aujourd’hui

    Analyses et témoignages

    Philippe Caumières, Sophie Klimis et Laurent Van Eynde (dir.)

    2012

    Psyché

    Psyché

    De la monade psychique au sujet autonome

    Sophie Klimis et Laurent Van Eynde (dir.)

    2007

    Praxis et institution

    Praxis et institution

    Philippe Caumières, Sophie Klimis et Laurent Van Eynde (dir.)

    2008

    Le droit romain d’hier à aujourd’hui. Collationes et oblationes

    Le droit romain d’hier à aujourd’hui. Collationes et oblationes

    Liber amicorum en l’honneur du professeur Gilbert Hanard

    Annette Ruelle et Maxime Berlingin (dir.)

    2009

    Castoriadis et les Grecs

    Castoriadis et les Grecs

    Philippe Caumières, Sophie Klimis et Laurent Van Eynde (dir.)

    2010

    Affectivité, imaginaire, création sociale

    Affectivité, imaginaire, création sociale

    Raphaël Gély et Laurent Van Eynde (dir.)

    2010

    Représenter à l’époque contemporaine

    Représenter à l’époque contemporaine

    Pratiques littéraires, artistiques et philosophiques

    Isabelle Ost, Pierre Piret et Laurent Van Eynde (dir.)

    2010

    Translatio in fabula

    Translatio in fabula

    Enjeux d'une rencontre entre fictions et traductions

    Sophie Klimis, Laurent Van Eynde et Isabelle Ost (dir.)

    2010

    Castoriadis et la question de la vérité

    Castoriadis et la question de la vérité

    Philippe Caumières, Sophie Klimis et Laurent Van Eynde (dir.)

    2010

    Voir plus de livres
    1 / 12
    L’identification dans la théorie freudienne

    L’identification dans la théorie freudienne

    Jean Florence

    1984

    L’imaginaire selon Castoriadis

    L’imaginaire selon Castoriadis

    Thèmes et enjeux

    Sophie Klimis et Laurent Van Eynde (dir.)

    2006

    Imaginaire et création historique

    Imaginaire et création historique

    Philippe Caumières, Sophie Klimis et Laurent Van Eynde (dir.)

    2006

    Socialisme ou Barbarie aujourd’hui

    Socialisme ou Barbarie aujourd’hui

    Analyses et témoignages

    Philippe Caumières, Sophie Klimis et Laurent Van Eynde (dir.)

    2012

    Psyché

    Psyché

    De la monade psychique au sujet autonome

    Sophie Klimis et Laurent Van Eynde (dir.)

    2007

    Praxis et institution

    Praxis et institution

    Philippe Caumières, Sophie Klimis et Laurent Van Eynde (dir.)

    2008

    Le droit romain d’hier à aujourd’hui. Collationes et oblationes

    Le droit romain d’hier à aujourd’hui. Collationes et oblationes

    Liber amicorum en l’honneur du professeur Gilbert Hanard

    Annette Ruelle et Maxime Berlingin (dir.)

    2009

    Castoriadis et les Grecs

    Castoriadis et les Grecs

    Philippe Caumières, Sophie Klimis et Laurent Van Eynde (dir.)

    2010

    Affectivité, imaginaire, création sociale

    Affectivité, imaginaire, création sociale

    Raphaël Gély et Laurent Van Eynde (dir.)

    2010

    Représenter à l’époque contemporaine

    Représenter à l’époque contemporaine

    Pratiques littéraires, artistiques et philosophiques

    Isabelle Ost, Pierre Piret et Laurent Van Eynde (dir.)

    2010

    Translatio in fabula

    Translatio in fabula

    Enjeux d'une rencontre entre fictions et traductions

    Sophie Klimis, Laurent Van Eynde et Isabelle Ost (dir.)

    2010

    Castoriadis et la question de la vérité

    Castoriadis et la question de la vérité

    Philippe Caumières, Sophie Klimis et Laurent Van Eynde (dir.)

    2010

    Accès ouvert

    Accès ouvert freemium

    ePub

    PDF

    PDF du chapitre

    Suggérer l’acquisition à votre bibliothèque

    Acheter

    Édition imprimée

    Presses universitaires Saint-Louis Bruxelles
    • amazon.fr
    • decitre.fr
    • mollat.com
    • i6doc.fr
    • leslibraires.fr
    • placedeslibraires.fr
    ePub / PDF

    1 See: communication EGD (infra), Introduction – turning an urgent challenge into a unique opportunity, 1.

    2 Before the Covid-19 pandemic, N. Gronewald, ‘New U.N. climate report offers “bleak” emissions forecast’ (2019) Science.

    3 F. Křepelka, ‘Transformations of Directives into Regulations: Towards a More Uniform Administrative Law?’ (2021) 27 European Public Law 781–805.

    4 V. Papakonstatinou, P. de Hert, ‘The Regulation of Digital Technologies in the EU: The Law-Making Phenomena of “Act-ification”, “GDPR Mimesis” and “EU law Brutality”’ (2022) Technology and Regulation Journal.

    5 P. Leino-Sandberg, ‘Enchantment and critical distance in EU legal scholarship: What role for institutional lawyers?’ (2022) European Law Open 231–56.

    6 4 Time to act – Together: a European Climate Pact, 22 EGD (infra).

    7 Commission, ‘The European Green Deal’ (Communication) COM(2019) 640 final.

    8 For the economic synthesis of the EGD, see: S. Wolf, J. Teitge, J. Mielke, F. Schütze and C. C. Jaeger, ‘The European Green Deal – More Than Climate Neutrality’ (2021) Inter Economy 99–107.

    9 European Parliament, Directorate-General for Parliamentary Research Services, E. Bassot, The six policy priorities of the von der Leyen Commission: state of play in spring 2021: in-depth analysis (Brussels, European Parliament, 2021).

    10 T. Regier, and P. Kay, ‘Language, thought, and color: Whorf was half right’ (2009) Trends in Cognitive Science 439–46.

    11 See: Council Regulation (EC) 920/2005 of 13 June 2005 amending Regulation No 1 of 15 April 1958 determining the language to be used by the European Economic Community […] and introducing temporary derogation measures from those Regulations (2005) OJ L 156/3.

    12 A. Sikora, ‘European Green Deal – legal and financial challenges of the climate change’ (2020) ERA Forum.

    13 Conclusions of the European Council, 10.12.2019, 12.12.2019, EUCO 29/19 CO EUR 31, Conc. 9.

    14 Resolution on the EGD, 2019/2956(RSP) – 15.01.2020, 482 for, 136 against, with 95 abstentions.

    15 R. Galvin and N. Healy, ‘The Green New Deal in the United States: What it is and how to pay for it’ (2020) Energy Research & Social Science 67.

    16 For a detailed analysis of translations of ECL, see: F. Křepelka, ‘Several Acts and One Law as an Impulse for Reviving European (Framework) Laws’ (2022) 30(4) Časopis pro právní vědu a praxi 832.

    17 For discussing translations in the historical perspective, see: GP Fletcher, ‘In Honour of “Ius” et “Lex”. Some Thoughts on Speaking about Law’. Lecture in honour of Leon Petrażycki Inauguration of ‘Ius et Lex’ (2001) Ius et lex Legal Magazine: http://www.iusetlex.pl/pdf/fletcher.pdf.

    18 I-33 TECE.

    19 Ch 2 Legal acts of the Union, adoption procedures and other provisions and its Section 1 ‘The Legal Acts of the Union’, Art. 288 TFEU.

    20 Commission, Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on establishing a framework of measures for strengthening Europe’s net-zero technology products manufacturing ecosystem (Net Zero Industry Act) COM(2023) 161 final.

    21 Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on establishing a framework for ensuring the secure and sustainable supply of critical raw materials and amending Regulations (EU) 168/2013, (EU) 2018/858, 2018/1724 and (EU) 2019/1020 COM/2023/160 final. The cited eponymous title is not the official short one, but the Commission presents it as such.

    22 Art. 288 TFEU, formerly Art. 249 TEC and Art. 188 TEEC, respectively.

    23 Foremost, S. Prechal, Directives in EC Law (2nd edn, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2006).

    24 Rarely cited: Case C-38/77, Enka BV v Inspecteur der Invoerrechten en Accijnzen Arnhem, ECLI:EU:C:1977:190.

    25 See: C. Callies and M. Ruffert (eds), EUV AEUV mit Europäischer Grundrechtecharta. Kommentar. 5th edn 2437-8 (München, C HBeck 2016), para 2467, also the criticism in I. Ward, A Critical Introduction to European Law (3rd edn, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2009) 60–65.

    26 In the encyclopaedic style M. Riddervold, J. Trondal and A. Newsome (eds), The Palgrave Handbook of EU Crises (London, Palgrave MacMillan, 2021).

    27 For prevailing progressive interpretations see: R. Lord, S. Goldberg, L. Rajamani and J. Brunnée (eds), Climate Change Liability. Transnational Law and Practice (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2011).

    28 Among recent treatises, P. Sands, J. Peel, A. Fabra and R. MacKenzie, Principles of International Environmental Law (4th edn, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2018).

    29 Among others, see: S. Kingston, G. Heyvaert and A. Čavoški, European Environmental Law (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2017).

    30 For a recent political analysis, see: H. Selin and S. Vandeveer (2015), ‘Broader, Deeper and Greener: European Union Environmental Politics, Policies, and Outcomes’ (2015) Annual Review of Environment and Resources 40.

    31 From recent reflections: J. A. Pyle, J. Keeble, N. L. Abraham et al., ‘Integrated ozone depletion as a metric for ozone recovery’, (2022) 608 Nature 719–23.

    32 Directive 2001/77/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2001 on the promotion of electricity produced from renewable energy sources in the internal electricity market and Directive 2003/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 May 2003 on the promotion of the use of biofuels or other renewable fuels for transport.

    33 Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity [2023] OJ L283/51.

    34 Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC [2003] OJ L275/32.

    35 European Parliament Resolution on the Climate and Environment Emergency of 28 November 2019: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2019-0078_EN.html.

    36 For an excellent synthesis of the prominent components of ‘Fit for 55%’, see: S. Schlacke, H. Wentzien, E.-M. Thierjung and M. Köster, ‘Implementing the EU Climate Law via the “Fit for 55” package’ (2022) Oxford Open Energy.

    37 Art. 6, 8 ECL, for legal scrutiny see: J. Przyborowicz, ‘European Climate Law – New legal revolution towards climate neutrality in the EU’ (2022) Opolskie Studia Administracyjno-Prawne 39–53.

    38 Regulation (EU) 2018/842 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018 on binding annual greenhouse gas emission reduction by Member States from 2021 to 2030, contributing to climate action to meet commitments under the Paris Agreement […] [2018] OJ L156/26.

    39 Commission, Proposal COM(2021) 551 final, already enacted as Directive (EU) 2023/959 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 May 2023 amending 2003/87/EC establishing a system for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Union, and Decision (EU) 2015/1814 concerning the establishment and operation of a market stability reserve for the Union greenhouse gas emission trading system [2023] OJ L130/134.

    40 Commission, Proposal COM(2021) 561 final, already enacted as the Regulation (EU) 2023/2405 of the European Parliament and of the Council on ensuring a level playing field for sustainable air transport (ReFuelEU Aviation), [2023] OJ L 2023/2405/1; and Proposal COM(2021) 562 final [2021], already enacted as Regulation (EU) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 September 2023 on the use of renewable and low-carbon fuels in maritime transport […] [2023] OJ L234/48.

    41 Commission, Proposal COM(2021) 556 final, already enacted as the Regulation (EU) 2023/851 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 April 2023 amending Regulation (EU) 2019/631 as regards strengthening the CO2 emission performance standards for new passenger cars and new light commercial vehicles in line with the Union’s increased climate ambition [2023] OJ L 110/55.

    42 Commission, Proposal COM(2021) 564 final already enacted as the Regulation (EU) 2023/956 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 May 2023 establishing a carbon border adjustment mechanism [2023] OJ L130/52.

    43 Commission, Proposal COM(2021) 544 final [2021], already enacted as Regulation (EU) 2023/839 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 April 2023 amending Regulation (EU) 2018/841 as regards the scope, simplifying the reporting and compliance rules, and setting out the targets of the Member States for 2030, and Regulation (EU) 2018/1999 as regards improvement in monitoring, reporting, tracking of progress and review ([2023] OJ L107/1).

    44 Commission, Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the sustainable use of plant protection products and amending Regulation (EU), COM(2022) 305 final.

    45 Commission, Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for setting ecodesign requirements for sustainable products and repealing Directive 2009/125/EC.

    46 Regulation (EU) 2020/852 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2020 on the establishment of a framework to facilitate sustainable investment, and amending Regulation (EU) 2019/2088 [2020] OJ L198/13.

    47 Regulation (EU) 2021/1056 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 June 2021 establishing the Just Transition Fund [2021] OJ L231/1.

    48 Judgment West Virginia v Environmental Protection Agency, decided 30 June 2022, 597 U.S.20–1530, 2022 WL 2347278, 2022 U.S: LEXIS 3268.

    49 Decision No 406/2009/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the effort of Member States to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions to meet the Community’s greenhouse gas emission reduction commitments by 2020 [2009] OJ L140/136.

    50 The objectives of the present proposal can best be pursued through a Regulation. This will ensure the direct applicability of the provisions. Requirements are placed on Member States to contribute to achieving the long-term objective. Moreover, many of the provisions are directed to the Commission (assessment, reporting, recommendations, additional measures, review) and also to the European Environment Agency, and could therefore not be implemented by national transposition. A legislative rather than a non-legislative approach is needed to anchor the long-term objective into EU law.

    51 Press release of the Council [05.05.2021], available at the European climate law: Council and Parliament reach provisional agreement – Consilium (europa.eu): the Portuguese Minister of Environment and Climate Action João Pedro Matos Fernandes stated: ‘…The ECL is the law of laws that sets the frame for the EU’s climate-related legislation for the 30 years to come…’.

    52 K. Tuori, European Constitutionalism (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2015), T. Isiksel, Europe’s Functional Constitution: A Theory of Constitutionalism Beyond the State (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2016) expanding on the previous generation. J. H. H. Weiler, Do the new clothes have an Emperor? (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1999) and T. C. Hartley, Constitutional Problems of the European Union (Oxford, Hart Publishing, 1999).

    53 D. Grimm, ‘Democratic Costs of Constitutionalisation’ (2015) European Law Journal 460–73.

    54 A. Sikora, Constitutionalisation of Environmental Protection in EU Law (Zutphen, Europa Law Publishing, 2020).

    55 A. Voss, ‘Fixing the GDPR: Towards Version 2.0. Position Paper’: www.axel-voss-europa.de/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/GDPR-2.0-ENG.pdf.

    56 Similarly: A. Čavoški, ‘The European Green Deal and technological determinism’ (2022) Environmental Law Review 201–13.

    57 Perhaps the most prominent author and journalist calling for profound psychological, societal and political transformation of humankind is Briton George Monbiot.

    58 H. Peukert published on 4 May 2023 sixty-seven (67!) proposals as a programme for the German environmental activist movement ‘Letzte Generation’ in Letzte Generation: Wie radikal müsste es sein? OXI Blog: https://oxiblog.de/letzte-generation-wie-radikal-muesste-es-sein/. Unsurprisingly, his calls for far-reaching restrictions and prohibitions concerning nutrition, housing, transportation and industry, sparked outrage in media.

    59 S. Gössling and C Scott, ‘Why sustainable transport policies will fail: EU climate policy in the light of transport taboos’ (2014) Journal of Transport Geography 197–207.

    60 J. Setzer, H. Narulla, C. Higham and E. Bradeen, Climate Litigation in Europe: A summary report for the European Union Forum of Judges for the Environment (London and Brussels, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment and Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science and the European Union Forum of Judges for the Environment, 2022).

    61 For discussing this phenomenon, see: C. Eckes (2021) ‘Tackling the Climate Crisis with Counter-majoritarian Instruments: Judges Between Political Paralysis, Science, and International Law’ (2021) European Papers. European Forum 1307–24.

    62 J. Hartmann, Blog post: ‘European Climate Litigation: A Tale of Two Courts. Global Network for Human Rights and the Environment’ (2021): https://gnhre.org/?p=15098.

    63 Among others, N. Tocci, ‘The Green Deal Could Make –or Break –the European Project. The EU Must Not Let Populists and Nationalists Derail the Plan’ (2022) Foreign Affairs.

    The European Green Deal and the Impact of Climate Change on the EU Regulatory Framework

    X Facebook Email

    The European Green Deal and the Impact of Climate Change on the EU Regulatory Framework

    Ce livre est diffusé en accès ouvert freemium. L’accès à la lecture en ligne est disponible. L’accès aux versions PDF et ePub est réservé aux bibliothèques l’ayant acquis. Vous pouvez vous connecter à votre bibliothèque à l’adresse suivante : https://freemium.openedition.org/oebooks

    Suggérer l’acquisition à votre bibliothèque Acheter ce livre aux formats PDF et ePub

    Si vous avez des questions, vous pouvez nous écrire à access[at]openedition.org

    The European Green Deal and the Impact of Climate Change on the EU Regulatory Framework

    Vérifiez si votre bibliothèque a déjà acquis ce livre : authentifiez-vous à OpenEdition Freemium for Books.

    Vous pouvez suggérer à votre bibliothèque d’acquérir un ou plusieurs livres publiés sur OpenEdition Books. N’hésitez pas à lui indiquer nos coordonnées : access[at]openedition.org

    Vous pouvez également nous indiquer, à l’aide du formulaire suivant, les coordonnées de votre bibliothèque afin que nous la contactions pour lui suggérer l’achat de ce livre. Les champs suivis de (*) sont obligatoires.

    Veuillez, s’il vous plaît, remplir tous les champs.

    La syntaxe de l’email est incorrecte.

    Référence numérique du chapitre

    Format

    Křepelka, F. (2024). Instruments of the EU Climate Policy. In A. Sikora & I. Kawka (éds.), The European Green Deal and the Impact of Climate Change on the EU Regulatory Framework. Bruxelles: Presses universitaires Saint-Louis Bruxelles. https://doi.org/10.4000/12kes
    Křepelka, Filip. « Instruments of the EU Climate Policy ». In The European Green Deal and the Impact of Climate Change on the EU Regulatory Framework, édité par Alicja Sikora et Inga Kawka. Bruxelles: Presses universitaires Saint-Louis Bruxelles, 2024. doi:10.4000/12kes.
    Křepelka, Filip. « Instruments of the EU Climate Policy ». The European Green Deal and the Impact of Climate Change on the EU Regulatory Framework, édité par Alicja Sikora et Inga Kawka, Presses universitaires Saint-Louis Bruxelles, 2024, https://doi.org/10.4000/12kes.

    Référence numérique du livre

    Format

    Sikora, A., & Kawka, I. (éds.). (2024). The European Green Deal and the Impact of Climate Change on the EU Regulatory Framework. Bruxelles: Presses universitaires Saint-Louis Bruxelles. https://doi.org/10.4000/12kfd
    Sikora, Alicja, et Inga Kawka, éd. The European Green Deal and the Impact of Climate Change on the EU Regulatory Framework. Bruxelles: Presses universitaires Saint-Louis Bruxelles, 2024. doi:10.4000/12kfd.
    Sikora, Alicja, et Inga Kawka, éditeurs. The European Green Deal and the Impact of Climate Change on the EU Regulatory Framework. Presses universitaires Saint-Louis Bruxelles, 2024, https://doi.org/10.4000/12kfd.
    Compatible avec Zotero Zotero

    1 / 3

    Presses universitaires Saint-Louis Bruxelles

    Presses universitaires Saint-Louis Bruxelles

    • Plan du site
    • Se connecter

    Suivez-nous

    • Flux RSS

    URL : https://www.usaintlouis.be

    Email : pusl@uclouvain.be

    Adresse :

    Presses universitaires Saint-Louis Bruxelles

    1000

    Bruxelles

    Belgique

    OpenEdition
    • Candidater à OpenEdition Books
    • Connaître le programme OpenEdition Freemium
    • Commander des livres
    • S’abonner à la lettre d’OpenEdition
    • CGU d’OpenEdition Books
    • Accessibilité : partiellement conforme
    • Données personnelles
    • Gestion des cookies
    • Système de signalement