Читать книгу The Regulatory Implosion. Emotions and Gender in the Era of plastic - Estela Gutiérrez Rodríguez - Страница 24

The Global Communities, publicly, do not manifest themselves politically progressive or conservative, neither completely in favor of regulation for the benefit of social systems nor totally against them. I would say that they are motivated by reasons closer to the apolitical, their reasons are mainly about collaborative security and in many cases based on community principles and values such as altruism, generosity, cooperation and collaboration.

Global Communities, promote voluntary activities, and even call for the exercise of compassion.

Global Communities react to state anomie and feel abandoned and strongly affected by lax, insufficient and fragmented regulation in areas mainly of human security.

Thus, in the face of this feeling of lack of protection, citizens react through organized Global Communities, they make themselves heard, for example, through the Amicus curiae mechanism of the World Trade Organization (WTO), which represents the acceptance by the Apellate Body of the participation of Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) and other groups and associations in procedures originally intended only for sovereign member states.

This is the way the Global Communities claim their most fundamental rights, for example to protect health and environment, or in our case, against the exposure of chemical substances that harm the human ecosystem, becoming powerful regulatory engines for change.

The following organizations are considered Global Communities as engines of change in global administrative law, therefore, with the capacity to promote regulation in soft law71.

– 1944 The International Monetary Fund (IMF): economic cooperation is agreed to guarantee greater financial balance at the international level.

– The World Health Organization (WHO): in accordance with the United Nations charter whose objective is the international cooperation to guarantee improvements in the field of health and sanitation: “Develop, establish and promote international standards with respect to food, biological, pharmaceutical and other similar products”.

– 1995 The World Trade Organization (WTO): As a successor of the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT) established after the Second World War, a joint action was set up in Marrakech for the protection of international trade with the mutual agreement to establish protective legal measures which equal the treatment to all participating member States regardless of their level of economic development.

– 1963 Codex Alimentarius: Starting from the agreement between the FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization and the WHO, was created the Codex Alimentarius to guarantee the quality of food products, which is really necessary for the regulation of some products that under international commercialization are below the levels considered safe and enter the food chain of the world population.

– 1986 The Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPPC) and 1987 the Montreal and Kyoto Protocols: member States cooperate for the achievement of common objectives which aims are to assess both the effect of climate change, as well as of toxic substances and gas emissions causing global warming in the ecosystem, in order to establish prevention and correction policies for possible derived risks.

– The International Organization for Standardization (ISO): being a private organization “makes available to all possible users and consumers rules, categories or characteristics to achieve an optimal result in a given context, supported by a common and repeated use based on in consolidated results of science, technology and experience”. The truth is that once these standards are publicly accepted, having or not ISO certification, can modify and in fact modify, the behavior of the most committed buyers and therefore having an ISO or not modifies the sense of the market, production and commercialization. Therefore, the existence of a specific ISO created to test endocrine disrupting chemicals, would be a way to regulate and prevent exposure to the risk they pose.

– The Olympic Movement: it is the movement that concentrates nations from the five continents. They come together to cooperate in the achievement of guaranteeing the practice of sport to all societies. From the principles on which they base their objectives, their altruistic spirit can be deduced; the rejection of all types of discrimination, fraternity and solidarity, basing their behavior on the highest ethical standards and good governance.

– 1923 Interpol: International Police Cooperation: with the aim to guarantee international security to citizens. The member Countries join thier efforts to prosecute crime and guarantee human rights against crime.

The multiple and diverse Agencies that emerged since the 1970s can also be considered as emerging Global Communities, with the capacity to generate social and institutional pressure.

Governmental and Non-Governmental Organizations, Associations and/or Foundations such as Greenpeace, World Wild Life (WWF), UNICEF, The Nature Conservancy, FAO, IPCS (International Program on Chemical Safety), US EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), EDSTAC (Endocrine Disruptor Detection and Testing Advisory Committee), EFSA (Authority Food Safety), SANTE (DG Health and Food Safety), CES (European Trade Union Confederation), CEFIC (European Chemical Industry Council), EEB (European Environmental Office) ANSES (Agence nationale de sécurité sanitaire de l’alimentation, de l’environnement et du travail), and many others.

Agencies that, through the social pressure they receive and exert, manage to be engines of change, motivating a kind of soft law regulation of interest groups (a not binding regulation, generates a kind of regulatory pressure that forces change)72.

We have seen it in the case Covid19 pandemic. The World Health Organization (WHO), has concentrated the information on what has been happening. Contagion data, deaths, habit guidelines for prevention and even advice to think about continuing with completely open airspace and cross-border movements.

The WHO has been and continues to be, “the public address system” and the world reference point,and even without creating law, countries have followed its instructions in most cases,therefore, a Global Community becomes the normative system of reference for States around the world.

68. Manuel Ballbé Mallol, Roser Martinez Quirante, et. altr. Global Administrative Law, Towards a Lex Administrativa, London, Cameron May, 2010. See also in Spanish; “The Future of Administrative Law in Globalization: between Americanization and Europeanization”, Revista de Administración Pública 174, Madrid, Sept.-Dec. 2007: 215-276.

69. vid; Richard B. Stewart, Benedict Kingsbury, Nico Krisch. “Law and Contemporary Problems”, The emergence of Global Administrative Law 68, Duke University of Law, Summer - Fall (2005): 15-61.

70. Ulrich Beck, What is globalization? Fallacies of globalism, responses to globalization. Barcelona, Paidós, (2008).

71. José Luis, Meilán, Gil. An approach to global administrative law. Seville: Global Law Press, 2011.

72. Richard Stewart, “The reformation of American Administrative Law”, Harvard Law Review, núm. 88, 1975. Cap. V.