Feb. 23, 2015
To allow the growth of the drone industry, February 11, 2015 the US Federal Aviation Administration relaxes its rules on the matter
The theme of the relationship between regulation and innovation finds every day new illustrations. The example of the drone is particularly noteworthy.
Indeed, the drone is a technical object that moves in the air without being driven in an immediate way by the hand of man.
The legal mechanism of qualification brought the drone in the category of "aircraft" and submit it to the regulatory power of the civil aviation regulator.
The regulation of civil aviation is primarily a safety regulation, not a regulation of the sector's economic deployment.
This is why regulators have taken restrictive positions on drones used for commercial purposes, to the extent that the presence of human beings, most the pilots, are the condition for the safety of people. The fact that the drones fly with "no one" led to consider as a danger a prior, which led regulators to take restrictive measures on flying drones for commercial purposes, restricton consistent with the regulator's intervention criteria, without taking into account external rules, such as the protection of privacy.
But whatever the sector, regulators see themselves increasingly as economic regulators. If we adopt this perspective, a restrictive approach appears to be nonsense.
In the interests of balance in both approaches, the safety of people and the economic development through innovation, the US civil aviation regulator, the Federal Aviation Administration is developing new rules.
February 11, 2015, Federal Aviation Administration raised the need for a legal framework for commercial drones. The reason for this is economic. As it writes: "It is anticipated that this activity will result in significant economic benefits". Indeed, Article 333 of the 2012 ACT of modernization and reform imposes registration procedure for every commercial unmanned flying object in the sky!footnote-28. But this hinders business development, and therefore the incentive to technical innovation drone.
It was necessary to find a balance between security of persons and lifting of barriers to economic development. This is why the FAA will distinguish between "small" and other drones. The former are particularly useful in agriculture. To the extent that the former do not constitute danger to persons, an exemption from this procedure (Article 333 exemption) may be given concerning them.
One can analyze this evolution of air Regulation in two ways. First, it is for air regulator to take into account fundamental innovation of flying machines with "no one": innovation will be the base of a huge market for which strict regulatory rules could have been the troublemaker. The consideration of the safety of people remains since only drones "small" are allowed. In addition, they will have to remain at low level and away from airports and housing.
Second, the Regulator reacts by pragmatism. The ban on commercial flight drones hasn't prevented investment in this area. So far, the regulator had instead chosen not to react to the open violations of the standards, from the moment that the safety of the people wasn't in danger. The idea of the new conception is to promote this new market by putting the rules protecting the physical safety of people.
Feb. 12, 2015
The Hong Kong Law School organizes on 23 and 24 March 2015 a symposium on water regulatory problems and perspectives
This conference is managed by Professor Julien Chaisse.
It is organized by the Centre for Financial Regulation and Economic Development, Faculty of Law – The Chinese University of Hong Kong.
This conference aims to better understand the legal mechanisms for international regulatory mechanisms of water, especially in view of climate change, to articulate the role of states and private investment contracts, to understand the legal nature of water as a "resource" but also as "human right" especially in view of the determination of its price, and to mesure the legal consequences of globalization on the matter.
Jan. 20, 2015
The integration into economic chains, third way between exclusion of competition or abandon competition: January 15, 2015, the European Commission opened a consultation on the implementation of the device in the new CAP
The original spirit of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) was to think of agriculture as a sector unfolding in time, subject to natural hazards, including actors, both farmers and the population that is fed, having interests on which national states shall ensure.
The spirit of the new Common Agricultural Policy is different, even opposite, which explains the length of its gestation. Indeed, competition becomes the principle guarantor of innovation, fair prices for consumers and competitiveness of the European agricultural industry facing global competition, which leads to assist agricultural enterprises, to worry about products quality, away from the subtraction of these products of the principle of competition.
The political agreement was reached in 2013, the basic technical texts were completed in 2013 for the new apparatus be applicable to January 1, 2014, including a Regulation of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in argricultural products (CMO).
It points out that the agricultural sector is subject to competition law only if the Community legislature didn't stipulate differently!footnote-16. The Regulation almost affirms the opposite principle: "It should be provided that the rules on competition relating to the agreements, decisions and practices referred to in Article 101 TFEU and to abuse of a dominant position apply to the production of, and the trade in, agricultural products, provided that their application does not jeopardise the attainment of the objectives of the CAP.". The Regulation details: A special approach should be allowed in the case of farmers' or producer organisations or their associations, the objective of which is the joint production or marketing of agricultural products or the use of joint facilities, unless such joint action excludes competition or jeopardises the attainment of the objectives of Article 39 TFEU.
On 15 January 2015 the European Commission launches a consultation on the "joint salling of olive oil, beef and veal livestock and arable crops, cases covered by the Regulation.
How the new balance will be between competition and regulation?!footnote-20
It is likely that future guidelines will be the place of expression of this balance.
Dec. 2, 2013
Thesaurus : Doctrine
Nov. 21, 2013
Thesaurus : Doctrine
Complete reference : Merville, A.-D., Typologie des contrats à terme in Collart Dutilleul and Le Dolley E. (ed.), Droit, économie et marchés de matières premières agricoles, coll. "Droit et Économie", Paris 2013, p.57-73.
Updated: April 4, 2012 (Initial publication: Feb. 8, 2012)
II-12.1: The French ban on GMOs declared illegal by the French Council of State. Yet, the interdiction will be perpetuated, Ministers said.
The translated summaries are done by the
Editors and not by the Authors.
On November 28th, 2011, the Conseil d’Etat (French Council of State) ruled that the ban on GMOs established by several ministerial decrees in December 2007 and February 2008 is not valid. The main reason for this decision is the lack of sufficient proof given by the French government that GMOs represent a high threat for public health or the environment. Yet, the French Ministers of Agriculture and Environment declared on January 13th, 2012, that the same probition will be adopted.
28 novembre 2011, le Conseil d’Etat, a décidé que l’interdiction des
OGM, établie par plusieurs décrets ministériels et adoptée en décembre
2007 et février 2008, était nulle. La principale raison de cette
décision est le manque de preuves suffisantes apportées par le
Gouvernement français en ce que les OGM représenteraient un grand danger
pour la santé publique ou pour l’environnement. Pourtant, le ministère
français de l’agriculture et de l’environnement a déclaré le 13 janvier
2011 que l’interdiction sera adoptée de nouveau.
Il 28 novembre 2011, il Conseil d’Etat
(il Consiglio di Stato francese) ha deciso che il divieto di OGM
contenuto in diversi decreti ministeriali del Dicembre 2007 e Febbraio
2008 non è valido. La ragione principale di tale decisione è l’assenza
di prove fornite dal Governo francese che gli OGM costituiscano un
rischio importante per la salute pubblica o l’ambiente. Ciononostante,
il 13 gennaio 2012, il Ministro francese dell’Ambiente e
dell’Agricoltura, che lo stesso divieto sarà adottato
28 نوفمبر 2011، قرر مجلس الدولة، أن الحظر المفروض على الكائنات المعدلة وراثيا*، التي وضعتها الوزارة في عدة مراسيم والتي اعتمدت في ديسمبر 2007 وفبراير 2008، كانت صفرا. السَّبب الرئيسي وراء هذا القرار هو عدم وجود ما يكفي من الأدلة التي أدخلتها الحكومة الفرنسية أن الكائنات المعدلة وراثيا* تشكل خطرا كبيرا على الصحة العامة أو البيئة. ومع ذلك، قالت وزارة الزراعة الفرنسية والبيئة 13 جافني 2011 أنه سيتم حظر يعاد تمثيلها..
*OGM : كائنات المعدلة وراثيا
Other translations forthcoming.
Updated: Dec. 5, 2011 (Initial publication: Dec. 5, 2011)
Thesaurus : Doctrine