Regulation and governance of nanotechnology risks: network model and the transnationalization of the law

Main Article Content

Aírton Guilherme Berger Filho

Abstract

The regulation and the nanotecnologies risk governance evidence the “normative” overflow that comprise the legal system in contemporaneity beyond the formal criteria formation of the juridical order, necessarily linked to the National State. From this movement it is observed a paradigm shift, blurring comprehensiveness and the divisions traditionally defended in the theory of Law. The legal paradigm of the pyramid is challenged by new situations, as in the complex case of nanotechnologies, which reflect on the emergence of a new model of the "network". The current state of affairs in the legal world can be evidenced as a constant dialectical activity between the pyramidal model in crisis and the network model. It results a tension between both the “formal, hierarchical, monolithic and State” model and the “transnational, flexible, Hetarquic, plural, polycentric” model. Therefore, this polycentric regulation that imposed in all sides find an appropriate perspective in the network paradigm as a model for addressing issues related to the risks of nanotechnology development. The regulation that influences the direction of nanotechnology is not restricted to the actions of the National States, it expands to a non-hierarchical network of legal and non-legal rules produced and reproduced by State bodies, international organizations, transnational corporations, governmental organizations and citizens, as well as scientific and epistemic communities. Based on a bibliographical review, this text presents the regulation and governance of nanotechnology as a form of transnationalisation of the Law that finds in the precautionary principle an important element of communication between Law and other normative systems (internormativity), also between distinct areas of Law (intranormativity).

Article Details

How to Cite
Regulation and governance of nanotechnology risks: network model and the transnationalization of the law. (2018). Administración Pública Y Sociedad (APyS), 5, 67-83. https://revistas.psi.unc.edu.ar/index.php/APyS/article/view/20197
Section
Dossier Temático
Author Biography

Aírton Guilherme Berger Filho, Universidade de Caxias do Sul.

Graduado em Direito pela Universidade de Santa Cruz do Sul (2002), Mestre em Direito pela Universidade de Caxias do Sul (2004), Doutor em Direito na UNISINOS (2016). Atualmente é professor da Universidade de Caxias do Sul. Possui experiência na docência e pesquisa nas áreas de Direito Ambiental, Propriedade Intelectual e Direito Internacional.

How to Cite

Regulation and governance of nanotechnology risks: network model and the transnationalization of the law. (2018). Administración Pública Y Sociedad (APyS), 5, 67-83. https://revistas.psi.unc.edu.ar/index.php/APyS/article/view/20197

References

FICHER-LESCANO, Andreas; KOLJA, Möler (2017). Luta pelos Direitos Sociais Globais: O delicado seria mais que o grosseiro. Rio de Janeiro: Lumen Juris.

CARBONNIER, Jean (1977). Les phénomènes d’internormativité. Paris: M. Nijhoff.

CHEVALLIER, Jean-Jacques (2009). O Estado pós-moderno. Belo Horizonte: Fórum.

FARIA, José Eduardo Campos de Oliveira. (1995) “Reforma constitucional em período de globalização econômica”. Revista da Faculdade de Direito, Universidade de São Paulo. São Paulo, 90, 253-265.

FARIA, José Eduardo Campos de Oliveira. (2001) “Poder judiciário nos universos jurídico e social: esboço para uma discussão de política judicial comparada”. Revista Serviço Social e Sociedade. 67.

FARIA, José Eduardo Campos de Oliveira (2008). Sociologia Jurídica: Direito e Conjuntura, São Paulo, Saraiva.

FARMER, Lindsay; TEUBNER, Gunther (1994). Ecological self-organization (1994). In: TEUBNER, Gunther; FARMER, Lindsay y MURPHY Declan (Eds.). Environmental law and ecological responsibility: the concept and practice of ecological self-organization. Chichester: John Wiley e Sons.

HABERMAS, Jürgen (1997). Direito e democracia: entre facticidade e validade. Tradução Flávio Beno Siebeneichler. Rio de Janeiro: Tempo Brasileiro.

JESSUP, Philip C (1965). Direito Transnacional. São Paulo: Fundo de Cultura.

JONAS, Hans (2006). O princípio responsabilidade: ensaio de uma ética para a civilização tecnológica. Rio de Janeiro: Contraponto.

KELSEN, Hans (1998). Teoria pura do direito. 6. ed. São Paulo: Martins Fontes.

LATOUR, Bruno (2000). Ciência em Ação: como seguir cientistas e engenheiros sociedade afora. São Paulo: UNESP.

DELMAS-MARTY, Mireille (2004). Por um direito comum. São Paulo: Martins Fontes.

MERKL, Adolf Julius (2018). Escritos de Teoria do Direito. São Leopoldo: Ed. Unisinos.

MORAND, Charles-Albert (1999). Le droit néo-moderne des politiques publiques. Paris: LGDJ.

MORAND, Charles-Albert (1996). “Vers un droit d e l’environnement souple et f lexible: le rôle et le fonctionnement des principes.” In : OST, F.; GUTWIRTH, S. (Dirs.). Quel a venir p our le d roit de l’environnement? Bruxelas: FUSL.

OBSERVATORYNANO (2010). Developments in nanotechnologies regulation and standards – 2010. NMP – Nanosciences, nanotechnologies, materials and new production technologies.

OST, François (2012). "Conclusions générales”. In : HACHEZ, Isabelle ; CARTUYVELS, Yves DUMONT, Hugues, GERARD, Philippe; OST, François ;

KERCHOVE, Michel van de. Les sources du droit revisitées. Limal: Anthemis. v. 4, p. 865-997.

OST, François; KERCHOVE, Michel van de (2002). De la pyramide au réseau? Pour une théorie dialectique du droit. Bruxelles: Publications des Facultés Universitaires Saint-Louis.

PARIOTTI, Elena. (2010) “Law, Uncertainty and Emergind Technologies. Towards a Constructive Implementation of the Precautionary Principle in the Case of Nanotechnologies”. Persona y Derecho. 62, 15-28.

PAULSON, Stanley L. (2013) How Merkl’s Stufenbaulehre Informs Kelsen’s Concept of Law.. Revus - Journal for Constitutional Theory and Philosophy of Law, 21, 29-45. Acessado em: https://journals.openedition.org/revus/2727.

TEUBNER, Gunther. (2002) “Hybrid Laws: Constitutionalizing Private Governance Networks”. In: Robert Kagan and Kenneth Winston (ed.) Legality and Community. Berkeley Public Policy Press, Berkeley. p. 311-331.

TEUBNER, Gunther. (2003) “A Bukowina global: sobre a Emergência de um Pluralismo Jurídico Transnacional”. Impulso, Piracicaba, Brasil, 33, p. 9-31.

TEUBNER, Gunther. (2012) “Autoconstitucionalização de corporações transnacionais? Sobre a conexão entre os códigos de conduta corporativos (Corporate Codes of Conduct) privados e estatais”. In: SCHWARTZ, Germano (Org.). Juridicização das esferas sociais e fragmentação do direito na sociedade contemporânea. Porto Alegre: Livraria do Advogado.

TEUBNER, Gunther. (2005 a) Direito, sistema e policontextualidade. São Paulo: Unimep.

TEUBNER, Gunther. (2005 b) El derecho como sistema autopoiético de la sociedad global. Lima: ARA Editores.

TEUBNER, Gunther. (1993) O direito como sistema autopoiético. Lisboa: Fundação Calouste Gulbekian.

TEUBNER, Gunther. (1999) Os múltiplos corpos do rei: a autodestruição da hierarquia do direito. In: Filosofia do direito e direito econômico: que diálogo? Lisboa: Instituto Piaget.

TEUBNER, Gunther. (2009) The Corporate Codes of Multinationals: Company Constitutions Beyond Corporate Governance and Co-determination. In: NICKEl, Rainer (Ed.). Conflict of laws and laws of conflict in Europe and beyond: patterns of supranational and transnational juridification. Oxford: Hart.

TEUBNER, Gunther. (2009) The Corporate Codes of Multinationals: Company Constitutions Beyond Corporate Governance and Co-determination. In: NICKEl, Rainer (Ed.). Conflict of laws and laws of conflict in Europe and beyond: patterns of supranational and transnational juridification. Oxford: Hart.

TEUBNER, Gunther. (2009) “The corporate codes of multinationals: company constitutions beyond corporate governance and co-determination”. In: NICKEL, Rainer (Ed.). Conflict of Laws and Laws of Conflict in Europe and beyond: patterns of supranational and transnational juridification. Hart: Oxford.

TEUBNER, Gunther. (1993) “The Many-Headed Hydra: Networks as Higher-Order Collective Actors”. In J. McCahery, S. Picciotto and C. Scott (ed.) Corporate Control and Accountability. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

TEUBNER, Gunter. (2004) “Societal Constitutionalism: Alternatives to State-centred Constitutional theory?” In: JOERGES, Christian; SAND, Inger-Johanne;

TEUBNER, Gunther (Eds.). Transnational governance and constitutionalism. Oxford: Hart, 2004. p. 3-28.

TEUBNER, Gunther; KORTH, Peter. (2012) “Two Kinds of Legal Pluralism: Collision of Transnational Regimes in the Double Fragmentation of World Society”. In: YOUNG, Margret (Ed.). Regime Interaction in International Law: Facing Fragmentation. Oxford University Press.

TRUDEL, Pierre. (2006) "L’encadrement normatif des technologies: une gestion réseautique des risques. Rapport présenté au 30 e congrès de l’Institut international de droit d’expression et d’inspiration françaises, Le Caire, 16 au 18 décembre.

ZUMBANSEN, Peer. (2006) “Transnational Law”. In: Jan Smits (ed.), Encyclopedia of Comparative Law. Edward Elgar Publishing. 738-754.