New Challenges for International Standard Setting in Biomedicine: CrisprCas, Gene Drives, and How to Target Malaria

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Silja Voeneky
2019 ◽  
Vol 61 (1) ◽  
pp. 131-151
Author(s):  
Silja Vöneky

This article examines current challenges for a normative framework regulating biomedicine, including those arising from the use of big data and machine learning tools, and from the use of the CRISPR/Cas-9 technology, as for instance gene drives. The article focusses on the question of legitimate standard setting and takes into account both “hard” and “soft” law as well as private rule making. This includes international treaties and declarations in the area of human rights law and environmental law, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, and, more specifically, the UNESCO Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights. The author argues that, as instruments of biotechnology and biomedicine merge, international environmental law has to be interpreted in the light of human rights law. In order to adapt to new challenges, the article calls for a humanisation of international environmental law and, because of the ongoing disruptive technological development, argues that further legitimate standard setting is required. Keywords: Biomedicine, Biotechnology, Gene Drives, Standard Setting, CRISPR/Cas-9, Artificial Intelligence


Author(s):  
Lucia Quaglia

This book examines the post-crisis international derivatives regulation by bringing together the international relations literature on regime complexity and the international political economy literature on financial regulation. Specifically, it addresses three interconnected questions. What factors drove international standard-setting on derivatives post-crisis? Why did international regime complexity emerge? How was it managed and with what outcomes? Theoretically, this research innovatively combines a state-centric, a transgovernmental and a business-led explanations. Empirically, it examines all the main sets of standards (or elemental regimes) concerning derivatives, namely: trading, clearing, and reporting derivatives; resilience, recovery, and resolution of central counterparties; bank capital requirements for bank exposures to central counterparties and derivatives; margins for derivatives non-centrally cleared. Regime complexity in derivatives ensued from the multi-dimensionality and the interlinkages of the problems to tackle, especially because it was a new policy area without a focal international standard-setter. Overall, the international cooperation that took place in order to promote regulatory precision, stringency, and consistency in the regime complex on derivatives was remarkable, especially considering the large number of policy actors involved (states, private actors, regulators). The main jurisdictions played an important role in managing regime complexity, but their effectiveness was constrained by limited domestic coordination. Networks of regulators facilitated international standard-setting and contributed to managing regime complexity through formal and informal tools. The financial industry, at times, lobbied in favour of less precise and stringent rules, engaging in international ‘venue shopping’; other times, it promoted regulatory harmonization and consistency.


2020 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-23
Author(s):  
Abdel Fattah Alshadafan

The decrease in the regulative power of states has generated a governance gap that has been filled by, among others, international standard-setting bodies. In these bodies, private technical experts shape the rules that govern commonly used technologies as well as influence various societal outcomes. The legitimacy of such regulatory outsourcing is largely based on a variety of quasi-democratic mechanisms and principles, which these bodies have endeavored to make central to the standard-setting processes. This paper examines these legitimacy-seeking aspirations by comparing the normative claims with the actual practice of developing the international techno-policy standard for TVs by the International Electrotechnical Commission, based on interviews with stakeholders and numerous public and internal documents. The findings suggest that the process is inadequate if the goal is not just to bundle technical expertise but also to meet the standards of democratic governance. The study thus contributes to the literature on standard-setting and legitimacy beyond the nation-state.


Author(s):  
Lucia Quaglia

This chapter outlines the theoretical and empirical puzzles that inform the book, its objectives, overall argument, and structure. This research sets out to explain the post-crisis international regulation of derivatives markets. In particular, it addresses three interconnected questions. What factors drove international standard-setting concerning derivatives post-crisis? Why did international regime complexity emerge? How was it managed and with what outcomes? The focus of this volume is on international standards, not the domestic implementation of these standards, or other domestic regulatory reforms concerning derivatives. This chapter also outlines the book’s theoretical and empirical contributions to the international relations literature on regime complexity and the international political economy literature on the regulation of finance.


Author(s):  
Sidney J. Gray ◽  
Helen Kang

This chapter explores accounting transparency as an important aspect of corporate accountability. After defining accounting transparency and identifying factors that influence it, the chapter considers the debate between providers and users of accounting information on how transparent accounting information should be defined, measured, and reported. It also discusses the roles of international standard-setting organizations in promoting accounting transparency as well as measures of accounting transparency, including disclosure level and market reactions. Finally, it looks at future prospects for setting international accounting standards, paying particular attention to International Financial Reporting Standards.


2017 ◽  
Vol 25 (4) ◽  
pp. 526-548
Author(s):  
Alex C. Yen ◽  
Tracey J. Riley ◽  
Peiyu Liao

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to investigate whether investor reactions to accounting narratives are uniform across cultures or if there are predictable systematic culture-based differences, particularly for investors from interdependent cultures, such as in Asia. Design/methodology/approach This research paper builds on the experiment conducted in Riley et al. (2014) by collecting data from investors from interdependent cultures and comparing their investment judgments to the “baseline” judgments of the investors from Riley et al. (2014). Findings In comparing independent and interdependent culture investors, a culture by construal interaction is observed. Whereas the independent culture investors in Riley et al. (2014) made less favorable investment judgments of a company with a concretely (vs abstractly) written negative narrative, this effect is attenuated for interdependent culture investors. Research limitations/implications This study extends the literature on accounting narratives by providing evidence that investors’ culture and linguistic characteristics of accounting narratives “interact,” suggesting that future studies in this area should account for culture as a variable. As for limitations, the independent and interdependent participant data were predominantly collected from different universities, so the differences observed may be due to institutional, not cultural differences. However, the populations are matched on key demographic measures. Practical implications The results have practical implications for investor relations professionals and international standard-setting bodies. Originality/value This study is believed to be the first to examine how investors’ culture may affect their reactions to the features of accounting narratives.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document