O'Halloran Amy
School of Law, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland.
Circ Econ Sustain. 2024;4(4):2859-2887. doi: 10.1007/s43615-024-00380-8. Epub 2024 May 27.
The global pollution and waste crisis presents us with environmental and economic challenges which if not properly addressed could destabilise or threaten the survival and welfare of societies. The European Union is responding to the waste and pollution crisis through its circular economy agenda that adopts a broad life-cycle approach to the regulation of plastics from production, consumption, disposal, and recycling. To operationalise its agenda, the European Union seeks to mobilise all actors towards the objective of improving the economics of plastic recycling. Given the potential for conflicts and disputes to proliferate across a broad range of societal actors and interests, it is perhaps not surprising that when we examine the evolving EU legal and normative framework for a circular plastics economy, we observe a polycentric governance arrangement that includes the EU institutions, the Circular Plastics Alliance (CPA), and European standardisation organisations (i.e. CEN and CENELEC). The normative interactions amongst these governance bodies will not easily be unveiled and understood if we enclose our perspectives and analyses within the limits of traditional legal paradigms that focus upon the formal law-making processes that flow through the European Parliament, Council, and Commission. However, by applying Karl Llewellyn's law-jobs theory in this article, it is possible to analyse how a multiplicity of governance bodies perform certain that are contributing to the development of regulatory order for a European circular plastics economy. This article sets out a number of key findings in relation to the evolving legal and normative framework for a European circular plastics economy pertaining to the role of the CPA in framing problems, theorising solutions, and shaping the pathway of normative development towards a European circular plastics economy. To date, the CPA has identified obstacles to the expansion of the European recycled plastics market, and mapped the areas in need of standardisation if such obstacles are to be overcome This work by the CPA has prompted the European Commission to submit a standardisation request to the CEN and CENELEC calling for the development of harmonised standards to facilitate greater plastic recycling. While compliance with CEN and CENELEC standards would be voluntary, such standards could interact with the EU's proposed and any delegated acts adopted thereto, thereby creating legal obligations for a wide range of actors across plastic value chains.
全球污染和废物危机给我们带来了环境和经济挑战,如果处理不当,可能会破坏社会稳定或威胁社会的生存与福祉。欧盟正在通过其循环经济议程应对废物和污染危机,该议程采用广泛的生命周期方法来监管塑料从生产、消费、处置到回收的全过程。为了实施其议程,欧盟力求动员所有行为体朝着改善塑料回收经济效益这一目标努力。鉴于冲突和争端有可能在广泛的社会行为体和利益群体中激增,当我们审视欧盟不断演变的循环塑料经济法律和规范框架时,发现一种多中心治理安排,其中包括欧盟机构、循环塑料联盟(CPA)和欧洲标准化组织(即欧洲标准化委员会(CEN)和欧洲电工标准化委员会(CENELEC)),这或许并不奇怪。如果我们将观点和分析局限于传统法律范式的范围内,即专注于通过欧洲议会、理事会和委员会进行的正式立法程序,那么这些治理机构之间的规范互动就不容易被揭示和理解。然而,通过在本文中应用卡尔·卢埃林的法律功能理论,就有可能分析多个治理机构如何履行某些功能,这些功能有助于欧洲循环塑料经济监管秩序的发展。本文阐述了一些关于欧洲循环塑料经济不断演变的法律和规范框架的关键发现,涉及CPA在界定问题、提出解决方案理论以及塑造欧洲循环塑料经济规范发展路径方面的作用。迄今为止,CPA已经确定了欧洲再生塑料市场扩张的障碍,并绘制了若要克服这些障碍需要标准化的领域。CPA的这项工作促使欧盟委员会向CEN和CENELEC提交了一项标准化请求,要求制定协调标准以促进更大规模的塑料回收利用。虽然遵守CEN和CENELEC标准是自愿的,但这些标准可能会与欧盟提议的指令以及据此通过的任何授权法案相互作用,从而给塑料价值链上的广泛行为体带来法律义务。