Michelle Everson – författare

An original and innovative recasting of constitutionalism, written by acknowledged experts in the field, this empirically grounded and theoretically informed volume addresses the strategies and philosophies that judges and lawyers bring to bear when creating European constitutional jurisprudence; investigating and promoting promotes the sustainability of a theory or praxis of ‘procedural’ constitutionalism.Building upon European and American critical legal scholarship, Michelle Everson and Julia Eisner argue that constitutional adjudication has never been the neutral matter of a mere judicial ‘identification’ of the values, norms and procedures that each society seeks to concretise in its own body of constitutional law. Instead, a ‘mythology’ of comprehensive national constitutional settlement has obscured the primary legal constitutional conundrum that is created by the requirement that a judiciary must always adapt its constitutional jurisprudence to the evolving values that are to be found within any society; but must always, also, maintain the integrity and autonomy of the law itself.European judges and lawyers, having been denied recourse to all forms of constitutional mythology, provide us with an alternative model of constitutionalism; one that does not require a founding myth of constitutional settlement, and one which both secures the autonomy of law, as well as ensures dialogue between law and society. This occurs, however, not through grand theories of ‘constitutional adjudication’ but, as The Making of a European Constitution documents, rather through a practical process.

Uncertain Risks Regulated compares various models of risk regulation in order to understand how these systems shape the relationship between law and science, and how they attempt to overcome public distrust in science-based decision-making. The book contributes to the ongoing debate relating to uncertainty and risks - and the difficulties faced by the European Union in particular - in regulating theses issues, taking account of both national and international constraints. The term 'uncertain risk' is comparable with notions of hazard and indeterminate risk, as deployed within the social sciences; but it also aims to capture the modern regulatory reality that a non-quantifiable hazard must still be addressed by society, law and its regulators. Decisions must be taken in the face of uncertainty. And, whilst it is not possible to provide clear cut models of risk regulation, in focusing on regulatory practices at a national, EU and international level, the contributors to this volume aim to use fact finding as a core instrument of learning for risk regulation.

An original and innovative recasting of constitutionalism, written by acknowledged experts in the field, this empirically grounded and theoretically informed volume addresses the strategies and philosophies that judges and lawyers bring to bear when creating European constitutional jurisprudence; investigating and promoting promotes the sustainability of a theory or praxis of ‘procedural’ constitutionalism.Building upon European and American critical legal scholarship, Michelle Everson and Julia Eisner argue that constitutional adjudication has never been the neutral matter of a mere judicial ‘identification’ of the values, norms and procedures that each society seeks to concretise in its own body of constitutional law. Instead, a ‘mythology’ of comprehensive national constitutional settlement has obscured the primary legal constitutional conundrum that is created by the requirement that a judiciary must always adapt its constitutional jurisprudence to the evolving values that are to be found within any society; but must always, also, maintain the integrity and autonomy of the law itself.European judges and lawyers, having been denied recourse to all forms of constitutional mythology, provide us with an alternative model of constitutionalism; one that does not require a founding myth of constitutional settlement, and one which both secures the autonomy of law, as well as ensures dialogue between law and society. This occurs, however, not through grand theories of ‘constitutional adjudication’ but, as The Making of a European Constitution documents, rather through a practical process.

The trade conflicts that the EU has faced within the EU or WTO context demonstrate that the question of how to balance trade and other societal values in situations of uncertainty has not been solved by the regulatory model evolved by the EU in the aftermath of the BSE crisis – one which privileges processes of depoliticisation and scientification. This book addresses the current key dilemmas around science, law and the regulation of trade, both on a regime level and in the context of particular industrial sectors, e.g pharmaceuticals, climate change and nanotechnology. It will present possible future research avenues by looking at both theory and practice and learning from various disciplines (law and social sciences), legal realities (WTO, USA and EU) and actors (regulators, stakeholders, courts).

Uncertain Risks Regulated compares various models of risk regulation in order to understand how these systems shape the relationship between law and science, and how they attempt to overcome public distrust in science-based decision-making. The book contributes to the ongoing debate relating to uncertainty and risks - and the difficulties faced by the European Union in particular - in regulating theses issues, taking account of both national and international constraints. The term 'uncertain risk' is comparable with notions of hazard and indeterminate risk, as deployed within the social sciences; but it also aims to capture the modern regulatory reality that a non-quantifiable hazard must still be addressed by society, law and its regulators. Decisions must be taken in the face of uncertainty. And, whilst it is not possible to provide clear cut models of risk regulation, in focusing on regulatory practices at a national, EU and international level, the contributors to this volume aim to use fact finding as a core instrument of learning for risk regulation.

The trade conflicts that the EU has faced within the EU or WTO context demonstrate that the question of how to balance trade and other societal values in situations of uncertainty has not been solved by the regulatory model evolved by the EU in the aftermath of the BSE crisis – one which privileges processes of depoliticisation and scientification. This book addresses the current key dilemmas around science, law and the regulation of trade, both on a regime level and in the context of particular industrial sectors, e.g pharmaceuticals, climate change and nanotechnology. It will present possible future research avenues by looking at both theory and practice and learning from various disciplines (law and social sciences), legal realities (WTO, USA and EU) and actors (regulators, stakeholders, courts).