The European Commission and the Construction of Information Society: Regulatory Law from a Processual Perspective
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The European Commission and the Construction of Information Society: Regulatory Law from a Processual Perspective A thesis presented by Katerina Sideri to the London School of Economics and Political Science Department of Law in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the subject of Law London School of Economics and Political Science London, UK June 2003 UMI Number: U615846 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Dissertation Publishing UMI U615846 Published by ProQuest LLC 2014. Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 /M£S£S r %Z2.i+ I0IG<I2(o ©2003 Katerina Sideri All rights reserved To Andreas for constant support and inspiration Abstract The focus of this thesis is on information society regulation in Europe and on the European Commission when forming legislative proposals and implementing laws by means of decentred and flexible regulation, respectful of difference, seeking to promote the engagement of diverse interested parties in the formation of laws affecting them. I seek to explain the above processes in a dynamic way, breaking away with a conceptualisation of regulation as (only) efficiently pursuing the public good and neutrally mediating among autonomous communities, and public administration as being (only) about reasoned choices and rational action. Bourdieu’s theoretical tools are employed to argue that although it would be within agents’ intention to design neutral rules and within regulatory law’s original function to promote participation and deliberation, law encapsulates a vision that outruns its function and agents perceive the social world in a way that outruns perception. To illustrate this, I look at the following case studies: Architectural solutions introduced by the industry in DVDs to prevent copying, domain name dispute resolution by ICANN, Internet filters used to block harmful material on the net, and the proposal to introduce patent protection in computer-implemented inventions in the EU. In a nutshell, in the above instances the European Commission strives to reproduce or preserve its juridical, technocratic, social and symbolic capital, while one of the main strategies supported by its juridical capital is to sustain the belief in the neutrality and objectivity of regulatory law. However, the ways in which the administration perceives the potentialities inscribed in capital are subject to unspoken general cognitive schemas shaped by nationality and professional background, and by the subjective construction of notions such as recognition, reputation and communality, as formed in everyday interaction in the Commission. Yet, cognitive schemas and capital are not conceived as static, but as open to experience. In this way, although regulation is viewed as manifesting the freezing of power relations, dynamism is injected as all definitions in the field are potentially subject to re-definition, by virtue of struggles amongst the administration and interest groups, which, although they occupy different fields, strive to influence regulation. Redefinitions then result in re-orderings in the field, as for example, new forms of capital may enter it or cognitive schemas may be altered. Acknowledgements I would like to thank my supervisors Tim Murphy and Colin Scott for reading innumerable drafts and providing invaluable advice. This thesis would not have been possible without George Gaskell and Michael Huber who organised the PhD seminars at the Center for the Analysis of Risk and Regulation at LSE, my interviewees at the European Commission, hoping that my account of the'life inside the European Commission' does credit to the wonderful work of these people, and the financial support provided by the Graduate School and the Law Department of the LSE. The participants of the Fifth Workshop on New Scholarship in Public and Private International Law held at the European University Institute (EUI), Florence (Italy) in 2002 and of the First International Workshop for Young Scholars organised by the Centre d'Etudes et de Recherches Internationales et Communautaires d'Aix- Marseille III, Faculte de droit et de science politique and European Law Journal, provided a rare opportunity for discussions of the ideas in this thesis. Finally, I would like to thank Andreas Panagopoulos for constant support and inspiration, for the endless discussions on issues of this thesis and moral encouragement at times when I thought that this work could never be completed. iv Contents Chapter I THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF INFORMATION SOCIETY Opening 1-11 A. CONCEPTUALISING REGULATION 1. From the regulatory state to the post-regulatory model of Govemace? 12-21 2. Teubner and Foucault: Decentralised regulation and systems of control 21-26 3. Reading Teubner in the light of Foucault 26-30 4. Rethinking decentralised forms of regulation: A disguise of control? 31-35 B. BOURDIEU’S THEORY OF ACTION FROM A PROCESSUAL PERSPECTIVE 1. Habitus, field, capital: Some preliminary definitions 36-39 2. Bourdieu and the multiplicity of organisation 39-45 3. The becoming of regulatory change 45-49 C. CONCLUSIONS 50-54 Chapter II INNOVATION, ECONOMY, POLITY AND THE EUROPEAN EXPERIENCE Opening 55-59 1. Economic theory and innovation 60-65 2. The socio-political context 65-68 3. Casting a critical eye 68-71 4. Transitions 71-74 A. MODERN THEORETICAL PARADIGMS 75 1. Schumpeter and the technological imperative 76-78 2. Innovation as a process and as a good 78-80 B. THE STORY OF THE EUROPEAN UNION: THE OBJECTIVE OF MARKET INTEGRATION AND THE ROLE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION 81-82 1. Ordoliberalism and market integration 82-87 2. The Common Market 87-89 3. Monnet and the ‘technocracy discourse ’ of the early days of the Community 89-92 4. The Single European Act 92-94 C. SETTING THE STAGE FOR THE LIBERALISATION OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND PRO-COMPETITIVE COLLABORATION 1. Liberalising Telecommunications: Early steps 95-98 2. Pre-competitive collaboration: Esprit 98-101 3. Telecommunications Liberalisation: The legal dimension 101-106 4. Re-regulation and harmonisation 106-110 5. More re-regulation 110-111 6. Information society in Europe 111-114 D. CONCLUSIONS 115-18 Appendix 1 Information Society in Europe 1992-2002: Timeline of main policy milestones 119 Chapter III INSIDE THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION Opening 120-123 A. HABITUS AND MULTIPLE HABITUS: ALLOWING FOR IMPROVISATION 1. The notion of habitus 124-125 2. The possibility of introducing multiple habitus 125-129 3. From observing interaction and identifying structures to enquiring on the conditions of their emergence 129-135 vi 4. Inside the European Commission 136-138 B. LIFE INSIDE THE COMMISSION 1. Spatio-numerical concentration 139 a The spatial context 139-144 b Socialising 145-147 c The numerical context 147-149 2. Cohesion and phronesis : Uncovering relations of dependence 150 a The formal organisational characteristics of the European Commission 150-155 b Blurring hierarchical relations: Negotiating and co-operating in a microcosm of unclear hierarchies 156-157 d Promotion 160-163 e Transdepartmental dialogue 163-168 f File keeping 168-174 C. INTRODUCING RUPTURES 1. Nationality and professional background 175-180 a Nationality 180-182 b Professional background 182-185 2. Gender and national stereotypes 185-186 3. Recruitment 187-189 D. CONCLUSIONS 190-193 Appendix 1: Location of the buildings of the European Commission 194 Chapter IV THE DOXIC ELEMENT OF THE FIELD: INTERNET REGULATION Opening 195-198 A. PROCEDURALISATION, DECENTRALISATION AND INTERNET REGULATION 199-206 B. DOXA, ORTHODOXY, HETERODOXY: A THEORETICAL DISCUSSION 1. Enquiring on the properties of juridical capital 207-108 2. The sub-field of Internet regulation in Europe: Challenging the habitus of dependency and compromise 208-210 3. Symbolic capital, informational capital and doxa 210-214 4. The doxic element 2214-215 C. INTERNET REGULATION: REINVENTING THE WAYS IN WHICH POWER MAY BE EXERCISED 1. Law, code and Internet regulation 216-224 2. The juridico-administrative habitus: The effect of universality and objectivity 238-241 3. Scarce resources: Domain names allocation 224-227 4. Analysis of the problems 227-234 a Establishing the difference between the joint partnership model and the self-regulation model 234-238 b A Bourdieusian perspective 238-242 D. THE INTERNET ACTION PLAN: THE DIFFICULTY IN SEPARATING PROCEDURES FROM NORMS 1. The Safer Internet Action Plan 243-244 2. Committees and the importance of collecting information 244-246 3. Implementing the Plan a Self-regulation and the development of codes of conduct 246-247 b Developing filtering and rating systems 248 c Analysis: Problems with using filters to block harmful material 248-253 E. CONCLUSIONS 254-256 Chapter V SOCIAL CAPITAL: THE CONSTRUCTION OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION Opening 257-258 A. SOCIAL CAPITAL 259 1. Coleman, Hirschman, Putnam and Fukuyama 260-265 2. Bourdieu and social capital 265-269 B. SOCIAL CAPITAL AND NETWORKS IN EUROPEAN GOVERNANCE 1. The European Union as a new system of governance 270-274 2. An example of social capital nurtured in committees 274-280 3. The feasibility of strengthening the civil society by reinforcing trust and achieving consensus 280-283 4. A Bourdieusian perspective: Criticism and shortcomings 283-286 C. SOFTWARE PATENTS 1. Basics of software copyright and patent protection in the EU 287-290 2. Problems: What is a technical problem? 291-294 3. The Consultation 294 a Group’s propositions 294-298 b Some statistics 298-301 3. Different cognitive schemas and power asymmetries 302-303 a Patterns of thinking about intellectual property: The European Commission 303-307 b EuroLinux alliance 308-311 4.