Columbia Law School Scholarship Archive Faculty Scholarship Faculty Publications 2012 The Brussels Effect Anu Bradford Columbia Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship Part of the Antitrust and Trade Regulation Commons, European Law Commons, International Trade Law Commons, and the Law and Economics Commons Recommended Citation Anu Bradford, The Brussels Effect, 107 NW. U. L. REV. 1 (2012). Available at: https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship/271 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Publications at Scholarship Archive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Scholarship Archive. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Copyright 2012 by Northwestern University School of Law Printed in U.S.A. Northwestern University Law Review Vol. 107, No. 1 Articles THE BRUSSELS EFFECT Anu Bradford ABSTRACT-This Article examines the unprecedented and deeply underestimated global power that the EU is exercising through its legal institutions and standards, and how it successfully exports that influence to the rest of the world. Without the need to use international institutions or seek other nations' cooperation, the EU has a strong and growing ability to promulgate regulations that become entrenched in the legal frameworks of developed and developing markets alike, leading to a notable "Europeanization" of many important aspects of global commerce. The Article identifies the precise conditions for and the specific mechanism through which this externalization of EU's standards unfolds. Enhanced understanding of these conditions and this mechanism helps explain why the EU is currently the only jurisdiction that can wield unilateral influence across a number of areas of law-ranging from antitrust and privacy to health and environmental regulation-and why the markets, other states, and international institutions can do little to constrain Europe's global regulatory power. AUTHOR-Professor of Law, Columbia Law School. Helpful comments were provided by Lucas Bergkamp, George Bermann, Travis Bradford, Rachel Brewster, Tim Buthe, Grainne DeBurca, Lee Fennell, Jacob Gersen, Tom Ginsburg, Victor Goldberg, Michael Graetz, Todd Hendserson, Aziz Huq, Suzanne Kingston, Katerina Linos, Richard McAdams, Jay Modrall, Henry Monaghan, Jide Nzelibe, Nathaniel Persily, Katharina Pistor, Eric Posner, Tonya Putnam, Charles Sabel, Joanne Scott, Anne-Marie Slaughter, and David Vogel, as well as the participants of the workshops held at Columbia Law School, Duke Law School, University of Chicago Law School, and the University of Florence. I am grateful to Taimoor Aziz, Elliott DeRemer, Peter Dietrich, Christodoulus Kaoutzanis, Pauline Phoa, and Mark Sater for excellent research assistance. 1 NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW INTRO DUCTION ............................................................................................................... 2 1. CONDITIONS FOR UNILATERAL REGULATORY GLOBALIZATION........................... 10 A . M arket P ow er............................................................................................ 11 B. Regulatory Capacity .................................................................................. 12 C. Preferencefor Strict Rules....................................................................... 14 D. Predispositionto Regulate Inelastic Targets............................................. 16 E. Nondivisibility of Standards..................................................................... 17 II. EXAMPLES OF UNILATERAL REGULATORY GLOBALIZATION ............................... 19 A . A ntitrustLaws........................................................................................... 19 B. Privacy Regulation................................................................................... 22 C. Health Protection:Regulation of Chemicals............................................. 26 D . Environmental Protection.......................................................................... 29 E . F ood Safety ................................................................................................ 32 111. THE EU 's M OTIVATIONS.................................................................................... 35 A. ExternalM otivations................................................................................. 35 B. Internal Motivations................................................................................... 39 IV. MARKET-DRIVEN VERSUS POLITICAL HARMONIZATION ..................................... 43 A. The Relative Advantages of Unilateralism............................................... 44 B. Reasons for PersistingMultilateralism...................................................... 46 V. LIMITS OF THE BRUSSELS EFFECT ....................................................................... 48 A. External Constraints................................................................................ 48 B. Internal Constraints................................................................................... 57 C ONCLUSION .................................................................................................................. 64 INTRODUCTION It is common to hear Europe described today as the power of the past. Europe is perceived to be weak militarily.' Its relative economic power is declining as Asia's is rising. Its common currency may be on the verge of disintegrating. On the world stage, the European Union is thought to be waning into irrelevance due to its inability to speak with one voice.2 Given its seemingly declining power status and inability to get its way alone, the I See Charles Grant, How to Make Europe's Military Work, FT.CoM (Aug. 16, 2009, 6:53 PM), http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/f32e0e98-8a8b-1 lde-ad08-00144feabdcO.html#axzz2Bwh5garO. 2 See Philip Stephens, Europe's Leaders Recoil from Unity, FT.COM (Dec. 2, 2010, 10:44 PM), http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/1 301e064-fe53-11 df-abac-00144feab49a.html#axzz29DOEJCei; see also Charles Grant, The Unraveling of the EU, PROSPECT, July 2009, at 48, 48 ("Russian, Chinese[, and] Indian policy-makers ... view it as a trade bloc that had pretensions to power but has failed to realise them because it is divided and badly organised."). 2 107: 1(2012) The Brussels Effect EU is perceived as needing to retreat to weak multilateralism and international institutions. Contrary to this prevalent perception, this Article highlights a deeply underestimated aspect of European power that the discussion on globalization and power politics overlooks: Europe's unilateral power to regulate global markets. The European Union sets the global rules across a range of areas, such as food, chemicals, competition, and the protection of privacy. EU regulations have a tangible impact on the everyday lives of citizens around the world.? Few Americans are aware that EU regulations determine the makeup they apply in the morning,' the cereal they eat for breakfast,' the software they use on their computer,' and the privacy settings they adjust on their Facebook page.' And that's just before 8:30 AM. The EU also sets the rules governing the interoffice phone directory they use to call a coworker. EU regulations dictate what kind of air conditioners Americans use to cool their homes9 and why their children no longer find soft plastic toys in their McDonald's Happy Meals.o This phenomenon- the "Brussels Effect"-is the focus of this Article. This Article explains how and why the rules and regulations originating from Brussels have penetrated many aspects of economic life within and outside of Europe through the process of "unilateral regulatory globalization." Unilateral regulatory globalization occurs when a single state is able to externalize its laws and regulations outside its borders through market mechanisms, resulting in the globalization of standards. See, e.g., David Scheer, For Your Eyes Only--Europe's New High-Tech Role: Playing Privacy Cop to the World, WALL ST. J., Oct. 10, 2003, at Al; Brandon Mitchener, Standard Bearers: Increasingly,Rules of Global Economy Are Set in Brussels, WALL ST. J., Apr. 23, 2002, at Al; Editorial, Regulatory Imperialism, WALL ST. J. (Oct. 26, 2007), http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1193347205 39572002.html; see Case COMP/M.5984, Intel/McAfee, EUR-Lex 3201 1M5984 (Jan. 26,2011). 4 See Council Directive 76/768/EEC, of 27 July 1976 on the Approximation of the Laws of the Member States Relating to Cosmetic Products, 1976 O.J. (L 262) 169. 5 See Regulation (EC) 1829/2003, of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on Genetically Modified Food and Feed, 2003 O.J. (L 268) 1. 6 See Consolidated Version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union arts. 101 & 102, Mar. 30, 2010, 2010 O.J. (C 83) 47, 88-89 [hereinafter TFEU]. 7 See Directive 95/46/EC, of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the Protection of Individuals with Regard to the Processing of Personal Data and on the Free Movement of Such Data, 1995 O.J. (L 281) 31 [hereinafter Data Protection Directive]. 8 See id. 9 See Directive 2002/95/EC, of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 2003 on the Restriction of the Use of Certain Hazardous Substances in Electrical and Electronic Equipment, 2003 O.J. (L 37) 19 [hereinafter Directive 2002/95/EC]. 10 See Regulation (EC)