No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 October 2017
Much of the debate on European integration centres on the relationship between ‘globalisation’ and ‘Europeanisation’. Whereas the two processes have, in the past, been viewed separately there is now a broad recognition that a relationship exists between them. International relations and politics circles have observed this, but controversy exists over whether the two processes are antagonistic to each other or whether they are in fact ‘working in combination’. Professor Francis Snyder in the legal field asked, in his seminal paper, are they friends or rivals—’is the EU part of the problem or part of the solution in relation to globalisation?’
1 See for a discussion of the debate, Kelstrup, M ‘The European Union and Globalisation: reflections on strategies of individual states’ available at http://www.copri.dk/publications/WP/WP%202001/38-2001.doc.
2 See eg Graziano, P ‘Europeanisation or globalisation? A framework for empirical research’ available at http://www.isaf.no/nova/nyheter/kalender/COSTa15/Papers/Graziano.pdf.
3 Snyder, F ‘Globalisation and Europeanisation as Friends and Rivals: European Union Law in Global Economic Networks’ EUI Working Paper LAW No 99/8, available at http://www.ive.it/LAW/WP-Texts/law99_8.pdf.
4 See eg, Scholte, JA ‘Civil Society and Democracy in Global Governance’ CSGR Working Paper No 65/01, available at http://www.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/CSGR/wpapers/wp6501.pdf.
5 See Commission Communication: Accounting Harmonisation: A New Strategy Vis-a-vis International Harmonisation COM 95 (508) 14.11.95.
6 COM 95 (508), para 1.
7 Council Directive 78/660/EEC of 25 July 1978 on the annual accounts of certain types of companies OJ L 222/1978, 11 (amended by Directive 2001/65/EC OJ L 283/2001, 28).
8 Council Directive 83/349/EEC of 13 June 1983 on consolidated accounts, OJ L 193/1983, 1 (amended by Directive 2001/65/EC OJ L 283/2001, 28). See also Council Directive 86/635/EEC of 8 December 1986 on the annual accounts and consolidated accounts of banks and other financial institutions, OJ L 372/1986, 1 (amended by Directive 2001/65/EC OJ L 283/2001, 28) and Council Directive 91/674/EEC on the annual accounts and consolidated accounts of insurance companies OJ L 374/1991, 7.
9 See eg Martorell, RF ‘La Armonización en el Marco del Derecho Europeo de Sociedades: La Obligación de Resultado Exigida por las Directivas Societarias a los Estados Miembros’ (1994) 596 Revista General De Derecho 5651 at 5663 Google Scholar. See also Woods, L and Villiers, C ‘The Legislative Process and the Institutions of the European Union: A Case Study of the Development of European Company Law’ in Craig, P and Harlow, C (eds) Lawmaking in the European Union—Proceedings of W G Hart Legal Workshop 1996 (Sweet & Maxwell 1998)Google Scholar.
10 IASC Foundation Constitution, Part A, para 2, last revised on 8 July 2002, available at http://www.iasc.org.uk.
11 see http://www.ey.c…/Assurance—IAS—Case for a Single Financial Reporting Framework.
12 See Com 95(508), at para 2.6.
13 Com 95 (508) above n 5.
14 Com 95 (508) paras 1.2, 1.3 and 3.3.
15 Com 95 (508), at para 3.3.
16 Com 95 (508) para 3.4.
17 Com 95 (508) paras 1.4 and 1.5.
18 Communication from the Commission: EU Financial Reporting Strategy: the way forward, COM (2000) 359 final, Brussels 13.6.2000.
19 Com 2000 (359) Executive Summary.
20 Com 2000 (359) para 3.
21 Com 2000 (359) para 5.
22 Com 2000 (359) para 8.
23 Com 2000 (359) para 13.
24 Regulation (EC) No 1606/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 July 2002 on the application of international accounting standards OJ L 243/2002, 1.
25 Proposed Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Directives 78/660/EEC, 83/349/EEC and 91/674/EEC on the annual and consolidated accounts of certain types of companies and insurance undertakings COM (2002) 259/2 final, Brussels, 9.7.2002. The European Parliament voted to approve the proposal on 14 January 2003 and the proposal is expected to be adopted by the Council of Ministers: see IP/03/47.
26 Art 6 refers to Decision 1999/468/EC as laying down the relevant procedure.
27 Art 4.
28 Para 16 of the preamble states that ‘a proper and rigorous enforcement regime is key to underpinning investors’ confidence in financial markets. Member States, by virtue of Art 10 of the EU Treaty, are required to take appropriate measures to ensure compliance with international accounting standards. The Commission intends to liaise with Member States, notably through the Committee of European Securities Regulators (CESR), to develop a common approach to enforcement’.
29 See the explanatory memorandum to the proposed Directive.
30 See IP/02/799.
31 Art 5 of the Regulation.
32 See para 5.3 of the 1995 Document, COM (1995) 508.
33 Ibid.
34 Preamble, para 16.
35 See Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, Policy Statement on EU Endorsement and Enforcement of International Accounting Standards, Tech 23/00, available at http://www.icaew.co.uk/index.cfm?AUBTB21_4069.
36 Ibid.
37 Committee of European Securities Regulators, Proposed Statement of Principles of Enforcement of Accounting Standards in Europe, Consultation Paper, October 2002, CESR/02–188b, available at http://www.europefesco.org.
38 For further information about EFRAG see http://www.iasplus.com/efrag/efrag.htm.
39 This interpretation of the procedure is offered in the Consultation Document issued by the Department of Trade and Industry: International Accounting Standards: A Consultation Document on the Possible Extension of the European Regulation on International Accounting Standards, URN 02/1158, 30 August 2002, at 35–6, paras 7–11.
41 See COM 95 (508) at para 5.4 in which the Commission states: ‘In order to ensure an appropriate European input into the continuing work of the IASC, the Contact Committee will examine and seek to establish an agreed position on future Exposure Drafts (or draft standards) published by the IASC. An agreed Union position on Exposure Drafts can thus be conveyed to the IASC’.
42 This was set up by the Commission after the 1990 Conference in order to open up the debate on accounting issues at European level and to influence the work of national standard setting bodies: see COM 95 (508) para 2.7.
43 Ibid.
44 This is a common question raised about the so-called official representatives within the committee process: see for example, de Burca, G ‘The Institutional Development of the EU: a Constitutional Analysis’ in Craig, P and de Burca, G The Evolution of EU Law (Oxford UP 1999) 55 at 71–75Google Scholar.
45 Ibid.
46 See Zeff, SA ‘“Political” Lobbying of Proposed Standards: A Challenge to the IASB’, Accounting Horizons, Volume 16, March 2002. Zeff notes a campaign by US industry to oppose any attempt by the IASB to develop a standard on employee stock options that goes further than the disclosure requirement in the FASB statement No 123.
47 See Scholte above, n 4 at 16.
48 IASC Constitution, para 20.
49 IASC Constitution, para 21.
50 IASC Constitution, para 24.
51 Madame Feng Shuping, Strengthen Co-operation to Promote International Convergence of Accounting Standards, Speech at the IASB National Standards Setters’ Meeting, 18 November 2002, at http://www.iasplus.com/china/0211iasbfeng1.pdf.
52 See http://www.iasc.org.uk/cmt.
53 For a full account of this pattern of development in the company law programme see Villiers, C European Company Law: Towards Democracy? (Ashgate 1998)Google Scholar.
54 See COM (2000) 359, para 4.
55 See the announcement at http://www.iasc.org.uk/cmt/0001.asp. 29 October 2002.
56 For commentary on the Act see Parker, A ‘Britain to press US for easing of audit plans’ Financial Times, 24.2.02. and Andrew Parker ‘Accountants urge cap on claims’ Financial Times 24.2.02.
57 Rosamond, B, ‘Europeanisation and Discourses of Globalisation: Narratives of External Structural Context in the European Commission’ (Working Paper 2000) available at http://www.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/csgr/wpapers/wp5100.pdf2000, at 16.
58 See COM (2000) 359 final, at para 3.
59 See Schmidt, VA ‘Convergent Pressures, Divergent Responses: France, Great Britain and Germany Between Globalisation and Europeanisation’ in Smith, DA Solinger, DJ and Topik, SV States and Sovereignty in the Global Economy (Routledge 1999) 172–92Google Scholar.
60 Rosamond above n 57.
61 Rosamond, B ‘Globalisation and the European Union’ Paper presented to a conference on The European Union in International Affairs, National Europe Centre, Australian National University, 3–4 July 2002 available at http://www.anu.edu.au/NEC/rosamond.pdf at 10 and Rosamond, B ‘Imagining the European Economy: ‘Competitiveness’ and the Social Construction of Europe as an Economic Space’ (2002) New Political Economy Volume 7, Issue 2 at 157 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
62 See for example the views expressed by two consecutive trade Commissioners: Brittan, L ‘The Challenges of the Global Economy for Europe’ speech to the Vlerick Annual Alumni Meeting, Ghent 1998, and Lamy, P ‘Globalisation: a win-win process’, Brussels, 15 September 1999, available at http://www.europa.eu.int/trade/speeches_articles/spla01en.htm both of these references are made by Rosamond (2000) above n 60, at 17.
63 Kelstrup above n 1.
64 See, for example: Bradley, K ‘The European Parliament and Comitology: On the Road to Nowhere?’ (1997) 3 European Law Journal 230 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
65 Rosamond (2000) above n 57, at 14.
66 Marks, G Hooghe, L and Blank, K ‘European Integration from the 1980s: State-Centric v Multiple-Level Governance’ (1996) 34 Journal of Common Market Studies 341 at 346–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
67 Craig, P ‘The Nature of the Community’ in Craig and de Búrca above n 45, 1, at 19, referring to Marks, Hooghe and Blank above n 65, at 367–69.
68 Jørgensen, KE and Rosamond, B ‘Europe: Regional Laboratory for a Global Polity?’ CSGR Working Paper No 71/01, May 2001, available at http://www.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/CSGR/ wpapers/wp7101a.pdf at 6.
69 See Graziano above n 2 at 9 and Scholte above n 4 at 14.
70 Graziano above n 2 at 8.
71 Wallace, H ‘The Institutional Setting: Five Variations on a Theme’ in Wallace, H and Wallace, W (eds) Policy Making in the European Union 4th Edn (Oxford UP 2000)Google Scholar.
72 Ibid. See also OECD (n.d.) International Benchmarking Network, at http://www.oecd.org/puma/mgmtres/pac/Benchmarking/links.
73 Scholte above n 4, at 12.
74 Snyder above n 2.
75 Snyder above 2, at 1.
76 Scholte above n 4, at 10.
77 European Commission: ‘European Governance: A White Paper’ COM (2001) 428. See also Scholte above n 4 at 12.
78 Scholte above n 4.