Upload
others
View
3
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Self- and Co-Regulation in the MediaOr: Can the fox run the henhouse?
The Annenberg / Oxford Summer Institute – Global Media Policy
Dr. Wolfgang Schulz
Page 2
Hans-Bredow-Institut
Founded by the former Northwest German Broadcaster and the University of HamburgFocused on public communicationBasic research as well as service for “stakeholders”
IndependentMultidisciplinary
Law and PolicyCommunication science, psychology, economy…
Staff: app. 20 (at Christmas parties up to 40)Funding
2/3 donations (city of Hamburg, public broadcasters, regulators…)1/3 income from projectsIn future: teaching, cooperation with legal consultants
Page 3
Overview
Understanding Regulation Self-RegulationCo-RegulationRecent Study “Co-Regulation Measures in the Media Sector”Outlook
Page 4
What is Regulation?
Various understandings:Regulation in its broadest definition equated with governingRegulation as a particular and separate policy instrument, where it is distinguished from other instruments such as exhortation, spending, taxation Regulation as delegated legislation, or rules that are made pursuant to powers granted in a parent statute OECD: „Full range of legal instruments, by which governing institutions, at all levels of government, impose obligations or constraints on private sector behavior.“
Page 5
What is Regulation?
Structural weaknesses of the traditional understanding:State centered Regulation as a stimulus-response-chain rather than a process
Model: Command-and-control-regulationSpeed limits on highways with monitoring and sanctions
To a de-centralized understandingGovernment Governance
Page 6
Weaknesses of Command-and-Control-Regulation
Traditional regulation ignores the interests of the objects (companies) it regulates, and this may generate resistance rather than cooperation.The regulating state displays a knowledge gap and this gap is growing. In contrast to the resource ”power“, information is not at the privileged disposal of the state.Gaps of understanding that cannot be overcome (”theory of autonomous social systems“).Regulation does not seem to stimulate creative activities effectively. Initiatives, innovation and commitment cannot be imposed by law. Traditional regulation tends to operate on a case-by-case basis only, and not in a process-orientated manner.Globalisation enhances the potential for international ”forum shopping“ to evade whatever national regulations.
Page 7
Modes of Regulation
co-regulationpure state regulation self-regulation
Command and control; in practice negotiation and selective enforcement
Self-regulation; in practice surrounded by law
Page 8
Self-Regulation
Definition Self-Regulation: The state refrains from interfering with a process assuming that social processes will lead to a result which will achieve the objectives of regulation on its own. It is controversial which processes can be seen as self-regulation. In our wide-ranging concept the market is regarded as a form of self-regulation. Different forms of self-regulation can be distinguished:
To be distinguished Intentional self-regulation: different players agree to rules regulating their activities and they define and enact codes of conduct.Spontaneous or implicit self-regulation describes a process in which the outcome is not the result of the reflection of the actors; the market can serve as an example for such a process.
Social, extra-organisational proceduresOrganisational procedures
Page 9
Self-Regulation
Extra-Organisational Organisational
Implicit
Explic it
Market Corpora te Culture
Codes o f Conduct Quality Management
Page 10
Fields for (pure) Self-Regulation in the Media
Media PressInternet
Policy Objectives Professional EthicsAdvertising Content Technical Standards
Example: Press Council
Page 11
Co-Regulation
Various terms to describe forms of combination of state and non-state regulation“Regulated self-regulation""Co-regulation""Audited self-regulation”"Self-regulation""Enforced self-regulation""Enforced voluntary regulation"
Page 12
Co-Regulation
The starting point mattersCommand-and-control-regulation co-regulationSelf-regulation co-regulation
The initiative mattersBottom to topTop to bottom
Page 13
Co-Regulation
QuestionsDefinition Models Effectiveness Conditions to work properlyLegitimacy Process objectives and rule of law
Page 14
Study on Co-Regulation
Study “Co-Regulation Measures in the Media Sector”Commissioned by the EC, GD Media and Information SocietyFinished July 2006 Background: Revision of the “Television without Frontiers Directive” (TWF)
Audiovisual Media Services Directive. Art. 3 (2)-(3) of the Commission’s proposal:
2. Member States shall, by appropriate means, ensure, within the framework of theirlegislation, that media service providers under their jurisdiction effectively comply with theprovisions of this Directive.3. Member States shall encourage co-regulatory regimes in the fields coordinated by thisDirective. These regimes shall be such that they are broadly accepted by the mainstakeholders and provide for effective enforcement.
Page 15
ScopeTypes of media covered:
PressBroadcastingOnline and Mobile ServicesFilm and interactive games
The following regulatory objectives are included for examination: Protection of Minors and Human DignityAdvertising Quality, Ethics, Diversity of Private MediaAnnex: Access, Standard Setting
Page 16
Definitions in existing studies
Non-state componentState component
Page 17
I. Non-state component:1. Creation of specific organisations, rules or processes
2. To influence decisions
3. Performed by the addressees themselves.
II. Link between non-state and state regulation: 1. Achievement of public policy goals
2. Legal connection
3. Discretionary power of the non-state regulatory system
4. State uses regulatory resources
Working definition: criteria for determining which types of regulation are covered by the study
Page 18
Working definition
Measures by third parties (e.g. NGOs)
3. As long as this is performed by or within the organisations or parts of society that are addressees of the regulation
Pure consultation 2. To influence decisions by persons or, in the case of organisations, decisions by or within such entities
Informal agreements, case-by-case decisions
1. The creation of organisations, rules or processes
Cases excluded by this criterion
Criteria I. Non-state-regulatory system
Page 19
Working definition
Measures by third parties (e.g. NGOs)
3. As long as this is performed by or within the organisations or parts of society that are addressees of the regulation
Pure consultation2. To influence decisions by persons or, in the case of organisations, decisions by or within such entities
Informal agreements, case-by-case decisions
1. The creation of organisations, rules or processes
Cases excluded by this criterion
Criteria I. Non-state-regulatory system
II. 3.: What is Co-Regulation?
Page 20
Working definition
Measures by third parties (e.g. NGOs)
3. As long as this is performed by or within the organisations or parts of society that are addressees of the regulation
Pure consultation 2. To influence decisions by persons or, in the case of organisations, decisions by or within such entities
Informal agreements, case-by-case decisions
1. The creation of organisations, rules orprocesses
Cases excluded by this criterion
Criteria I. Non-state-regulatory system
Page 21
Non-state regulation
Non-state regulation as part of the regulatory process:non-state rule-making and/ornon-state implementation and/ornon-state enforcement
Page 22
Working definition
Measures by third parties (e.g. NGOs)
3. As long as this is performed by or within the organisations or parts of society that are addressees of the regulation
Pure consultation 2. To influence decisions by persons or, in the case of organisations, decisions by or within such entities
Informal agreements, case-by-case decisions
1. The creation of organisations, rules or processes
Cases excluded by this criterion
Criteria I. Non-state-regulatory system
Page 23
Working definition
The state leaves it completely to the non-state regulatory system to fulfill the regulatory goals
4. The state uses regulatory resources to influence the non-state regulatory system
Traditional regulation3. The state/EU leaves discretionary power to a non-state regulatory system
Informal agreements2. There is a legal connection between non-state and state regulation
Measures to meet individual interests
1. The system is established to achieve public policy goals
Cases excluded by this criterionCriteria
II. Link between the non-state-regulatory system and state regulation
Page 24
Working definition
The state leaves it completely to the non-state regulatory system to fulfill the regulatory goals
4. The state uses regulatory resources to influence the non-state regulatory system
Traditional regulation3. The state/EU leaves discretionary power to a non-state regulatory system
Informal agreements2. There is a legal connection between non-state and state regulation
Measures to meet individual interests
1. The system is established to achieve public policy goals
Cases excluded by this criterionCriteria
II. Link between the non-state-regulatory system and state regulation
Page 25
Working definition
The state leaves it completely to the non-state regulatory system to fulfill the regulatory goals
4. The state uses regulatory resources to influence the non-state regulatory system
Traditional regulation3. The state/EU leaves discretionary power to a non-state regulatory system
Informal agreements2. There is a legal connection between non-state and state regulation
Measures to meet individual interests
1. The system is established to achieve public policy goals
Cases excluded by this criterionCriteria
II. Link between the non-state-regulatory system and state regulation
Page 26
Legal connection
II. 3.: What is Co-Regulation?
Non-state regulatory process
legal basis
Non-state regulation State regulationlegal connection
e.g. state acts, guidelines, contracts
Page 27
Working definition
The state leaves it completely to the non-state regulatory system to fulfill the regulatory goals
4. The state uses regulatory resources to influence the non-state regulatory system
Traditional regulation3. The state/EU leaves discretionary power to a non-state regulatory system
Informal agreements2. There is a legal connection between non-state and state regulation
Measures to meet individual interests
1. The system is established to achieve public policy goals
Cases excluded by this criterionCriteria
II. Link between the non-state-regulatory system and state regulation
II. 3.: What is Co-Regulation?
Page 28
Discretionary powerII. 3.: What is Co-Regulation?
Non-state code State actincorporation
Revised non-state code
incorporation
(+)
Page 29
Discretionary power
Revised State Act
Non-state code State actincorporation
(-)
Page 30
Working definition
The state leaves it completely to the non-state regulatory system to fulfill the regulatory goals
4. The state uses regulatory resources to influence the non-state regulatory system
Traditional regulation3. The state/EU leaves discretionary power to a non-state regulatory system
Informal agreements2. There is a legal connection between non-state and state regulation
Measures to meet individual interests
1. The system is established to achieve public policy goals
Cases excluded by this criterionCriteria
II. Link between the non-state-regulatory system and state regulation
Page 31
State influence on the regulatory process
State uses regulatory resources to influenceRule-making and/orImplementation and/orEnforcement
Page 32
Regulatory resources
Kinds of resources:“Strong" resources like power and money; not sufficient: publicity
Intention of usage of resources:State uses the resources to influence the outcome of the regulatory process; not sufficient: giving money or resources without regulatory intention
Page 33
Conditions for Co-Regulation (1/2)Regulatory culture
Especially important for models of co-regulation that depend on industry associations, for example to draft codes or enforce rules. Regulatory theory pointing to those weak factors is backed by our empirical findings.
Incentives for co-operation and enforcement Since co-regulation depends on industry commitments the incentives for the industry to co-operate have to be adequately high. In most cases the incentive lies in the avoidance of state regulation.
The State must reduce its regulatory power significantly and It must be likely that the state implements its own regulation in case non-state regulation fails.
Sufficient means to enforce the regulation; adequate and proportional sanctions seem to be necessary for a co-regulatory system to be workable.
Page 34
Conditions for Co-Regulation (2/2)
Process objectivesSeveral co-regulatory systems lack sufficient safeguards for process objectives.Most of the assessed systems lack transparency. Even internal experts who to some extent live on the system often indicate this weakness. However, the systems „Germany: Protection of minors in movies”, „Netherlands: Advertising regulation in broadcasting”, „Netherlands: Protection of minors” and „United Kingdom: Advertising regulation” are regarded as sufficiently transparent by the majority of the experts.
Another finding true for a significant number of systems is the lack of openness. The state part of the regulatory setting has to set respective requirements.
Page 35
Regulatory objectives suitable for Co-Regulation
Protection of minorsAdvertising content regulation
Page 36
Examples for Co-Regulation South Africa - Broadcasting
ICASA BMCC
NAB
BCCSA
broadcasters that have not
signed the code
broadcasters that have
signed the code
Code
adjudicates on complaints
made
sign
established
enforcement
Page 37
Examples for Co-RegulationAustralia Broadcasting
members of the publicbroadcastersinternet providers
non-state bodyACMA
StandardCode
joins working group
registers
may make compliance with the code a licence condition
sets standardif code fails
take-downnotice
can complain
draw up
Page 38
Examples for Co-Regulation
DE - FSK: Freiwillige Selbstkontrolle Filmwirtschaft (FSK) pre-assesses movies and DVDs; State authorities concluded agreement on ‘incorporating’ decisions, representatives are present in classification boards; Sanctions mainly a matter for state
Findings: Pace of decision-making high enoughIncentives for industry participation sufficientInfringements: seldom (or less often)State participation not regarded as negativeProcedural safeguards highlighted
Protection of minors - no access to harmful content
Page 39
OverviewCo-Regulation under the ECHRCo-Regulation within the European Union Law
PrinciplesLimitationFreedom to provide services, art. 49 ECDistortion or restriction of competition, art. 81, 82 EC
Co-Regulation under National Law
Page 40
Co-Regulation under the ECHRECHR does constitute binding law for state parties, but is by virtue of Art. 6 para. 2 EUC part of EC-Law, as well.
Civil Liberties granted in Arts. 1-18 ECHR, in regard to media: Right of respect for private and family life (Art. 8 ECHR)
Right to a fair trial (Art. 6 ECHR)
Right to an effective remedy (Art. 13 ECHR) Obliges convention states to provide an “adequate remedy”.Of major relevance to co-regulatory systems.Restricted to rights protected by the ECHR.
Systems evaluated do not fall under the scope of ECHR, but not impossible that there might be obligation based on Art. 8 ECHR to protect minors
Page 41
Co-Regulation within European Law - Principles
Principle: Directive is binding as to the result to be achieved, but leaves Member State the freedom to choose forms, methods and national authorities, Art. 249 par. 3 EC.
Freedom to chooseform
method
national authorities
Page 42
Co-Regulation within European Law – LimitationLimitation: Implementation of directives has to fulfill certain criteria:
Specific provisions of a directive
Full application in a clear and precise manner
Effectiveness
Binding character
Sufficient safeguards to ensure the compliance with these rules
Effective legal protection
Page 43
Co-Regulation under Art. 49 EC (1/2)Meaning of Art. 49 ECScope of Art. 49 EC
Illegal restrictionsOpen and hidden discriminationE.g.: Rules regulating the entry to a profession (licensing requirements)
Justification of restrictionsArt. 45, 46 EC in connection with Art. 55 ECGeneral interest: e.g. consumer protection, professional ethics, cultural diversity. Applied to co-regulatory systems of the study: protection of minors and consumer protection can be regarded as general interests.
Addressees: Applicable to state regulation regardless of form of action: public or private law; even collective rules of associations (e.g. chambers of commerce)
Page 44
Co-Regulation under Art. 49 EC (2/2)Consequences for the implementation of Co-Regulation
Rules set within co-regulatory framework have to observe Art. 49 EC.If directive is transformed, ECJ will consider private actors as addressees.Systems have to be designed without constituting restrictions for service providers situated in another Member State. Co-regulatory settings have to avoid the creation of closed shops.Hampering of market may be justified if actions undertaken are necessary on grounds of public policy and applied in proportionate way.Origin Principle: No mandatory participation to co-regulation body in the receiving state.If a company opts for voluntary joining another Member State’s co-regulatory system, country of origin remains responsible as far as the subjects harmonised by the directive are concerned.
Page 45
Co-Regulation under Art. 81 EC (1/2)Non-state-regulatory part of co-regulation might distort or restrict competition.
Distinction between state law and private rules Status of professional associations, ECJ has regarded such rules as state law not as private rules under the following conditions:
Deciding body consists of a majority of representatives of public organisations.Or representatives do act as independent experts who are bound only to observe the public interest.Or the deciding body acts in accordance with public policy objectives and the state remains finally responsible for the regulation.also applicable to co-regulatory systems (esp. when industry associations play a vital role)
Page 46
Co-Regulation under Art. 81 EC (2/2)Actions of undertakings under Art. 81 EC
Scope of discretion for undertakingsUndertakings do not infringe Art. 81 EC if they implement state regulation which forces them to restrict or distort competition. Co-regulation systems that leave discretionary power to the non-state regulation have to be singled out.Other co-regulatory systems are bound by Art. 81 EC.
Restriction or distortion of competition as object or effect of agreementsDecisions or rules of non-state-regulatory body might be regarded as horizontal agreements under Art. 81 EC. ECJ: Anti-competitive agreements do not infringe Art. 81 EC if they are part of broader framework which aims at improving, securing or enabling competition in the respective branch of the industry.
Page 47
OutlookActual Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council Amending Council Directive 89/552/EEC with reference to co-regulation. Still Lobby activity to put self-regulation on a par with co-regulation regarding art. 3 (3) of the proposed Audiovisual Media Services DirectiveAdequate?