“Getting Regulated From Across The Pond”
Join us as Global Governance Watch® participates in “Congress vs. The States: The Explosive Debate Over Who Gets to Regulate Your Business,” hosted by McKenna Long & Aldridge, June 17.
In this unique one-day program, McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP brings together policy, legal, and government affairs experts to address the many sides of the federal vs. state debate. Attendees will learn the basics of federalism and federal preemption, hear about major “hot button” topics that cut across many industries, gain insight into how to lobby for or against preemption of state law, understand the potential business impacts of the most recent Supreme Court cases on preemption, and delve into the mounting issue of “global governance.”
The Federalist Society’s Alyssa Luttjohann and AEI’s David Peyton will present on a panel titled, “Getting Regulated From Across the Pond.” The panel will discuss the business implications of ‘global preemption’ of U.S. federal and state law, international ‘norming’ of corporate social responsibility, and how to monitor and influence multinational regulatory activities that affect business.
Additionally, AEI’s Michael S. Greve will present, “The Supremacy Clause, Federal Preemption, and States’ Rights In The 21st Century.”
For a schedule of panels and registration, click here.
Conference Summary
Panel Addresses the Implications of Expanding Global Regulation
McKenna, Long, & Aldridge hosted a panel on June 17 entitled “Global Governance: Getting Regulated from Across the Pond.” Panelists spoke on the consequences of “global preemption” of U.S. federal and state law, the international “norming” of corporate social responsibility, and efforts to monitor and influence multinational regulatory activities that affect U.S. businesses. The panel demonstrated the extent to which international regulatory agencies have become powerful global players.
The panel moderator, Joseph Dennin, a partner at McKenna, Long, & Aldridge, reminded the audience that states are becoming increasingly subject to international regulations, particularly from the World Trade Organization (WTO).
Ronald Cass, Chairman of the Center for the Rule of Law and Dean Emeritus at the Boston University School of Law, began by stating that in an ideal situation, decisions are made by those who are most affected by the outcome. However, this principle often goes unpracticed. Within individual states in the U.S., decisions are being made that have implications far across state lines. The wrong people are making the decisions.
As we see more and more complicated business arrangements, we are also seeing more and more regulations. Regulations are intended to enhance efficiency; however, low-efficiency businesses and advocacy groups are increasingly using regulatory agencies to reduce the competition they face. The number of international regulatory agencies is rapidly expanding; Brazil, China, and Japan, among many other countries are adding them to their budgets. Companies have the opportunity to shop around for different agencies until they find one that will bring a case against their competitors. Moreover, regulatory authorities often perversely scrutinize what other agencies are doing. According to Mr. Cass, it is much easier to be a hero when one is being overly harsh than when one is acting judiciously.
Michael Walls, the managing director for Regulatory & Technical Affairs at the American Chemistry Council (ACC), spoke specifically on how some companies preempt regulatory action. The ACC does so by codifying its values and risks in a transparent decision process, focusing agreements on a narrow set of expectations, and creating an opt-out option. Mr. Walls also stated that the U.S. has become an international observer in the chemical industry and needs to step-up its involvement because its interests are still at stake and it is uniquely situated to temper the influence of NGOs. Finally, he believes that the world is experiencing “convention fatigue,” which explains the decline in calls for new international agreements. This decline is partly due to the smaller role that the U.S. has recently taken in these agreements.
David Peyton from the American Enterprise Institute and Alyssa Luttjohann from the Federalist Society introduced Global Governance Watch®, a web-based resource that monitors international organizations on issues of transparency, accountability, and national sovereignty. Mr. Peyton began by saying that “we are the people” and we need people and organizations that are accountable to us. International organizations are not accountable to us.
GGW has four areas of focus: Development, National Security, Human Security, and Global Regulation. GGW also has a section on recent developments, which frames current events in terms of the mission of GGW.
During the question and answer session, an audience member asked what GGW hopes to achieve by watching these issues. Mr. Peyton answered that, by monitoring current events, GGW is promoting transparency, accountability, and national sovereignty and giving others the tools to act accordingly.
Another question was asked regarding the Federalist Society’s enthusiasm for global preemption. Ms. Luttjohann stated that the Federalist Society is looking at the issues more through the context of how international regulation influences the design of U.S. laws.
A JOINT PROGRAM OF
