Chapter 11 - Conclusions

Summary

Introduction

This volume has asked whether the coexistence of actors in the development of European private law is beneficial or problematic. First, paragraph 11.2 will summarise the questions raised by this book. Paragraph 11.3. will discuss the role of actors. The paragraph will first turn to criticism on state-centeredness, and go on to discuss the role of actors under the GG, TFEU, and a Dutch framework. Paragraph 11.4. will turn to multilevel governance insights. The findings in the case studies will be considered, and subsequently, it will be debated whether these findings can be generalised. Paragraph 11.5. will discuss pluralist insights. The paragraph will first debate the findings in the case studies and go on to consider whether the coexistence of actors has proven beneficial more generally for European private law. Paragraph 11.6. will end with the conclusions.

Multilevel governance and pluralist insights

The book has been inspired by multilevel governance and pluralist perspectives that emphasise the coexistence and interdependence of actors. Both multilevel governance and pluralist perspectives recognise that multiple state actors have become involved in the development of European private law. Non-state actors also play an increasingly important role as the development of private law more and more involves cross-border matters and requires more expertise and organisational resources that state actors may not possess. In addition, the increasing development of alternative regulation typically presupposes the involvement of non-state actors.

Both multilevel governance and pluralist perspective recognise that interdependence has developed between both state actors from different levels and state actors and nonstate actors. These actors therefore need to take into account one another's initiatives.

Multilevel governance and pluralist perspectives further both recognise that the roles of actors are subject to change. The role of national state actors changes as competences are reallocated to the European level. The increasing complexity of problems may prompt actors at the European and at the national level to delegate tasks to non-state actors with considerable expertise, such as the IASB.

Pluralist criticism on the state-centric approach of the development of European private law give rise to questions on the role of actors in the development of European private law.