This chapter offers responses to the question ‘why regulate?’ and ‘why do regulatory regimes emerge in a particular form?’ by examining ‘theories of regulation’. While chapter 1 introduced the readers to the economic justifications of regulation, this chapter delves into the different theories that explain why we need regulation and how public and private actors interact to shape the content of regulation. These theories refer to a set of propositions or hypotheses about why regulation emerges, which actors contribute to that emergence, and typical patterns of interaction between regulatory actors. It discusses theories from several disciplinary approaches, classifying these theories into four kinds: public interest, private interest theories, systems and institutionalist approaches and ‘hybrid’ theories.

This chapter gives an overview of the theory and practice of global climate politics. First, it provides a brief history of the politics of climate change as they play out in the international negotiations on the issue overseen by the United Nations . Second, it looks at the formal organisational and institutional structures that exist to manage the international community’s response to climate change. Third, it reviews the ways in which different theories of International Relations have been applied to climate change, assessing both their potential and their limitations. Finally, the conclusion offers some thoughts on the evolving nature of the ‘global’ governance of climate change.

Chapter 1 sets out the main questions and contentions in the book. It explores the concept of freedom and identifies it as a central concept in Athenian democratic ideology in both the private and public spheres. Scholarly debates on the concept of freedom are outlined, with an especial emphasis on Isaiah Berlin’s notion of positive and negative freedom and its application to Athens in subsequent scholarship. Distinguishing democratic freedom from negative and republican versions, I argue that Athenians understood freedom as the ability to do “whatever one wished,” which I classify as a modified version of positive freedom. The focus on citizen agency in accomplishing his will differentiates Athenian democracy from other constitution types and affects its institutional features. The chapter closes with a brief overview of the rest of the chapters.

In Chapter 1, I frame the book. First, I identify the questions that motivate my book. For example, to whom do we have obligations? On what terms? And why? Second, I rehearse scriptural sources that may guide religious ethicists when thinking about our obligations to severely poor people. Third, given the various intradisciplinary debates in religious ethics about definitions and distinctions, I lead the reader through important definitions in contemporary normative and practical ethics, for example, doing and allowing, agent-neutrality and agent-relativity, and institutionalism and interpersonalism. And fourth, I comment on my methodology, highlighting my commitments to contractualist deontology and the use of thought experiments in ethics.

Chapter 11 turns to a discussion of the competing arguments concerning the new public nuisance law advanced by practicing attorneys, interest group allies, judges, scholars, and law-and-economics professors. Almost all criticisms of the new public nuisance law have been negative, characterizing expansion of public nuisance law as illegitimate and dysfunctional. These critiques are examined through the lens of various categories of criticism: (1) traditional, (2) formal, (3) institutional, (4) rule of law, (5) democratic theory, and (5) law and economics. The critics all draw on negative examples from the mass tort public nuisance cases in the 21st century (lead paint, firearms, opioids, vaping, climate change). At least one commentator, however, has offered tempered praise for the new public nuisance law as the second best solution to community-wide harms. She believes that the development of the new public nuisance law is in the finest traditon of a flexible, developing common law to meet changed circumsatnces. This commentator would permit continued development of the new public nuisance law, enhanced with several guardrails and transparency in proceedings.

This chapter evaluates whether any accounts of general constitutionalism can reconcile judicial review with popular autonomy. It evaluates three prevalent approaches: the Constitution as a fixed contract among the people (originalism) that includes judicial review; the Constitution as a fluid, dynamic instrument (living constitutionalism); and instrumental institutionalist accounts. Despite their insights and merits, none of these accounts can explain how the power to shape democratic process can be legitimately allocated to a nonaccountable, apolitical actor while fully recognizing the normative weight of democratic self-determination.

This chapter outlines the different analytical perspectives that can be used to study the EU. It first discusses three different integration theories (neo-functionalism, intergovernmentalism and postfunctionalism) and their spin-offs. These theories seek to explain why and how countries have decided to establish European cooperation and what role key actors (governments, interest groups, the public, politicians and civil servants) play in this. The chapter subsequently outlines theories of EU politics which seek to explain the actual functioning of the EU. In doing so it places a strong emphasis on the comparative politics approach, where the functioning of the EU is analysed by employing theories and concepts that are used in analysing domestic political systems. Additionally the chapter also discusses multi-level governance and federalism as two additional ways to understand EU politics. These theories provide complimentary insights in to the EU’s functioning. The choice to employ a certain theoretical perspective depends upon the types of questions asked and the actors that are of interest.

Chapter 5, “The Technocratic–Confucian Continuum,” establishes a working definition of the technocratic versus Confucian approaches to governance and completes the basic construction of three model types, termed “imperial technocracy,” “Confucian institutionalism,” and the “technocratic–Confucian continuum.” As applied to Song, I use the term “technocracy” to designate a wide range of functionaries who held positions that required specialized knowledge often acquired through family training or guilds (military servitors, clerks, artisans) or through specialized programs of service (eunuchs, female officials) rather than through the “presented scholar” (jinshi 進士) examination system, and who retained these positions for life. Although different from each other, these groups shared a distinctively non-literati, non-Confucian political culture. “Confucian institutionalism” is governance advocated and practiced by officials who (1) had entered service through the jinshi exam system, (2) were committed to a Confucian belief system, and (3) supported a system of established institutions and regulations that they believed would advance a governance that manifested those beliefs. The basic distinction therefore between technocratic and Confucian governance is between primacy given either to technocratic competence or to the belief system that supposedly undergirded Song institutions. The “technocratic–Confucian continuum” envisions the entirety of Song political culture along a continuum that comprised these two poles.

This Introduction to Structures of Governance in Song Dynasty China, 960–1279 CE presents the book’s premise and major themes. It opens with a survey of the two prevailing yet contrasting views of the Song state: (1) that Confucian literati (“scholar-officials”) dominated governance and effected, in accordance with Confucian principles, a “benevolent” administration; (2) that the Song monarchy established and maintained a centralized and predatory political system whose rapacious center extracted then squandered provincial resources. This book synthesizes these two views by expanding the hitherto accepted definition of Song political culture to include all its players, Confucian and non-Confucian, literati and non-literati alike. The resulting model of Song China as a “technocratic–Confucian continuum” combines elements from both these historical perspectives and offers a new model for thinking about governance in Song and during the entire imperial period in China. This model posits Song governance as a continuum of possibilities that ranged between two theoretical poles – a Confucian institutionalism and an imperial technocracy. A brief historiographical prelude summarizes the author’s previous work, The Making of Song Dynasty History: Sources and Narratives, and links the two volumes. This Introduction concludes with a synopsis of each of the work’s eleven chapters.

This chapter aims to investigate the extent to which the Netherlands has attempted to rein in transnational corporations from developing and emerging states by imposing requirements as a matter of regulatory compliance, either directly as an obligation formulated in a rule, or indirectly by offering corporations the opportunity to defend against civil violations. Section 1 of this chapter examines the Dutch Child Labour Duty of Care Law (2019). An evaluation of the parliamentary debates increases our understanding as to whether and to what extent competition from non-Dutch corporations – and, in particular, transnational corporations from developing and emerging states – in the global marketplace has had an impact on the stringency and reach of this legislative initiative. Section 2 discusses the (largely hypothetical) avenues available to bring claims against transnational corporations from developing and emerging states in Dutch courts.

Comparative constitutional law has experienced a resurgence in recent decades. Whereas two decades ago the field was focused on the North Atlantic and the issue of rights adjudication, there now exists a vibrant literature on many different jurisdictions and issues, covering a wide field of global constitutional arrangements. This chapter will review the history and rapid progress of the field of Constitutionalism in Context. The most encouraging and visible manifestations of this progress include a shift away from Eurocentrism and the traditional focus on apex courts. It will also identify lacunae in the existing literature and questions that would benefit from further exploration. This essay will conclude by proposing a next-generation research agenda for the field.