Search

An injurer avoids liability in negligence when any one of the ingredients of negligence is absent. A potential injurer therefore has a number of possible ‘defences’, each one corresponding to the absence of an ingredient. Ex ante, a rational potential injurer will take care up to, but only up to, the point at which the cheapest available defence is acquired. We consider here the defences of absence of duty, absence of breach, absence of causation and absence of foreseeability, in the first place without uncertainty as to the legal standard. Absence of breach, causation and foreseeability are all related to the amount of care. Comparing the amounts of care necessary to acquire each defence, our principal result is that the defence of absence of causation is always cheaper to acquire than that of absence of breach, implying that a potential injurer will respond to a socially optimal legal standard by taking less than socially optimal care. When the model is extended to include uncertainty as to the legal standard the privately optimal amount of care increases and approximates to the social optimum.

Michael.Faure@facburfdr.unimaas.nl, telephone: +31(0)43-3883060, fax: +31(0)43-3259091. Prof. mr Ton Hartlief (Faculty of Law, Maastricht University, the Netherlands), Dr. Niels J. Philipsen, (METRO, Maastricht University, the Netherlands). We are grateful to Kathleen Mertens for providing useful documentation and information with respect to the issues reviewed in this paper. A draft of an earlier version of this paper was presented at a workshop on funding personal injury litigation in London on 4 February 2005. We thank the participants for useful comments.

Legislation enabling courts to confiscate or remove illegal gain has grown rapidly across a wide range of countries within both civil and common law systems. We review these developments from an economic perspective and show that there are certain types of offence for which the removal of illegal gain may provide a valuable complement to more traditional sanctions such as fines. Offences committed sequentially in small units and where the ‘victims’ are unaware of offences as they are being committed may be very difficult (and costly) to detect. The probability of the offender being detected and convicted are correspondingly very low and the costs of getting convictions thus become very high. With a very low probability of detection efficient deterrence can be achieved only with extremely high fines. Some legislatures have preferred to give courts powers to remove illegal gain as an alternative means of increasing deterrence. We argue that the fact that these powers have most often been developed for offences such as environmental crime and drug trafficking lends support to our contention that more traditional sanctions have failed most conspicuously in areas of crime which tend to be repeated and ‘victimless’.

This paper considers alternative approaches to dealing with causal uncertainty in strict liability tort regimes. Beginning from the philosophical literature on causing, a distinction is made between the scientific idea of causality and the legal idea of causation. This distinction is generalized to a context of causal uncertainty and associated probabilities are constructed. It is shown that a rule of proportional liability whereby the tortfeasor pays damages in proportion to the probability in causation of them having caused the damage would be socially efficient. This contrasts with the implied use of the probability in causality by the courts and in the law and economics literature on causal uncertainty.

One of the crucial issues resulting from expanding liability risks is whether alternative compensation mechanisms, other than (liability) insurance might be better able to cover socalled uninsured risks. Generally it is held in the literature that the issues that threaten the insurability of (liability) insurance today (uncertainty concerning probability and damage, causal uncertainty, retroactivity issues) would also affect other compensation mechanisms. Indeed, it is often held, for instance, that the general idea that no matter what type of compensation system one looks for it should always be organized in such a manner that the one who creates the risk should also bear the financial consequences, is an element which is crucial for every type of compensation mechanism. Hence, the question arises whether the reasons for uninsurability in traditional (liability) insurance could be removed if one would seek alternative compensation mechanisms. This question is warranted, especially after the Twin Towers incident of 11 September 2001 which indicated that catastrophes can occur that largely outweigh the capacity of traditional insurance undertakings. Therefore in this paper I will on the one hand analyse whether insurance compensation mechanisms other than traditional liability insurance would be better able to cover ‘‘uninsurable’’ risks under some circumstances. In addition, I would like to examine whether other financial arrangements (this is different from insurance) would be able to provide financial compensation if risks remained uninsured through the traditional insurance markets. In that respect the question obviously arises why other compensation mechanisms would be better able to cover those particular risks than insurance. In this paper I will look at some of these alternative mechanisms, not only from an insurance theoretical point of view, but also by looking at some actual compensation mechanisms which have been used in practice. Indeed, for many risks such as highly technological risks, nuclear risks and other so-called ‘‘systemic risks’’ industrial operators themselves have already moved away from traditional liability insurance and have searched alternative financial mechanisms to cope with the risks to which they are exposed.

This article discusses the question whether the current international regimes are adequate for the compensation of oil pollution damage. It sketches the regime of the CLC 1969 and the Fund Convention. Then it will show that by in 1984 and 1992, among others following the catastrophe with the Amoco Cadiz new initiatives were taken with the goal of providing more compensation. In 2000, following the Erika incident, the IMO Legal Committee proposed new amendments, which are to take effect in November 2003. However, even before this new regime has entered into force the sinking of the Prestige has cast doubt on whether this new regime is indeed sufficient to deal with major oil spills. Hence, this paper will address some of the critical issues underlying the current structure of the regime and discuss possible future developments, as indicated in doctrine and at the policy level. Finally, the paper formulates concluding remarks.

Many developed countries have the declared objective of supporting forest sustainability around the globe, but the world’s most important forests are, in fact, outside their jurisdictions. Actions to protect these forests are therefore constrained by the legal problem of extraterritoriality. To legally act outside their borders, developed countries have supported voluntary certificates on production practices and price-based instruments, but, unfortunately, neither instrument reached beyond niche market shares, administration and compliance costs were high, the environmental gains variable, and the two types of instruments work alongside each other without much synergies.In this paper, we use a Law and Economics methodology to develop a mechanism design that integrates forestry certificates with price-based instruments, in a way that exploits synergies, and provides dynamic incentives for sustainable use of forests while keeping down the costs of compliance and administration. It is a mechanism that satisfies legal extraterritoriality constraints while nevertheless allowing countries to act outside their borders. The mechanism consists of a tax imposed by a timber-importing country on a default assumption regarding the sustainability of the timber, combined with a tax discount that is provided on proof that the sustainability was higher than assumed. The proof is established by showing a sustainability certificate to the customs authority when the timber is imported.This Feebate mechanism reduces a range of standard problems in the literatures on certification and taxation of overseas forestry, such as the problems of threshold costs, free-riding and consumer recognition in markets with competing sustainability certificates, and the problem to compute efficient Pigouvian tax rates in a sector marked by data unavailability. We show that a combination of price-based instruments with certificates can lead to greater sustainability of timber production than each of the instruments alone, without infringing the sovereignty of nations in the South in an extraterritorial manner.

Today terrorism has become a world-wide phenomenon which does not stop at the European borders. Following the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Centre and terrorist attacks in Paris, Madrid and London, concerns have arisen in Europe about potential liability exposure for terrorism-related damage. This book tackles the problem of civil liability for damage caused by terrorist acts from several angles. The authors expertly deliver a comprehensive analysis of terrorism-related risk under international and EU law and the national tort law systems of seven representative EU Member States. They also provide a comparison of the situation in Europe to the liability environment in the US. Risk mitigation strategies are considered and critically assessed, as are alternative systems for redressing terrorism-related risks. The book concludes with a reflection on the analysis and presents possible strategies for future regulation by the European lawmakers.

The introduction sketches the importance of the Deepwater Horizon incident that occurred five years ago on 20 April 2010 in the Gulf of Mexico. The question central to this contribution is how compensation would be provided if such an incident were to occur in European waters. A mechanism that plays an important role in Europe, more particularly for the North Sea is the Offshore Pollution Liability Association Limited, referred to as OPOL. Section 2 introduces OPOL by elaborating the origins, main features, membership rules, financial responsibility and claims handling. Section 3 discusses OPOL in the UK regulatory environment which is particularly interesting since OPOL membership in the UK is mandatory. Section 4 provides a critical analysis by first describing the practice of OPOL and next discussing the advantages and limits of this particular scheme. Section 5 discusses which insurance and financial instruments are used in Europe in areas where OPOL does not apply. In turn self-insurance, (re)insurance as well as risk-pooling schemes are discussed. Finally Section 6 examines to what extent it would be possible to expand OPOL either in amount or in geographical scope (more particularly beyond the North Sea). Section 7 concludes. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

The regulation of pharmacists in belgium and the netherlands is analysed in order to test the rent-seeking hypothesis put forward in the private interest literature. Both the self-regulation issued by the professional bodies and public regulations are examined. It appears that many regulations in both countries either restrict the entry into the profession or restrict competition within the profession. A qualitative comparative analysis of these regulations in both countries is presented as well as some empirical findings. The economic analysis and the empirical data seem to give some support to the rent-seeking hypothesis.

In this paper some studies with respect to empirical socio-economic research which has been undertaken in Belgium and the Netherlands concerning the functioning of legal rules and institutions are discussed. The paper focuses on the domains of criminal law, civil procedure, liability and insurance. The paper argues that contrary to the overwhelming economic literature on liability and insurance, the empirical results in that domain are poor. More research is undertaken in the area of criminal law and apparently it is overwhelming in the area of civil procedure. The latter studies are, however, mainly undertaken by socio-legal scholars and less by economists. The general conclusion of the empirical studies discussed seems to be that while the empirical literature on the effect of changes in the decision making environment on rational actions in the legal system is rich and provocative, there is much less empirical testing of the effects of legal rules as such on allocational outcomes. The paper argues that much more effort should be devoted to the latter issue.

The purpose of the present paper is to explore both the motivation for confiscating illegal gain and also to look at some of its legal aspects and economic effects. It is argued that the removal of illegal gain may be able to play a significant complementary role, if only by closing the gap between the maximum punishment the law will allow and fines sufficient to represent a credible deterrent. The paper develops a deterrence model and applies it to confiscation powers introduced to help combat drug trafficking.

Background - the need to define and distinguish the concepts of harmonization, codification and integration and the benefits of doing so. Various notions of harmonization: of the substantive law and of procedures; coordination; codification; internal and external integration distinguished. Recent examples of harmonization: the Dutch Environmental Management Act; the Flemish Draft Decree on Environmental Policy; harmonization as a policy goal at the European level, and the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive. Suggested definitions of integration, harmonization, codification and coordination.

This article focuses on a specific aspect of liability insurance that arises out of the latent nature of certain insured events. In particular, it is concerned with the fact that in the interval between the original tort and the claim for damages the standard of care applied by the courts may change. This is the problem of retroactive liability. The article begins by briefly reviewing the legal background to the retrospective application of liability rules. Then it formally addresses the question of how retroactive liability can be reconciled with the goals of tort law and whether retroactive liability is insurable.

This paper deals with the claims of industrial operators and their insurers that expanding liability is being experienced in many legal systems in Europe and will lead to the uninsurability of certain risks. In this paper we address some aspects of this insurability problem by trying to identify precisely what might make an expanding liability risk uninsurable. Then we examine whether there are remedies for expanding liability that might result in certain risks remaining insurable. In that respect we shall consider alternative compensation systems, financial caps, differentiation of risks, and the application of insurance policies over time, more specifically related to so-called 'long-tail' risks. Although each of these aspects might merit a separate paper, we prefer to discuss them in an integrated way by providing a balanced answer to current questions concerning the insurability of modem industrial hazards.

This chapter focuses on one particular aspect of adaptation to climate change, being the fact that climate change can create large losses. The paper addresses the question how compensation for those losses can be generated. After sketching a few general principles the paper addresses the pros and cons of different compensation mechanisms, in turn the role of liability rules, first party insurance, a compensation fund, direct compensation by government and reinsurance by government are discussed. The paper argues that the desirability of adequate compensation for climate change related damage cannot be ignored, given the potentially catastrophic nature of climate change related damage. The paper argues strongly in favour of an optimal use of first party insurance, eventually in combination with an intervention of government as reinsurer of last resort (in order to deal with catastrophic losses). The paper argues against direct compensation by government since that may create negative incentives for prevention.

This paper starts from a hypothetical case whereby one consumer has lost a relatively limited amount of money as a result of negligence of the bank in the wake of the financial crisis. The consumer will not file suit because of the so-called rational disinterest problem and because the losses are dispersed. The consumer is, however, not alone and many face similar problems. Hence the paper argues that a market failure arises and the remainder of the paper questions how that market failure can be remedied. One possibility is to look for solutions to lower the barriers to access to justice, for example through a transfer of claim, legal expenses insurance or conditional fee arrangements. The pros and cons of each of those solutions are discussed from a law and economics perspective. The other problem is the one of dispersed losses resulting in rational disinterest of the consumer. One solution may be group litigation or a representative suit. Other solutions may go in the direction of consumer ADR. The benefits of consumer ADR are discussed both from the consumers as well as from society’s perspective. Finally the paper continues by addressing specific problems that may arise in the settlement of mass claims related to the incentives of lawyers and to the incentives of the judiciary.

In June 2014 the European Council promulgated the directive on criminal sanctions for market abuse 2014/57/EU forcing the European member states to criminalize particular acts related to market manipulation and insider trading. In the same month the directive also entered into force. As a result of this directive the traditional freedom that member states had to decide the ways in which they would implement a directive on market manipulation and insider trading has finished. With this important step the European institutions make use of the new powers that were allocated to them to force member states to the use of the criminal law in particular areas. Previously the European institutions made use of this inter alia with respect to environmental criminal law. However, this is the first time that the European institutions not only force member states towards criminalisation, but moreover, even impose a minimum level of specific penalties, something which was equally made possible with the treaty of Lisbon.The enclosed paper describes the way in which the European institutions have addressed the enforcement of the insider trading prohibition and the role of the criminal law in this respect. Moreover, in the paper we critically question whether criminalisation and more particularly the imposition of criminal law at EU-level are appropriate tools.In order to address those questions we use an economic approach and a legal theory approach to the criminalisation of insider trading and market manipulation. Economic theory has indicated that criminalisation may only be needed in specific (exceptional) circumstances, more particularly where the gain to the perpetrator would be relatively high, the potential damage to society high and the probability of detection low. We argue that although there may be circumstances in which these conditions are fulfilled, there can also be many situations where the probability of detection is not that low and where gains to the perpetrator are not substantial. In those circumstances alternatives such as civil remedies or administrative sanctions could suffice. It is striking that the European Commission pays a lot of attention to private enforcement in other policy domains like e.g. competition policy. In the domain of enforcement of insider trading and market manipulation there is, contrary to the situation in the US, no attention to the possibilities of private enforcements. To the contrary, differently than the suggestions from economic theory, the European institutions strongly believe in the need for criminal sanctions.Not only the choice for the criminal law can be critically assessed. One can equally wonder why this criminalisation necessarily had to be imposed at EU-level. In fact, from the twenty-eight European member states only Bulgaria lacked criminal sanctions. That hence also justifies the question whether there really was a need to impose a criminalisation of insider trading and market manipulation at EU-level, rather than respecting the subsidiarity principle and hence allowing member states the appropriate remedies (civil, administrative of criminal) to insider trading and market manipulation.The goal of this paper is hence to critically discuss this very recent European directive, forcing member states to a criminalisation of insider trading and market manipulation from an economic perspective. The paper critically analyses the directive on criminal sanctions for market abuse 2014/57/EU and also discusses the arguments in favour of criminalisation and the question whether forcing criminalisation at EU-level, as the directive does, was indicated.

As we already stated in the introduction the problems which were central to this book, environmental degradation, climate change and disasters pose particular problems to developing countries given their higher vulnerability to those types of risks. The central focus of the contributions in this book was on the legal remedies that could be employed to deal adequately with the risks resulting from environmental degradation, climate change and disasters. Of course not all aspects could be discussed in detail, but various important points related to these increasing risks could be highlighted. The various contributions to this book showed that on the one hand the challenges are large: a developing country like Indonesia is, inter alia as a result of globalization, increasingly vulnerable to environmental degradation. This can easily be noticed on the island where the conference preceding this book was held, Bali: economic development grows strong inter alia thanks to the tourism industry, but on the other hand tourism also poses considerable threats both to food safety and to environmental degradation. An important challenge for Indonesia and more particularly for the island of Bali will hence be how economic development (more particularly tourism) could go hand in hand with environmental protection in the form of sustainable tourism.

The present article forms an introduction to those that follow. It sets the law relating to civil liability for environmental damage in the context of economic theory, and examines, inter alia, whether fault liability or strict liability is the better instrument for ensuring that environmental damage is minimised and whether the liability of individual industrial operators is best covered by insurance or whether specialist compensation funds are a more effective option.

This article gives an economic analysis of some of the more important aspects of the new proposal for a Directive on Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC). The authors use an economic interpretation of the subsidiarity principle to analyze the concept of IPPC, the choice of the permit as a central instrument and the importance and interpretation of the principle of Best Available Technology (EAT) in the IPPC proposal. They come to the conclusion that the proposal does not conform with the subsidiarity principle to the extent that it allows for a European-wide interpretation ofBA T and prescribes the permit as the main instrument to control and prevent pollution. Emission and technology standards should be set at local level, using local and optimally differentiated interpretations of BAT, complying with a European framework of quality standards. Also scope should be given to Member States for using alternative instruments.

Increasingly, China is planning to move to nuclear power. The plan for China is to double its nuclear capacity in the near future. A critical component is that a regulatory framework has to be developed to accompany this move towards nuclear energy. An important component of such a framework is a nuclear liability regime. In this article, the Chinese compensation regulatory regime for nuclear accidents is addressed. Part II of the article provides a short history of China’s nuclear policy and its existing nuclear energy regulatory framework. Part III discusses the legislative framework for liability and the effectiveness of two government documents. Part IV discusses in more details the rules regarding nuclear liability in China. Part V provides a critical evaluation and comparison of the nuclear liability framework in China, contrasting it to some nuclear liability economic starting points and to the nuclear liability regime and the US Price-Anderson Act and international conventions.

This book focuses on experiences with the Anti-Monopoly Law (AML) of 2007 in China. It uses carefully-chosen case studies to examine how the competition authorities in China discuss cases and how they use economic reasoning in their decision-making process.

Deposit guarantee insurance has been a very debated topic both in the usa and in europe. Deposit guarantee insurance is considered to be a highly important mechanism to prevent bank runs and to restore depositor confidence, which is why both in the usa and in europe during the financial crisis measures were taken to increase the coverage amounts. Interestingly, china is also considering the introduction of a deposit guarantee system. China has indeed known many cases of bank failures recently. Until approximately 20 years ago, this may not have been a big problem in china for the simple reason that all banks were state owned and an implicit guarantee system was provided via the state. However, with privatization of financial markets also occurring in china, bank runs and resulting bank failures have also begun to occur in this country.attempts have been taken to introduce a deposit guarantee scheme, but they were put on hold because of the financial crisis. This article looks at the particular situation of china, not only addressing some of the instances of bank failures but also studying the particular design problems that may arise in the chinese context, in the light of experiences in the usa and europe. Indeed, from the us and european experience, it is well known that, on the one hand, deposit insurance may have many beneficial aspects (preventing bank runs), but, on the other hand, it may also create problems of its own (in particular, creating a moral hazard on the side of financial institutions and neglect on the side of depositors). The article examines how these problems may play out in china and also argues that given the fact that the big five chinese banks are still state owned introducing risk dependent contributions (which is now advocated in the usa and europe) may not be appropriate in china.

In the risk society of the twenty-first century, regulators must balance risk, and the potential harm to human health and the environment, against the demand of citizens for new technologies and the benefits that they bring; and they must do so in a context of high levels of uncertainty and in which the pace of technological developments can quickly outstrip regulatory efforts. In this volatile regulatory environment, one of the key challenges that regulators face is that of regulatory connection i.e. of creating a connection with the object of regulatory intervention, whether a particular technology or product process, and maintaining that connection as the technology develops and spreads. The demand upon regulators to create and ensure regulatory connection has led to an increasing use of open or flexible regulation. What this means in practice is an increasing turn to the use of vaguely worded standards in regulatory instruments in place of specific rules laid down in legislation. At the same time, the desire for effective enforcement of these instruments has led to a trend towards the use of criminal sanctions in place of administrative or civil law remedies. What we suggest in this paper is that these two trends – towards standards and towards criminal sanctions – when combined raise serious concerns in relation to the principle of lex certa, or legal certainty. These concerns touch both upon the legitimacy of such regulatory efforts as well as the effectiveness of such regulation. This presents regulators with a dilemma: in order for regulation to maintain regulatory connection in the context described above, it must remain flexible. However, if regulatees are to know that they are bound and modify their behaviour accordingly, the fact that they are bound and the requirements placed upon them need to be foreseeable. Moreover, where regulatees face criminal sanctions for breach of these standards, the principle of legal certainty – so central to our idea of what law is and to our acceptance of being bound by it –, made precise in criminal law under the principle of nullem crimen, nulla poena sine praevia lege poenali, demands that individuals can readily foresee the consequences of their actions. This paper explores the challenge faced by the regulator in seeking to balance the need for flexibility with the demands of foreseeability in the context of enforcing risk regulation with criminal sanctions. We argue that the current balance is too heavily weighted in favour of flexibility and suggest the use of the notion of development risk liability, in combination with prospective overruling, as a means for seeking a better equilibrium between the goals of flexibility and the protection provided by foreseeability.

This article deals with an important, but yet unexplored issue, being to what extent the anti-monopoly law of China of 2008 can be applied in an extraterritorial manner. The paper reviews first the extraterritorial application of anti-trust law in the United States and in EU competition law and then provides a critical policy analysis on extraterritoriality. Attention is specifically paid to the position of China since article 2 of the ALM, so we argue, explicitly provides for the possibility of extraterritoriality. The first decisions also show that China is apparently on its way towards an extraterritorial application of its anti-monopoly law in practice. We point at the many conflicts to which such an extraterritorial application of competition law has given rise in the EU and in the US (and more particularly between them) and hence we argue that it may be wise to draw lessons from those conflicts in order to prevent a similar scenario for China. We argue that for example joint actions between anti-trust authorities and mutual information exchange (for example on the basis of a bilateral agreement on the extraterritorial exercise of jurisdiction) may lead to avoiding potential conflicts that may arise from an extraterritorial application of the Chinese anti-monopoly law.

In this contribution Michael Faure, Marjan Peeters and Andri Wibisana discussed the question whether economic instruments, also referred to as marketable instruments, are also suited for developing countries. The classic arguments concerning the shortcomings of command and control instruments are discussed as well as the potential advantages of market-based instruments in controlling environmental pollution. Then the theory concerning environmental taxation as well as concerning emission trading is explained and attention is paid to a comparison of regulation, marketable permits and taxes. Also some practical experiences with the way in which marketable permits and environmental taxes have reduced emissions are presented as well. In addition to this public interest analysis attention is also paid to the so-called private interest analysis, showing that in some cases private interest may affect the choice of instruments for environmental policy. With respect to the specific case of developing countries the authors warn that one should not necessarily be overenthusiastic concerning the use of so-called economic instruments. One problem is that they require a lot of information and enforcement costs to be applied in an effective manner and another problem is that the use of those instruments may entail serious risks of collusion and corruption. In a collusion prone environment (which may often be the case in developing countries) one should hence be very careful with propagating so-called economic instruments that involve a transfer of money.

In the last decade one can identify several accidents which can be classified as large scale accidents of a catastrophic dimension. After such a catastrophe the compensation of victims is of crucial importance and governments often intervene in this compensation. However, the organization of government intervention in the compensation varies from one country to another and from one disaster to another. Governments intervene either because no satisfying solution is available in the private market or to fulfil the requirements of existing compensation schemes. Political pressure for such intervention may also be large. Consequently Governments may try to intervene to stimulate the insurability of catastrophic risks or to take over insurance functions when markets fail. There is a tendency in the last years to use such public-private partnerships more frequently. The paper has analysed how such partnerships can work and in what way such intervention should be structured. It is argued that intervention should always be designed in accordance with criteria of economic efficiency to prevent that the intervention of the government amounts to a subsidy. This would not only be detrimental in terms of efficiency, but could also lead to problems with regard to state aid considerations. This paper delineates some conditions which have to be fulfilled to guarantee an efficient intervention. This theoretical framework serves to discuss the drawbacks on the one hand but also advantages on the other hand of government intervention to stimulate the reinsurability of catastrophic risks.

This study analyses the long standing question whether environmental risks and accidents can be sufficiently controlled under a civil liability regime. The literature generally holds that regulation should be the primary instrument to promote environmental care, but that environmental liability can have a supplementary effect. However, little is known empirically on how environmental liability actually supplements regulation and whether this combination can in fact be considered efficient. This paper uses a dataset from France with all environmental cases that reach the French Supreme Court (Cour de Cassation) in the past 50 years, analysing how courts play such a supplementary role in addition to regulation. It is argued that regulators do provide judges with relevant information to help solve causal uncertainty problems, but that on the other hand liability rules are especially applied when regulation is weak. The data we provide hence lend some support to the hypothesis that environmental liability plays an important supplemtary function in deterring environmental harm in combination with regulation.