Search

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is the leading international organization in the field of nuclear energy and nuclear non-proliferation. This paper examines the most important policy body of the Agency, the Board of Governors (BoG). The legal foundation of the BoG will be discussed in light of its constitutional documents, most notably the Statute of the IAEA and the Rules of Procedure of the BoG. The research question will be approached from the theoretical angle of functionalism. The paper suggests that in fact, the practical role of the BoG is even more important than could be concluded on the basis of the legal documents whence the powers of the BoG derive. Over the years, the normative framework of the IAEA has enabled the BoG to adapt to rapidly changing decision-making environments and political situations. Furthermore, this has made it possible for the BoG to contribute in a relatively effective manner to the development of substantive international nuclear policy and law.

This paper focuses on a highly specialized field of law, namely nuclear law. This is characterized, on the one hand, by strong national competences and the primary position of national law, but also, on the other hand, by the international dimension, which has a major impact on national law. For a European Union Member State, the picture is even more wide-ranging, as European Union law, in this case the Euratom Treaty, adds another important layer to the legal-regulatory framework in the nuclear energy sector. The point of departure for this paper is therefore that of an EU Member State, which in nuclear energy issues functions in a legal field consisting of three interdependent main elements – national law, European Union law and international law. Thus, the article seeks to answer the question of which of these three legal systems is the primary one for an EU Member State in the area of nuclear safety, and also to shed light on their interrelationships. he theoretical framework for this analysis aimed at systematization is Hans Kelsen’s classical theory of legal systems. The argument presented here is that for an EU Member State the primary legal system from a legal-hierarchical point of view is the legal system composed of EU law. This is the case mainly because the EU has competence in the area of nuclear safety, albeit shared with the EU Member States. Although the EU/Euratom has not yet significantly expanded regulation in this field, this will most likely change as EU energy policy and legislation develops further in the future. This evolution will most likely have both legislative and enforcement impacts, despite the fact that the substantive content of legislation on all three levels is quite similar. In spite of this, the three legal systems co-exist in constant interaction and without major collisions. Kelsen’s perspective can prove beneficial for understanding the boundaries of the three interdependent legal systems and the shift of the basic norm towards EU law over the past two decades.

This paper looks at the latest reform of the EU Transparency Register (TR). I will approach the negotiations on the TR from the angle of the legislative process and will focus in particular on the life cycle of the TR proposal all the way from its preparatory phase within the Commission until the trilogue negotiations and the adoption of the TR package. I will be arguing that peer pressure between EU institutions had a significant impact on the negotiations. Furthermore, peer pressure inside EU institutions was also important. The final outcome of the TR will be analysed with regard to the effectiveness and added value of the TR interinstitutional agreement and the accompanying legal and political instruments. Solutions aimed at increasing transparency will be discussed in terms of their practical effect on EU institutions, the European Commission, the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. The findings of this paper suggest that the achieved compromise provides added value to the TR regime of the EU. Moreover, the compromise has contributed to transforming the EU TR towards a hybrid transparency system consisting of elements of a different nature. Finally, I will conclude by discussing the future prospects of developing the EU TR regime.