Chapter 3 examines the various regulatory activities in which transnational regulatory regimes commonly engage. These include standard setting, dispute resolution, technical assistance, humanitarian aid, and transnational deliberation. It also explores how each of these particular activities can be devoted to one of two distinct regulatory ‘function’. One such function looks to promote ‘efficacy’ – the regime’s ability to achieve its desired regulatory outcomes. The other looks to promote ‘interest balancing’ – balancing the competing interests of different stakeholders in a way that nevertheless retains the allegiance of all stakeholders despite their disagreements. A regime’s choice as to whether to focus on efficacy or on interest balancing effects how its regulatory activities are structured and implemented. In addition, a regime’s regulatory function can be a matter of contestation, which gives rise to issues of what this volume calls ‘operational legitimacy’ – the degree to which the regime’s stakeholders support the particular regulatory function that regime seeks to promote.

Adaptivity, flexibility, and transformability are fundamental features of resilience governance. These features represent the need for governance to match the constant movements of the ecosystem and the effects of pressures on the ecosystem. It is also through adaptive and flexible features that transformability can be created. Adaptive or flexible mechanisms within law matching such governance features, could be described as legal structures and measures that create space for adaptive procedures and flexible responses also within the legal regime. However, it must be noted that law could also create a kind of resistance to flexible changes in the social-ecological system. This could be regarded as one main function connected to the institutional structure and the social resilience that law creates, where stability over time and the potential to anticipate and prevent certain developments are central. International and EU law can be seen as rather adaptive and flexible in their inherent design.

Chapter 7 scrutinises the institutional and procedural structures necessary for achieving homogeneity in the process of exporting the acquis to third countries. The first part of the analysis addresses the necessary institutional and procedural frameworks for dynamically updating the multilateral agreements to reflect changes in the internal market acquis. The second part considers the procedures for defining the key elements of the internal market acquis and the modalities of third country participation in the process of defining the acquis on the EU level. This includes an examination of the implications of the increasing use of new governance methods in the EU policymaking on the third country actors’ possibilities to influence the content of internal market acquis and to, thereby, increase the effectiveness of the norms transfer.

To date, “transnational criminal law” has been the dominant paradigm for explaining and mapping rules on corruption in the international legal literature. This Chapter details the limits of transnational criminal conceptions of “anticorruption” through a study of nascent changes to Australian corporate foreign bribery law. Drawing on primary and secondary documentary sources, it shows that the proposed (but for now lapsed) reforms are only partially transnational, as that term is understood in “TCL” theory. Likewise, multilateral suppression conventions and related soft laws were but one impetus for the suggested amendments. Rather, as the transnational legal ordering literature suggests, a recursive process appears to have been at work between international organizations and local legislators, as well as transnational non-state actors. This process was marked, it seems, by moments of borrowing from the US and UK. However, it was also punctuated by themes of modernization, efficiency, and reputation. In addition, if settled, the amendments would result, not just in changes to national criminal law, but also the extension of “new” – and controversial – techniques of governance.

In mainstream culture, the marginalization of African Americans and Roma is reinforced through sign systems, or associations between images and ideas. Stereotypes of both groups serve as signposts for an inability to become fully incorporated into the nation. This is hardly surprising: the prior Chapters of this book reveal how both groups have been excluded and marginalized for centuries, with weak recourse under law.