Global Financial Standards and Networks: the Global Administrative Law Perspective
Escrito por Maurizia De Bellis
30
El Derecho Administrativo Global (GAL), como enfoque de investigación, es especialmente adecuado para enmarcar el análisis de los estándares globales financieros: debido a las caracterÃsticas de los órganos normativos, al objeto de regulación, a los procedimientos de elaboración de normas y a la forma en que  éstas
son implementadas. En particular, los principios y procedimientos que provienen del derecho administrativo nacional se han utilizado con el fin de fomentar la rendición de cuentas de los actores que crean normas. Sin embargo, algunos ejemplos - como el borrador de Basilea II, en el que fueron usados ampliamente procedimientos de notificación y comentarios, que resultaron en la creación de un riesgo de captura regulatoria - muestran que los instrumentos GAL deben ser elaborados a la medida, con el fin de garantizar la representación equilibrada de todos los intereses en juego. De lo contrario, su posible efecto positivo, tanto en la responsabilidad de los reguladores globales como en la eficacia de la regulación, se verá afectada.
Â
------------------------------
Â
Abstract
Different types of authorities take part in the global financial architecture: international, transnational and national; public and private. The FSB, strengthened in 2009, aims at coordinating the work of all these bodies. Yet, not all these actors play the same functions: the G20 aims at setting the agenda of reform and gives its political endorsement to technical bodies; the IMF and the World Bank, through the FSAP and ROCSs, work as standard enforcers, not as standard setters. The standard setting process itself is still, even after the crisis, in the hands of transnational networks. Moreover, the FSB itself is, contrary to its predecessor, also a standard setter. The Global Administrative Law (GAL) research approach is particularly well-suited to frame global financial standards: because of the features of the standard setters; because of the object of regulation; because of the standard setting procedures; because of ways standards are implemented. In particular, principles and procedures coming from national administrative law traditions have been used in order to foster the accountability of the standard setters. Yet, some examples —such as the drafting of Basel II, where extensive notice and comment procedures were used, resulting in a risk of regulatory capture— show that GAL instruments need to be attentively tailored, in order to guarantee the balanced representation of all the interests at stake. Otherwise, their potential positive effect on both the accountability of global regulators and the efficacy of regulation is impaired.
Â