No. 1 (2025)
Digitalization between regulation and institutionalization: impact on public decision-making (edited by the Scientific Council of the AIS Section of Sociology of Law and Deviance)

Digital institutions made in EU and the paradox of a regulatory anti-normativism

pdf (Italiano)
Mariavittoria Catanzariti
University of Padua, Department of Political Science, Law and International Studies
DOI: https://doi.org/10.54103/1972-5760/28923

Published 2025-06-04

Keywords

  • digital institutions,
  • data,
  • law,
  • european integration,
  • single market,
  • global market
    • ...More
    Less

How to Cite

Catanzariti, M. (2025). Digital institutions made in EU and the paradox of a regulatory anti-normativism. Sociologia Del Diritto, 52(1). https://doi.org/10.54103/1972-5760/28923

Copyright (c) 2025 Mariavittoria Catanzariti

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Abstract

This article explores the phenomenon of European digital regulation by placing it at the centre of a broader process, that of digital institutionalism, in which the use of data, their regulation, and the management and ownership of digital infrastructures produce social, political and legal effects. By questioning the plausibility of this process as unprecedented, this contribution highlights some of its peculiar features in comparison to classical institutionalism. Digital institutionalism emerged with reference to the European Data Strategy, identifying practices and processes triggered by regulatory phenomena that make technology both an institutional driver and a limit to the regulatory capacity of existing institutions. From the perspective of legal sociology, this contribution investigates the positioning of digital institutionalism in the process of European integration, examining how much this implies adherence to models, formal and informal rules, procedures, and practices that stabilize trends within broader social transformations. It essentially questions three issues: a) the plausibility of the hypothesis of digital institutionalism in light of data governance models; b) its assumptions of applicability; and c) the advantages of using this notion to understand the position.
pdf (Italiano)

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

  1. Bourdieu, P., (1994), Raisons pratiques. Sur la théorie de l'action, Paris, Seuil.
  2. Bradford, A., (2012), The Brussels Effect, Northwestern University Law Review, 107,1, pp. 1-67.
  3. Bradford, A., (2020), The Brussels Effect: How the European Union Rules the World, Oxford, OUP.
  4. Bradford, A., (2023), Digital Empires. The Global Battle to Regulate Technology, Oxford, OUP.
  5. Clopton, Z.D., (2016), Data Institutionalism: A Reply to Andrew Woods, Stanford Law Review Online, 69, pp. 9-16.
  6. Caporaso, J.A., Stone Sweet, A., (2001), Conclusion: Institutional Logics of European Integration, in Stone Sweet, A. - Sandholtz, W. - Fligstein, N., eds., The Institutionalization of Europe, Oxford, OUP, pp. 221-236.
  7. Capri, A., (2024), Techno-Nationalism. How it’s Reshaping Trade, Geopolitics and Society, Hoboken, Wiley.
  8. Croce, M., (2023), L’anima doppia dell’istituzionalismo giuridico. Carl Schmitt vs. Santi Romano, Forum di Quaderni Costituzionali, 3, pp. 255-263.
  9. Curtin, D., (2009), The Executive Power of the European Union: Law, Practices, and the Living Constitution, Oxford, OUP.
  10. Deleuze, G., (2014), Istinti e Istituzioni, Milano, Mimesis.
  11. Esposito, R., (2023), Vitam Instituere. Genealogia dell’istituzione, Torino, Einaudi.
  12. Fahey, E., (2022), The EU as Global Digital Actor: Institutionalizing Global Data Protection, Trade, and Cybersecurity, Londra, Bloomsbury.
  13. Hauriou, M., (1967), Teoria dell’istituzione e della fondazione (a cura di W. Cesarini Sforza), Milano, Giuffrè.
  14. Headrick, D.R., (2018), Il predominio dell’Occidente. Tecnologia, ambiente, imperialismo, Bologna, Il Mulino.
  15. Hedley, R.A., (1998), Technological Diffusion or Cultural imperialism?: Measuring the Information Revolution?, International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 39, pp. 198-211.
  16. Hodgkin, A., (2017), Following Searle on Twitter: How Words Create Digital Institutions, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.
  17. Hofmann, H.G.H., Rowe, G.C., Türk, A., (2011), Administrative Law and Policy of the European Union, Oxofrd, OUP.
  18. Infantino, M., (2019), Numera et impera. Gli indicatori giuridici glocali e il diritto comparato, Milano, Franco Angeli.
  19. Graziano, P., Vink, M., (2013), Europeanization: Concepts, Theory, and Methods, in Bulmer, S., Christian Lequesne, C., eds., The Member States of the European Union (II ed.), Oxford, OUP, pp. 31-54.
  20. Fligstein, N., (2000), The Process of Europeanization, Politique Européenne, 1, 1, pp. 25-42.
  21. Keohane, R., (2002), Ironies of Sovereignty: The European Union and the United States, Journal of Common Market Studies, 42, pp. 743-765.
  22. Kuner, C., (2013), Transborder Data Flow Regulation and Data Privacy Law, Oxford, OUP.
  23. Kuner, C., (2019), The Internet and the Global Reach of EU Law, in Cremona, M., Scott, J., eds., EU Law beyond EU Borders: The Extraterritorial Reach of EU Law, Oxford, OUP, pp. 112–145.
  24. Maroni, M., (2021), An Open Internet? The Court of Justice of the European Union between Network Neutrality and Zero Rating, European Constitutional Law Review, 17, pp. 517-537.
  25. Miadzvetskaya, Y., (2023), Data Governance Act: On International Transfers of Non-Personal Data and GDPR Mimesis, European Data Protection Law Review (EDPL), 9, 1, pp. 13-26.
  26. Newell, J.L., (2022), European Integration and the Crisis of Social Democracy, Londra, Palgrave MacMillan.
  27. Olgiati, V., (2013), L’istituzionalismo italiano e la sociologia del diritto in Santi Romano, in Febbrajo, A., a cura di, Le radici del pensiero sociologico-giuridico, Milano, Giuffrè, p. 185-241
  28. Papakonstantinou, V., De Hert, P. (2022). The Regulation of Digital Technologies in the EU: The law-making phenomena of “actification”, “GDPR mimesis” and “EU law brutality”, Technology and Regulation, pp. 48-60.
  29. Pennisi, C., (2024), Il diritto come rappresentazione del sistema giuridico. Spunti di sociologia del diritto, Rimini, Maggioli.
  30. Pistor, K., (2019), The Code of Capital. How the Law Creates Wealth and Inequality, Princeton, Princeton University Press.
  31. Romano, S., (1951), L’ordinamento giuridico, Firenze, Sansoni.
  32. Rouet, G., Côme, T., eds., (2023) Participatory and digital democracies at the local level: European discourses and practices, Cham, Springer.
  33. Salvatore, A., (2021), Al limite estremo. L’istituzionalismo giuridico di Maurice Hauriou, Quaderni fiorentini per la storia del pensiero giuridico moderno, 50, pp. 151-179.
  34. Schmitt, C., (2022), Costituzione e istituzione (a cura di M. Croce e A. Salvatore), Macerata, Quodlibet.
  35. Schmidhauser, J.R., (1997), The European Origins of Legal Imperialism and Its Legacy in Legal Education in Former Colonial Regions, International Political Science Review, 18, 3, pp. 337-351.
  36. Searle, J., (2010), Making the social world: the structure of human civilization, Oxford, OUP.
  37. Sgueo, G., (2023), The design of digital democracy, Cham, Springer.
  38. Stone Sweet, A., Sandholtz, W. and Fligstein, N., eds., (2001), The institutionalization of Europe, Oxford, OUP.
  39. Tarantino, A., (1976), La teoria della necessità nell’ordinamento giuridico. Interpretazione della dottrina di Santi Romano, Milano, Giuffrè.
  40. Woods, A.K., (2016), Against Data Exceptionalism, Stanford Law Review, 68, pp. 729-789.
  41. Zuboff, S., (2023), Il capitalismo della sorveglianza, Luiss University Press, 2023.