Rechtswissenschaft
Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Working Paper (399) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (399)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (399)
Keywords
- Deutschland (63)
- Aktienrecht (17)
- Kapitalmarktrecht (16)
- Börsenrecht (12)
- Corporate Governance (12)
- Börsenordnung (11)
- Urheberrecht (10)
- USA (9)
- Aktionärsstruktur (7)
- Aktiengesellschaft (6)
Institute
- Rechtswissenschaft (399)
- House of Finance (HoF) (52)
- Wirtschaftswissenschaften (51)
- Center for Financial Studies (CFS) (48)
- Sustainable Architecture for Finance in Europe (SAFE) (48)
- Foundation of Law and Finance (41)
- Exzellenzcluster Die Herausbildung normativer Ordnungen (23)
- LOEWE-Schwerpunkt Außergerichtliche und gerichtliche Konfliktlösung (12)
- Institute for Law and Finance (ILF) (4)
- Institute for Monetary and Financial Stability (IMFS) (4)
The Åland Islands archipelago enjoys a special international status sui generis, which essentially encompasses demilitarisation, neutralisation, and autonomy. This status is guaranteed under international law by the agreements of 1921, 1940, and 1947, which are still in force. Furthermore, there are convincing reasons to assume that the Åland Islands regime has grown into European customary law. By virtue of her international (treaty) obligations, Finland cannot unilaterally change this status under the present conditions, irrespective of domestic (constitutional) decisions. While integration into NATO’s collective defence system and the EU’s Common Security and Defence Policy structures is compatible with the special status of the Åland Islands, care must be taken by Finland and her partners to ensure that the obligations arising from these developments are fulfilled in accordance with the demilitarised and neutralised status of the archipelago. This includes that the use by Finnish troops for preventive defence, beyond the exceptions laid down in the 1921 Åland Agreement, is only permitted in the case (of threat) of an immediate and clearly identifiable attack.
The autonomous character of the Åland Islands was established under a League of Nations dispute settlement and implemented, inter alia, in Finnish legislation. Its essence even grew into customary law. The arrangements of 1921, however, do not constitute a bilateral treaty between Finland and Sweden. The UN assumes that the international mechanism to protect Åland’s autonomy did not become obsolete with the demise of the League of Nations, but was only “suspended until such time as an express decision has been taken by the United Nations to put it back into force”. A corresponding proposal could be submitted, in any case, both by Finland and/or Sweden or possibly even by any other UN member state, for discussion in the Sixth Committee. However, the final decision to re-activate this special mechanism would have to be adopted by the UN General Assembly.
EU Law applies to the Åland Islands in principle; however, Finland’s Accession Treaty to the EU to which Protocol No. 2 on the Åland Islands was annexed, established a number of specific rules which are still in force today. This, most notably, results in the limited application of value added tax and excise duties in the Åland Islands. Therefore, the rules on customs procedures apply with respect to the movement of goods to and from the Åland Islands. In addition, other provisions of Union law, in particular those relating to fundamental freedoms and European state aid law, may be relevant in view of the special fiscal status of the Åland Islands. However, assessing individual cases would require further information and in-depth studies. Irrespective of the requirements set out in the said Protocol, the EU is obliged to respect the national identity of Member States pursuant to Article 4 para. 2 TEU; this obligation includes respect for the special status of the Åland Islands under both international and Finnish constitutional law.
Eine finalisierte Fassung des Beitrags wird 2024 in einem von Burchard/Schmitt-Leonardy/Singelnstein/Zabel herausgegebenen Sammelband („Alternativen zum Strafrecht“) erscheinen.
Im Zentrum des Beitrags steht jedoch nicht der Versuch, positiv Alternativen zum oder im Strafrecht zu formulieren. Vielmehr ist der Begriff der Alternativlosigkeit erkenntnisleitend, konkret die Identifizierung gesellschaftlich-politischer Wirkmächte und innerstrafrechtlicher Deutungsmuster, die eine (auch) strafrechtliche Bewältigung der durch den menschengemachten Klimawandel aufgeworfenen Konflikte alternativlos erscheinen lassen können.
Dazu wird die jüngst aufgekommene Debatte um ein Klimaschutzstrafrecht aus einer zukunftssoziologischen und strafrechtswissenschaftlichen Perspektive analysiert. Im Zentrum des Beitrags steht die These, dass sich gerade die Verbindung von katastrophischen Zukunftsvorstellungen – hier erschlossen über den zukunftssoziologischen Schlüsselbegriff der Imagination und deskriptiv-analytisch als „Klimakatastrophismus“ bezeichnet – und Exzeptionalisierungen des Strafrechts als Treiber in die imaginative Sackgasse der Alternativlosigkeit erweist.
Die verdichtete Imagination, das die Zukunfts eine Katastrophe sei („Klimakatastrophismus“), befördert als ein an Boden gewinnendes kollektives Deutungsmuster eine intensivierte Sozialkontrolle und Punitivität.
Der kriminalpolitisch expansive Kurs einer mit radikalisierten Selbsterhaltungsfragen konfrontierten Gesellschaft scheint in gesellschaftlich wie dogmatisch tief verankerten Exzeptionalisierungen des Strafrechts – wie der Zuschreibung, (nur) strafwürdige Sozialschädlichkeit adressieren zu dürfen, dies aufgrund einer regulativen und expressiven Ausnahmestellung aber auch in besonderer Weise zu können (oder zu müssen) – durchaus Widerhall zu finden. Dadurch entsteht ein strafrechtsexpansives (weil rechtfertigendes) Momentum, das der ohnehin in der Herausbildung begriffenen Legalisierung eines Klimaschutzstrafrechts Vorschub leistet.
Es entspricht den vornehmen Aufgaben der Strafrechtswissenschaft, diesen Entwicklungen prospektiv vorauszugreifen, sie aufzuklären und kritisch zu wenden – gerade im Hinblick auf die Gegenläufigkeit und Brüchigkeit gesellschaftlicher Entwicklungen oder die Kontingenz eines als politisch gelesenen Strafrechts. Eine kritische Strafrechtswissenschaft darf sich dabei nicht allein, allemal nicht unreflektiert auf tradierte Formen der Strafrechtsbegrenzung zurückziehen.
Der deutsche und der europäische Gesetzgeber kodifizierten 2013 bzw. 2019 verwandte Schutzrechte zugunsten von Presseverlegern. 2021 und 2023 erließen Australien und Kanada Sondergesetze zum Schutz der Presse im Internet. In den USA und der Schweiz sind entsprechende Legislativvorhaben anhängig. Ultimatives Ziel all dieser Interventionen ist es, ein tragfähiges digitales Pressewesen zu
gewährleisten. Presseverlegern soll zu Einnahmen verholfen werden, die von Betreibern von Suchmaschinen, News-Aggregatoren, Medienbeobachtungsdiensten und sozialen Netzwerken bezahlt werden sollen. Der Beitrag unterscheidet in rechtsvergleichender Betrachtung zunächst zwei Typen der Presseförderung im Internetzeitalter, nämlich einen klassisch-eigentumsmäßigen Ansatz – paradigmatisch realisiert im deutschen Recht – und einen systemisch-marktregulativen, von medienpolitischen Erwägungen geleiteten Ansatz – paradigmatisch verwirklicht im australischen und kanadischen Recht. Anschließend werden die sich spiegelbildlich verhaltenden Vor- und Nachteile dieser beiden Regulierungstypen benannt. Der folgende Abschnitt stellt hybride Lösungen im französischen, italienischen und schweizerischen Recht vor. Schlussbemerkungen führen zurück zur international-vergleichenden Perspektive und zur Frage, was ein wie auch immer gearteter Schutz der Presse in Anbetracht der tektonischen Verschiebungen, die die Online-Kommunikation mit sich bringt, zu bewirken vermag.
This article provides an overview of the current state of the regulation of disinformation in the EU. It shows that the concept of disinformation, the purpose of anti-disinformation measures and their content and enforcement can only be understood if a holistic view is taken of private, hybrid-co-regulatory and public-law norms. The delicate field of disinformation is to a large extent dealt with outside of statutory law. The questions raised thereby are largely unresolved.
This article provides an overview and critical assessment of WIPO ALERT. It locates this initiative in the broader context of transnational IP enforcement schemes on the Internet. These initiatives are classified into two categories according to their point of attachment and geographical effect. Whereas source-related measures (e.g. website takedowns) tend to have a transnational and possibly even a global effect, recipient-related measures (e.g. website and ad blockings) typically mirror the territorially fragmented IPR landscape. This fragmentation is where WIPO ALERT comes into play. It can be understood as a matching service which interconnects holders of information about copyright infringing websites (“Authorized Contributors”) and actors of the online ad industry who want to avoid these outlets (“Authorized Users”). The critical assessment of WIPO ALERT calls for more transparency and the establishment of uniform substantive and procedural standards that have to be met if a new “site of concern” is added to the global ad blacklist.
We contribute to the debate about the future of capital markets and corporate finance, which has ensued against the background of a significant boom in private markets and a corresponding decline in the number of firms and the amount of capital raised in public markets in the US and Europe.
Our research sheds light on the fluctuating significance of public and private markets for corporate finance over time, and challenges the conventional view of a linear progression from one market to the other. We argue instead that a more complex pattern of interaction between public and private markets emerges, after taking a long-term perspective and examining historical developments more closely.
We claim that there is a dynamic divide between these markets, and identify certain factors that determine the degree to which investors, capital, and companies gravitate more towards one market than the other. However, in response to the status quo, other factors will gain momentum and favor the respective other market, leading to a new (unstable) equilibrium. Hence, we observe the oscillating domains of public and private markets over time. While these oscillations imply ‘competition’ between these markets, we unravel the complementarities between them, which also militate against a secular trend towards one market. Finally, we examine the role of regulation in this dynamic divide as well as some policy implications arising from our findings.
Climate crimes – a critique
(2023)
This paper aims on taking a critical approach to the emerging debate on climate criminal justice, that is mostly about something labeled „climate criminal law“ („Klimastrafrecht“). The critique is directed at climate crimes intended to protect our habitable climate („Klimaschutzstrafrecht“) or to prevent climate change („Klimawandelpräventionsstrafrecht“) staged as transformational criminal law. “Fighting" climate change with climate crimes can lull us into deceptive certainties and by extension into perilous idleness; and it will do so if we think of climate protection essentially in terms of traditional criminal law. Climate crimes are based on the idea that we can counter climate change with the "sharpest sword" available to a polity (cf. the German and Continental European ultima-ratio principle) and that we can thereby also get hold of "the powerful". But these certainties rest on but normative (and at heart: liberal) doctrines, which are deceptive in having lost touch with the realities of the administration of criminal justice. They obscure that more effective measures are available to mitigate the climate crisis and that "the powerful" will likely be shielded with and by climate crimes. Therefore, the climate crimes approach to the climate crisis may just turn out to be (self-)appeasement. It obfuscates that more effective measures are likely necessary to avert impending crises. Our critique is therefore not "only" directed at the symbolic, but the dysfunctional and "dark side" of climate crimes.
Lack of privacy due to surveillance of personal data, which is becoming ubiquitous around the world, induces persistent conformity to the norms prevalent under the surveillance regime. We document this channel in a unique laboratory---the widespread surveillance of private citizens in East Germany. Exploiting localized variation in the intensity of surveillance before the fall of the Berlin Wall, we show that, at the present day, individuals who lived in high-surveillance counties are more likely to recall they were spied upon, display more conformist beliefs about society and individual interactions, and are hesitant about institutional and social change. Social conformity is accompanied by conformist economic choices: individuals in high-surveillance counties save more and are less likely to take out credit, consistent with norms of frugality. The lack of differences in risk aversion and binding financial constraints by exposure to surveillance helps to support a beliefs channel.
Supranational supervision
(2022)
We exploit the establishment of a supranational supervisor in Europe (the Single Supervisory Mechanism) to learn how the organizational design of supervisory institutions impacts the enforcement of financial regulation. Banks under supranational supervision are required to increase regulatory capital for exposures to the same firm compared to banks under the local supervisor. Local supervisors provide preferential treatment to larger institutes. The central supervisor removes such biases, which results in an overall standardized behavior. While the central supervisor treats banks more equally, we document a loss in information in banks’ risk models associated with central supervision. The tighter supervision of larger banks results in a shift of particularly risky lending activities to smaller banks. We document lower sales and employment for firms receiving most of their funding from banks that receive a tighter supervisory treatment. Overall, the central supervisor treats banks more equally but has less information about them than the local supervisor.
Industry concentration and markups in the US have been rising over the last 3-4 decades. However, the causes remain largely unknown. This paper uses machine learning on regulatory documents to construct a novel dataset on compliance costs to examine the effect of regulations on market power. The dataset is comprehensive and consists of all significant regulations at the 6-digit NAICS level from 1970-2018. We find that regulatory costs have increased by $1 trillion during this period. We document that an increase in regulatory costs results in lower (higher) sales, employment, markups, and profitability for small (large) firms. Regulation driven increase in concentration is associated with lower elasticity of entry with respect to Tobin's Q, lower productivity and investment after the late 1990s. We estimate that increased regulations can explain 31-37% of the rise in market power. Finally, we uncover the political economy of rulemaking. While large firms are opposed to regulations in general, they push for the passage of regulations that have an adverse impact on small firms.
Resolving financial distress where property rights are not clearly defined: the case of China
(2022)
We use data on financially distressed Chinese companies in order to study a debt market where property rights are crudely defined and poorly enforced. To help with identification we use an event where a business-friendly province published new guidelines regarding the administration and enforcement of assets pledged as collateral. Although by no means a comprehensive reform of bankruptcy law or property rights, by instructing courts to enforce existing, albeit rudimentary, contractual rights the new guidelines virtually eliminated creditors runs and produced a sharp increase in the survival rate of financially-distressed companies. These changes illustrate how piecemeal reforms of property rights and their enforcement may have a significant impact on economic outcomes. Our analysis and results challenge the view that a fully fledged system of private property is a precondition for economic development.
The loan impairment rules recently introduced by IFRS 9 require banks to estimate their future credit losses by using forward-looking information. We use supervisory loan-level data from Germany to investigate how banks apply their reporting discretion and adjust their lending upon the announcement of the new rules. Our identification strategy exploits a cut-off for the level of provisions at the investment grade threshold based on banks’ internal rating of a borrower. We find that banks required to adopt the new rules assign better internal ratings to exactly the same borrowers compared to banks that do not apply IFRS 9 around this cut-off. This pattern is consistent with a strategic use of the increased reporting discretion that is inherent to rules requiring forward-looking loss estimation. At the same time, banks also reduce their lending exposure to exactly those borrowers at the highest risk of experiencing a rating downgrade below the cutoff. These loans would be associated with additional provisions in future periods, both in the intensive and extensive margin. The lending change thus mitigates some of the negative effects of increased reporting opportunism on banks’ crisis resilience. However, when these firms with internal ratings around the investment grade cut-off obtain less external funding through banks, the introduction of IFRS 9 will likely also be associated with real economic effects
Using the negotiation process of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS), this paper studies the way regulators form their positions on regulatory issues in the process of international standard-setting and the consequences on the resultant harmonized framework. Leveraging on leaked voting records and corroborating them using machine learning techniques on publicly available speeches, we construct a unique dataset containing the positions of banks and national regulators on the regulatory initiatives of Basel II and III. We document that the probability of a regulator opposing a specific initiative increases by 30% if their domestic national champion opposes the new rule, particularly when the proposed rule disproportionately affects them. We find the effect is driven by regulators who had prior experience of working in large banks – lending support to the private-interest theories of regulation. Meanwhile smaller banks, even when they collectively have a higher share in the domestic market, do not have any impact on regulators’ stand – providing little support to public-interest theories of regulation. Finally, we show this decision-making process manifests into significant watering down of proposed rules, thereby limiting the potential gains from harmonization of international financial regulation.
We employ a proprietary transaction-level dataset in Germany to examine how capital requirements affect the liquidity of corporate bonds. Using the 2011 European Banking Authority capital exercise that mandated certain banks to increase regulatory capital, we find that affected banks reduce their inventory holdings, pre-arrange more trades, and have smaller average trade size. While non-bank affiliated dealers increase their market-making activity, they are unable to bridge this gap - aggregate liquidity declines. Our results are stronger for banks with a higher capital shortfall, for non-investment grade bonds, and for bonds where the affected banks were the dominant market-maker.
Search costs for lenders when evaluating potential borrowers are driven by the quality of the underwriting model and by access to data. Both have undergone radical change over the last years, due to the advent of big data and machine learning. For some, this holds the promise of inclusion and better access to finance. Invisible prime applicants perform better under AI than under traditional metrics. Broader data and more refined models help to detect them without triggering prohibitive costs. However, not all applicants profit to the same extent. Historic training data shape algorithms, biases distort results, and data as well as model quality are not always assured. Against this background, an intense debate over algorithmic discrimination has developed. This paper takes a first step towards developing principles of fair lending in the age of AI. It submits that there are fundamental difficulties in fitting algorithmic discrimination into the traditional regime of anti-discrimination laws. Received doctrine with its focus on causation is in many cases ill-equipped to deal with algorithmic decision-making under both, disparate treatment, and disparate impact doctrine. The paper concludes with a suggestion to reorient the discussion and with the attempt to outline contours of fair lending law in the age of AI.
We investigate the impact of uneven transparency regulation across countries and industries on the location of economic activity. Using two distinct sources of regulatory variation—the varying extent of financial-reporting requirements and the staggered introduction of electronic business registers in Europe—, we consistently document that direct exposure to transparency regulation is negatively associated with the focal industry’s economic activity in terms of inputs (e.g., employment) and outputs (e.g., production). By contrast, we find that indirect exposure to supplier and customer industries’ transparency regulation is positively associated with the focal industry’s economic activity. Our evidence suggests uneven transparency regulation can reallocate economic activity from regulated toward unregulated countries and industries, distorting the location of economic activity.
Der Beitrag stellt dar, wie Online-Plattformen in den Bereichen Urheberrecht, Hassrede und Desinformation in der EU reguliert wurden. Die Analyse ergibt einen Regulierungskreislauf, der in vier Phasen ablief. Bis zum Jahrtausendwechsel war es die Legislative, die einen allgemeinen gesetzlichen Rahmen für die Online-Kommunikation in Gestalt von Äußerungsverboten und Haftungsprivilegierungen definierte. Dieser Rahmen wurde im folgenden Jahrzehnt von den Betreibern der neu entstehenden Plattformen unter Ausnutzung ihres privatautonomen Gestaltungsspielraums implementiert. In der dritten Phase ab ca. 2010 verschärften die Judikative und die Exekutive die sich aus dem allgemeinen gesetzlichen Rahmen ergebenden Mindestanforderungen an die Bekämpfung von Urheberrechtsverletzungen, Hassrede und Desinformation. In der vorläufig letzten Phase des Regulierungskreislaufs ab 2017/2018 ergriff wieder der Gesetzgeber die Initiative, indem die Standards, die in den Phasen zwei und drei entwickelt worden waren, kodifiziert und teilweise nochmals angehoben wurden. Damit ist der Kreislauf der unionalen Plattformregulierung allerdings nicht zu seinem Ende gekommen. Vielmehr ist bereits erkennbar, dass sich nun wieder eine eher experimentell-tastende Phase privatautonomer Implementierung und ko-regulativer Fortentwicklung des neuen gesetzlichen Rahmens anschließt. Der Beitrag schließt mit einer kurzen Bewertung dieser Entwicklung hin zu mehr hoheitlicher Kommunikationskontrolle.
In den letzten zwei Jahrzehnten sind Anmeldungen von Rechten des geistigen Eigentums (intellectual property, IP) bzw. Verletzungsklagen wiederholt an der unzureichenden Bestimmtheit des exklusiv beanspruchten Gegenstands gescheitert. Ihren Ausgang nahm diese Entwicklung im Markenrecht mit Entscheidungen des EuGH (Stichworte: Sieckmann, Heidelberger Bauchemie, Dyson, IP Translator, Oy Hartwall) und später auch des BGH (Stichwort: UHU). Die markenrechtlichen Grundsätze strahlten auf das Designrecht (Stichworte: Sporthelm, Mast-Jägermeister) und zuletzt auch auf das Urheberrecht (Stichwort: Levola) aus. Im Folgenden werden die maßgeblichen Urteile zur Schutzfähigkeit von Zeichen, Designs und Werken zusammengetragen und systematisiert. Dabei treten zwei Aspekte eines Bestimmtheitsgebots zu Tage, die, wie abschließend zu zeigen sein wird, auch im Patentrecht gelten
Cryptocurrencies provide a unique opportunity to identify how derivatives impact spot markets. They are fully fungible, trade across multiple spot exchanges at different prices, and futures contracts were selectively introduced on bitcoin (BTC) exchange rates against the USD in December 2017. Following the futures introduction, we find a significantly greater increase in cross-exchange price synchronicity for BTC--USD relative to other exchange rate pairs, as demonstrated by an increase in price correlations and a reduction in arbitrage opportunities and volatility. We also find support for an increase in price efficiency, market quality, and liquidity. The evidence suggests that futures contracts allowed investors to circumvent trading frictions associated with short sale constraints, arbitrage risk associated with block confirmation time, and market segmentation. Overall, our analysis supports the view that the introduction of BTC--USD futures was beneficial to the bitcoin spot market by making the underlying prices more informative.
he ECB is independent, but it is also accountable to the European parliament (EP). Yet, how the EP has held the ECB accountable has largely been overlooked. This paper starts addressing this gap by providing descriptive statistics of three accountability modalities. The paper highlights three findings. First, topics of accountability have changed. Climate-related accountability has increased quickly and dramatically since 2017. Second, if the relationship between price stability and climate change remains an object of conflict among MEPs, a majority within the EP has emerged to put pressure for the ECB to take a more active stance against climate change, precisely on behalf of its price stability mandate. Third, MEPs engage with the climate topic in very specific ways. There is a gender divide between the climate and the price stability topics. Women engage more actively with climate-related topics. While the Greens heavily dominate the climate topic, parties from the Right dominate the topic of Price stability. Finally, MEPs adopt a more united strategy and a particularly low confrontational tone in their climate-related interventions.