340 Recht
Refine
Year of publication
- 2020 (99) (remove)
Document Type
- Article (58)
- Working Paper (25)
- Contribution to a Periodical (5)
- Part of Periodical (5)
- Doctoral Thesis (2)
- Review (2)
- Book (1)
- Report (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (99) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (99)
Keywords
- Coronavirus (14)
- populism (6)
- European Union (4)
- Ausnahmezustand (3)
- Verhältnismäßigkeit (3)
- Autoritarismus (2)
- Corona Bonds (2)
- Datenschutz (2)
- Digital Humanities (2)
- Innovation (2)
Institute
- Rechtswissenschaft (66)
- Gesellschaftswissenschaften (21)
- Sustainable Architecture for Finance in Europe (SAFE) (17)
- House of Finance (HoF) (14)
- Präsidium (13)
- Wirtschaftswissenschaften (13)
- Center for Financial Studies (CFS) (12)
- Foundation of Law and Finance (12)
- Exzellenzcluster Die Herausbildung normativer Ordnungen (8)
- Philosophie (3)
A new virus, SARS-CoV-2, emerged in the Chinese city of Wuhan at the end of 2019. Infected persons developed an atypical form of pneumonia, later known as COVID-19. The pathogen created a pandemic, with fatalities throughout the world, and also led to the adoption of restrictive measures which were, until recently, unthinkable, as well as fostering new political conflicts. Even the path of the multilateral order in its current form is at stake. For a take on these issues under international law, the legal regime of the World Health Organization (WHO) and its response to the pandemic provides an insightful access. ...
n today’s world, the transfer of laws and regulations between different legal systems is commonplace. The global spread of stewardship codes in recent years presents a promising, but yet untested, terrain to explore the diffusion of such norms. This paper aims to fill this gap. Employing the method of content analysis and using information from 41 stewardship codes enacted between 1991 and 2019, we systematically examine the formal diffusion of these stewardship codes. While we find support for the diffusion story of the UK as a stewardship norm exporter, especially in former British colonies in Asia, we also find evidence of diffusion from transnational initiatives, such as the EFAMA and ICGN codes, as well as regional clusters. We also show that the UK Stewardship Code of 2020 now deviates from these current models; thus, it remains to be seen how far a second round of exportation of the revised UK model into the transnational arena will follow.
An important question in banking is how strict supervision affects bank lending and in turn local business activity. Supervisors forcing banks to recognize losses could choke off lending and amplify local economic woes. But stricter supervision could also change how banks assess and manage loans. Estimating such effects is challenging. We exploit the extinction of the thrift regulator (OTS) to analyze economic links between strict supervision, bank lending and business activity. We first show that the OTS replacement indeed resulted in stricter supervision of former OTS banks. Next, we analyze the ensuing lending effects. We show that former OTS banks increase small business lending by roughly 10 percent. This increase is concentrated in well-capitalized banks, those more affected by the new regime, and cannot be fully explained by a reallocation from mortgage to small business lending after the crisis. These findings suggest that stricter supervision operates not only through capital but can also correct deficiencies in bank management and lending practices, leading to more lending and a reallocation of loans.
Governments, economists and intellectuals have called for common European bonds or increased own EU funds to address the recession induced by Covid19. Unfortunately, the German government, joined by the other members of the “Frugal Four” (Austria, Finland, the Netherlands), has categorically rejected to look into any such measures and favours using the ESM. This reaction created a déjà vu experience for citizens and governments of the heavily affected southern Member States of the EU. The proposal to use the ESM raises fears of another wave of austerity amounting to yet another lost decade for economic, social, and ecological development in Europe.
This paper contributes to the debate on the adequate regulatory treatment of non-bank financial intermediation (NBFI). It proposes an avenue for regulators to keep regulatory arbitrage under control and preserve sufficient space for efficient financial innovation at the same time. We argue for a normative approach to supervision that can overcome the proverbial race between hare and hedgehog in financial regulation and demonstrate how such an approach can be implemented in practice. We first show that regulators should primarily analyse the allocation of tail risk inherent in NBFI. Our paper proposes to apply regulatory burdens equivalent to prudential banking regulation if the respective transactional structures become only viable through indirect or direct access to (ad hoc) public backstops. Second, we use insights from the scholarship on regulatory networks as communities of interpretation to demonstrate how regulators can retrieve the information on transactional innovations and their risk-allocating characteristics that they need to make the pivotal determination. We suggest in particular how supervisors should structure their relationships with semi-public gatekeepers such as lawyers, auditors and consultants to keep abreast of the risk-allocating features of evolving transactional structures. Finally, this paper uses the example of credit funds as non-bank entities economically engaged in credit intermediation to illustrate the merits of the proposed normative framework and to highlight that multipolar regulatory dialogues are needed to shed light on the specific risk-allocating characteristics of recent contractual innovations.
Durch die Digitalisierung ist die soziale Bedeutung des Urheberrechts stark gewachsen. Die vom Urheberrecht etablierte Exklusivitätskultur steht überdies in einem fundamentalen Konflikt mit der im Internet vorherrschenden Zugangskultur. Ein Beispiel hierfür ist der Streit um die jüngste Urheberrechtsrichtlinie der EU.
Angesichts der in Deutschland und anderswo präzedenzlosen Eingrenzung des rechtlich Erlaubten stehen die begrenzenden Rechtsverordnungen, Allgemeinverfügungen und vollziehenden Maßnahmen des Staates im Zentrum grundrechtlicher Aufmerksamkeit. Freiheitsschonendere Alternativen werden in erster Linie durch das Prisma der Erforderlichkeit in den Blick genommen. Sich in einer Pandemielage gegen Beschränkungen zu entscheiden, erscheint grundrechtlich unverdächtig. Doch wäre es das tatsächlich? Im Folgenden werden zwei unterschiedliche Szenarien einer solchen Entscheidung vorgestellt und es wird ein näherer Blick auf die Folgen für den individuellen Grundrechtsgebrauch geworfen. Es zeigen sich Grundrechtsfragen, die im Ergebnis auch für die Beurteilung des beschränkenden Staates aufgeworfen sind.
We present evidence on the way personal and institutional factors could together guide public company directors in decision-making concerning shareholders and stakeholders. In a sample comprising more than nine hundred directors originating from over fifty countries and serving in firms from twenty three countries, we confirm that directors around the world hold a principled, quasi-ideological stance towards shareholders and stakeholders, called shareholderism, on which they vary in line with their personal values. We theorize and find that in addition to personal values, directors’ shareholderism level associates with cultural norms that are conducive to entrepreneurship. Among legal factors, only creditor protection exhibits a negative correlation with shareholderism, while general legal origin and proxies for shareholder and employee protection are unrelated to it.
Bevor der Bundesgesundheitsminister mit der Corona-Bewältigung in das Rampenlicht der Öffentlichkeit treten konnte, versuchte er in einer Reihe von Gesetzgebungsvorhaben und Maßnahmen, die deutsche gesetzliche Krankenversicherung (GKV) zu verändern. Eine seiner Maßnahmen war das Digitale-Versorgung-Gesetz, das der Bundestag im Dezember 2019 verabschiedete (DVG, BGBl. I, S. 2562) und die medizinische Versorgung durch Digitalisierung und Innovation verbessern sollte. Es sieht u.a. vor, Gesundheits-Apps auf Rezept zu verschreiben und Videosprechstunden und Telemedizin zum Alltag werden zu lassen. Vor allem aber sollen umfangreiche medizinische Daten der Versicherten in einem Forschungsdatenzentrum zusammengeführt und effektiv ausgewertet werden, um bessere Erkenntnisse in der Gesundheitsforschung zu erlangen.
Dagegen hatte ein Versicherter Beschwerde erhoben, und das Bundesverfassungsgericht hat im Verfahren des einstweiligen Rechtsschutzes entschieden, dass Teile dieses Gesetzes – nämlich §§ 68a Abs. 5 und 303a-303f SGB V – in der Tat erhebliche verfassungsrechtliche Bedenken aufwerfen. Dennoch hat das Gericht den Vollzug dieser Regelungen nicht ausgesetzt (Rn. 6 ff.) und noch nicht einmal die hilfsweise beantragte Reduktion des Datenumgangs angeordnet. Das ist im Ergebnis, vor allem aber in seiner Begründung unter mindestens zwei Aspekten kritisch zu betrachten.
Mon intention première était de comprendre la façon dont la République romaine avait sombré. Mais lorsque j’ai examiné dans ce but les explications les plus sérieuses qui avaient déjà été avancées, sa faillite m’a toutefois paru moins étonnante que sa très longue existence. Au point que, progressivement, une deuxième question a pris le pas sur la première, celle de savoir comment cette chose commune [Gemeinwesen], cette res publica amissa avait pu fonctionner si longtemps. Je me suis donc concentré sur sa structure. ...
We investigate the impact of reporting regulation on corporate innovation. Exploiting thresholds in Europe’s regulation and a major enforcement reform in Germany, we find that forcing firms to publicly disclose their financial statements discourages innovative activities. Our evidence suggests that reporting regulation has significant real effects by imposing proprietary costs on innovative firms, which in turn diminish their incentives to innovate. At the industry level, positive information spillovers (e.g., to competitors, suppliers, and customers) appear insufficient to compensate the negative direct effect on the prevalence of innovative activity. The spillovers instead appear to concentrate innovation among a few large firms in a given industry. Thus, financial reporting regulation has important aggregate and distributional effects on corporate innovation.
Rechtsaspekte des Forschungsdatenmanagements werfen nach wie vor viele Fragen für Forschende und Nachnutzende auf: Wer darf welche Daten zu welchen Zwecken erheben und verarbeiten? Wem können die Daten "zugeordnet" werden? Wer darf entscheiden, ob und wann sie veröffentlicht werden? Welche Lizenzen sind geeignet?
Um den Unsicherheiten im rechtlichen Umgang mit Forschungsdaten zu begegnen, hat HeFDI auf Basis des Gutachtens des DataJus-Projekts (https://tu-dresden.de/gsw/jura/igetem/jfbimd13/ressourcen/dateien/dateien/DataJus/DataJus_Zusammenfassung_Gutachten_12-07-18.pdf?lang=de) die hier publizierte Handreichung zusammengestellt. Die Handreichung dient dazu, Forschenden und Forschungsdatenmanager*innen einen gut verständlichen Zugang zu Rechtsfragen hinsichtlich Forschungsdaten zu ermöglichen. Das anschaulich konzipierte Material kann sowohl in Schulungen zum Datenmanagement als auch in konkreten Beratungsprozessen eingesetzt werden.
In einem ersten Schritt hat HeFDI die Themenfelder (I) Urheber- und Leistungsschutzrechte an Forschungsdaten sowie (II) Entscheidungsbefugnis über den Umgang mit Forschungsdaten in der hier publizierten Handreichung zusammengefasst.
Das vorliegende Material umfasst zum einen eine animierte Präsentation in editierbarem Format. Gleichzeitig stellt HeFDI den Inhalt der Präsentation sowohl editierbar als auch im PDF-Format als Druckvorlage für ein Handout o. Ä. im DIN A4-Format zur Verfügung.
This article sheds light upon the role of the audience in the construction and amendment of populist representative claims that in themselves strengthen representative-represented relationships and simultaneously strengthen ties between the represented who belong to different constituencies. I argue that changes in populist representative claims can be explained by studying the discursive relationship between a populist representative and the audience as a conversation in which both poles give and receive something. From this perspective, populist representative claims, I also argue, can be understood as acts of bonding with the intended effect of constituting ‘the people,’ and inputs from the audience can be seen as conversational exercitives. Populist appeals therefore may change when the audience enacts new permissibility facts and signals to populist representatives that there is another way to strengthen relationships between several individuals belonging to otherwise-different constituencies.
This article argues that populism, cosmopolitanism, and calls for global justice should be understood not as theoretical positions but as appeals to different segments of democratic electorates with the aim of assembling winning political coalitions. This view is called democratic realism: it considers political competition in democracies from a perspective that is realist in the sense that it focuses not first on the content of competing political claims but on the relationships among different components of the coalitions they work to mobilise in the pursuit of power. It is argued that Laclau’s populist theory offers a sort of realist critique of other populists, but that his view neglects the crucial dynamics of political coalition-building. When the relation of populism to global justice is rethought from this democratic realist angle, one can better understand the sorts of challenges each faces, and also where and how they come into conflict.
As academic literatures and political demands, global justice and populism look like competing ways of diagnosing and addressing neoliberal inequality. But both misunderstand neoliberalism and consequently risk reinforcing rather than undermining it. Neoliberalism does not just break down political and social hierarchies, but also relies on and sustains them. Unless populists recognize this, they will find that assertions of sovereignty do more to reinforce neoliberalism and reproduce its hierarchies than to resist them. Recognizing neoliberalism as not simply corrosive of solidarity but also producing its own affective ties suggests that global justice advocates need to develop a critique of individual attitudes that egalitarian liberals have often seen as private and been hesitant to judge. In short, if either populism or global justice hope to take advantage of neoliberalism’s failures to advance an egalitarian politics, they need to reckon more carefully with their own entanglement with neoliberalism’s hopes and hierarchies.
Über problematische Straßennamen und Denkmäler wird politisch debattiert. Wie der öffentliche Raum aussieht, wird gemeinhin nicht als juristische Frage behandelt. Trotzdem taucht die Frage, was die Gesellschaft im öffentlichen Raum sehen will, auch als rechtliches Argument auf. Wann erkennt der Diskurs solche Fragen politischer Ästhetik als juristisches Argument an? Und welche Bedingungen entscheiden darüber?