340 Recht
Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (224)
- Working Paper (162)
- Conference Proceeding (104)
- Review (39)
- Part of a Book (15)
- Book (12)
- Doctoral Thesis (12)
- Report (10)
- Part of Periodical (9)
- Preprint (3)
Language
- English (592) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (592) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (592)
Keywords
- global justice (16)
- Deutschland (14)
- European Union (11)
- climate change (11)
- human rights (11)
- Democracy (10)
- Internet (8)
- justice (8)
- Corporate Governance (7)
- Law (7)
Institute
- Rechtswissenschaft (366)
- Gesellschaftswissenschaften (131)
- Wirtschaftswissenschaften (61)
- Sustainable Architecture for Finance in Europe (SAFE) (56)
- House of Finance (HoF) (49)
- Foundation of Law and Finance (46)
- Center for Financial Studies (CFS) (43)
- Exzellenzcluster Die Herausbildung normativer Ordnungen (41)
- Institute for Law and Finance (ILF) (12)
- LOEWE-Schwerpunkt Außergerichtliche und gerichtliche Konfliktlösung (10)
Globalized justice - fragmented justice. Human rights violations by "private" transnational actors
(2005)
Plenarvortrag Weltkongress der Rechtsphilosophie und Sozialphilosophie, 24.-29. Mai, Granada 2005. S.a. die deutsche Fassung: "Die anonyme Matrix: Menschenrechtsverletzungen durch "private" transnationale Akteure". Spanische Fassung: Sociedad global, justicia fragmentada: sobre la violatión de los derechos humanos por actores transnacionales 'privados'. In: Manuel Escamilla and Modesto Saavedra (eds.), Law and Justice in a global society, International Association for philosophy of law and social philosophy, Granada 2005, S. 529-546.
Deutsche Fassung: Expertise als soziale Institution: Die Internalisierung Dritter in den Vertrag. In: Gert Brüggemeier (Hg.) Liber Amicorum Eike Schmidt. Müller, Heidelberg, 2005, 303-334.
Deutsche Fassung: Vertragswelten: Das Recht in der Fragmentierung von private governance regimes. Rechtshistorisches Journal 17, 1998, 234-265. Italienische Fassung: Mondi contrattuali. Discourse rights nel diritto privato. In: Gunther Teubner, Diritto policontesturale: Prospettive giuridiche della pluralizzazione dei mondi sociali. La città del sole, Neapel 1999, 113-142. Portugiesische Fassung: Mundos contratuais: o direito na fragmentacao de regimes de private governance. In: Gunther Teubner, Direito, Sistema, Policontexturalidade, Editora Unimep, Piracicaba Sao Paolo, Brasil 2005, 269-298.
s.a. Deutsche Fassung: Rechtshistorisches Journal 15, 1996, 255-290 und in: Eric Schwarz (Hg.) La théorie des systèmes: une approche inter- et transdisciplinaire. Bösch, Sion 1996, 101-119. Italienische Fassung: La Bukowina globale: il pluralismo giuridico nella società mondiale. Sociologic a politiche sociali 2, 1999, 49-80. Portugiesische Fassung: Bukowina global sobre a emergência de um pluralismo jurídico transnacional. Impulso: Direito e Globalização 14, 2003. Georgische Fassung: Globaluri bukovina: samarTlebrivi pluralizmi msoflio sazogadoebaSi. Journal of the Institute of State and Law of the Georgian Academy of Sciences 2005 (im Erscheinen)
s.a. Deutsche Fassung: Archiv für Rechts- und Sozialphilosophie. Beiheft 65, 1996, 199-220. Italienische Fassung: Altera pars audiatur: Il diritto nella collisione dei discorsi. In: Gunther Teubner, Diritto policontesturale: Prospettive giuridiche della pluralizzazione dei mondi sociali. La città del sole, Neapel 1999, 27-70. Französische Fassung: Altera pars audiatur: le droit dans la collision des discours. Droit et Société 35, 1997, 99-123. Portugiesische Fassung: Altera pars audiatur: o direito na colisao de disursos. In: J.A. Lindgren Alves, Gunther Teubner, Joaquim Leonel de Rezende Alvim, Dorothe Susanne Rüdiger, Direito e Cidadania na Pos-Modernidade. Editora Unimep, Piracicaba, Brasilia 2002; 93-129.
Reflexives Recht. Entwicklungsmodelle des Rechts in vergleichender Perspektive (EUI Working Paper 1982/13). Archiv für Rechts- und Sozialphilosophie 68, 1982, 13-59, und in: Werner Maihofer (Hg.), Noi si Mura, Schriftenreihe des Europäischen Hochschulinstituts, Florenz 1986, 290-340. Englische Fassung: Substantive and Reflexive Elements in Modern Law. (EUI Working Paper 1982/14). Law and Society Review 17, 1983, 239-285 und in: Kahei Rokumoto (Hg.) Sociological Theories of Law. Dartmouth, Aldershot 1994, 415-462. Neuabdruck in: Carroll Seron, The Law and Society Canon, Ashgate, Aldershot 2005 (im Erscheinen). Französische Fassung: Eléments 'substantifs' et 'réflexifs' dans le droit moderne. L'Interdit. Revue de Psychanalyse Institutionelle, 1984, 129-132, und Droit et réflexivité: une perspective comparative sur des modèles d'évolution juridique in: Gunther Teubner, Droit et réflexivité. Librairie générale de droit et de jurisprudence, Paris 1994, 3-50. Dänische Fassung: Refleksiv Ret: Udviklingsmodeller i sammenlignende perspektiv. In: Asmund Born, Nils Bredsdorff, Leif Hansen and Finn Hansson (Hg.) Refleksiv Ret. Publication Series of the Institut for Organisation og Arbeidssociologi. Nytfrasamfundsvidenskaberne, Kopenhagen 1988, 21-79.
This paper has shown that some of the principal arguments against shareholder voice are unfounded. It has shown that shareholders do own corporations, and that the nature of their property interest is structured to meet the needs of the relationships found in stock corporations. The paper has explained that fiduciary and other duties restrain the actions of shareholders just as they do those of management, and that critics cannot reasonably expect court-imposed fiduciary duties to extend beyond the actual powers of shareholders. It has also illustrated how, although corporate statutes give shareholders complete power to structure governance as they will, the default governance structures of U.S. corporations leaves shareholders almost powerless to initiate any sort of action, and the interaction between state and federal law makes it almost impossible for shareholders to elect directors of their choice. Lastly, the paper has recalled how the percentage of U.S. corporate equities owned by institutional investors has increased dramatically in recent decades, and it has outlined some of the major developments in shareholder rights that followed this increase. I hope that this paper deflated some of the strong rhetoric used against shareholder voice by contrasting rhetoric to law, and that it illustrated why the picture of weak owners painted in the early 20th century should be updated to new circumstances, which will help avoid projecting an old description as a current normative model that perpetuates the inevitability of "managerialsm", perhaps better known as "dirigisme".
"In this paper, I analyse the conduct of business rules included in the Directive on Markets in Financial Instruments (MiFID) which has replaced the Investment Services Directive (ISD). These rules, in addition to being part of the regulation of investment intermediaries, operate as contractual standards in the relationships between intermediaries and their clients. While the need to harmonise similar rules is generally acknowledged, in the present paper I ask whether the Lamfalussy regulatory architecture, which governs securities lawmaking in the EU, has in some way improved regulation in this area. In section II, I examine the general aspects of the Lamfalussy process. In section III, I critically analyse the MiFID s provisions on conduct of business obligations, best execution of transactions and client order handling, taking into account the new regime of trade internalisation by investment intermediaries and the ensuing competition between these intermediaries and market operators. In sectionIV, I draw some general conclusions on the re-regulation made under the Lamfalussy regulatory structure and its limits. In this section, I make a few preliminary comments on the relevance of conduct of business rules to contract law, the ISD rules of conduct and the role of harmonisation."
This Article concerns the duty of care in American corporate law. To fully understand that duty, it is necessary to distinguish between roles, functions, standards of conduct, and standards of review. A role consists of an organized and socially recognized pattern of activity in which individuals regularly engage. In organizations, roles take the form of positions, such as the position of the director. A function consists of an activity that an actor is expected to engage in by virtue of his role or position. A standard of conduct states the way in which an actor should play a role, act in his position, or conduct his functions. A standard of review states the test that a court should apply when it reviews an actor’s conduct to determine whether to impose liability, grant injunctive relief, or determine the validity of his actions. In many or most areas of law, standards of conduct and standards of review tend to be conflated. For example, the standard of conduct that governs automobile drivers is that they should drive carefully, and the standard of review in a liability claim against a driver is whether he drove carefully. Similarly, the standard of conduct that governs an agent who engages in a transaction with his principal is that the agent must deal fairly, and the standard of review in a claim by the principal against an agent, based on such a transaction, is whether the agent dealt fairly. The conflation of standards of conduct and standards of review is so common that it is easy to overlook the fact that whether the two kinds of standards are or should be identical in any given area is a matter of prudential judgment. In a corporate world in which information was perfect, the risk of liability for assuming a given corporate role was always commensurate with the incentives for assuming the role, and institutional considerations never required deference to a corporate organ, the standards of conduct and review in corporate law might be identical. In the real world, however, these conditions seldom hold, and in American corporate law the standards of review pervasively diverge from the standards of conduct. Traditionally, the two major areas of American corporate law that involved standards of conduct and review have been the duty of care and the duty of loyalty. The duty of loyalty concerns the standards of conduct and review applicable to a director or officer who takes action, or fails to act, in a matter that does involve his own self-interest. The duty of care concerns the standards of conduct and review applicable to a director or officer who takes action, or fails to act, in a matter that does not involve his own self-interest.