Refine
Year of publication
- 2017 (11) (remove)
Document Type
- Article (5)
- Working Paper (3)
- Doctoral Thesis (2)
- Review (1)
Language
- English (11) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (11)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (11) (remove)
Keywords
- Crisis (2)
- European Union (2)
- Financial Crisis (2)
- Greece (2)
- Institution building (2)
- Collective Redress Recommendation (1)
- Financial stability (1)
- Hong Kong (1)
- MREL (1)
- Quantitative Easing (1)
- Referral to the ECJ (1)
- TLAC (1)
- bail-in (1)
- banking and treasury functions (1)
- banking separation (1)
- collective action (1)
- democracy (1)
- euro crisis (1)
- geoblocking (1)
- geotargeting (1)
- internet (1)
- investor protection (1)
- jurisdiction (1)
- prohibition of proprietary trading (1)
- settlement procedures (1)
- test cases (1)
- trademarks (1)
Institute
- Rechtswissenschaft (11) (remove)
The mainstream law and economics approach has dominated positive analysis and normative design of economic regulations. This approach represents a form of applied neoclassical and new institutional economics. Neoclassical and/or new institutional economic theories, models, and analytical concepts are applied automatically to economic regulatory problems.
This automatic application of neoclassical economics to economic regulatory problems loses sight of the valid insights of non-neoclassical schools of economic thought and theories, which may illuminate important aspects of the regulatory problems. This thesis, therefore, advocates an integrated law and economics approach to economic regulations. This approach identifies the relevant insights of neoclassical and non-neoclassical schools of thought and theories and refines them through a process of cross-criticism. In this process, the insights of each school of thought are subjected to the critiques of other schools of thought. The resulting refined insights, which are more likely to be valid, are then integrated consistently through various techniques of integration.
Not only does neoclassical (micro and macro) law and economics overlook the valid insights of non-neoclassical schools of thought, it is also highly reductionist. It ignores the interdependencies of legal institutions, highlighted mainly by the comparative capitalism literature, and the structural interlinkages among socio-economic actors, highlighted by economic sociology and complexity economics. Rather, it takes rational individuals and their interactions subject to the constraint of isolated institution(s) as its unit of analysis. In place of this reductionist perspective, the thesis argues for a systemic approach to economic regulations. This systemic perspective replaces the reductionist unit of neoclassical regulatory analysis with a systemic unit of analysis that consists of the least non-decomposable actors’ network and its associated least non-decomposable institutional network. Then, the thesis develops an operationalized and replicable systemic framework for systemic analysis and design of institutional networks.
Both the systemic and integrated approaches are theoretically consistent and complementary. The systemic approach is in essence a way of thinking that requires a broad and rich informational basis that can be secured by using the integrated approach. Due to their complementarity, they give rise to what I call “the integrated and systemic law and economics approach.” The thesis operationalizes this approach by setting out well-defined replicable steps and applying them to concrete regulatory problems, namely, the choice of a corporate governance model for developing countries and the development of a normative theory of economic regulations. These concrete applications demonstrate the critical bite of the integrated and systemic approach, which reveals significant shortcomings of mainstream law and economics’ answers to these regulatory questions. They also show the constructive potential of the integrated and systemic approach in overcoming the critiques advanced to the neoclassical regulatory conclusions.
The operationalized integrated and systemic approach is both a law and economics as well as a law and development approach. It does not only provide an alternative to mainstream law and economics analysis and design of economic regulations. It also fills a significant analytical lacuna in the law and development literature that lacks an analytical framework for analysis and design of context-specific legal institutions that can promote economic development in developing economies.
The pointed commentary published on Verfassungsblog over the last week—coming from different perspectives and informed from different experiences—shows the potential of such debates. In the case of Greece, they are an important addition to a discourse focusing too much on austerity or debt sustainability.
According to international and national constitutional law, indigenous peoples in most Latin American countries have the right to maintain and strengthen their distinct political, legal, economic, social and cultural institutions. As a consequence of this and of a long and ongoing process of political debate and recognition, ever more indigenous peoples are practicing their own laws, following their own cultural traditions and customs. In doing so, they often draw on history, recreating their identities and reconstructing their distinct legal pasts. At the same time, historical research has increasingly pointed out the intense interaction between indigenous peoples and European invaders during colonial period. It has become clear that it is difficult to draw a clear line between purely ‘indigenous’ and ‘colonial’ legal traditions due to the hybridisation of indigenous and colonial laws and legal practices. The aim of this paper is to introduce this historiography and its relevance to law and to present some methodological challenges in writing the history of indigenous rights in Latin America resulting from this shift in (legal) historiography.
It seems that the BVerfG has learned a lesson. Yesterday’s referral about the the European Central Bank’s policy of Quantitative Easing (QE) sets a completely different tone. It reads like a modest and balanced plea for judicial dialogue, rather than an indictment. Fifty years after the original event, a new Summer of Love seems to thrive between the highest judicial bodies. It shows no traces of the aplomb with which Karlsruhe presented its stance to Luxembourg three years ago.
The publication of the Liikanen Group's final report in October 2012 was surrounded by high expectations regarding the implementation of the reform plans through the proposed measures that reacted to the financial and sovereign debt crises. The recommendations mainly focused on introducing a mild version of banking separation and the creation of the preconditions for bail-in measures. In this article, we present an overview of the regulatory reforms, to which the financial sector has been subject over the past years in accordance with the concepts laid out in the Liikanen Report. It becomes clear from our assessment that more specific steps have yet to be taken before the agenda is accomplished. In particular, bail-in rules must be implemented more consistently. Beyond the question of the required minimum, the authors develop the notion of a maximum amount of liabilities subject to bail-in. The combination of both components leads to a three-layer structure of bank capital: a bail-in tranche, a deposit-insured bailout tranche, and an intermediate run-endangered mezzanine tranche. The size and treatment of the latter must be put to a political debate that weighs the costs and benefits of a further increase in financial stability beyond that achieved through loss-bearing of the bail-in tranche.
The EU Collective Redress Recommendation has invited Member States to introduce collective redress mechanisms by 26 July 2015. The well-known reservations claim potentially abusive litigation and potential settlement of not well-founded claims resulting from controversial funding of cases by means of contingency fees and from ‘opt-out’ class action procedures. The paper posits that there may also be some fear that the European Commission may try to pursue the enforcement of its regulatory agenda in this way at the expense of individual claimants’ interests. Therefore a comparative analysis is carried out to see to what extent concerns about individual rights as opposed to regulatory goals are reflected in the different newly revised systems in place across Europe. As an iterim result the Dutch settlement procedure for mass damage claims, the English Group Litigation Order and the German test case procedure turn out to be relatively well-suited to deal with mass damage claims. At the same time, none of them can quite reach an optimal balance between individual rights and regulatory goals and therefore each of them is subject to criticism. That is why the further question is raised in how far these procedures could complement each other, thus contributing to the enforcement of individual rights without overregulating markets in Europe.
This paper reexamines the current legal landscape regarding the protection of trade marks and other industrial property rights in signs on the Internet. It is based on a comparative analysis of EU and national laws, in particular, German, U.S., and U.K. law. It starts with a short restatement of the principles governing trade mark conflicts that occur within a particular jurisdiction (part 2) and proceeds to the regulation of transnational disputes (part 3). This juxtaposition yields two basic approaches. Whereas trade mark conflicts within closed legal systems are generally adjudicated according to a binary either/or logic, transnational disputes are and should indeed be solved in a way that leads to a fair coexistence of conflicting trade mark laws and rights under multiple laws. This paper explains how geolocation technologies can alleviate the implementation of the principle of fair coexistence in concrete cases.
As the numbers of people moving internationally increased in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, states tried more rigorously to regulate borders and counteract the problem of fugitives crossing international borders to evade arrest. This presented a legal challenge to domestic state power that increasingly defined its sovereignty on jurisdiction within borders. It is this issue and within this important era of globalization and law formation that Bradley Miller’s book examines how British North American colonies and post-Confederation Canada reacted to the problems posed by international fugitives through ideas and practices of extradition. His work goes beyond the traditional perspective of examining extradition treaties to view the practices of extradition in action, the everyday challenges states faced, and how the key concepts of sovereignty and international law were understood in relation to extradition. ...