Yasuhiro Shigeta, The ECJ’s ‘Hard’ Control over Compliance with International Environmental Law: Its Procedural and Substantive Aspects, International Community Law Review, Volume 11, Number 3, September 2009, pp. 251-305.
This study shows that the ECJ, while not directly applying and interpreting environmental treaties, exercises procedurally and substantively ‘hard’ control over compliance with EC legislation implementing those treaties, in the fields of nature conservation and hazardous waste management, on certain conditions and within certain limits. This study also shows that the ECJ’s acknowledgment of its exclusive jurisdiction on the marine environment as seen in the 2006 MOX Plant case has contradictory effect on its substantively ‘hard’ control: such acknowledgment, although being a plus factor where there is no Community measure, becomes a minus factor since it in practice means that there already exist Community measures. Although the above observations are also instructive to other international judiciaries’ study, structural and situational differences should be considered.
Sau cum ar veni “the use of foreign law & doctrine in American courts”…Ori despre modele de “fédéralisme d’exécution“.
“The federal systems of Switzerland, Germany, and the European Union, for example, all provide that constituent states, not federal bureaucracies, will themselves implement many of the laws, rules, regulations, or decrees enacted by the central “federal” body.”
Supreme Court of United States, 521 U.S. 898, Printz v. United States, 95-1478 Argued: December 3, 1996 — Decided: June 27, 1997. Justice Breyer, with whom Justice Stevens joins, dissenting.
Centrul de Studii de Drept European (CSDE) al Institutului de Cercetări Juridice din cadrul Academiei Române organizează la data de 29 septembrie 2009, ora 14, la sediul său din Calea 13 Septembrie, nr. 13
Conferinţa
«Libera circulaţie a lucrătorilor şi serviciilor. Repere privind cadrul juridic comunitar al recunoaşterii reciproce a diplomelor»
Pentru exercitarea de către resortisanţii comunitari – persoane fizice, a libertăţilor fundamentale, o importanţă fundamentală o deţine sistemul recunoaşterii reciproce a calificărilor profesionale. În funcţie de tipul de activitate pe care o persoană fizică o poate desfăşura într-un stat membru, altul decât cel în care a obţinut calificarea („stat gazdă”), se distinge între, pe de o parte, libera circulaţie a lucrătorilor (pentru o activitate salariată), iar pe de altă parte, libera circulaţie a serviciilor şi libertatea de stabilire (pentru o activitate independentă, nesalariată, inclusiv o profesie liberă). De aceea, recunoaşterea calificărilor profesionale de către statul gazdă permite respectivei persoane dobândirea accesului la aceeaşi profesie precum cea în care s-a calificat în statul de origine, în aceleaşi condiţii precum cetăţenii statului gazdă.
Dezbaterea îşi propune realizarea unui schimb de puncte de vedere atât din perspectiva teoreticienilor, cât şi practicienilor (judecători şi avocaţi), pornind de la aspecte cheie evidenţiate în jurisprudenţa Curţii de Justiţie a Comunităţilor Europene şi în dreptul derivat comunitar.
Lucrările vor fi onorate de prezenţa unor cunoscuţi practiceni şi vor fi moderate de către Nicolae Turcu, Presedintele Sectiei de Drept Privat – Consiliul Legislativ din Romania si Mihai Şandru.
Confirmarea participării se face prin e-mail (mihai.sandru@csde.ro) până la data de 28 septembrie 2009. Solicitanţii sunt rugaţi să menţioneze: numele şi prenumele, afilierea instituţională şi funcţia precum şi domeniul de interes în materia dreptului european.
Lucrările şi prezentările susţinute cu ocazia colocviului urmează a fi publicate într-un volum care va apărea la o editură recunoscută de CNCSIS.
Informaţii suplimentare şi materiale referitoare la colocviu vor fi disponibile la adresa eubusinesslaw.wordpress.com.
Este încurajată particularea la lucrările colocviului cu prezentări vizând subiectele enumerate, anterior dar şi referitoare la orice alte chestiuni conexe ce ar putea fi de interes. În acest sens, doritorii pot adresa o solicitare de înscriere pe lista vorbitorilor, trimiţând şi un scurt rezumat al principalelor puncte ce ar urma să fie atinse, la adresa de e-mail mihai.sandru@csde.ro.
CSDE vă mulţumeşte pentru retransmiterea acestei invitaţii către toate persoanele interesate.
Program (update):
Moderator: Prof. Nicolae Turcu, Preşedintele Secţiei de Drept Privat, Consiliul Legislativ din România
Prof. univ. dr. Cornel Munteanu, Director, Adrian Iordache, Centrul Naţional de Recunoaştere şi Echivalare a Diplomelor
Prof. univ. dr. Nicoleta Diaconu, Cadrul juridic privind realizarea liberei circulaţii a serviciilor şi lucrătorilor în Uniunea Europeană
Drd. Alina-Ştefania Gorghiu, Recunoaşterea diplomelor şi a calificărilor profesionale
Drd. Bogdan Olteanu, Directiva 2005/36/CE a Parlamentului European şi a Consiliului din 7 septembrie 2005 privind recunoaşterea calificărilor profesionale
Conf. univ. dr. Anca Ileana Duşcă, Lect. univ. dr. Robert Bischin, Linii directoare ale dreptului comunitar şi ale jurisprudenţei în materia recunoaşterii calificărilor profesionale
Judecător Mihăiţă Florin, Reglementarea şi jurisprudenţa comunitară în materia liberei circulaţii a serviciilor prestate de avocaţi
Avocat Cleopatra Marin, Mobilitatea în UE a resortisanţilor din statele terţe
Judecător Dragoş Călin, Repere jurisprudenţiale ale dreptului francez în domeniul recunoaşterii diplomelor
Conf. univ. dr. Mihai Şandru, Evoluţia politicii comunitare de formare profesională. Semnificaţia momentului Gravier (cauza 293/83)
Partener media principal: www.juridice.ro
Parteneri:
Editura Wolters Kluwer, Editura Hamangiu, Editura Universitară, Editura C.H.Beck, Editura Universul Juridic.
SSJ – Societatea de Studii Juridice, Revista Română de Drept Comunitar, infolegal.ro, Tribuna Economică, Euroconsultanţă, http://eubusinesslaw.wordpress.com/.
James E. Pfander, Member State Liability and Constitutional Change in the United States and Europe, American Journal of Comparative Law, Vol. 51, No. 2, 2003. Available at SSRN.
Abstract:
In a well-known series of recent cases, the Supreme Court of the United States has dramatically narrowed the obligation of states to comply with the rules of accountability that Congress has applied to other aspects of our national commercial life. Although the Court has frequently invoked the Eleventh Amendment to defend its narrowing of state accountability, its decision in Alden v. Maine makes clear that state sovereign immunity rests less on the text of the Constitution than on unwritten structural postulates that it has described as “implicit in the constitutional design.” Across the Atlantic, the European Court of Justice has drawn on similarly unwritten postulates in developing rules to govern member state accountability to central legislative norms. Yet in Europe, the ECJ has pushed in the opposite direction, expanding member state liability beyond the limits specified in the treaties that constitute the European Union.
This paper takes the differing approaches of the Supreme Court and the ECJ as the jumping off point for a rumination on the legitimacy of constitutional change in federal systems. In Europe, a doctrine known as the acquis communautaire has evolved in ways that require newly admitted member states to subscribe not only to the formal terms of the treaties themselves but also to the unwritten rules that the ECJ has announced in working out a jurisprudence of European integration. Avowedly forward looking, the acquis provides an underpinning of legitimacy for the ECJ’s jurisprudence. In effect, the acquis suggests that each member state, upon accession to the Union, must accept both the specific terms of prior judicial decisions and the notion of an evolving jurisprudence. In the United States, by contrast, the Supreme Court’s decisions have looked backwards through the lens of originalism to identify the nature of the accessionary bargain of the original thirteen states. Such a backward-looking originalism corresponds to the emphasis in the American equal-footing doctrine on the nature of the original deal among the states that formed the Union. It also corresponds to the Court’s rejection of the metaphor of living constitutionalism that one finds most famously expressed in Justice Holmes opinion in Missouri v. Holland.
The paper concludes with a suggestion that the acquis, coupled with the relatively dynamic quality of European federalism, may help to explain the ECJ’s evolving jurisprudence of constitutional integration. Europe continues to grow, with the planned accession of ten new member states in 2004 and more on the way. In the United States, by contrast, no new member states have joined the Union since the late 1950s, and the prospects for further growth as a nation seem remote indeed. The closing of the border in the United States may have contributed to the perception that the project of federal integration has been completed. Such developments may have also contributed to a closing of the judicial mind to the possibility of further change in the nature of federal relationships.
Francisco J. Infante Ruiz, Between Politics and Academy: A Common Frame of Reference of European Private Law, April 29, 2008, InDret, Vol. 2, 2008. Available at SSRN. (articol in spaniola)
Abstract:
After the European Commission -in 2003- evoked the image of a Common Frame of Reference (CFR) as an instrument to improve the quality of the common heritage in the field of contracts, and with the help of a more common terminology shared by the Member States, the idea has been developed through a vertiginous process, towards the achievement of a definitive text. At the present moment the final phase of the process is taking place and has been achieved by a group of academics (“Study Group” and “Acquis Group”) the so-called Draft Common Frame of Reference (DCFR, 2008), which aims at becoming the real translation of the original idea. The process and the corresponding work have been intense and complex, and many groups, institutions and organizations have taken part in it. Ideas and opinions have not always been clear and linear, above all, because the Commission’s declarations have often roamed in the halo of ambiguity and at the same time the participants have lived strong frictions between them. This work tries to highlight all these issues and the reality that the academic proposal of a CFR has exceeded the initial “order” abundantly. There is a wide gap between a “political CFR” and an “academic” one. We are still waiting for the Commission’s next step: it might accept it totally, refuse it totally, suggest changes or keep some of its parts.
Instabilitatea din aceasta tara frumoasa a Europei, nu-l face pe prim-ministrul belgian sa uite, pentru moment, ca a fi purtator de vorbe (chiar si prim-ministru) nu insemana si eterninatate. In Belgia detinerea puterii pana la anul este o astfel de eternitate.
Cu toatea acestea puteti citi aici promisiunile de echilibrare institutionala europena si un mic avant pasoptist de eliberare de sub dominatia celor mai mari.
Distanta dintre echilibrarea institutionala si echilibrarea rotilor nu are legatura cu echilibristica din circ, intrucat printre altele, domeniul cultura nu este unul de competenta exclusiva CE. Pentru cine mai crede ca putem include circul la cultura se inseala, penru ca intr-o lume in care totul se vinde, desigur, circul este o banala intrepridere.
Alessandra Zanardo {*}, Does the Application by Member States of the Commission Recommendations on Corporate Governance Issues Depend on the Diversity of Ownership Structures and Corporate Governance Systems?, December 24, 2008. Bocconi Legal Studies Research Paper No. 1320195. Available at SSRN.
In December 2004 and February 2005, the EC Commission adopted two Recommendations in order to foster an appropriate regime for the remuneration of directors of listed companies and to strengthen the role of non-executive or supervisory directors and of the committees of the (supervisory) board, respectively. In July 2007 the Commission published two Reports on the application by the Member States of both Recommendations. The objective of these Reports – which covered 21 Member States – was to evaluate whether the Member States had put in place the necessary framework in order to give effect to the main principles of the Recommendations and to analyse, in detail, the principles actually implemented by each country. The findings of the Commission’s evaluation reveal significant differences in the approach to these issues, in the level of application of the single provisions and, to some extent, in the means used to comply with the Recommendations. In this paper, I first analyse whether the level and the modalities of the implementation by the Member States actually depend on the diversity of share ownership structures, corporate governance systems and legal environment in European Union and, where relevant, to what extent. Second, I examine the need and appropriateness of using Recommendations (’soft law’) instead of Directives (‘hard law’) to promote the process of convergence of corporate governance rules and practices across the EU.
Karen J. Alter, The European Court’s Political Power Across Time and Space, (January 28, 2009). Revue Française de Science Politique, Vol. 59, 2009; Northwestern Law & Econ Research Paper No. 09-03. Available at SSRN.
Autor al unei carti (OUP) – acest articol este o prezentare a cartii – despre nelimitata putere politica manifestata in limitele juridice ale CJCE, Karen J. Alter analizează opiniile fundamentale in materie (Eric Stein si Joseph Weiller), studiul fiind si o cronologie a puterii CJCE si extinderii acesteia in raport cu Tratatele.
Este CJCE o Curte influentata politic?
Intr-un asemenea studiu, intrebarea este retorica.
Aici gasiti toate amanuntele, asa ca nu mai repetam.
Green Paper – Succession and wills {SEC(2005) 270}, COM/2005/0065 final [*]
Centrul de Studii de Drept European (CSDE) al Institutului de Cercetări Juridice din cadrul Academiei Române organizează la data de 20 martie 2009, ora 13, organizează în Sala de Consiliu de la sediul său, Calea 13 Septembrie, nr. 13, colocviul cu tema
«Taxa auto din perspectiva dreptului comunitar»
Chestiunea taxei de primă înmatriculare/taxei auto/taxei pe poluare a fost intens mediatizată, reprezentând fără îndoială principalul aspect ce a suscitat atenţia publicului larg din perspectiva interpretării şi aplicării dreptului comunitar în România, în calitatea sa de stat membru al Uniunii Europene.
Dezbaterea îşi propune realizarea unui schimb de puncte de vedere din perspectiva teoreticienilor şi mai ales a practicienilor (judecători şi avocaţi).
Program preliminar
Primirea participanţilor 1230-13
13. 00 Conf. univ. dr., avocat Gheorghe Piperea, Precedentul judiciar şi aplicabilitatea directă în dreptul intern a dreptului comunitar
13.15 Judecător Cristi Danileţ, Judecătorul naţional – primul judecător comunitar
13.30 Asist. univ. drd., avocat Cosmin Flavius Costas, Incompatibilitatea succesivă a reglementărilor naţionale privind taxa auto cu dreptul comunitar
13.45 Judecător Lucian Gherman, Taxa auto – între taxa de primă înmatriculare şi taxa de poluare – soluţii jurisprudenţiale
14-1415 Pauza
1415 Prof.univ.dr.Nicoleta Diaconu, Compatibilitatea reglementărilor naţionale cu dreptul comunitar în domeniul taxei auto
1430 Viorel Papu, Natura juridică a actelor care stau la baza încasării taxei pe poluare. Consecinţe şi conduite. Relevanţa stabilirii naturii juridice pentru judecătorul naţional
1445 Lect. univ. drd. Roxana Popescu, Consacrarea pe cale jurisprudenţială a noţiunii de taxă având efect echivalent taxei vamale
15 Lect. univ. dr. Mădălina Tomescu, Taxa de mediu…pentru om sau împotriva lui?
1515-1545 – Discuţii
Colocviul ar urma să se centreze asupra următoarelor chestiuni, lista nefiind exhaustivă:
- principiile Tratatului CE şi taxa auto;
- pertinenţa amendării succesive a regimului juridic naţional pentru conformitatea sa cu principiile Tratatului CE;
- criterii de interpretare şi aplicare a art. 90 CE regimului naţional privind taxa auto;
- soluţii pronunţate până în prezent de către instanţe judecătoreşti din România în materie; consecinţe de ordin teoretic şi practic ale unei posibile practici judiciare divergente;
- contextul jurisprudenţei Curţii de Justiţie a Comunităţilor Europene; exemple pertinente din această jurisprudenţă şi posibilitatea de transpunere a lor în cadrul juridic românesc; abordări de drept comparat – situaţii similare întâlnite în alte state membre;
- consecinţe de ordin procedural pentru judecătorul român ale constatării incompatibilităţii regimului juridic naţional în materia taxei auto cu principiile dreptului comunitar (libera circulaţie a mărfurilor); pertinenţa jurisprudenţei Simmenthal (hotărârea în cauza 106/77);
- potenţiala recurgere de către judecătorul naţional la sistemul trimiterii preliminare la Curtea de Justiţie, în temeiul art. 234 CE;
- perspective pentru viitor; în acest sens, întrebarea la care ar trebui răspuns priveşte stabilirea unor posibile criterii pentru punerea regimului naţional în conformitate cu principiile Tratatului CE;
- aprecierea posibilităţii iniţierii de către Comisia Europeană a unei acţiuni pentru neîndeplinirea obligaţiilor împotriva României (art. 226 CE).
Locul desfăşurării colocviului urmează a fi anunţat ulterior în timp util (până la 10 martie) tuturor celor care şi-au anunţat intenţia participării, precum şi printr-un anunţ pe blogul eubusinesslaw.wordpress.com.
Participarea se face numai pe bază de invitaţie, care poate fi obţinută printr-o cerere adresată
Centrului (inclusiv e-mail la mihai.sandru@gmail.com) în care solicitanţii sunt rugaţi să menţioneze: numele şi prenumele, afilierea instituţională şi funcţia precum şi domeniul de interes în materia dreptului european. Invitaţiile pot fi obţinute până la 10 martie 2009.
Este încurajată particularea la lucrările colocviului cu prezentări vizând subiectele enumerate, anterior dar şi referitoare la orice alte chestiuni conexe ce ar putea fi de interes. În acest sens, doritorii pot adresa o solicitare de înscriere pe lista vorbitorilor, trimiţând şi un scurt rezumat al principalelor puncte ce ar urma să fie atinse, la adresa de e-mail icj.csde@gmail.com.
Lucrările şi prezentările susţinute cu ocazia colocviului urmează a fi publicate, de către Centru, într-un volum care va apărea la Editura Universitară – editură recunoscută de CNCSIS.
Informaţii suplimentare şi materiale referitoare la colocviu vor fi disponibile la adresa eubusinesslaw.wordpress.com.
CSDE vă mulţumeşte pentru retransmiterea acestei invitaţii către toate persoanele interesate.
”In other respects, the shift of the French judicial system toward a Kelsenian ratio, can be appreciated in the context of the transformation of the European legal space in a true Grundrechtsgemeinshaft (community of rights). Indeed, at the supranational level, both the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights have began taking human rights seriously and claiming a constitutional status. The human rights’ case law of these two European courts is becoming increasingly influential and often used as an example even by the domestic courts of states with well-built ‘legal nationalism’. There is, therefore, a strong incentive (if not duty) for the national jurisdictions to elevate their standard of rights’ protection to comply with the growing attention to fundamental liberties at the European level.”
Gillian Moon, The WTO-Minus Strategy: Development and human rights under WTO law, (March 2008). University of New South Wales Faculty of Law Research Series. University of New South Wales Faculty of Law Research Series 2008. Working Paper 10. [*]
International trade law, human rights law and development studies share the common objective of promoting higher standards of living in the poorer countries of the world. Human rights and development scholars have been critical of the law of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), as implementing a development strategy which dominates and constrains the development strategy options of developing countries but which perceives development only in a narrow, economic sense. In this paper, the different theoretical underpinnings of international trade law and international human rights law are described and compared and their differing conceptions of development are examined from the perspective of the broader development discourse. The package of rights and obligations of developing countries under WTO law (the ‘WTO-Minus strategy’) is also described and examples of significant constraints placed by this package on the development strategy options open to developing countries regarding trade in goods are examined from the perspectives of the broader development discourse and international human rights norms. The capacity of the WTO to incorporate new and multidisciplinary knowledge about development is considered.
Development Deficit and Modern Law’s Myth of Origin
Wenwei Guan
Law v. Statute, Ius v. Lex: An Analysis of a Critical Relation in Roman and Civil Law
Ignazio Castellucci
Sau din ciclul “ce se mai scrie pe la altii”…
Environmental Spill-overs from the European Court of Justice (*)
Prof. Dr. Jan H. Jans (*)
Rezumatul:
This paper illustrates that European environmental law is not just another sectoral policy area of the European Union. Over the years it has proven to have had a major impact on various general doctrines of European law. In that sense European environmental law had (and still have) important spill-overs to general European law. I will focus in particular on the role of the European Court of Justice and its case law.
Ei bine, rezumatul nu spune multe. Insa articolul e chiar interesant, mai ales ca ia in discutie, pe larg, problema temeiului juridic al unui act comunitar (temei juridic i.e. – dreptul mediului) si, evident, problema exercitarii unui control jurisdictional de catre CJCE asupra alegerii temeiului juridic mentionat…
Concluzia unui articol:
Van Gend is often casually compared to Marbury simply because in each case the high court declares itself to be the final arbiter of central government law. But there is a good deal more to the comparison than that. Both cases serve up what is perhaps the single most profound and complex issue of their respective constitutional systems: multiple competing claims of ultimate legal authority. In addressing this issue, both decisions make important claims for central judicial authority. And yet, both inaugurate a regime of mutual accommodation among the competing actors lasting to this very day.
To be sure, the nature of the competition in the two cases is rather different. In the United States, the competition is mostly horizontal and institutional, i.e. between the Court, the President, and Congress, as well as the People themselves. And the competition surrounds the interpretation of a single object: the United States Constitution. In Europe, the competition is mostly vertical and systemic, i.e. between the legal orders of the European Union and its Member States. Here the constitutional order of the European Union claims primacy over the constitutional orders of the Member States and vice versa. (In Europe there is also competition among different institutions to interpret the Union’s foundational charter. But this institutional competition is ultimately based on the deeper, systemic competition, i.e. a battle about which legal system(s) trumps the other(s) in cases of conflict.)
And yet, despite these differences, the practice of accommodating institutional pluralism in the United States shares important features with the practice of accommodating constitutional pluralism in Europe. By juxtaposing accommodation in the two systems, we may understand these practices far better than if we limit ourselves to only one or the other legal order. In particular, we recognize that actors in both systems seem to rely on considerations of voice, expertise, and rights to manage the pluralist standoff.
Articolul este denumit “Constitutionalism and Pluralism in Marbury and Van Gend“, Daniel Halberstam (*)
|
Da, totul a pornit de aici (*) Acum a aparut “raportul Coulon”, f. interesant de citit aici (*). Stirea (*) suna astfel: Rénovation du droit pénal des affaires : les 30 propositions du rapport Coulon |
|
|
Le groupe de travail présidé par Jean-Marie Coulon, premier président honoraire de la cour d’appel de Paris, a remis au garde des Sceaux, le 20 février, son rapport consacré à la dépénalisation de la vie des affaires dont certaines propositions seront traduites dans un projet de loi (V. CDE 2008, entretien 1 ; Dr. pén. 2008, dossier 4). |
|
Exporting Western Law to the Developing World: The Troubling Case of Niger
Thomas A. Kelley III
The Judiciary and Constitutionalism in Transitions: A Critique
Hakeem O. Yusuf
Disciplinary Biases in Approaching African Development
Luca G. Pes
Chien-huei Wu
Pablo Márquez
Spre deosebire de viziunile holistice din dreptul nostru, altii scriu cu folos:
Sacha Prechal and Bert van Roermund, The Coherence of EU Law. The Search for Unity in Divergent Concepts, OPU, 2008 (*).
Cartea intra intr-o serie de lucrari care se preocupa de importanta limbajului juridic (sau a 23 de limbaje juridice sau a 27 sau si mai multe daca vedem regiunile autonome din Europa).
European System of Private Laws: An Economic Perspective (*)
Abstract:
A theoretical framework for the analysis and design of a European System of Private Laws and Regulations is presented. Since private laws also encompass a considerable amount of mandatory legal rules (increasingly fuzzy distinction between public and private law), both traditional private law rules that facilitate market exchange as well as mandatory (public or private law) rules for the regulation of markets are taken into account. Based upon a multi-level governance approach, economic theories of federalism and regulatory competition are used to analyze the optimal degree of centralisation/ decentralisation of legal rules for markets within a two-level legal system (EU and Member States). An overview of the most important criteria for the vertical allocation of regulatory powers and of different types of regulatory competition is given (including their advantages and disadvantages). The most important conclusion is that the optimal structure depends on the specific regulatory problem and detailed analyses are necessary, because complex trade off problems between manifold positive and negative effects of centralised/ decentralised solutions and regulatory competition can emerge. For the governance of such a European two-level system of private laws and regulations an appropriate shaping of conflict of laws- and choice of law-rules is crucial. The theoretical analysis of multi-level legal systems, especially in regard to their innovativeness and adaptability to changing circumstances and preferences, suggests that the EU should be more cautious in pursuit of legal harmonisation than they have been in the past.
Drafting laws in UK settings: implementing plain language and discourse? (*)
Legal English or legal Englishes? Differences in drafting techniques in the English-speaking world (*)
Oren Gazal-Ayal, University of Haifa, Faculty of Law
What explains the popularity of law and economics (L&E) in some academic communities and the scarcity of such scholarship in others? Many explanations have been given for the centrality of economic analysis in American legal thought and its marginality in Europe. This article examines what drives scholars to select L&E as a topic for research. It does so by implementing the methodology of many papers in the field – by assuming that regulation and incentives matter. Legal scholars face very different academic incentives in different parts of the world. In some countries, the academic standards for appointment, promotion and tenure encourage legal scholars to concentrate on L&E. In others, they strongly discourage such research. Thus, we should expect wide variation in the participation rate of legal scholars in the L&E discourse across countries. On the other hand, economists are evaluated with similar yardsticks everywhere, and thus their participation rate is likely to vary much less. The hypothesis of this paper is that academic incentives are a major factor in the level of participation in L&E scholarship. This “incentives hypothesis” is presented and then examined empirically with data gathered from the list of authors in L&E journals and the list of participants in L&E conferences. The data generally support the hypothesis. In legal academia, the incentives to focus research on L&E topics are the strongest in Israel, weaker in North America, and weakest in Europe. In fact, the data reveal that lawyers’ authorship of L&E papers weighted by population is about ten times higher in Israel than in North America; while in Europe it is almost five times lower than in North America. By comparison, the weighted participation level of economists – who face relatively similar academic environments across countries – in L&E research is not significantly different across countries.
Submitted: June 12, 2006 · Accepted: April 16, 2007 · Published: December 11, 2007
(*)
Anand Menon and Stephen Weatherill, Democratic Politics in a Globalising World: Supranationalism and Legitimacy in the European Union, (*), London School of Economics and Political Science
Abstract: This paper addresses the relationship between legitimacy and international organisations via a consideration of the supranational principle that lies at the heart of the European Union. It is built on two arguments. First, that using State paradigms as the starting-point in measuring the legitimacy of the EU (or of any international organisations) is falsely to assume that the EU aspires to become a State. Second, that even in so far as there may be virtue in drawing on State practice to interrogate the legitimacy of the EU system, one must do so with full recognition of the failures of states in practice to live up to the worthy ideals which represent their own claims to legitimacy. The core of our analysis holds that the nature and impact of supranationalism can only be grasped in the context of an understanding of the nature of European politics as an interlocking system of European governance. To argue that the EU should become a nation state recreated at European level is, in our view, the road to (the EU’s) ruin. It would not work because of the enduring absence of adequate popular support for such a project. But nor should it work. Stripping out the supranational elements of the EU as part of a quest for accountability of the type found in States makes deeply implausible assumptions about the ability of Member states deprived of the ‘Community method’ to solve many of the (transnational) economic, political and social problems that confront them and their citizens, while also opening up the opportunities for ‘beggar-my-neighbour’ economic policies of the type controlled by EC trade law. Thus, we argue for an appreciation of the functions of both national and European institutions in meeting the challenge of securing legitimacy, an approach which connects to the normative reading of supranationalism that treats it as directed at ‘taming’, but neither eliminating, nor replacing, the Member states.
Intermediated Securities, Legal Risk, and the International Harmonisation of Commercial Law
Luc Thévenoz, Intermediated Securities, Legal Risk, and the International Harmonisation of Commercial Law, Duke Law School Legal Studies Paper No. 170 Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1008859
Abstract:
Investors do not physically hold their investment securities any more. Securities are held and transferred through a complex, sophisticated, and international network of financial intermediaries, including central securities depositories, investment banks, and brokers-dealers. Investors buy and sell their holdings by having book-entries made to their securities accounts; they provide collateral to secured lenders by book-entries or by control agreements. Because transfers and collateral transactions are critical to the liquidity of the financial markets and to financial stability, market participants and regulators have become increasingly concerned with the legal soundness, the internal consistency, and the international compatibility of national laws regulating the holding and transfer of securities held with an intermediary. This article examines how the international harmonisation of key rules of commercial law can contribute to the reduction of legal risk and discusses a draft convention prepared by the International Institute for the Unification of Private Law (UNIDROIT). Rather than addressing the numerous features of that draft, the author focuses on its methodology – the ‘functional approach’ – and finds that it is possible to create effective international treaty provisions, which contracting States may implement without disrupting their property law with respect to the structure and characterisation of investors’ interests in securities. This article tests the robustness of the functional approach by examining two critical issues: the definition of intermediated securities as the building block of international substantive rules and the choice among four internationally recognised methods for the transfer of intermediated securities and for their use as collateral.
Francezii au inceput sa curetze legile.
Au in gand sa faca o curatenie care sa lase in urma o ordine gasita doar in sistemul solar: astfel, oricine va descoperi o lege ileagala (cum o fi?) sau fara obiect va tzipa cat il tine gura si imediat treaba se va rezolva.
Avand in vedere ca un cuprins de Monitor (Jurnal) Oficial francez are – in fiecare zi – cate 4 pagini de sumar si cate 80 de pagini de texte, inseamna ca procesul va fi incheiat pe 3 septembrie 2398 ora 3 pm. Succes baieti si felicitari pentru idee!
