The debate on corporate purpose is not confined to Western developed economies. Rapidly developing economies like India are similarly grappling with how to define and develop a legal framework around corporate purpose. For over a decade, India has taken a multi-pronged approach toward redefining corporate purpose. These include voluntary guidelines, corporate social responsibility mandates in corporate law, a stakeholder-oriented articulation of director fiduciary duties, and increased sustainability disclosure for listed firms. The success of India’s multi-pronged initiatives has been mixed. While domestic philanthropic giving has increased significantly, it is unevenly distributed. And mandatory CSR, a stakeholder-oriented approach to corporate law, and additional sustainability disclosures have made little dent in India’s massive inequality, poverty, corruption and pollution. The Indian experience presents an important perspective for the corporate purpose debate from a country where firms are dominated by controlling stockholders. In a country where politics and business are deeply intertwined, and where powerful controlling stockholders have an outsized role, stakeholderism may make little headway. Instead, the Indian approach to stakeholderism provides an environment where corporations can use their CSR efforts and corporate purpose rhetoric to curry political favor with the state, while the state can use stakeholderism to politically signal that it values society, even in the face of rising inequality and persistent poverty.
{"title":"Lessons from India’s Struggles with Corporate Purpose","authors":"Afra Afsharipour","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3735034","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3735034","url":null,"abstract":"The debate on corporate purpose is not confined to Western developed economies. Rapidly developing economies like India are similarly grappling with how to define and develop a legal framework around corporate purpose. For over a decade, India has taken a multi-pronged approach toward redefining corporate purpose. These include voluntary guidelines, corporate social responsibility mandates in corporate law, a stakeholder-oriented articulation of director fiduciary duties, and increased sustainability disclosure for listed firms. The success of India’s multi-pronged initiatives has been mixed. While domestic philanthropic giving has increased significantly, it is unevenly distributed. And mandatory CSR, a stakeholder-oriented approach to corporate law, and additional sustainability disclosures have made little dent in India’s massive inequality, poverty, corruption and pollution. The Indian experience presents an important perspective for the corporate purpose debate from a country where firms are dominated by controlling stockholders. In a country where politics and business are deeply intertwined, and where powerful controlling stockholders have an outsized role, stakeholderism may make little headway. Instead, the Indian approach to stakeholderism provides an environment where corporations can use their CSR efforts and corporate purpose rhetoric to curry political favor with the state, while the state can use stakeholderism to politically signal that it values society, even in the face of rising inequality and persistent poverty.","PeriodicalId":196892,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Comparative Law & Analysis (Topic)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-11-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133384108","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Access to the justice system is becoming increasingly difficult for many Canadians. The cost of litigation is an important factor that can determine how much and how often people can pay a lawyer for legal advice and representation. While some disputes can be resolved outside the courtroom, litigation is often the only means to achieve an equitable result. Commencing and participating in the litigation process is expensive and many people lack the financial resources to take on the full cost of bringing their matter to court. This can lead to potentially meritorious cases being barred from access to a just resolution. This study paper examines the traditional and alternative methods litigants use to pay for litigation. It reviews five financing models that have emerged both in Canada and internationally: 1) unbundled legal services, 2) third-party litigation funding, 3) alternative fee arrangements, 4) crowdfunding, 5) legal expense insurance, and 6) publicly funded litigation funds. The paper identifies 18 opportunities and ideas to consider for structural, systemic or legal change in order to enhance the use of each financing option in British Columbia. It also briefly discusses five alternative ideas that could mitigate the rising cost of legal services, and improve access to justice generally.
{"title":"Study Paper on Financing Litigation","authors":"British Columbia Law Institute","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3067055","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3067055","url":null,"abstract":"Access to the justice system is becoming increasingly difficult for many Canadians. The cost of litigation is an important factor that can determine how much and how often people can pay a lawyer for legal advice and representation. While some disputes can be resolved outside the courtroom, litigation is often the only means to achieve an equitable result. Commencing and participating in the litigation process is expensive and many people lack the financial resources to take on the full cost of bringing their matter to court. This can lead to potentially meritorious cases being barred from access to a just resolution. This study paper examines the traditional and alternative methods litigants use to pay for litigation. It reviews five financing models that have emerged both in Canada and internationally: 1) unbundled legal services, 2) third-party litigation funding, 3) alternative fee arrangements, 4) crowdfunding, 5) legal expense insurance, and 6) publicly funded litigation funds. The paper identifies 18 opportunities and ideas to consider for structural, systemic or legal change in order to enhance the use of each financing option in British Columbia. It also briefly discusses five alternative ideas that could mitigate the rising cost of legal services, and improve access to justice generally.","PeriodicalId":196892,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Comparative Law & Analysis (Topic)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-10-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121625317","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2016-09-22DOI: 10.4337/9781784713034.00028
M. Kanetake, Cai Congyan
This chapter analyzes how the methodological transition of the UN Security Council’s sanctions regimes has necessitated, as well as justified, greater changes in domestic law. This chapter examines the cases of two East Asian countries, the People’s of Republic of China (PRC) and Japan. The combined efforts to depict the two countries’ political and legal positions highlight the relevance of domestic political and legal contexts in ensuring the implementation of the UN Security Council’s international sanctions.
{"title":"Chinese and Japanese Perspectives on UN Sanctions","authors":"M. Kanetake, Cai Congyan","doi":"10.4337/9781784713034.00028","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4337/9781784713034.00028","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter analyzes how the methodological transition of the UN Security Council’s sanctions regimes has necessitated, as well as justified, greater changes in domestic law. This chapter examines the cases of two East Asian countries, the People’s of Republic of China (PRC) and Japan. The combined efforts to depict the two countries’ political and legal positions highlight the relevance of domestic political and legal contexts in ensuring the implementation of the UN Security Council’s international sanctions.","PeriodicalId":196892,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Comparative Law & Analysis (Topic)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"117203613","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2016-08-01DOI: 10.1093/OSO/9780198810674.003.0005
I. Lianos
In May 2016 the BRICS competition authorities signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), which puts in place an Institutional Partnership between BRICS jurisdictions in the area of competition law through a general framework for multilateral cooperation. The paper takes stock of these recent developments and suggests the establishment of a BRICS Joint Research Platform which, in addition to its task to improve the quality of decision-making within BRICS’ competition authorities, will also serve as an alternative forum in the constitution of a global deliberative space in the area of competition law. The paper offers a critical analysis of the call for policy convergence in competition law, which merely emanates from the global business community and enables established competition law regimes, such as that of the US and Europe, to influence the convergence point and more generally to take ownership of the process of global convergence of competition law. The paper criticizes this state of affairs for not taking into account the different patterns of diffusion of competition law and consequently the variety of competition law systems emerging out of the original US antitrust law model and its EU competition law “spin-off”. In particular, it castigates the lack of participation in this global deliberative space of emergent and developing economies and the inability of various affected interests, beyond global businesses and to a limited extent consumers, to be considered. The study takes a broader perspective and puts forward a “participation-centred” approach that would seek to avoid both majority and minority biases, the ultimate objective being not policy convergence as such, but increasing levels of total trust between competition authorities and between competition authorities and their stakeholders. The BRICS Joint Research Platform may play an important role in contributing to the establishment of this new architecture of global governance of competition law.
{"title":"Global Governance of Antitrust and the Need for a BRICS Joint Research Platform in Competition Law and Policy","authors":"I. Lianos","doi":"10.1093/OSO/9780198810674.003.0005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/OSO/9780198810674.003.0005","url":null,"abstract":"In May 2016 the BRICS competition authorities signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), which puts in place an Institutional Partnership between BRICS jurisdictions in the area of competition law through a general framework for multilateral cooperation. The paper takes stock of these recent developments and suggests the establishment of a BRICS Joint Research Platform which, in addition to its task to improve the quality of decision-making within BRICS’ competition authorities, will also serve as an alternative forum in the constitution of a global deliberative space in the area of competition law. The paper offers a critical analysis of the call for policy convergence in competition law, which merely emanates from the global business community and enables established competition law regimes, such as that of the US and Europe, to influence the convergence point and more generally to take ownership of the process of global convergence of competition law. The paper criticizes this state of affairs for not taking into account the different patterns of diffusion of competition law and consequently the variety of competition law systems emerging out of the original US antitrust law model and its EU competition law “spin-off”. In particular, it castigates the lack of participation in this global deliberative space of emergent and developing economies and the inability of various affected interests, beyond global businesses and to a limited extent consumers, to be considered. The study takes a broader perspective and puts forward a “participation-centred” approach that would seek to avoid both majority and minority biases, the ultimate objective being not policy convergence as such, but increasing levels of total trust between competition authorities and between competition authorities and their stakeholders. The BRICS Joint Research Platform may play an important role in contributing to the establishment of this new architecture of global governance of competition law.","PeriodicalId":196892,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Comparative Law & Analysis (Topic)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130484031","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper outlines the historical evolution of Australia’s foreign direct investment (FDI) regulation generally, under national law and more recently bilateral investment treaties (BITs) or investment chapters of free trade agreements (FTAs). This sets the stage for closer analysis of the policy and politics in Australia over treaty-based investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS), particularly the binding arbitration mechanism since 2010. The paper concludes by highlighting some key contrasts with ISDS debates in New Zealand, a close trading and investment partner. It has retained more bipartisan support for ISDS in recent years, and FTAs generally, despite emergent concerns in the context of the Korea and Trans-Pacific Partnership FTAs.
{"title":"The Evolution of Foreign Investment Regulation, Treaties and Investor-State Arbitration in Australia","authors":"L. Nottage","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2685941","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2685941","url":null,"abstract":"This paper outlines the historical evolution of Australia’s foreign direct investment (FDI) regulation generally, under national law and more recently bilateral investment treaties (BITs) or investment chapters of free trade agreements (FTAs). This sets the stage for closer analysis of the policy and politics in Australia over treaty-based investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS), particularly the binding arbitration mechanism since 2010. The paper concludes by highlighting some key contrasts with ISDS debates in New Zealand, a close trading and investment partner. It has retained more bipartisan support for ISDS in recent years, and FTAs generally, despite emergent concerns in the context of the Korea and Trans-Pacific Partnership FTAs.","PeriodicalId":196892,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Comparative Law & Analysis (Topic)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-11-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125359121","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The democratic input legitimacy of independent regulatory agencies (IRAs) is often questioned. Their independence creates distance from the main executive bodies, who therefore do not necessarily bear responsibility for them. This in turn may negatively affect the responsiveness of the ‘unelected’ bodies to the electorate’s preferences and hence the acceptance of the authority of IRAs by the public. This article questions whether the democratic input legitimacy of IRAs should be problematic by definition. It examines the essence of the conventional way of ensuring input legitimacy, i.e. elections, and identifies the elements that create a reference level for assessment of input legitimacy, namely authorization, safeguards and accountability. It argues that if the input relationship between the public and IRAs is well organized with respect to these three elements, the input legitimacy of IRAs need not be problematic, even if IRAs are headed by the ‘unelected’. Furthermore, it distinguishes two dimensions of the democratic input legitimacy problem of IRAs: democratic legitimacy of IRAs as public institutions and of IRAs’ operation, and it applies the assessment formula to IRAs in the US and the EU in relation to both dimensions. Distinguishing two dimensions of the input legitimacy issue of IRAs makes it more feasible to determine the exact location of potential problems, which is essential to find appropriate solutions.
{"title":"Democratic Input Legitimacy of IRAs: Proposing an Assessment Framework","authors":"M. Scholten","doi":"10.18352/ULR.318","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18352/ULR.318","url":null,"abstract":"The democratic input legitimacy of independent regulatory agencies (IRAs) is often questioned. Their independence creates distance from the main executive bodies, who therefore do not necessarily bear responsibility for them. This in turn may negatively affect the responsiveness of the ‘unelected’ bodies to the electorate’s preferences and hence the acceptance of the authority of IRAs by the public. This article questions whether the democratic input legitimacy of IRAs should be problematic by definition. It examines the essence of the conventional way of ensuring input legitimacy, i.e. elections, and identifies the elements that create a reference level for assessment of input legitimacy, namely authorization, safeguards and accountability. It argues that if the input relationship between the public and IRAs is well organized with respect to these three elements, the input legitimacy of IRAs need not be problematic, even if IRAs are headed by the ‘unelected’. Furthermore, it distinguishes two dimensions of the democratic input legitimacy problem of IRAs: democratic legitimacy of IRAs as public institutions and of IRAs’ operation, and it applies the assessment formula to IRAs in the US and the EU in relation to both dimensions. Distinguishing two dimensions of the input legitimacy issue of IRAs makes it more feasible to determine the exact location of potential problems, which is essential to find appropriate solutions.","PeriodicalId":196892,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Comparative Law & Analysis (Topic)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129362766","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract: Third-party litigation funding (TPLF) is a promising and fascinating practice that is receiving increasing attention. However, TPLF is still a novel institution, and hence there exists certain controversy as to what it actually stands for. In order to bring some clarity in this regard, a definition of TPLF will be provided. This definition will be used to compare TPLF with other ways of funding litigation disputes, to investigate its origins, and to examine its advantages and disadvantages. Nonetheless, the main purpose of this article is to shed light as to two supplementary issues. On the one hand, this article will show what is the current state of affairs of TPLF. For that purpose, a comparative analysis of several countries will be provided. This will show that TPLF is commonplace in common law countries such as Australia, though virtually non-existent in civil law countries. On the other hand, in order to determine the prospects for TPLF to expand into jurisdictions in which it has not developed so far, Spain will be taken as an example. This analysis will show that the possibilities for TPLF to grow in Spain are rather promising as TPLF may help overcome some of the challenges currently faced by the Spanish civil justice system. In addition, TPLF seems to be legally viable under Spanish law. Resumé: Third-Party Litigation Funding (TPLF) est une pratique prometteuse et fascinante, qui reçoit une attention croissante. Cependant, le TPLF est encore une institution novatrice, à ce titre il existe un certain nombre de controverses concernant ce qu'il représente. Afin d'apporter de la clarté à cet égard, une définition du TPLF sera fournie. Cette définition sera utilisée pour comparer le TPLF avec d'autres moyens de financement de litiges contentieux, pour rechercher ses origines et examiner ses avantages et inconvénients. Néanmoins, le but principal de cet article est de faire la lumière sur deux questions supplémentaires. Dans un premier temps, cet article montrera quelle est la situation actuelle du TPLF. Pour cela, une analyse comparative de plusieurs pays sera établie. Elle démontrera que le TPLF est monnaie courante dans les pays de common law comme l'Australie, et pratiquement inexistante dans les pays de droit civil. Dans un second temps, afin de déterminer les perspectives du TPLF de se développer dans les juridictions où il n'est que peu implanté, l'Espagne sera prise comme exemple. Cette analyse montrera que les possibilités pour le TPLF de se développer en Espagne sont prometteuses puisque le TPLF peut permettre de surmonter certaines difficultés rencontrées actuellement par son système de justice civile. En outre, TPLF semblent légalement viables en vertu du droit espagnol.
摘要:第三方诉讼资助(TPLF)是一项极具发展前景和吸引力的实践，正受到越来越多的关注。然而，TPLF仍然是一个新颖的制度，因此，它实际上代表什么存在一定的争议。为了使这方面更加清楚，将提供TPLF的定义。这一定义将用于比较TPLF与其他诉讼纠纷融资方式，调查其起源，并检查其优点和缺点。尽管如此，本文的主要目的是阐明两个补充问题。一方面，本文将展示TPLF的现状。为此目的，将对几个国家进行比较分析。这将表明，TPLF在普通法国家(如澳大利亚)很常见，尽管在大陆法系国家几乎不存在。另一方面，为了确定TPLF扩展到迄今尚未发展的司法管辖区的前景，将以西班牙为例。这一分析将表明，TPLF在西班牙发展的可能性相当有希望，因为TPLF可能有助于克服西班牙民事司法系统目前面临的一些挑战。此外，根据西班牙法律，TPLF在法律上是可行的。简历:第三方诉讼基金(TPLF)是一种独特的促进和吸引人的方式，是一种关注交叉的方式。在此前提下，TPLF将再次成为一种制度创新，因此该制度将存在一定程度的争议，有关的争议将继续存在。在报告中明确指出，对TPLF的一个定义是:研究人员认为，在研究人员认为的原产地和审查员认为的优点和缺点之间存在着很大的差异，因此，在研究人员认为的优点和缺点之间存在着很大的差异。在这条条款中，只有在确定两个问题的情况下，才有可能获得光明。文章的主要内容是对TPLF的实际情况进行了分析。因此，我们分析了比较多的人支付的薪金是可变的。根据澳大利亚普通法的规定，不存在的法律适用于民事权利的规定。在第二次会议上，在第二次会议上，在第二次会议上，在第二次会议上，在第二次会议上，在第二次会议上，在第二次会议上，在第二次会议上，在第二次会议上，在第二次会议上，在第二次会议上，在第二次会议上，在第二次会议上，在第二次会议上，在第二次会议上，在第二次会议上，在第二次会议上。这个分析montrera是les可能性倒勒德se制度发展en Espagne是prometteuses然后le制度可以permettre de surmonter某些困难邂逅actuellement儿子systeme de正义civile不相上下。此外，TPLF组件将在vertu du droit espagnol上实现。
{"title":"Third-Party Litigation Funding: Current State of Affairs and Prospects for its Further Development in Spain","authors":"Oliver Cojo Manuel","doi":"10.54648/erpl2014036","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/erpl2014036","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract: Third-party litigation funding (TPLF) is a promising and fascinating practice that is receiving increasing attention. However, TPLF is still a novel institution, and hence there exists certain controversy as to what it actually stands for. In order to bring some clarity in this regard, a definition of TPLF will be provided. This definition will be used to compare TPLF with other ways of funding litigation disputes, to investigate its origins, and to examine its advantages and disadvantages. Nonetheless, the main purpose of this article is to shed light as to two supplementary issues. On the one hand, this article will show what is the current state of affairs of TPLF. For that purpose, a comparative analysis of several countries will be provided. This will show that TPLF is commonplace in common law countries such as Australia, though virtually non-existent in civil law countries. On the other hand, in order to determine the prospects for TPLF to expand into jurisdictions in which it has not developed so far, Spain will be taken as an example. This analysis will show that the possibilities for TPLF to grow in Spain are rather promising as TPLF may help overcome some of the challenges currently faced by the Spanish civil justice system. In addition, TPLF seems to be legally viable under Spanish law. Resumé: Third-Party Litigation Funding (TPLF) est une pratique prometteuse et fascinante, qui reçoit une attention croissante. Cependant, le TPLF est encore une institution novatrice, à ce titre il existe un certain nombre de controverses concernant ce qu'il représente. Afin d'apporter de la clarté à cet égard, une définition du TPLF sera fournie. Cette définition sera utilisée pour comparer le TPLF avec d'autres moyens de financement de litiges contentieux, pour rechercher ses origines et examiner ses avantages et inconvénients. Néanmoins, le but principal de cet article est de faire la lumière sur deux questions supplémentaires. Dans un premier temps, cet article montrera quelle est la situation actuelle du TPLF. Pour cela, une analyse comparative de plusieurs pays sera établie. Elle démontrera que le TPLF est monnaie courante dans les pays de common law comme l'Australie, et pratiquement inexistante dans les pays de droit civil. Dans un second temps, afin de déterminer les perspectives du TPLF de se développer dans les juridictions où il n'est que peu implanté, l'Espagne sera prise comme exemple. Cette analyse montrera que les possibilités pour le TPLF de se développer en Espagne sont prometteuses puisque le TPLF peut permettre de surmonter certaines difficultés rencontrées actuellement par son système de justice civile. En outre, TPLF semblent légalement viables en vertu du droit espagnol.","PeriodicalId":196892,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Comparative Law & Analysis (Topic)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121863193","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Any choice of a state for a cross-border insolvency regime involves a trade-off between increased cross-border economic activity and application of less-preferred substantive insolvency law. A state may be relatively more dependent (‘dependent state’) on the economy of another, less dependent, state (‘dominant state’) than vice versa. This paper shows that the dependent state, to increase its gains from cross-border economic activity, has an interest in the dominant state applying territorialism. Applying unilateral universalism vis-a-vis the dominant state, the dependent state increases these gains even more. Within the conceptual framework of historical and comparative institutional analysis (HCIA), the influence of the United States on the drafting of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency is used as a case study.
{"title":"Cross-Border Insolvency Law: A Comparative Institutional Analysis","authors":"S. Franken","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2047399","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2047399","url":null,"abstract":"Any choice of a state for a cross-border insolvency regime involves a trade-off between increased cross-border economic activity and application of less-preferred substantive insolvency law. A state may be relatively more dependent (‘dependent state’) on the economy of another, less dependent, state (‘dominant state’) than vice versa. This paper shows that the dependent state, to increase its gains from cross-border economic activity, has an interest in the dominant state applying territorialism. Applying unilateral universalism vis-a-vis the dominant state, the dependent state increases these gains even more. Within the conceptual framework of historical and comparative institutional analysis (HCIA), the influence of the United States on the drafting of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency is used as a case study.","PeriodicalId":196892,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Comparative Law & Analysis (Topic)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-04-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129400614","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In recent years, food stamps have constituted about 80 percent of farm bill spending, which may be why nearly 100 percent of public debate has focused there. Unfortunately, with all of the attention on food stamps, both political parties have missed the opportunity for reform that lies in the remaining 20 percent of the farm bill.
{"title":"Ending Farm Subsidies: Unplowed Common Ground","authors":"M. Mitchell","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2511023","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2511023","url":null,"abstract":"In recent years, food stamps have constituted about 80 percent of farm bill spending, which may be why nearly 100 percent of public debate has focused there. Unfortunately, with all of the attention on food stamps, both political parties have missed the opportunity for reform that lies in the remaining 20 percent of the farm bill.","PeriodicalId":196892,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Comparative Law & Analysis (Topic)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-01-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134025267","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：