迈向“证券”共同定义的一般框架:多语言背景下的金融市场监管

Giuliano G. Castellano
{"title":"迈向“证券”共同定义的一般框架:多语言背景下的金融市场监管","authors":"Giuliano G. Castellano","doi":"10.1093/ULR/17.3.449","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article aims at providing a linguistic and comparative perspective on \n financial markets governance by investigating the meanings and legal \n categories underlying the term “securities” in a multilingual society. It first \n illustrates how the term “securities” is not a straightforward legal concept and \n requires clear definition – both at the national and transnational levels – to \n limit regulatory arbitrage and forum shopping phenomena that might \n endanger investor protection and financial stability. Subsequently, moving \n from the economic function of securities, the article analyses the legal \n techniques adopted to define the term “securities” in the United States and in \n selected European countries, with particular attention to France, Italy and the \n United Kingdom. The legal and linguistic comparison reveals hidden \n similarities, converging towards a common a set of shared components related \n to the concepts of investment, negotiability and value. Notwithstanding this \n common core, several discrepancies emerge when finally the study focuses on \n the application of EU securities law and on the legal standardisation efforts \n carried out by the International Organization of Securities Commissions \n (IOSCO). The article shows that in a globalised and multilingual society, the \n meanings attributed to the term “securities” have a direct impact on the \n overall soundness of the financial system and that any legal definition of the \n term must consider the implicit cognitive processes, embedded in language, \n that are necessary to interpret and apply securities law.","PeriodicalId":70912,"journal":{"name":"政治经济学季刊","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-12-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"7","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Towards a General Framework for a Common Definition of ‘Securities’: Financial Markets Regulation in Multilingual Contexts\",\"authors\":\"Giuliano G. Castellano\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/ULR/17.3.449\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article aims at providing a linguistic and comparative perspective on \\n financial markets governance by investigating the meanings and legal \\n categories underlying the term “securities” in a multilingual society. It first \\n illustrates how the term “securities” is not a straightforward legal concept and \\n requires clear definition – both at the national and transnational levels – to \\n limit regulatory arbitrage and forum shopping phenomena that might \\n endanger investor protection and financial stability. Subsequently, moving \\n from the economic function of securities, the article analyses the legal \\n techniques adopted to define the term “securities” in the United States and in \\n selected European countries, with particular attention to France, Italy and the \\n United Kingdom. The legal and linguistic comparison reveals hidden \\n similarities, converging towards a common a set of shared components related \\n to the concepts of investment, negotiability and value. Notwithstanding this \\n common core, several discrepancies emerge when finally the study focuses on \\n the application of EU securities law and on the legal standardisation efforts \\n carried out by the International Organization of Securities Commissions \\n (IOSCO). The article shows that in a globalised and multilingual society, the \\n meanings attributed to the term “securities” have a direct impact on the \\n overall soundness of the financial system and that any legal definition of the \\n term must consider the implicit cognitive processes, embedded in language, \\n that are necessary to interpret and apply securities law.\",\"PeriodicalId\":70912,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"政治经济学季刊\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2012-12-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"7\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"政治经济学季刊\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/ULR/17.3.449\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"政治经济学季刊","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ULR/17.3.449","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

摘要

本文旨在通过调查多语言社会中“证券”一词的含义和法律类别,为金融市场治理提供语言学和比较视角。它首先说明了“证券”一词不是一个直截了当的法律概念,需要明确的定义——在国家和跨国层面——以限制可能危及投资者保护和金融稳定的监管套利和论坛购物现象。随后,本文从证券的经济功能出发,分析了美国和某些欧洲国家界定“证券”一词所采用的法律技术,特别关注法国、意大利和英国。法律和语言的比较揭示了隐藏的相似之处,趋同于一套与投资、可协商性和价值概念有关的共同组成部分。尽管有这个共同的核心,但当研究最终集中在欧盟证券法的应用和国际证券委员会组织(IOSCO)开展的法律标准化工作时,出现了一些差异。本文表明,在全球化和多语言社会中,“证券”一词的含义对金融体系的整体稳健性有直接影响,该术语的任何法律定义都必须考虑嵌入语言中的隐性认知过程,这是解释和适用证券法所必需的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Towards a General Framework for a Common Definition of ‘Securities’: Financial Markets Regulation in Multilingual Contexts
This article aims at providing a linguistic and comparative perspective on financial markets governance by investigating the meanings and legal categories underlying the term “securities” in a multilingual society. It first illustrates how the term “securities” is not a straightforward legal concept and requires clear definition – both at the national and transnational levels – to limit regulatory arbitrage and forum shopping phenomena that might endanger investor protection and financial stability. Subsequently, moving from the economic function of securities, the article analyses the legal techniques adopted to define the term “securities” in the United States and in selected European countries, with particular attention to France, Italy and the United Kingdom. The legal and linguistic comparison reveals hidden similarities, converging towards a common a set of shared components related to the concepts of investment, negotiability and value. Notwithstanding this common core, several discrepancies emerge when finally the study focuses on the application of EU securities law and on the legal standardisation efforts carried out by the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO). The article shows that in a globalised and multilingual society, the meanings attributed to the term “securities” have a direct impact on the overall soundness of the financial system and that any legal definition of the term must consider the implicit cognitive processes, embedded in language, that are necessary to interpret and apply securities law.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
127
期刊最新文献
The Development of the Discipline of the History of Foreign Economic Thought in China: Based on the Investigation of the Chinese Society for the Foreign Economic Theories Building World-Class State-owned Enterprises —Connotation, Characteristics, Measurement, and Development Direction The Development Logic of Unbalanced Duality of Digital-Economy Globalization The Transformational Development of Socialist Foreign Trade with Chinese Characteristics and its Strategic Significance: A Review of Professor Shuli Song's “The Transformational Development of Socialist Foreign Trade with Chinese Characteristics: Based on the Empirical Study of Zhejiang's Private Ec Surprises in Life and a Retrospect of the Career in Economics: An Interview with Renowned American Economist Samuel Bowles
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1