Search results

The purpose of this paper is to focus on the specific “shareholder's” concept of transparency.

It considers that indirect securities holding systems limit the degree of “post-trading” transparency. The main concern is that an adverse effect of globalized capital markets is that the actual shareholders are not registered in the official registries and registrations are effected in the name of intermediaries acting on their behalf. It further considers that new EU legislative action should be taken to address the legal issues of securities holdings as a key parameter for EU integration.

A new architecture of the securities holding system is proposed in this paper to be adopted at the EU level on the basis of the analyzed direct registration, i.e. registration of all the actual shareholders in the registries. It is considered that this architecture will promote securities holdings transparency for all systems, either direct or indirect, and hence enhance investors' protection and financial confidence in the markets. Focusing on the financial crisis of the recent years, it is worthy of note that a key parameter in solving this crisis problem could be considered not only the imposition of more possible regulatory requirements on all financial players but also the improvement credibility of the markets by making their operation more transparent. Direct registration could be defined as a method of making the markets more transparent in this regard.

In the light of the financial crisis of 2007-2009, this is one of the first studies, which clearly argues that direct registration could be considered the appropriate method of making the financial markets more transparent. Therefore, it calls for the EU legal intervention should therefore be accelerated. By delaying improvement in the efficiency of the available infrastructures mainly by utilizing all the advantages that technology offers, the markets accept the additional cost of higher risk coverage.

Company law harmonisation is considered to be necessary for the achievement of the European Union's (EU) aim of a single market and the free movement of goods and services throughout member states. This paper aims to contribute to understanding of both business and accounting history by considering whether UK legal history can offer any insight into the process of harmonisation. First, approaches to company law in the United Kingdom and the remainder of the EU are outlined in order to identify key differences and to explain why harmonisation is desired. Secondly, the UK position is considered and historical attempts to lessen legal differences between Scots and English mercantile laws are then examined, focusing on harmonisation attempts. Finally, by reflecting on the UK experience, implications for the EU company law harmonisation programme are drawn.

This paper aims to explore the role of public and private international law and how they are used differently in regulation of global markets. Data were sourced from both primary and secondary materials – journal papers, court decisions, textbooks and international legal instruments to gain insights into the role of law and the varied contexts in which it is used in regulation of markets. In an ordinary sense of the word, law sets operational limits to protect normative values and practices in a state – trade, peace, security, just to mention but a few. However, law cannot be confined to deterring undesired behaviours or to settling disputes, but more importantly, a good law should prevent disputes from happening. Law dictates the way of life of a society and its efficacy often depends on how well it is used to order the proper functioning of the system. International law is the set of rules which govern and foster effective relations of states. The paper explores the chasm between public and private international law, with a view to demonstrate how they are used differently in regulation of markets. Public and private international law encompass norms evolved by multilateral treaties, customs, judicial decisions, model laws and soft law instruments by different oversight bodies governing states and other stakeholders in their relationship with each other. These norms/rules create a platform for interstate cooperation on varied regulatory issues of shared interests. While treaties create a uniform framework of rules in all signatory states, their implementation often depends on individual states willingness to transpose them into national law. Owing to the inherent challenges of public international law (interstate practice), it has become imperative for markets to use rules of private international law. While public regulates the relationship of states and their emanation, private international law helps to bridge gaps in the mainstream international legal systems of states and in so doing enhances their co-existence on overlapping regulatory issues. The engendered trans-national norms will over time generate a positive impact on local sustainability and co-existence of different regulatory domains.

This paper uses cases studies and experiences of countries to demonstrate the complimentary relationship of public and private international law and how they work in tandem in international legal practice. The paper has also used the varied experiences of states to demonstrate how public and private international law interact in regulation of global markets. Data were sourced from both primary and secondary sources – journal papers, court decisions, textbooks and international legal instruments – to gain insights into the law and the varied contexts in regulation of markets. The case law and experience of states alluded to undertaking this research reflect the complimentary relationship of states for markets to operate effectively.

The findings of the paper comport with the hypothesis that markets cannot effectively work unless they are pursued within the framework of rules of public and private international law. The paper has alluded to the experience in national jurisdictions and global to highlight the chasm between different regulatory domains for markets to operate effectively. The paper articulates important practical issues relating to public and private international law in regulations of markets.

The practical implication of the paper is that it underscores significant legal issues relating to regulation of markets drawing examples within national jurisdictions and globally.

The paper has social implications because markets affect people, jobs and social life in varied ways. It addresses pertinent issues related to the complementarity of public and private international law and how they are manifested in national jurisdictions.

The paper is original because it nuances the interrelationship of public and private international law, teasing out their interaction in regulation of global markets in a distinctive way.

The law of catastrophic wildfire prevention and response in the Mediterranean member states of the European Union stands in stark contrast to that of common law nation states such as Australia and the United States. This is due primarily to the higher levels of reciprocal moral and legal obligations between governments and citizens established in various sources of European law. Focusing on the relationship between the EU, Spain, and the Autonomous Community of Catalonia within Spain, this chapter describes these three legal frameworks as they are nested within each other, followed by some case law examples of these laws in action. We compare and contrast the philosophical assumptions underlying the utilitarian cost–benefit approach to regulatory justification used in the United States with the precautionary principle model emblematic of the European Union, the member state of Spain, and its Autonomous Community of Catalonia. Regardless of approach, protection of the public health, safety, and welfare will only be as robust and effective as the government agencies that have that responsibility, and the degree of cooperation with those agencies of the citizens they serve.

The aim of the paper is to provide a review of potential Britain’s exit from the European Union (EU) and its implication on financial markets regulation in the EU and UK. It explores the terrain for financial markets regulation in the EU, pointing out how it impinges on the national legal system of EU countries and what it could mean for the UK. It navigates the legal reforms the UK will have to undertake to fill the void caused by its exit from the EU. Lastly, the paper proffers its thoughtful analysis of the reform to undertake if the UK exited the EU, both in the UK and the EU.

The paper has internalized empirical data generated by different interest groups on the implication of potential British exit from the EU on markets and other core issues which underpin the UK/EU relationship. These data were available in most major UK newspapers, academic journals and textbooks, especially in expositing conceptual and theoretical issues underpinning the paper. It has drawn comparisons with other jurisdictions, especially in East Africa, to demonstrate the inherent challenges in integration of regional markets on individual member countries. The paper also articulates other regulatory issues such as mutual recognition and the cost of Brexit on businesses in the EU/UK.

The findings of the paper confirm that British interests are likely to be better protected if it remains the member of the EU but could be undermined if it relinquishes its membership. Studies have been carried out by academic think tanks and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and they all indicate that British exit from the EU could be counterproductive for the UK. Contemporary global challenges need global solutions, thus Britain will still need to forge alliance with EU countries.

The limitation of the paper was that there are not many comparative studies carried out on countries which have exited regional market initiatives and their experiences after that. The paper has alluded to the experience of Uganda, which quit the East African Community (EAC) in 1977 and rejoined it 23 years later. In a crucial issue like Brexit, the paper would better evaluate the potential Brexit is drawing on experiences of countries which have exited and how they have fared after that. There were not many comparable case studies on countries which have exited regional markets.

The paper discusses important practical issues relating to Brexit and its implications on the UK/EU government and economies. It is practical because it weighs in on important policy and legal issues on regulation of markets in the post-Brexit era in the UK and EU. As the UK government goes for a referendum to decide its future relationship with EU, it will need to evaluate its decisions by internalizing academic literature on Brexit, such as this paper.

The paper has social implications because Brexit will affect people and markets in varied ways. It addresses pertinent issues related to the UK and its implication in the post-Brexit era on the UK/EU economies.

The paper is timely, original and a must read because it discusses pertinent issues of the potential British exit and its implication for the UK and other stakeholders in a distinctive way.

This article examines the four primary discourses of judging that dominate discussion of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) and its role in the process of European integration. These discourses present sharply contrasting views of what the Court does and what role it plays in the EU's legal system. The article argues that these conflicting discourses are not merely rival depictions of the ECJ, but that they have also influenced the process of European legal integration – and not always in the ways those voicing them intended.

While there has been some convergence in corporate governance codes and securities regulations across the European Union (EU), the remaining areas of divergence are the most contentious as they reflect differences in fundamental societal norms and values. I propose that using the multinational corporation as the referent unit of analysis yields a means for making a qualitative distinction between the two regimes. I suggest that at least for firms with EU‐wide scope, certain critical elements of the German model may be more appropriate, as the neoclassical justifications of the Anglo‐American model are less reliable in such a setting.

The purpose of this paper is to examine European Union (EU) industrial relations in their development over time. It describes and analyzes their main constituent parts, which are deployed along four interlinked institutional dimensions: tripartite concertation; cross-industry social dialogue; sectoral social dialogue; and employee representation and negotiation at the transnational company level. The focus lies strictly on the emerging EU layer of industrial relations, which is common to the different Member States and not on comparative European industrial relations.

The paper is conceptual in nature. It considers the differences and mutually interdependent legal and political processes, policies and institutions between EU industrial relations and national industrial relations.

The findings substantiate that EU industrial relations constitute an incomplete but perfectly traceable transnational reality distinct from industrial relations in the Member States. EU industrial relations are not to supersede but to supplement national industrial relations. Neither the EU institutional framework nor the European social partners have the mandate, legitimation or desire to perform a more ambitious role.

More empirically oriented research would further support the findings in the paper.

The paper presents a conceptual review based on a comprehensive and critical reading of the literature on EU industrial relations. It also puts labor strategies at the forefront of the analysis in corporate relocation.