Search results

This study aims to systematise the methodology used in comparative urban planning law and propose primary contexts for comparison in planning law.

This study undertook a review of comparative law methodology discourse and sought to establish connections between the discourse and the field of planning law.

This study argues for establishment of a realistic goal for comparative planning law by focusing on the planning law's modifiability. The goal of comparison in planning law should not be to find universally desirable principles or better solutions. Rather, the goal should be to identify a motive for devising a solution. This is because it is not only difficult to establish legal values that are universally applicable to planning law but also inappropriate to determine superiority of planning laws that have been developed over time by each jurisdiction’s sovereignty and policies on land use. When determining comparable systems for analysis among legal systems that are functionally equivalent, it is important to consider the context of land use relations alongside the comparative analysis to be done. To set realistic goals, the context should not be extended indefinitely but be systematised. Based on the foundational relationship underlying planning law, including the tension between planning authorities and property owners, this study presents five specific contexts for comparative analysis: “Strength of Property Rights,” “Level of Judicial Intervention,” “Plan- or Development-led System,” “Allocation of Planning Power” and “Level of Participation.” Examination of these contexts will allow better understanding of the similarities and differences among different systems and practical application of the results of comparative studies.

This study presents a novel approach to systematising the methodology and framework of comparative planning law.

This paper aims to present the merits of cross‐national comparative research as a method for pushing the frontier of knowledge about planning laws. Since in every country there is usually some dissatisfaction with its present planning laws or certain aspects of them, cross‐national research can open an arena of alternatives based on real‐life experiences. To demonstrate this argument the paper focuses on a shared dilemma – how should the law handle the negative effects of some planning decisions on land values. This case is used to demonstrate both the comparative method and the usefulness of comparative findings. The conclusions point out the opportunities for cross‐learning.

The overall argument about the comparative research draws on the author's extensive experience in conducting cross‐national research on a variety of issues in planning laws. The research on compensation rights reported here draws on the author's recent book which analyses the laws and practices in 13 countries. To ensure a “common platform” for comparison, the author developed a method based on a set of factual scenarios and a shared framework of topics. A team of country‐based researchers conducted the legal analysis, and the team leader conducted the comparative analysis.

The 13‐country analysis shows that there is a great variety of approaches to compensation rights around the world and a broad range of degrees, from no compensation at all to extensive compensation rights. There is no “consensual approach”. The search for similarities based on region in the world, legal family, cultural background, density or demography, shows that the differences cannot be “explained” on the basis of these variables. The degree of political controversy on this issue also varies greatly. The breadth of laws and practices offer a range of alternative models to enrich local debates.

Any comparative research on a new topic is bound to be exploratory. There are not yet any established theories in planning law (or in comparative research) from which hypotheses can be derived and tested. However, the large sample of countries, covering 40 per cent of the OECD countries (at the time), and the careful shared method have likely produced reliable findings.

Most of the comparative research that the author has conducted over the years charted new grounds in both its topics and its comparative breadth. The paper reports in brief on cross‐national comparative research on compensation rights. The full research, on which this paper draws (published as a book in 2010), is the first to look at this specific issue globally with a large 13‐country sample of OECD countries.

This paper aims to provide a comparative discussion on silence as a misrepresentation in contractual obligations between common law and Islamic law. The objective of this paper is to – from a legal pluralism point of view – highlight the contrasts between the two traditions and provide recommendations for best practices to achieve fairness and equity among the contracting parties. While common law does not treat silence as conscious misrepresentation, in Islamic law, silence does not constitute affirmative will. This has repercussions for the contracting parties because if future disputes arise, the aggrieved party in Islamic law reserves the option to rescind or nullify the contract – an opportunity not afforded by common law. We have discussed and analyzed the implementations of the different contractual terms, such as fraud, misrepresentation, trickery and deception in relation with Islamic law principles and common law practices. This research is an effort to draw the attention for further development in both Islamic law and common law practices on contractual obligation. The notion of misrepresentation – subset of a broader gamut of fraud – is arguably nebulous in Islamic literature as well. We delve into these nuances and provide examples both from common law and Islamic law precedents and provide recommendations for reform in both traditions.

This paper operates under qualitative methodological framework and uses secondary sources for analysis. Sources include journal databases, review of cases, classical/medieval Islamic scripts, etc.

This paper provides a general comparative study between common law’s principle and practice and Islamic law’s principle to forge a better understanding of fine-tuning existing practice and contribute to the debate on determining the best practices to unify international trade and custom exercise. Common law principle, obviously, holds a historical and traditional reputation as those principles are derived from long years of practice and judicial interpretation. Such historical legal system should accommodate fresh ideas in their repertoire and welcome novel ideas which would positively influence its own practice. This paper affords the freedom to the reader to interpret which general principle is acceptable in terms of contractual obligation.

Previous works exist on the issue of misrepresentation. However, those are mostly explanations of fraud and deceit in Islamic law or common law. The treatment of silence as affirmative will is seldom touched upon. To the authors’ knowledge, this is the first attempt at contrasting the treatment of silence in common and Islamic law. They have also advocated pluralistic practices and argued for legal reform whereby both traditions can benefit from each other.

This chapter provides an introduction to the world of family companies and family constitutions from a legal perspective. It first studies the legal types of business organizations that family firms have chosen across time and jurisdictions. It then illustrates how early predecessors of family constitutions evolved in the late Middle Ages and what modern family constitutions look like in different countries today. Further considerations are devoted to the governance framework of family firms. The chapter concludes by exploring the potential legal effects of family constitutions under German company and contract law.

For the past two and half decades, there has been a marked shift in the corporate governance regulations around the world. The change is more remarkable in developing countries where countries with little or no corporate governance regime have adopted “world class” standards. While there can be a debate on whether law in books actually translates into law in action, in the meantime it might be interesting to analyse the law in books to understand how the corporate governance regime has evolved in the past 20 years. This paper quantitatively tracks 21 countries, most of them being developing and emerging economies, over a period of 20 years. The period covers 1995 to 2014; thus, it traverses the pre and post crisis period in 1999 and 2008. Thus, the paper also provides a snapshot of the macrolegal changes that the countries engage in hoping to stave off the next crisis. The paper uses over 50 parameters modelled on the OECD Principles of Corporate Governance. The paper confirms the suspicion that corporate governance norms around the developing economies are converging on shareholder primacy end of the continuum. The rate of convergence was highest just before the financial crisis of 2008 and has since then slowed down.

The paper uses data collected from experts. They filled up detailed questionnaire which quizzed them on the rules relating to corporate governance norms in their country and asked them to retrospectively check their data every five years for the past 20 years. This provided an excellent overview as to how the law has evolved in the past two decades on corporate governance. The data were then tabulated using a scoring sheet and then was put together using item response theory (IRT) which is a Bayesian method similar to factor analysis. The paper then follows a comparative approach using heatmaps to analyse the evolution of corporate governance in developing countries.

Corporate governance norms around the developing economies are converging on shareholder primacy end of the continuum. The rate of convergence was highest just before the financial crisis of 2008 and has since then slowed down.

This is the first time that corporate governance panel data analysis has been carried out on top developing countries across so many parameters for such a long period. This paper also uses Bayesian IRT modelling to analyse the evolution which is novel in its approach especially in the corporate governance literature. The paper thus provides a clear view on the evolution of corporate governance norms and how they are converging on a particular ideology.

This chapter addresses the possible consequences of the United States Supreme Court's increasing attention to international and foreign human rights law in its death penalty jurisprudence, particularly with respect to the Eighth Amendment. I question the belief of those commentators who argue that such attention might assist with efforts to abolish the death penalty in the United States, and argue instead that the perceived threat to state sovereignty that the invocation of international and foreign human rights law poses might result in attempts to retain the death penalty as a means of reasserting state autonomy.

In this chapter, the author offers a horizontal comparison of interpretation standards contained in international legal instruments of different origin. These legal instruments range from international treaties to model laws. They also originate from different law makers such as the United Nations or individual states as well as trade or academic organisations, mainly regulating civil and commercial matters. The author argues that this comparison can provide the basis for the development of a uniform standard in the application of such law, which is often referred to as uniform law because it provides a single source of law to regulate a multitude of situations spanning across national boundaries. The main point of reference is the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, also known as the VCLT. This UN treaty specifically provides a general interpretation standard. From there newer standards occurring in subsequent uniform laws can be integrated using the lex specialis doctrine. This, in turn, provides opportunities for comprehensive usable methods to be developed for uniform law both in a public and private law settings. These then facilitate transparency, fairness and reasonableness. The correct identification of object and purposes of any given instrument is crucial for the successful interpretation of its content. It is this point that needs further research, and this chapter offers a starting point by providing some detailed examples from a range of uniform laws of varying nature including international sales laws, arbitration laws and Double Taxation Conventions.

Although we have become used to talking about the Common Market, it is important to remember that there are three European Communities, namely the European Coal and Steel Community, the European Economic Community (colloquially known as the Common Market) and the European Atomic Energy Community. The precise nature of these Communities is a matter of controversy but it is sufficient to say that each of them is an association of States which have combined for certain purposes by means of a Treaty. Under each of the three treaties the parties enjoy certain rights and have undertaken to perform certain duties. Since the purposes are similar in the three cases and since the parties to the three treaties have so far been the same six countries (Belgium, France, the Federal Republic of Germany, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands) it has been found convenient that the same common organs (the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission of the Communities, and the Court of Justice of the European Communities) should direct, supervise, administer and control the exercise of the rights and performance of the duties arising from the three treaties. This will remain so, although the four candidate countries (Denmark, the Irish Republic, Norway and the United Kingdom) will be members of the European Economic Community and European Atomic Energy Community only. This means that the rights and duties arising from membership of the European Coal and Steel Community will not apply to the candidate countries. In practice, the European Economic Community has overshadowed the other two and in what follows I shall refer to the EEC only. In so far as the law relating to the other two Communities is relevant for my present purpose, it can be found in the same sources as that of the Economic Community.

The purpose of this paper is to determine whether there is any fundamental difference in the meaning of contract in these two legal systems by analysing some of the essential principles of contract particularly parties’ agreement and consideration.

This paper seeks to investigate the degree of equivalency of the term contract and its Islamic law counterpart “Aqd”. To implement this task, it applies some comparative law techniques to examine certain contractual elements under common law and Islamic law.

The argument that “contract” and “Aqd” are not equivalent is superficial, and it is not well-supported by concrete evidence. The examples used to build this argument are merely limited exceptions to the general principles of contract, and some of them even exist under both legal systems in a similar manner such as “deed” and “Hibah”.

The paper is of interest to legal practitioners and professionals working in cross-cultural or international contexts, as understanding points of conformity and disconformity between “contract” and “Aqd” can help in multiple ways. These may include negotiating international transactions, contract drafting and dispute-resolution processes involving parties from Western and Islamic law-based jurisdictions. It may also aid policymaking and lawmaking processes aiming to harmonize contract principles across different jurisdictions.

The research paper is important for public attitude, as understanding similarities and differences between “contract” and “Aqd” fosters mutual respect, tolerance and cooperation between individuals and communities adhering to different legal systems.

There is a common belief that the term “contract” substantially differs from “Aqd”, and it is by no means safe to presume that every “Aqd” qualifies as a contract. The current research introduces a new point view on the degree of conceptual equivalency of the two terms by showing resemblances in aspects relating to some contractual elements which have always been viewed as an area of divergence rather than convergence.