Regulatory Competition and Cross-Fertilization in the Us Banking Markets

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dogan Tirtiroglu ◽  
Baaak Tanyeri ◽  
Ercan Tirtiroglu ◽  
Kenneth N. Daniels
2020 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 39-70
Author(s):  
Obiora C. Okafor

A relatively young body with roots in an older institution, the UN Human Rights Council has enjoyed some success and continued to serve important positive goals, many of them not easily realized. However, the system has always had significant internal and external limitations and continues to be beset by many problems – some more serious than others, and others more imagined than real. In our own time, the rise of right-wing populist regimes around the world, the continuities and discontinuities of the challenge that this sort of populism has posed to multilateralism in global governance, the economic crises that recently beset many parts of the world leading to serious resource constraints among many of the States that contribute the most to the UN’s budget, and the on-and-off withdrawals of the US (one of the most powerful States in the world) from the Council amidst charges of selectivity, appear to have combined to produce heightened crisis within and about that body. What to do? Informed by the cross-fertilization of the author’s academic thought and practical experience at the UN, the article offers an analysis of the Council’s attainments (including its embrace of a broader and more inclusive agenda, upr reduction of selectivity, the reform of its system of appointing special procedure mandate holders, increase in the number of standing invitations issued by States to such mandate holders, and establishment of an effective sids/ldcs fund); discusses the problems that presently confront the Council (many of which have already been referred to above); and works out in some detail some of the ways in which these difficulties can be effectively ameliorated so as to enhance the Council’s performance in the near- to medium-term future.


2010 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
pp. 251-257 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jacopo Torriti ◽  
Ragnar Lofstedt

In times of low economic growth and post-Copenhagen climate talks, a number of reasons for regulatory competition and cooperation between the United States and the European Union coexist. This paper discusses the role of Impact Assessment between the US and the EU on responses to the economic downturn and climate change. It is argued that, in the future, IAs will be an instrument through which it will be possible to read the level of cooperation and competition between the US and the EU, particularly on economic trade and environmental regulation.


Author(s):  
Jane K. Winn

This chapter examines the role of law reform in promoting the development of technical standards for the authentication of parties engaged in Internet commerce. Law reforms intended to improve the security of Internet commerce can only succeed if they address business, technical and legal issues simultaneously. The EU has used commercial law reform and formal standard development to coordinate work on authentication standards, while the US has allowed the market to determine what type of authentication technology is appropriate and has left the development of standards to private consortia. While the EU approach may solve collective action problems more effectively, the US approach may discover end user requirements and may allow business judgments about risk to inform the law more effectively. Neither approach has yet resolved the authentication problems facing businesses engaged in online commerce.


Author(s):  
Yannaca-Small Katia

This chapter focuses on the way in which arbitral tribunals have dealt with indirect expropriation claims based on investment agreements. It also looks at the cross-fertilization with two other sources of jurisprudence which deal with similar issues, under different circumstances and different legal bases, i.e. the US–Iran Claims tribunal and the European Court of Human Rights. The chapter (i) describes the basic concepts of the obligation to compensate for indirect expropriation; (ii) reviews whether and how legal instruments and other texts articulate the difference between indirect expropriation and the right of the governments to regulate without compensation; and (iii) identifies a number of criteria which emerge from jurisprudence and state practice for determining whether an indirect expropriation has occurred, and compensation is due.


2009 ◽  
Vol 58 (4) ◽  
pp. 767-802 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mathias M Siems

AbstractRegulatory competition in company law has been extensively debated in the last few decades, but it has rarely been discussed whether there could also be regulatory competition in partnership law. This article fills this gap. It addresses the partnership law of the US, the UK, Germany, and France, and presents empirical data on the different types of partnerships and companies established in these jurisdictions. The main focus is on the use of a limited liability partnership (LLP) outside its country of origin. It is also considered whether some regulatory competition can take place in the law of limited partnerships.


2004 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 181-184
Author(s):  
Amy Garrigues

On September 15, 2003, the US. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that agreements between pharmaceutical and generic companies not to compete are not per se unlawful if these agreements do not expand the existing exclusionary right of a patent. The Valley DrugCo.v.Geneva Pharmaceuticals decision emphasizes that the nature of a patent gives the patent holder exclusive rights, and if an agreement merely confirms that exclusivity, then it is not per se unlawful. With this holding, the appeals court reversed the decision of the trial court, which held that agreements under which competitors are paid to stay out of the market are per se violations of the antitrust laws. An examination of the Valley Drugtrial and appeals court decisions sheds light on the two sides of an emerging legal debate concerning the validity of pay-not-to-compete agreements, and more broadly, on the appropriate balance between the seemingly competing interests of patent and antitrust laws.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document