Refine your search

Search result: 1763 articles

x
Article

EU Corporate Governance

The Ongoing Challenges of the ‘Institutional Investor Activism’ Conundrum

Journal European Journal of Law Reform, Issue 4 2014
Keywords EU corporate governance, institutional investors, stewardship, shareholders, asset managers
Authors Konstantinos Sergakis
AbstractAuthor's information

    Institutional investor activism seems to be the ultimate means for steady improvement in corporate governance standards, as well as a powerful tool for refocusing short-term strategies towards more sustainable and viable business projects. Although EU institutions have endeavoured over the past decade to facilitate the exercise of a wide range of shareholder rights, the impact of such regulatory initiatives remains to be seen. This paper challenges the current EU regulatory approach by supporting the idea that, while it has touched upon important topics, such as companies or financial intermediaries, hoping that the investor community will make full use of its discretion and evaluation of these actors, it has avoided resolving another crucial issue, namely, that of investor behaviour. In fact, institutional investors have been partially accused of apathy and contributing indirectly to the EU capital markets crisis. EU law thus needs to find new ways to nurture and maintain an effective willingness to engage in long-term dialogue with companies. It is therefore crucial to reassess all EU initiatives and critically challenge their efficiency in order to propose a way forward to unblock institutional investor activism and establish a veritable alignment of objectives with corporate managers.


Konstantinos Sergakis
Lecturer in Law, University of Bristol. The author is very grateful to Professor Charlotte Villiers for her valuable comments at the early stages of this article. The usual disclaimer applies.
Article

Social Impact and Technology: Issues of Access, Inequality and Disputing in the Collaborative Economy

An Interview with Mitch Kapor

Journal International Journal of Online Dispute Resolution, Issue 2 2014
Keywords online dispute resolution, access, inequality, dispute systems design, collaborative economy
Authors Leah Wing
AbstractAuthor's information

    This article explores the value of focusing on the social impact of technology in business and in furthering the integration of online dispute resolution into the collaborative economy. The keynote presentation at ODR2014 by technology industry leader and entrepreneur Mitch Kapor serves as the cornerstone of this discussion. Speaking to an audience from the dispute resolution, legal, technological and financial communities, Kapor discusses the potential of businesses to increase their positive social impact, particularly with regard to access to equality, mutual gains and dispute prevention within the sharing economy. The examples from innovative tech companies illustrate the important role that information management, systems design and impact-savvy business practices play in this endeavour. Building on the keynote, the article suggests how the exploration of questions of social impact and inclusion and the application of related principles can lead to a deeper integration of ODR systems into the collaborative economy and more effective ODR dispute systems design.


Leah Wing
Leah Wing is Co-Director, National Center for Technology and Dispute Resolution, and Senior Lecturer, Legal Studies Program, Department of Political Science, University of Massachusetts at Amherst (USA).
Article

Disintegration of the State Monopoly on Dispute Resolution

How Should We Perceive State Sovereignty in the ODR Era?

Journal International Journal of Online Dispute Resolution, Issue 2 2014
Keywords online dispute resolution, sovereignty, justification
Authors Riikka Koulu LLM
AbstractAuthor's information

    The interests of state sovereignty are preserved in conflict management through adoption of a state monopoly for dispute resolution as the descriptive and constitutive concept of the resolution system. State monopoly refers to the state’s exclusive right to decide on the resolution of legal conflicts on its own soil, in other words, in the state’s territorial jurisdiction. This also forms the basis of international procedural law. This conceptual fiction is derived from the social contract theories of Hobbes and Locke, and it preserves the state’s agenda. However, such a monopoly is disintegrating in the Internet era because it fails to provide an effective resolution method for Internet disputes in cross-border cases, and, consequently, online dispute resolution has gained ground in the dispute resolution market. It raises the question of whether we should discard the state monopoly as the focal concept of dispute resolution and whether we should open a wider discussion on possible justificatory constructions of dispute resolution, i.e. sovereignty, contract and quality standards, as a whole, re-evaluating the underlying structure of procedural law.


Riikka Koulu LLM
Riikka Koulu, LLM, trained on the bench, is currently a doctoral candidate in procedural law at the University of Helsinki, Finland.
Article

@ Face Value?

Non-Verbal Communication and Trust Development in Online Video-Based Mediation

Journal International Journal of Online Dispute Resolution, Issue 2 2014
Keywords trust, mediation, non-verbal communication, rapport, technology
Authors Noam Ebner and Jeff Thompson
AbstractAuthor's information

    Mediation is a process wherein a third party, or mediator, attempts to assist two conflicting parties in dealing with their dispute. Research has identified party trust in the mediator as a key element required for mediator effectiveness. In online video-based mediation, the addition of technology to the mix poses both challenges and opportunities to the capacity of the mediator to build trust with the parties through non-verbal communication. While authors researching the field of online dispute resolution have often focused on trust, their work has typically targeted text-based processes. As online dispute resolution embraces video-based processes, non-verbal communication becomes more salient. Non-verbal communication research has identified examples of specific actions that can contribute to trust. This article combines that research with current scholarship on trust in mediation and on non-verbal communication in mediation to map out the landscape mediators face while seeking to build trust through non-verbal communication in online video-based mediation. Suggestions for future research and implications for practice are noted, holding relevance to researchers and practitioners in any field in which trust, non-verbal communication and technology converge.


Noam Ebner
Noam Ebner is Associate Professor and Online Program Chair at the Werner Institute, Creighton University School of Law: 2500 California Pl., Omaha, NE 68178, NoamEbner@creighton.edu

Jeff Thompson
Jeff Thompson is PhD candidate at the Griffith University Law School: 170 Kessels Road, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia 4111, Jeff.Thompson@griffithuni.edu.au.
Article

Access_open False Confessions in the Lab: A Review

Journal Erasmus Law Review, Issue 4 2014
Keywords confession, interrogation, evidence
Authors Eric Rassin Ph.D. and Han Israëls
AbstractAuthor's information

    Intuitively, confession is a strong piece of evidence, because it appears unlikely that a suspect would confess to a crime he did not commit, thereby acting against his own best interest. Surprisingly, experimental studies show that innocent and well-educated individuals do tend to confess falsely when questioned about something they did not in fact do. In this contribution, an overview is presented of the experimental research on confession evidence. Limitations and implications of the scientific insights are discussed.


Eric Rassin Ph.D.
Eric Rassin is Endowed Professor of Legal Psychology at the Faculty of Social Sciences and the School of Law at Erasmus University Rotterdam.

Han Israëls
Han Israëls is Assistant Professor in Legal Psychology at the Maastricht University.
Article

Access_open The Essential Role of Cooperative Law

Journal The Dovenschmidt Quarterly, Issue 4 2014
Keywords comparative cooperative law, organizational law, mutual purpose, cooperative identity, social function
Authors Antonio Fici
AbstractAuthor's information

    The idea that cooperative law is essential for the development of cooperatives is not new, but only lately is it spreading rapidly within cooperative circles and urging representative entities of the cooperative movement to take concrete actions. Also in light of this renewed interest towards the cooperative legal theory, this article will seek to demonstrate that recognizing and protecting a distinct identity based on a specific purpose constitute the essential role of cooperative law. The article will subsequently discuss, also from a comparative legal perspective, the nature and essence of the cooperative purpose and some related regulation issues.


Antonio Fici
Professor of Private Law at the University of Molise and of Comparative Cooperative Law at the L.U.M.S.A. of Rome.
Article

Access_open Ownership, Governance and Related Trade-Offs in Agricultural Cooperatives

Journal The Dovenschmidt Quarterly, Issue 4 2014
Keywords investment constraints, collective decision-making, organizational complexity, agricultural cooperative, residual ownership rights
Authors Constantine Iliopoulos
AbstractAuthor's information

    Agricultural cooperatives represent a key institutional arrangement in the world food and agriculture industries. Understanding these business organizations by adopting multi-disciplinary perspectives serves both scholarly and societal needs. This article addresses two issues: (1) how agricultural cooperatives choose from a plethora of ownership and governance features and (2) what are the main trade-offs cooperatives face in making these choices. Both issues have important implications for the efficiency of collective entrepreneurship organizations in food supply chains and thus for food nutrition security and food quality. The article proffers observations based on the extant literature and the author’s field experience. It is concluded that agricultural cooperatives choose ownership and governance features in an attempt to attract risk capital for investments while optimizing collective decision-making efficiency. The main trade-offs that cooperatives address while making these choices are between (1) investor mentality and member-patron control, (2) organizational complexity and vagueness of ownership rights, (3) the need for risk capital and member control, (4) organizational complexity and member control and (5) management monitoring costs and the costs of collective decision-making. These observations are highly relevant for organizational scholars, cooperative practitioners and policymakers as they inform decision-making in cooperatives in more than one way.


Constantine Iliopoulos
Dr. Iliopoulos is the Director of the Agricultural Economics Research Institute and Adjunct Professor at the Agricultural University of Athens, Athens, Greece. E-mail: iliopoulosC@agreri.gr.
Article

Access_open How to Regulate Cooperatives in the EU?

A Theory of Path Dependency

Journal The Dovenschmidt Quarterly, Issue 4 2014
Keywords cooperative law, company law, EU harmonization, business form, governance
Authors Ger J.H. van der Sangen
AbstractAuthor's information

    In this article, the phenomenon of path dependency has been addressed in view of the harmonization of cooperative law in the EU. The question is raised whether and how the legislative harmonization has an impact on co-operators in their efforts of setting up and maintaining efficient cooperative organizations and whether in this respect the Statute for the European Cooperative Society (hereinafter: SCE) is a helpful tool to facilitate the enhancement of national statutes on cooperatives as well as to provide the legal infrastructure to facilitate cross-border cooperation amongst and reorganizations of cooperatives in the EU.
    The case for the cooperative as a viable business form gained momentum in the EU policy debate with the development of the SCE Statute in 2003, the outbreak of the financial and economic crisis in 2008 and with the endorsement of the cooperative business concept by the United Nations and the International Labour Organization in 2012. If the sound development of cooperatives as an alternative legal business form vis-à-vis investor-owned firms is considered a policy instrument to enhance societal business activities – notably in the field of agriculture and social economy – it raises the question how cooperatives should be regulated to fulfil their function in this respect.
    The key argument presented in this article is that due to strong tendencies of path dependency a top-down approach of EU law-making was and is not a feasible option. The cooperative as a multifaceted institution requires a multifaceted approach taking into account the historical legislative developments of distinctive jurisdictions as well as the historical economic development of cooperative organizations in their specific jurisdiction. However, the existence of path dependency and the lack of regulatory arbitrage as well as regulatory competition prevent the market from generating efficient model statutes for cooperatives taking into account the specific needs of cooperatives and their co-operators.


Ger J.H. van der Sangen
Dr Ger J.H. van der Sangen is Associate Professor Company Law and Securities Law at Tilburg Law School, Department Business Law. He was part of the research team of the EU-funded project Support for Farmers’ Cooperatives. He would like to express his gratitude to all the members of the research team for sharing their insights and discussions during conference meetings in Brussels (November 2011 and 2012) and in Helsinki (June 2012), in particular J. Bijman, C. Gijselinckx, G. Hendrikse, C. Iliopoulos and K. Poppe.

Mart Susi
Docent of Public Law, Head of International Research Center of Fundamental Rights, Tallinn University Law School.

Laura Gyeney
Associate professor, Péter Pázmány Catholic University, Faculty of Law; Director of the De Gasperi Institute.

Anikó Raisz
Assistant professor, University of Miskolc, Faculty of Law; Political adviser, Ministry of Justice.

Levente Nyakas
Head of Institute, Institute of Media Studies (Budapest).

Gábor Kurunczi
Researcher, lecturer at the Pázmány Péter Catholic University, Faculty of Law; Legal advisor to the Hungarian Commissioner for Fundamental Rights.

Gábor Molnár
Head of Panel at the Criminal Department, Curia of Hungary, Judicial Advisor in European law.

András Kovács
Head of Panel at the Administrative and Labour Department, Curia of Hungary, Judicial Advisor in European law.

Tamás Lattmann
Associate professor, National University of Public Service, Institute of International Studies; Lecturer, Eötvös Loránd University, Department of International Law.

Tamás Wetzel
Deputy secretary of state responsible for Hungarians living abroad.

Kinga Debisso
Lecturer, Péter Pázmány Catholic University, Faculty of Law; Legal adviser to the Hungarian Ombudsman for Future Generations.
Article

The Effectiveness of the Principle of Equal Pay in Hungarian Judicial Practice

With Special Attention to the New Directions of European Legal Practice

Journal Hungarian Yearbook of International Law and European Law, Issue 1 2014
Authors Márton Leó Zaccaria
Author's information

Márton Leó Zaccaria
Assistant Lecturer, University of Debrecen, Faculty of Law.
Showing 981 - 1000 of 1763 results
1 2 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 50 »
You can search full text for articles by entering your search term in the search field. If you click the search button the search results will be shown on a fresh page where the search results can be narrowed down by category or year.