The partner states in the East African Community (EAC) have modernized their commercial laws to claim their post-colonial identity and facilitate development. While law reform and the harmonization of laws are both methods of shaping laws, the national law reform programmes in the EAC mainly aim to ensure that the laws reflect the domestic socioeconomic circumstances, in contrast to the harmonization of national commercial laws, which focuses on the attainment of economic development. This article observes that the reformed and harmonized commercial laws in the EAC are mainly legal transplants of the principles of transnational commercial law that have been adapted to meet domestic needs and aspirations. |
Search result: 12 articles
Year 2017 xArticle |
The Reform and Harmonization of Commercial Laws in the East African Community |
Journal | European Journal of Law Reform, Issue 4 2017 |
Keywords | law reform, harmonization of laws, commercial laws, legal transplants, East African Community |
Authors | Agasha Mugasha |
AbstractAuthor's information |
Article |
The Legitimacy of Final Statements and Reports of National Contact PointsAn Empirical Analysis of (Final) Statements and Reports of the UK, US and Dutch National Contact Point of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2001-2016) |
Journal | Corporate Mediation Journal, Issue 2 2017 |
Authors | Sander van ’t Foort, Vivan IJzerman, Jasmin Lagziel e.a. |
Author's information |
Article |
Equal Access to Information & Justice: A Report on the Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) Forum 2017The Huge Potential of ODR, Greatly Underexplored (Paris, France, 12 and 13 June 2017) |
Journal | International Journal of Online Dispute Resolution, Issue 1 2017 |
Keywords | ODR, equal access, justice online, information online, ICC |
Authors | Mirèze Philippe |
AbstractAuthor's information |
This article is a brief report on the two-day conference on ‘Equal Access to Information & Justice, Online Dispute Resolution’, organized by the ICC in Paris on 12-13 June. Over 160 lawyers, magistrates, academics, researchers, dispute resolution organizations and online dispute resolution providers, from over 30 countries and representing each continent debated about the use of technology for the resolution of all types of disputes. The 60 speakers explored the future of dispute resolution and the role of technology in all legal fields, from mediation in conflict zones, to commercial and civil disputes. The huge potentials greatly underexplored were discussed. It was noted that much remains to be done to educate users and convince state courts, dispute resolution organizations, merchants and other services’ providers to offer access to justice online. Efforts must be undertaken to allow users seek remedy in an affordable way. The solution for an equal access to justice is to make such access available online. The issues of ethics and standards were also discussed, as well as the increase concern of data protection and cybersecurity. The recording of the discussions on the panels are available on the ICC Digital Library (ICCDRL). |
Article |
Food Policy in the European Union and in Hungary |
Journal | Hungarian Yearbook of International Law and European Law, Issue 1 2017 |
Authors | Franciska Takó-Bencze and Sándor Takó |
Author's information |
Article |
Fixed Book Price RegimesBeyond the Rift between Social and Economic Regulation |
Journal | European Journal of Law Reform, Issue 3 2017 |
Keywords | fixed book price policies (FBP), Brazil, Resale Price Maintenance (RPM), social regulation, antitrust law |
Authors | Carlos Ragazzo and João Marcelo da Costa e Silva Lima |
AbstractAuthor's information |
Brazil is currently discussing the introduction of a nation-wide Fixed Book Price (“FBP”) policy, thus providing context for a discussion of its welfare benefits. There is a rift between the reasons for implementing FBP regimes, and those used to scrutinize them. In order for the debate surrounding the pros and cons of implementing FBP regimes to become more productive, one must investigate the links between the reasons for designing and enforcing such policies, on one side, and standard antitrust analysis, on the other. There are many interesting arguments at the table that both corroborate and compromise the case for an FPB policy. However, throughout history, these policies have experimented cognizable trends. The objective FBP regimes pursue and their design have changed subtly, yet relevantly throughout history. In our view, the current academic and public policy debate surrounding FBP regimes, in both countries considering adopting or revoking them, would benefit from an enhanced awareness of these trends and their policy implications. Ultimately, so would the antitrust analysis of these policies. We argue that a better grasp of these trends could potentially result in a more sober examination of the welfare risks associated with FBP policies. |
Article |
|
Journal | Erasmus Law Review, Issue 1 2017 |
Keywords | Fairness, international tax, legitimacy, BEPS, developing countries |
Authors | Irene Burgers and Irma Mosquera |
AbstractAuthor's information |
The aim of this article is to examine the differences in perception of ‘fairness’ between developing and developed countries, which influence developing countries’ willingness to embrace the Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) proposals and to recommend as to how to overcome these differences. The article provides an introduction to the background of the OECD’s BEPS initiatives (Action Plan, Low Income Countries Report, Multilateral Framework, Inclusive Framework) and the concerns of developing countries about their ability to implement BEPS (Section 1); a non-exhaustive overview of the shortcomings of the BEPS Project and its Action Plan in respect of developing countries (Section 2); arguments on why developing countries might perceive fairness in relation to corporate income taxes differently from developed countries (Section 3); and recommendations for international organisations, governments and academic researchers on where fairness in respect of developing countries should be more properly addressed (Section 4). |
Article |
Get Your Money’s Worth from Investment AdviceAnalysing the Clash over the Knowledge and Competence Requirements in the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID II) |
Journal | European Journal of Law Reform, Issue 1-2 2017 |
Keywords | Better Regulation, ESMA, financial regulation, expertise, MiFID II |
Authors | Aneta Spendzharova, Elissaveta Radulova and Kate Surala |
AbstractAuthor's information |
This special issue aims to examine whether there is an enduring politicization in the European Union (EU) “Better Regulation” agenda despite the emphasis on neutral evidence-based policy making. Our article addresses this overarching research question by focusing on the use of stakeholder consultations in the case of financial sector governance, particularly, the amended Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID II). We show that calibrating key provisions in MiFID II, such as those concerning knowledge and expertise, is not a simple exercise in rational problem definition and policy design. The provisions examined in this article have important repercussions for financial sector firms’ business strategies and operations. Thus, investment firms, banks, training institutes and public organizations have mobilized and actively sought to assert their views on the appropriate requirements for professional knowledge and experience in MiFID II. We found that, following the stakeholder consultation, the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) opted for a minimum harmonization approach at the EU level. At the same time, ESMA also supported giving the respective national competent authorities sufficient remit to issue additional requirements in accordance with national laws and regulatory practices. Our article demonstrates that while public consultations provide rich evidence for the policy making process, they also contribute to the lasting politicization of regulatory decisions. |
Article |
Consultations, Citizen Narratives and Evidence-Based RegulationThe Strange Case of the Consultation on the Collaborative Economy |
Journal | European Journal of Law Reform, Issue 1-2 2017 |
Keywords | Better Regulation, consultations, evidence-based lawmaking, sharing economy, narratives |
Authors | Sofia Ranchordás |
AbstractAuthor's information |
The 2015 Better Regulation Communication advocates an evidence-based approach to regulation, which includes better consultations and broader civic engagement. In this article, I consider the recent EU public consultation on the regulatory environment of online platforms and the collaborative economy. I enquire in this context whether citizens were seriously regarded as evidence providers and how their knowledge that materialized in individual narratives could contribute to more legitimate and thus better regulation. I argue that an evidence-based approach to regulation should also include citizen narratives as they can provide first-hand and diverse perspectives, which might not be considered in standard consultation questions. I contend that citizen narratives can be particularly useful in complex and rapidly evolving fields where there is still little empirical evidence and where participants are likely to have diverse personal experiences. Drawing on the literature on narratives, I contend that this method of collecting information can help regulators identify new problems and structure solutions in rapidly changing and diverse regulatory fields such as the collaborative economy. |
Article |
The Politicization of ex post Policy Evaluation in the EU |
Journal | European Journal of Law Reform, Issue 1-2 2017 |
Keywords | policy evaluation, Better Regulation, participation, REFIT, politicization |
Authors | Stijn Smismans |
AbstractAuthor's information |
The European Commission’s 2015 Better Regulation package has placed ex post evaluation at the centre of European governance. This strengthens a trend of gradual politicization of evaluation in European policymaking. This article analyses how the European Commission’s approach to ex post policy evaluation has changed over the last decade. It shows how evaluation has developed from a rather technical process to a more politicized process, which is clearly linked to political priority setting, subject to centralized control, and involving a wider set of actors. At the same time, the Commission avoids a profound debate on the merits and objectives of the process of evaluation itself. The article concludes on the merits and risks of evaluation at times of rising populism. |
Article |
The Corporate Mediator – Supporting People, Fights, Flights and Flows |
Journal | Corporate Mediation Journal, Issue 1 2017 |
Keywords | conflict resolution, ethics, EUROCONTROL, international public service, social dialogue |
Authors | Anna Doyle |
AbstractAuthor's information |
Responding to Martin Brinks’ inaugural CMJ article (that asked if corporate mediation was a prospect for the legal department and for organisations as a whole) Anna Doyle responded with a resounding affirmative. A professional career that has spanned over four decades took her on a route through national and international public services, working in areas as diverse as promoting legislation for social justice to supporting the safety of air navigation. Her first-hand experience of the challenge of responding to the ups and downs of daily working life in a multi-cultural setting has opened up new frontiers in awareness of the value of conflict resolution. Her work at EUROCONTROL has pioneered the role of corporate mediator and has embedded mediation and ethics in organisational life in a way that aims to bring added value and promote shared insight. |
Article |
Development of the New Zealand and Australian Space IndustriesRegulation for a Sustainable Future |
Journal | International Institute of Space Law, Issue 4 2017 |
Authors | Melissa de Zwart and Joel Lisk |
Author's information |
Article |
NewSpacePutting an End to National Prestige and Accountability? |
Journal | International Institute of Space Law, Issue 2 2017 |
Authors | Ulrike M. Bohlmann and Moritz Bürger |
Author's information |