10 “COVID Law”: A Situational Rule making during the COVID-19 Era

2021 ◽  
pp. 91-100
Author(s):  
Artur Kh. Kurbanov ◽  
Gilyana V. Tsebekova ◽  
Vladimir V. Basanov ◽  
Yuri А. Kozenko ◽  
Tatyana E. Kozenko
Keyword(s):  
Rule Making

From meditation to action – a research agenda for studying informal global rule-making: remarks on ‘Cosmopolitanism, publicity, and the emergence of a “global administrative law”’

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-7
Author(s):  
Oliver Westerwinter
Keyword(s):  
Global Governance ◽  
Comparative Research ◽  
Research Agenda ◽  
Institutional Design ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
Democratic Legitimacy ◽  
Institutional Architecture ◽  
Global Law ◽  
Rule Making ◽  
Law Making

Abstract Friedrich Kratochwil engages critically with the emergence of a global administrative law and its consequences for the democratic legitimacy of global governance. While he makes important contributions to our understanding of global governance, he does not sufficiently discuss the differences in the institutional design of new forms of global law-making and their consequences for the effectiveness and legitimacy of global governance. I elaborate on these limitations and outline a comparative research agenda on the emergence, design, and effectiveness of the diverse arrangements that constitute the complex institutional architecture of contemporary global governance.

LEGAL EXPERIMENT AND ITS PLACE AND ROLE IN THE RULE-MAKING PROCESS

2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 14-18
Author(s):  
Sherzod Khayitov ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Rule Making

The SEC’s Impact on the Federalization of Corporate Governance—A Traditional Perspective

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marc I. Steinberg
Keyword(s):  
Corporate Governance ◽  
Mergers And Acquisitions ◽  
Insider Trading ◽  
Securities And Exchange Commission ◽  
Outside Directors ◽  
Tender Offers ◽  
Going Private ◽  
Rule Making

This chapter examines, from a traditional perspective, several areas where the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has impacted corporate governance in a meaningful way. By way of example, these subjects include insider trading, qualitative materiality, the role of gatekeepers (such as outside directors, attorneys, and accountants), the Commission’s use of disclosure to influence conduct, the implementation by subject companies of undertakings pursuant to SEC enforcement proceedings, and mergers and acquisitions (including tender offers and going-private transactions). This chapter’s focus is on the manner in which the SEC for well over 50 years has impacted corporate governance by means of exercising its rule-making and oversight authority.

Hesitant Embrace: China’s Recent Approach to International Investment Rule-Making

2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (5-6) ◽  
pp. 843-868 ◽  
Author(s):  
Axel Berger
Keyword(s):  
Policy Making ◽  
Significant Contribution ◽  
International Investment ◽  
Investment Policy ◽  
Recent Period ◽  
Investment Treaty ◽  
Key Stakeholders ◽  
Recent Approach ◽  
Investment Treaties ◽  
Rule Making

China is becoming one of the key stakeholders in the international investment regime. It is, however, still unclear what role China can play in the ongoing reform of the international investment regime. Starting from this overall focus, this article analyses the most recent period of China’s international investment policy-making. Mapping the contents of investment treaties signed since 2008 it argues that China undertook a partial ‘NAFTA-ization’. Whilst China has adopted a number of clauses invented by the NAFTA countries, it introduced these clauses in an incoherent fashion. Looking at the drivers of this peculiar policy, this article argues that China’s investment treaty-making practice is largely inspired by its partner countries. As a result of this particular negotiation policy, Beijing’s approach to international investment rule-making is inconsistent. This belies the argument that China can make a significant contribution to reforming the international investment regime.

Regulation of Special Economic Zones Through Regional Trade Agreements: Confronting the Synergy Issue

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Manjiao Chi
Keyword(s):  
Economic Development ◽  
Policy Making ◽  
Trade Agreements ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Regional Trade Agreements ◽  
Special Economic Zones ◽  
International Level ◽  
Regional Trade ◽  
Economic Zones ◽  
Rule Making

ABSTRACT Special economic zones (SEZs) and regional trade agreements (RTAs) are frequently used by states as policy tools to promote economic development. As SEZs and RTAs overlap in geographical coverage and regulation areas and are implemented in parallel, they could create profound synergies. As there is no specialized international legal framework for SEZ regulation, and national SEZ laws seldom touch upon the synergy issue, SEZ regulation is largely left to RTAs at the international level. Yet, existing SEZ-related provisions in RTAs almost exclusively focus on trade in goods and appear insufficient in addressing the synergy issue—especially ‘new synergies’ created by ‘advanced SEZs’ and ‘deep RTAs’. To properly address the synergy issue, states should treat SEZ policy-making and RTA rule-making in a coordinated way and consider adopting a regional or multilateral approach in SEZ regulation.

scholarly journals Rules are Rules: Reconceiving Monetary Gold as a Rule of Procedure

AJIL Unbound ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 115 ◽  
pp. 144-148
Author(s):  
Juliette McIntyre
Keyword(s):  
Iterative Process ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Judicial Decision ◽  
Procedural Rule ◽  
Legal Principle ◽  
The Icj ◽  
Rule Making ◽  
Intervention Procedure ◽  
Formal Rules

The Case of the Monetary Gold Removed from Rome in 1943 is familiar to all international lawyers. Like a catechism, we are taught that the ICJ will not proceed with a case where the legal interests of a State not before the Court “would not only be affected by a decision, but would form the very subject-matter of the decision.” Mollengarden and Zamir's proposal that the Court should dispense with the Monetary Gold principle feels almost heretical. The authors contend that the ICJ Statute sets out a framework for balancing the interests of third parties through the use of the intervention procedure, and that Monetary Gold “disrupts that balance.” Monetary Gold is, they submit, to be treated as only a judicial decision, entitled under Article 36(1)(d) of the Statute to little deference as a source of legal principle. I suggest taking an altogether different approach. The best way to understand the place of the Monetary Gold principle is in the context of the ICJ's rule making powers pursuant to Article 30(1) of the Court's Statute. These rule making powers are not limited to the promulgation of formal Rules of Court but extend to the determination of appropriate procedures during the hearing of a case. These procedural rules (small r), articulated in the context of particular cases, may in time evolve into formal Rules of Court through an iterative process. Monetary Gold is an instance of the Court defining a small r procedural rule in a manner that is consistent with the Court's Statute.

scholarly journals The case for reviewing broadcasting co-regulation

2021 ◽  
pp. 1329878X2110055
Author(s):  
Karen Lee ◽  
Derek Wilding
Keyword(s):  
Consumer Protection ◽  
Commercial Television ◽  
Protection Measures ◽  
Digital Platforms ◽  
Communications Policy ◽  
Codes Of Practice ◽  
Holistic Review ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Commercial Radio ◽  
Rule Making

This article applies principles from the Department of Communications’ policy review of telecommunications consumer protection to broadcasting co-regulation. The Consumer Safeguards Review establishes six principles for good regulation, including that rule-making processes should ‘enable a wide range of views to be considered’. It notes that processes for developing telecommunications codes of practice are likely to lead to ‘sub-optimal’ consumer protection measures. The article draws on original empirical research to assess development of commercial television and commercial radio codes of practice, with particular emphasis on public engagement in co-regulation. It finds the broadcasting codes of practice fail to meet the principles adopted by the Department for good co-regulation. It concludes by arguing there is a pressing need for a more holistic review of communications co-regulation, as broadcasting legislation is similar to the telecommunications legislation, and there is a risk that ‘sub-optimal’ practices could be applied in attempts to regulate digital platforms.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document