Brauchen wir zur Moralbegründung eine „Metanorm“?

Peter Stemmer advocates a new foundation of morality. He claims that any moral principle is justified only if every person to whom the principle applies consents to it on the basis of his or her own interests. But how can this ‘metanorm’ of unanimous consent be justified? Since Stemmer decisively rejects all objectivist foundations of morality, the only justification for his ‘metanorm’ can again be nothing but a unanimous consent. Through numerous examples I hope to have shown in my article that the alleged connexion of all our moral demands with a general, unanimous consent is not realistic – no matter whether these demands are based on our spontaneous or on our well considered attitudes. And this holds no less for legal norms with their hard sanctions than for moral principles.

Joint-Stock Corporation under Turkish Commercial Law and the Doctrine of Increasing Shareholder Commitments

ABSTRACT The principle that the shareholder of a joint-stock company is under the single obligation of paying in his contribution to the equity-capital is in force within the framework of the 2011 Turkish Commercial Code. It appears as if the reinforced principle of “single obligation” critically challenges the relevance of the formerly settled norm of subjecting increase in shareholders’ commitments to unanimous consent of all shareholders. That being said, since the Turkish Commercial Code also contains deviations to the single obligation principle in addition to the fact that the notion of increase is shareholders’ commitments was not made entirely obsolete from the Turkish Commercial Code, the doctrine for subjecting increases in shareholders’ commitments to the general assembly’s unanimous vote is - to an extent - still relevant within the context of the 2011 Turkish Commercial Code.