Flexibility in Modern Business Law: A Comparative Assessment PDF
Preview Flexibility in Modern Business Law: A Comparative Assessment
Mark Fenwick · Stefan Wrbka Editors Flexibility in Modern Business Law A Comparative Assessment Flexibility in Modern Business Law ThiSisaFMBlankPage Mark Fenwick (cid:129) Stefan Wrbka Editors Flexibility in Modern Business Law A Comparative Assessment Editors MarkFenwick StefanWrbka FacultyofLaw FacultyofLaw KyushuUniversity KyushuUniversity Fukuoka,Fukuoka Fukuoka,Fukuoka Japan Japan ISBN978-4-431-55786-9 ISBN978-4-431-55787-6 (eBook) DOI10.1007/978-4-431-55787-6 LibraryofCongressControlNumber: 2015958518 SpringerTokyoHeidelbergNewYorkDordrechtLondon ©SpringerJapan2016 Thisworkissubjecttocopyright.AllrightsarereservedbythePublisher,whetherthewholeorpartof the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilarmethodologynowknownorhereafterdeveloped. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publicationdoesnotimply,evenintheabsenceofaspecificstatement,thatsuchnamesareexempt fromtherelevantprotectivelawsandregulationsandthereforefreeforgeneraluse. Thepublisher,theauthorsandtheeditorsaresafetoassumethattheadviceandinformationinthis book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained hereinorforanyerrorsoromissionsthatmayhavebeenmade. Printedonacid-freepaper SpringerJapanKKispartofSpringerScience+BusinessMedia(www.springer.com) Contents TheFlexibilityofLawandItsLimitsinContemporaryBusiness Regulation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 MarkFenwickandStefanWrbka PartI ThePerspectiveoftheLawmaker ThePotentialandLimitsofTeleologicalReductionShownwiththe ExampleoftheAustrianWarrantyRegime. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 StefanWrbka TheAustrianCivilLawCompanyasanExampleofaSuccessful Company. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 DanieleMattiangeliandLisaKatharinaPromok FromtheBoardroomtotheCornerStore:Globalization, LawandEconomicOrganization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 SeanMcGinty TheNovelist’sArtisticFreedomv.HisProtagonist’sRightsof Personality:AComparisonBetweenGermanand U.S.-AmericanLaw. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 ChristianGomille PartII ThePerspectiveoftheRegulator DelayedLeniencyApplications:TheUnfortunateButPredictable OutcomeoftheFlexibleLeniencyPoliciesUndertheChinese AntimonopolyLaw. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 StevenVanUytselandYingBi Investor-StateArbitration:ATaleofEndlessObstacles?. . . . . . . . . . . 123 ClaudiaReith v vi Contents PartIII ThePerspectiveofBusiness TheNewCorporateCriminalLawandTransnationalLegalRisk. . . . . 149 MarkFenwick ConsumerCreditLawintheEuropeanUnionandJapan: AComparativeStudy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173 JarlJacob ‘Plan-LikeArchitectures’forMutualTrustintheCloud. . . .. . . . . . .. 199 MarceloCorrales Index. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227 Contributors YingBi GuanghuaLawSchool,ZhejiangUniversity,Hangzhou,China MarceloCorrales InstituteforLegalInformatics,Hanover,Germany GraduateSchoolofLaw,KyushuUniversity,Fukuoka,Japan MarkFenwick FacultyofLaw,KyushuUniversity,Fukuoka,Japan ChristianGomille FacultyofLaw,UniversityofAugsburg,Augsburg,Germany JarlJacob GraduateSchoolofLaw,KyushuUniversity,Fukuoka,Japan DanieleMattiangeli FacultyofLaw,UniversityofSalzburg,Salzburg,Austria SeanMcGinty FacultyofLaw,NagoyaUniversity,Nagoya,Japan LisaKatharinaPromok FacultyofLaw,UniversityofSalzburg,Salzburg,Austria ClaudiaReith FacultyofLaw,UniversityofSalzburg,Salzburg,Austria StevenVanUytsel FacultyofLaw,KyushuUniversity,Fukuoka,Japan StefanWrbka FacultyofLaw,KyushuUniversity,Fukuoka,Japan vii The Flexibility of Law and Its Limits in Contemporary Business Regulation MarkFenwickandStefanWrbka Contents 1 Introduction................................................................................... 1 2 TheDemandforFlexibilityinBusinessRegulation........................................ 2 3 Chapters....................................................................................... 4 References........................................................................................ 12 1 Introduction Overthelastthreedecades,therapidpaceoftechnologicalchange,transformations in the composition of markets and the emergence of global production capacities andserviceprovidershavecreatedmanynewopportunitiesforbusiness,aswellas consumers. Globalization is the new and irreversible economic reality of our age. Clearlytheseeconomicchangeshavecontributedtothecreationofnewpressures on,andexpectationsof,thosefieldsoflawconnectedtotheregulationofbusiness, particularlycross-borderbusiness.Lawmakersandregulatorshavebeencompelled torespondtothenewdemandsandchallengescreatedbytheemergenceofaglobal economy.Newexpectationsoflaw–inparticular,thatitbemoreagileorflexiblein regulating the market economy – have prompted law-makers and regulators in multiple jurisdictions to adopt various novel regulatory techniques and legal formstorespondtothischallenge. In many cases, these adaptations in domestic law have entailed compromising traditional legal principles – such as legal certainty – in favor of empowering regulators with greater discretion than has traditionally been permitted in modern legalinstitutions.These changes raiseimportant,butdifficult,questionsabout the M.Fenwick•S.Wrbka(*) FacultyofLaw,KyushuUniversity,Fukuoka,Japan e-mail:[email protected] ©SpringerJapan2016 1 M.Fenwick,S.Wrbka(eds.),FlexibilityinModernBusinessLaw, DOI10.1007/978-4-431-55787-6_1 2 M.FenwickandS.Wrbka balance between fairness and efficiency, as well as the relationship between the publicandprivategood. From the perspective of companies, the already weighty challenges of doing business in a global economy are compounded by the additional challenge of navigatingtheresultingmosaicofregulatoryregimes.Theprofileoflegalriskfor modernbusinessisrenderedhighlyunstablebythefactoftransnationaloperations, but the additional uncertainties created by the fact of diminishing legal certainty and the relentless pace of law reform becomes a further source of legal risk and additionalcosts.Thebenefitsoftheseadditionalrisksandcostsareoftenuncertain, furthercompoundingthechallengesforbusinessenterprises. The aim of this book is to bring together scholars from different fields of economic and business law in order to map some of the legal responses to the challengesofeconomicglobalization,focusinginparticularonthisquestionofthe shiftingmeaningofflexibilityinthecontextofcontemporarybusinessregulation. Inthisintroductorychapter,wewouldliketoprovidesomebackgroundandcontext tothediscussionthatfollows,aswellasanoverviewofindividualchapters. 2 The Demand for Flexibility in Business Regulation This volume is intended as a contribution to debates on business regulation, focusing on this theme of flexibility. Although the topic of flexibility can be found in much of the literature, one important development in this area was the 1992publicationofResponsiveRegulationbyIanAyresandJohnBraithwaite.1In this work, Ayres and Braithwaite attempted to transcend the debate between advocates of state-orchestrated command and control measures and advocates of complianceandmoremarketoriented,de-regulationbyproposinganewapproach. The central claim of ‘responsive regulation’ was that regulatory measures – laws andpoliciesbroadlydefined–aremorelikelytobeeffectivewhentheregulatoris abletoutilizeinaflexiblemanneran“enforcementpyramid”comprisingmultiple regulatorymeasures.Inparticular,arangeofenforcementsanctions rangingfrom persuasion,atthe“base”ofthepyramidthroughwarningsandcivilsanctionsupto criminalpenalties,atthe“top”. Accordingtothisindividualizedapproach,regulationofaparticularfirmshould startatthebaseofthepyramid–i.e.withpersuasion,educationandwarnings–and then, in the event that this approach proves ineffective, escalate to more punitive measures. If the regulated company “knows” that more severe enforcement is conditioned on their rejection of cooperation then a strong incentive is created to cooperate.Equally,regulatedentitiesknowthatcooperationwillresultin“softer” sanctions, as the company is moved “down” the pyramid. In this way, regulators 1AyresandBraithwaite(1992).
The list of books you might like
