Suchergebnisse

In the first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence the nascent United States acknowledged "a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind." This constituted, to a certain extent, an express acceptance of the binding force of international law, a corpus of rules based upon generally prevalent opinio juris.

Die Öffnung des deutschen Bilanzrechts bewirkt eine zunehmende Anwendungsbreite von internationalen Rechnunungslegungsnormen (wie insbesondere der US-GAAP und der IAS) für deutsche Rechtsanwender;1 die heterogenen Normtypen und die – damit einhergehend – unterschiedlichen ökonomischen Eigenschaften dieser Normen erfordern für einen sinnvollen Rechnungslegungsvergleich eine komparative Rechnungslegungstheorie. Eine Besinnung auf die ökonomische Theorie ist – auch ausgelöst durch die Internationalisierung der Rechnungslegung – hier grundsätzlich festzustellen,2 wie auch das moderne deutsche Bilanzrecht seine heutige Prägung durch die ökonomische Theorie – und nicht vornehmlich durch die Anwender – erhielt.3 Es ist das Ziel des Aufsatzes, einen Beitrag zu einer institutionenökonomischen Theorie der Rechnungslegung zum Zweck der Bestimmung von Informationsinhalten und Gewinnansprüchen sowie zur vergleichenden Rechnungslegungstheorie zu leisten. In einem ersten Hauptteil (2) wird im folgenden – auf dem institutionenökonomischen Forschungsprogramm aufbauend – skizziert, welche Bedeutung Institutionen im Rahmen des Nutzenkalküls von Entscheidern zuzumessen ist; danach werden die einzelnen für eine vergleichende Rechnungslegung relevanten Institutionsarten typisiert (in formale und informelle Regeln) sowie deren Attribute im individuellen Zielstromkalkül eingeführt (nämlich Prädikate der Manipulationsfreiheit und Prädikate der Entscheidungsverbundenheit). Das Verhältnis der Institutionen zueinander wird im folgenden Abschnitt (3) anhand eines rechtlich geprägten und eines ökonomischen Systemverständnisses entwickelt. Es wird gezeigt, daß beide Systembegriffe auf einer Nichtadditivität der sie konstituierenden Institutionen gründen, die den qualitativen Vergleich unterschiedlicher Systeme erschweren; man überschätzt hingegen die Unterschiede zwischen juristischem und ökonomischem Systemverständnis: beide sind funktionsähnlich. Im letzten Hauptteil (4) werden schließlich vor dem Hintergrund einer gestaltenden Theorie die hierfür relevanten Teilbereiche (Sub-Systeme) der Rechnungslegungsordnung vorgestellt sowie einzelne Publizitätsnormen funktional ausgelegt. Der Beitrag schließt mit zusammenfassenden Thesen (5). ; This paper presents some consequences of economic theory for the regulation of corporate accounting and disclosure under Geman accounting legislation (de lege lata) and in an international context. The following implications are discussed: (i) It is argued that the economic income conception provides means for a better understanding of the informational needs of accounting data-users and can serve as a guidance for the interpretation of legal rules concerning disclosure. (ii) From a Law and Economics-perspective the article develops a concept to comparing the economic content of different legal regimes in an international accounting environment. (iii) It is shown that – in the "new paradigm" of complementarities (Milgrom/Roberts) – regulation of disclosure standards can also be seen as a function of the institutional setting, e.g. of the (national) structure of corporate governance and the (national) financial system. (iv) The principle of full disclosure can be interpreted as a complementary element of the overall disclosure system in a country. Especially the fine tuning of the application of the principle of full disclosure in a national context depends on whether it figures as part of an insider control-system or an outsider control-system. (v) Finally, it is argued that the interpretation of extraordinary items in German accounting law, for the time being, does not satisfy the informational needs of market participants.

This book argues that environmental problems represent a deeper problem in the way the relationship between human beings and nature is conceptualised.

This article explores the role of domestic factors in international organization dysfunction, exemplified by the failure of the Second International to agree on a common stance and policy for the prevention of the First World War. Focusing on the French and German socialist parties, the two most powerful forces in the Second International, it assesses how domestic factors, such as differences in the dependency on the electorate, internal party structure and party-trade union relationships affected the policy preferences of these socialist parties. It concludes that these domestic differences were the source of discrepancy and lack of orchestrated action among the members of the Second International. As a result of these differences, the Second International failed to coordinate and produce a binding resolution that would commit its members to a uniform action against war, hence culminating in international organization dysfunction. Adapted from the source document.

King, G. ; Zeng Langche: When can history be our guide? the pitfalls of counterfactual inference. - S. 183-210 Schrodt, P. A.: Of dinosaurs and barbecue sauce: a comment on King and Zeng. - S. 211-215 Sambanis, N. ; Doyle, M. W.: No easy choices: estimating the effects of United Nations peacekeeping (response to King and Zeng) - S. 217-226 Morrow, J. D.: Officers King and Zeng and the case of the unsupported counterfactual. - S. 227-229 King, G. : Zeng Langche: Detecting model dependence in statistical interference: a response. - S. 231-241

The English school of international relations is in large parts focused on the study of historical change; at the same time, however, it is remarkably unclear on how to understand change in between the idealist belief in progress and the realist eternal cycles of recurrence. This article seeks to avoid this dead end by questioning the school's understanding of change as a commonsensical concept. It is argued that change would be better understood as composed of three facets: one ontological (what is change?), one explanatory (what causes change?), and one normative (is change desirable?). This metatheoretical reconceptualization of change permits cross-checking the three facets against each other for internal coherence, but most importantly, it makes visible the underlying assumptions used to study change, so that ideas of history, causes, and normative ideals can be openly scrutinized, questioned, and defended rather than treated as self-evident. The resulting suggestion of an internally metatheoretically coherent understanding of change in international society signifies a much-needed addition to the English school tool-kit. It brings a promise of a significant metatheoretical overhaul of the theory, which, if taken up, will open up new horizons for the school. In addition, it opens up similar metatheoretical inquiries into other international relations theories' views of change.