Suchergebnisse

The view that international law functions independently of municipal law (hermetically), does not reflect contemporary international practice. Instead, international law in the modern era engages intensively and extensively in projects that occupy areas traditionally governed by municipal law, such as business regulation as well as the rights and duties of persons. The resulting overlap in legal dominions requires a new conceptualization of the relationship between international and municipal law. This book explores the mechanisms employed to allocate authority to international and municipal law in international disputes. Taking a broader view, this course explores the work of international bodies, domestic courts, and informal dispute resolution, including diplomacy and the use of coercive measures. It identifies the mechanisms used to manage the overlapping dominions of international and municipal law as pooling, referral, and nesting. In the final chapter, the book explores how different opportunities and ambitions for international law can affect the use of these mechanisms in particular international disputes

Abstract
This article describes the creation and development of the Restatement of the Law (Fourth): The Foreign Relations Law of the United States from the perspective of its coordinating reporter. The article first describes how the American Law Institute goes about creating restatements of the law, emphasizing aspects of the process that a European audience might find unfamiliar. It looks at aspects of the US legal system, especially the significant role of the judiciary as authors of law, and explains how this role shapes a document that has US judges as one of its significant audiences. It then discusses how conflict over the content of foreign relations law and the role of international law in US domestic law affects the Restatement and how the reporters seek to navigate these troubled waters. Finally, it explores the areas where the new Restatement (Fourth) parts company with its famous predecessor, the Restatement (Third), supervised by the late professor Louis Henkin. The article argues that the changes represent two things: a transformation of the world of foreign relations in the 35 years since the earlier work and a corresponding move towards modesty on the part of the professors who made this Restatement.

Near the end of the 2009 Term the Supreme Court decided Morrison v. Australia National Bank, Ltd., the strongest anti-extraterritoriality opinion it has produced in modern times. Not only is Congress presumed generally to prefer only territorial regulation, but lower courts that had carved out exceptions from this principle over a long period of time must now revisit their positions. Again this year in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Shell Co. the Court relied on an aggressive use of the presumption against extraterritoriality to cut back on an important field of private litigation. The Court appears to have embraced two related stances: The imposition of barriers to extraterritorial regulation generally advances welfare, and the lower courts cannot be trusted to determine those instances where an exception to this rule might be justified. Implicit in the Court's position are intuitions about the political economy of both legislation and litigation. I want to use the occasion of the Morrison and Kiobel decisions to consider the political economy of extraterritorial regulation by the United States. International lawyers for the most part have analyzed state decisions to exercise prescriptive jurisdiction over extraterritorial transactions in terms of a welfare calculus that determines the likely costs and benefits to the state as a whole. Fewer studies have considered the political economy of the decision whether to regulate foreign transactions. No work of which I am aware has considered the political economy of deciding the extraterritorial question through litigation. This paper seeks to fill these gaps by sketching out what political economy suggests both about extraterritoriality and the role of courts as arbiters of extraterritoriality.

Nachdem die Immobilienkrise in den USA auch Deutschland erreicht und die IKB Deutsche Industriebank AG sowie die sächsische Landesbank Sachsen LB in Schwierigkeiten gebracht hat, werden Forderungen laut, die Banken stärker zu regulieren. Was sind die Ursachen für die Schwierigkeiten der deutschen Banken? Hat die Bankenaufsicht Fehler gemacht? Sollte sie reformiert werden? Ist eine Vereinheitlichung der Bankenaufsicht auf der EU-Ebene erforderlich?

Abstract
In the 1980s, Commerzbank was increasingly forced to become much more international if it wanted to be perceived as a relevant player in the field of investment banking, which was considered particularly attractive. This article focuses on the bank's initially cautious, then strongly accelerated turn toward this new field of business – especially in the form of asset management – and the opportunities it opened up as well as the resulting burdens.