Monash University Faculty of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series最新文献

Submission to the Law Commission Call for Evidence on Smart Contracts 向法律委员会提交关于智能合约的证据

Monash University Faculty of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series Pub Date : 2021-03-29 DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.3822806

B. Hayward, Lisa Spagnolo, D. Stamboulakis

引用次数: 0

Prudential Regulation in Australia and the Banking Royal Commission: A Missed Opportunity for Reform? 审慎监管在澳大利亚和银行皇家委员会:一个错失的改革机会?

Monash University Faculty of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series Pub Date : 2020-04-01 DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.3613506

Steve Kourabas

{"title":"Prudential Regulation in Australia and the Banking Royal Commission: A Missed Opportunity for Reform?","authors":"Steve Kourabas","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3613506","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3613506","url":null,"abstract":"The global financial crisis (GFC) revealed fundamental regulatory weaknesses in many of the world’s leading financial jurisdictions. In particular, there was a lack of attention to risks of a systemic nature. Post-GFC regulatory reforms in many of these jurisdictions have sought to address this problem through the introduction of regulation that emphasises the systemic nature of financial risk as well as changes to regulatory structures to give effect to post-GFC regulatory approaches. These considerations have not had as big an impact in Australia as it escaped the worst effects of the GFC. Instead, Australian policy-makers and regulators have tended to focus more on market conduct and consumer protection matters as evidenced during the recent Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry. This article argues that the secondary status of systemic financial stability as a regulatory concern in Australia following the GFC undermines the centrality of systemic financial stability as a regulatory goal. The article proposes a number of reforms that have been introduced in jurisdictions such as the UK to give effect to global best practice following the GFC and which have as their key aim the maintenance of systemic financial stability as a primary goal.","PeriodicalId":447683,"journal":{"name":"Monash University Faculty of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series","volume":"64 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123111946","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Reimagining Copyright's Duration 重新构想版权的期限

Monash University Faculty of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series Pub Date : 2017-01-09 DOI: 10.2139/SSRN.2561108

Rebecca Giblin

引用次数: 7

Accounting Standards and Co-operatives: Proposed Solutions to the Problem of AASB 132 会计准则与合作社:对AASB问题的建议解决方案

Monash University Faculty of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series Pub Date : 2016-05-01 DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.3533642

D. Wallace

引用次数: 0

Evolving Directors’ Duties in the Common Law World 普通法世界董事职责的演变

Monash University Faculty of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series Pub Date : 2013-04-01 DOI: 10.4337/9781781004418.00007

Jennifer G. Hill

{"title":"Evolving Directors’ Duties in the Common Law World","authors":"Jennifer G. Hill","doi":"10.4337/9781781004418.00007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4337/9781781004418.00007","url":null,"abstract":"Legal scholars have long discussed the gap, or “acoustic separation”, between stringent standards of conduct (“conduct rules”) and more lenient standards of review (“decision rules”) in legal regulation. This gap has been particularly stark in the United States in relation to directors’ duty of care.The goal of this chapter is to explore a range of developments relating to directors’ duties across several common law jurisdictions, including the US, UK Australia and Canada against the backdrop of conduct and decision rules. For example, contemporary Australian case law on the duty of care and diligence, although highlighting the ongoing tension between conduct rules and decision rules, diverges from US law in many key respects. Also, under Australia’s regulatory model, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (“ASIC”), the primary corporate regulator, operates as the main enforcement mechanism for breach of directors’ duties.Finally, the chapter assesses some recent developments in the common law world on the perennial issue of to whom directors owe their duties, and the extent to which stakeholder interests can, or must, be taken into account in board decision-making.","PeriodicalId":447683,"journal":{"name":"Monash University Faculty of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series","volume":"28 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116209633","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 4

Reconciling Conflicting Rights in International Arbitration: The Right to Choice of Counsel and the Right to an Independent and Impartial Tribunal 调解国际仲裁中相互冲突的权利:选择律师的权利和寻求独立公正法庭的权利

Monash University Faculty of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series Pub Date : 2010-12-01 DOI: 10.1093/ARBITRATION/26.4.597

Jeff Waincymer

{"title":"Reconciling Conflicting Rights in International Arbitration: The Right to Choice of Counsel and the Right to an Independent and Impartial Tribunal","authors":"Jeff Waincymer","doi":"10.1093/ARBITRATION/26.4.597","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ARBITRATION/26.4.597","url":null,"abstract":"Each party in international commercial arbitration holds a number of fundamental rights, in particular the right to equal treatment and the right to an adequate opportunity to present its case, including the right to counsel of choice. A further fundamental right is that arbitral tribunals be independant and/ or impartrial throughout the arbitral process. An additional potential right is the right under most arbitral rules for each party to select one arbitrator where a three-person panel is to be utilised. While these are clearly accepted rights, what happens if and when they clash? This article seeks to analyse the nature of these rights and how they might appropriately be reconciled. It does so through a discussion of two recent ICSID cases that came to conflicting conclusions in situations where a tribunal is first constituted with sufficient independence from existing counsel, but new counsel are then brought in who have a closer relationship with one or more tribunal members and counsel's presence is challenged. The article argues that it would be an unacceptable defect in the procedural justice of international arbitration if this could only be dealt with by a challenge to an already functioning tribunal. If the relationship is serious enough, new counsel should be prevented from being involved. This approach can be justified through implied limitations on the express rights themselves, namely, a party cannot choose either counsel or a tribunal member that would create an inappropriate relationship undermining the tribunal's qualifications under whatever test of impartiality and independence the relevant lex arbitri and arbitral rules prescribe. This article first appeared in: (2010) 26 Arbitration International 597.","PeriodicalId":447683,"journal":{"name":"Monash University Faculty of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series","volume":"39 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2010-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115114349","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 2

The Loss of Sovereignty: How International Debt Relief Mechanisms Undermine Economic Self-Determination 主权的丧失:国际债务减免机制如何破坏经济自决

Monash University Faculty of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series Pub Date : 2009-11-02 DOI: 10.5539/JPL.V2N4P3

Dr Noel Villaroman

{"title":"The Loss of Sovereignty: How International Debt Relief Mechanisms Undermine Economic Self-Determination","authors":"Dr Noel Villaroman","doi":"10.5539/JPL.V2N4P3","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5539/JPL.V2N4P3","url":null,"abstract":"This article discusses the process that debtor countries go through in the two mechanisms created to work out solutions for their huge and unpayable external debts, namely, the Paris Club and the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative. As the international lending process is structured today, it is through these mechanisms that debtor countries obtain debt forgiveness, reduction or rescheduling. The absolute control of these two mechanisms by creditor countries will be examined, together with the crucial role reserved to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) as the final dispenser of the 'stamp of approval' whether debtor countries will ultimately get debt relief. Also, this article identifies the so-called 'conditionalities' that are attached to debt relief obtained through the Paris Club and HIPC Initiative. What sort of policy prescriptions, 'structural adjustments' or other domestic changes are being pushed through these mechanisms? And finally, this article examines how these conditionalities comport with the principle of economic self-determination of peoples that supposedly guarantees their right to pursue an independent process of economic development. Essentially, this article attempts to answer these questions: Are the Paris Club and HIPC mechanisms fundamentally at odds with economic self-determination? And more generally, are they respectful of the 'rule of law' in the international system?","PeriodicalId":447683,"journal":{"name":"Monash University Faculty of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series","volume":"100 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2009-11-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128145871","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 12

Collar Colour? 领子的颜色吗?

Monash University Faculty of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series Pub Date : 1900-01-01 DOI: 10.2104/mbr06008

D. Bowman, G. Gilligan

引用次数: 0