No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Desirability of ‘Weak’ Form Legal Harmonization: Perspectives from Statutory Interpretation and Legal Coherence
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 06 March 2019
Extract
Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Harmonized regulatory frameworks have become increasingly important. This is especially so following the global financial crisis, where there have been calls for a harmonized international response to securities regulation. Examples in the EU include MIFID and the Takeover Directive. MIFID regulates securities traders and stock exchanges. It contains rules that indicate the obligations on exchanges and traders vis-à-vis matters such as achieving the “best execution” of trades. The Takeover Directive regulates mergers and acquisitions, their regulations include regulations on anti-takeover provisions, compulsory acquisitions, and the method of paying for acquisitions. These impose a ‘weak’ form of harmonization: member states can opt out of some provisions, many provisions are vague (and require definition by domestic regulators) and member states retain the right to legislate around the harmonized framework. These directives have not received universal support.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © 2012 by German Law Journal GbR
References
1 See especially Langevoort, Donald, Global Securities Regulation after the Financial Crisis, 13(3) J. of Int'l Econ. L. 799–815 (2009); Mark Humphery-Jenner, Securities Fraud Compensation: A Legislative Scheme Drawing on China, the US, and the UK, 38(2) Leg. Iss. of Econ. Int. 143–162 (2011); Elaine Fahey, Does the Emperor Have Financial Crisis Clothes? Reflections on the Legal Basis of the European Banking Authority, 74(4) Mod. L. Rev. 581–595 (2011).Google Scholar
2 See especially the discussion in McCahery, Joseph & Vermeulen, Erik, Does the European Company Prevent the ‘Delaware Effect'?, 11(6) Eur. L. J. 785 (2005); Joseph McCahery & Erik Vermeulen, Does the Takeover Bids Directive Need Revision?, Tilburg L. and Econ. Center (TILEC)(2010); Joseph McCahery & Luc Renneboog, The Economics of the Proposed European Takeover Directive, Centre for European Policy Studies (2003).Google Scholar
3 For a summary of the arguments see McCahery, Joseph & Vermeulen, Elaine, Does the European Company Prevent the ‘Delaware Effect'?, supra note 2.Google Scholar
4 The contrary position is one where the imposition of a central regulatory framework completely deposes any power that the member-states might have. This is the case under The Australian Constitution 1901, where federal legislation under s 51 of the constitution displaces state legislation. See Google Scholar
5 For example, the provisions of the Takeover Directive arguably facilitate managerial entrenchment and value destruction. See Humphery-Jenner, Mark, The Impact of the EU Takeover Directive on Takeover Performance and Asset Growth, 18(2) J. of Corp. Fin. (2012).Google Scholar
6 Voermans, Wim & Schuurmans, Ymre, Better Regulation by Appeal 17(3) Eur. Pub. L. 507 (2011); Gijs van Dijck & Rob van Gestel, Better Regulation through Experimental Legislation, 17 Eur. Pub. L. 539 (2011); Alberto Alemanno, The Better Regulation Initiative at the Judicial Gate: A Trojan Horse within the Commission's Walls or the Way Forward?, 15(3) EUR. L.J. 383 (2009).Google Scholar
7 Bhattacharya, Utpal & Daouk, Hazem, The World Price of Insider Trading, 57(1) J. of Fin. 75 (2002); Utpal Bhattacharya & Hazem Daouk, When no law is better than a good law, 13(4) Rev. of Fin. 577 (2009); Utpal Bhattacharya, Hazem Daouk & Michael Welker, The World Price of Earnings Opacity, 78(3) Acc. Rev. 641(2003).Google Scholar
8 Bhattacharya & Daouk, supra note 7.Google Scholar
9 For uses of this data (based on prior years statistics), see Kaufmann, Daniel & Kraay, Aart, Governance Indicators: Where Are We, Where Should We Be Going?, 23(1) World Bank Research Observer 1 (2008); David Dollar & Aart Kraay, Institutions, trade and growth, 50 (1) J. OF Mon. Econ. 133 (2003); Sheng-Hung Chen & Chien-Chang Liao, Are foreign banks more profitable than domestic banks? Home- and host-country effects of banking market structure, governance, and supervision, 35(4) J. OF Bank. and Fin. 819 (2011); Jens Forssbaeck, Ownership structure, market discipline, and banks risk-taking incentives under deposit insurance, 35(10) J. OF Bank AND Fin. 2666 (2011).Google Scholar
10 Haas, Ralph de, Ferreira, Daniel & Taci, Anita, What determines the composition of banks loan portfolios? Evidence from transition countries, 34(2) J. of Bank. and Fin. 388 (2010).Google Scholar
11 Klomp, Jeroen & Haan, Jakob de, Banking risk and regulation: Does one size fit all?, (Forthcoming) J. OF Banking and Finance (2012).Google Scholar
12 Bruno, Valentina & Claessens, Stijn, Corporate governance and regulation: Can there be too much of a good thing?, 19(4) J. of Fin. Inter. 461 (2010).Google Scholar
13 See Onega, Steven & Ilkay Sendeniz-Yuncu, Which firms engage small, foreign, or state banks? And who goes Islamic? Evidence from Turkey, 35(12) J. OF Bank. and Fin. 3213 (2011). This problem is not unique to Europe. For example, the United States exhibits similar problems where differences in state-level demographics have induced differences in factors such as involuntary bank account closures. See Campbell, Dennis, Asis Martinez-Jerez & Peter Tufano, Bouncing out of the banking system: An empirical analysis of involuntary bank account closures Journal of Banking and Finance(2012), Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, Proceedings 462 (2008).Google Scholar
14 Rafael La Porta, Florencio Lopez de-Silanes et. al., Law and finance, 106 J. OF Pol Econ. 1113 (1998); Rafael La Porta Florencio Lopez de-Silanes et. al., Legal Determinants of External Finance, 52(3) J. of Fin. 1131 (1997); Holger Spamann, The ‘Antidirector Rights Index’ Revisited, 23(2) Rev. of Fin. Stud. 467 (2010).Google Scholar
15 Berkowitz, Daniel, Pistor, Katharina & Richard, Jean-Francois, Economic development, legality, and the transplant effect, 47(1) Eur. Econ. Rev. 165 (2003).Google Scholar
16 Id., Table 5.Google Scholar
17 For a discussion of coherence theories within legal frameworks, see Soriano, Leonor Moral, A Modest Notion of Coherence in Legal Reasoning A Model for the European Court of Justice, 16(3) Ratio Juris 296 (2003).Google Scholar
18 See e.g. Bankowski, Zenon & MacCormick, Neil, Statutory Interpretation in the United Kingdom, in Interpreting Statutes: A Comparative Study 365–373 (Neil MacCormick and Robert Summers (eds.), 1991); Phillipa Weeks, Employment Law - A Test of Coherence Between Statute and Common Law, in Interpreting Statutes (Suzanne Corcoran and Stephen Bottomley (eds.), 2005); Douglas Brodie, Legal Coherence and the Employment Revolution, 117 L. Quart. Rev. 604 (2001).Google Scholar
19 Zapatero, Pablo, Searching for Coherence in Global Economic Policymaking, 24 Penn. State Int'l L. Rev. 595 (2006).Google Scholar
20 See ‘strict coherence’ in Stefano Bertea, The Arguments from Coherence: Analysis and Evaluation, 25(3) Oxford J. of Leg. Stud. 369–391 373(2005); see also Alexy, Robert & Peczenik, Aleksander, The Concept of Coherence and Its Significance for Discursive Rationality, 3 Ratio Juris 130 (1990); Jaap Hage, Law and Coherence 17 Ratio Juris 87, 89 (2004).Google Scholar
21 See e.g. G. R. Mailman & Assoc Pty. Ltd. v. Wormald (Aust) Pty. Ltd. (1991) 24 NSWLR 80, 99, per Meagher J.A.; Berthea, supra note 20; Veronica Rodriguez-Blanco, 'Genuine’ Disagreements: A Realist Reinterpretation of Dworkin'; Rodriguez-Blanco, ‘A Revision of the Constitutive and Epistemic Coherence Theories in Law' 14(2) Ratio Juris 212 (2001); see also the survey in Jaap Hage, Law and Coherence, 17(1) Ratio Juris 87–105 (2004).Google Scholar
22 See e.g. Raz, Joseph, The Relevance of Coherence, in Ethics in the Public Domain: Essays in the Morality of Law and Politics 261 (Joseph Raz (ed.), 1994); Eveline Feteris, A Survey of 25 Years of Research on Legal Argumentation, 11 Argumentation 355(1997).Google Scholar
23 See support for a ‘principled taxonomy’ in, Peter Birks, Unjust Enrichment (2nd ed., 2005); Andrew Burrows, Remedies for Torts and Breach of Contract (2004); Andrew Burrows, Remedial Coherence and Punitive Damages in Equity, in Equity in Commercial Law (Simone Degeling and James Edelman (eds.), 2005); Peter Birks, Equity in the Modern Law: An Exercise in Taxonomy, 26 Univ. of West. Aus. L. Rev. 1 (1996); Peter Birks, Equity, Conscience and Unjust Enrichment, 23 Mel. Univ. L. Rev. 1 (1999); Peter Birks, The Law of Restitution at the End of an Epoch, 28 Univ. of West. Aus. L. Rev. 13 (1999); Peter Birks, Rights, Wrongs and Remedies, 20 Oxford J. of Leg. Stud. 1 (2000); Peter Birks, Three Kinds of Objection to Discretionary Remedialism, 29 Univ. of West. Aus. L. Rev. 1 (2000); Andrew Burrows, We Do This At Common Law But That in Equity, 22 Oxford J. OF Leg. Stud. 1 (2002); Geoffrey Samuel, English Private Law: Old and New Thinking in the Taxonomy Debates, 24 Oxford J. of Leg. Stud. 335 (2004); see also Duggan, Anthony, Is Equity Efficient? 113 L. Quart. Rev. 601 (1997).Google Scholar
24 Mulligan, Felton v. (1971) 124 CLR 367, 392, per Windeyer J; O'Rourke v. Hoeven (1974) 1 NSWLR 80, 99, per Meagher J,; Pilmer v. Duke Group Ltd (in liq) (2001) 207 CLR 165, 201-202; Peter Cane, Taking Disagreement Seriously: Courts, Legislatures and the Reform of Tort Law, 25 Oxford J. of Leg. Stud. 393, 412 (2005).Google Scholar
25 Hage, supra note 21.Google Scholar
26 Camilleri, Joseph, Fragmentation and Integration: The Future of World Politics, in Conflict Resolution Through Non-Violence 45 (K. D. Gangrade and Rameshwar Misra (eds.), 1990; Jost Delbrück, A More Effective International Law or a New “World Law?” Some Aspects of the Changing Development of International Law in a Changing International System, 68 Ind. L. J. (1993); Earl Fry, Sovereignty and Federalism: U.S. and Canadian Perspectives: Challenges to Sovereignty and Governance 20 Can.-U.S. L. J. 303 (1994); Anja Lindroos, Addressing Norm Conflicts in a Fragmented Legal System: The Doctrine of Lex Specialis, 74 Nord. L. J. 27 (2005); Joost Pauwelyn, Bridging Fragmentation and Unity: International Law as a Universe of Inter-Connected Islands, 25 Mich. J. of Int'l L. 903 (2004); Pemmaraju Rao, Multiple International Judicial Forums: A Reflection of the Growing Strength of International Law or Its Fragmentation, 25 Mich. J. OF Int'l L. 929 (2004); Michael Reisman, International Law after the Cold War, 84 Amer. J. of Int'l L. 859, 864 (1990); Randa Salama, Fragmentation of International Law: Procedural Issues Arising in Law of the Sea Disputes, 19 Aus. And New Zeal. Mar. L. J. 24 (2005); Karl Zemanek, The Legal Foundations of the International System: General Course on Public International Law, 266 Recueil Des cours: Collected Courses of the Hague Academy of International law 62 (1997); see also, Project Blue Sky Inc v. Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) CLR 335 (1998) 194 CLR 335, [60], per Brennan C.J.Google Scholar
27 Rodriguez-Blanco, Veronica, A Revision of the Constitutive and Epistemic Coherence Theories in Law, 14(2) Ratio Juris 212-232(2001).Google Scholar
28 Giligan, Thomas, Marshall, William & Weingast, Barry, Regulation and the Theory of Legislative Choice: The Interstate Commerce Act of 1887, 32 J. OF L. AND Econ. 35–62 (1989); see also Hatch, Orrin, Legislative History: Tool of Construction Or Destruction, Harv. J. of L. and Publ. Pol. 43–50 (1988).Google Scholar
29 See McCahery, Joseph & Vermeulen, Elaine, supra note 2.Google Scholar
30 See e.g. Hafner, Gerhard, Pros and Cons Ensuing From Fragmentation of International Law, 25 Mich. J. of Int'l Law 949 (2004); Karel Wellens, Fragmentation of International Law and Establishing an Accountability Regime for International Organization: The Role of the Judiciary in Closing the Gap, 25 Mich. J. of Int'lL. 1159 (2004).Google Scholar
31 A ‘reasonableness’ standard is common in law. However, the definition depends on the context in which it appears. Given that MIFID is unique in its cross-border regulation of financial markets, there is no comparable Common Law or Statute Law from which one could obtain the definition of ‘reasonableness’ in this context.Google Scholar
32 See, for example, findings that different types of regulation and supervision have different effects on high-risk banks and low-risk banks: Klomp & de Haan, supra note 11.Google Scholar
33 Randal Graham, Statutory Interpretation: Theory and Practice (2001); Reed Dickerson, he Diseases of Legislative Language, 1 Harv. J. On Legis. 5, 10 (1964); Randal Graham, Good Intentions, 12 Sup. Ct. L. Rev. 147 (2000); Randal Graham, A Unified Theory of Statutory Interpretation, 23 Statute L. Rev. 91, 118 (2002); Randal Graham, Right Theory, Wrong Reasons: Dynamic Interpretation, the Charter and “Fundamental Laws.” 34 Sup. Ct. L. Rev. 1 (2006).Google Scholar
34 Easterbrook, Justice Frank, The Role of Original Intent in Statutory Construction, 11 Harv. J. L. & Pub. Pol'y 59 (1988); Ernest Brunken, Interpretation of the Written Law, 25 Yale L. J. 129 (1915); Francis Bennion, Statutory Interpretation 375 (3rd ed., 1997); Lord Peter Millett, Construing Statutes, 20 Statute L. Rev. 107, 108 (1990); Keith Mason, The intent of legislators: How judges discern it and what they do if they find it, 27 Aus. Bar Rev. 253 (2006); Henry Hart & Albert Sacks, A suggested Restatement on the Use of Legislative History, in The Legal Process: Basic Problems in the Making and Application of law 1253-54 (William Eskridge & Philip Frickey (eds., 1994); Justice James Spigelman, The poet's rich resource: Issues in statutory interpretation, 21 Aus. Bar Rev. 224, 225 (2001); Justice James Spigelman, Principle of legality and the clear statement principle, 79 Aus. Bar Rev. 769 (2005).Google Scholar
35 MacCallum, Gerald, Legislative Intent, 75 Yale L. J. 754, 781 (1966); Elmer Driedger, The Composition of Legislation 161 (1957); Randall Graham, A Unified Theory of Statutory Interpretation, supra note 33, at 123; Francis Bennion, Statute law (1980). See also Bennion, Francis, Jaguars and Donkeys: Distinguishing Judgment and Discretion, 31 U. West L. A. L. Rev. 1 (2000, agreeing with outcome, disagreeing that it is due to legislative intent).Google Scholar
36 Fitzpatrick v. Sterling Housing Association Ltd (1999) 4 All ER 705.Google Scholar
37 Sloovere, Frederick de, Preliminary Questions in Statutory Interpretation, 9 N. Y. U. L. Q. Rev. 407, 415 (1932); Randal Graham, A Unified Theory of Statutory Interpretation, supra note 33, at 123. See for example, Bennion, Statute Law, supra note 35, at 120; Vigolo v. Bostin (2005) 221 CLR 191; R v. Burstow (1997) 4 All ER 225, 233, per Steyn L.J., 240 per Hope L.J.Google Scholar
38 Vigolo v. Bostin; Dickerson, supra note 33, at 11; Randall Graham, A Unified Theory of Statutory Interpretation, supra note 33, at 123.Google Scholar
39 Bottomley, Stephen, A Framework for Understanding the Interpretation of Corporate Law in Australia, in Interpreting Statutes 159–160 (Suzanne Corcoran & Stephen Bottomley (eds.), 2005); Phillip Frickey, Structuring purposive statutory interpretation: An American perspective, 80 Aus. L. J. 849 (2006); William Eskridge, Dynamic Statutory Interpretation, U. Pa. L. Rev. 1479 (1987); William Eskridge, Dynamic Statutory Interpretation (1994); William Eskridge & Philip Frickey, Statutory Interpretation as Practical Reasoning, 42 Stan. L. Rev. 321 (1990).Google Scholar
40 Corcoran, Suzanne, Theories of Statutory Interpretation, in Interpreting Statutes 159–160 (Suzanne Corcoran & Stephen Bottomley eds., 2005); Millett, supra note 34, at 109; Spigelman, The poet's rich resource: Issues in statutory interpretation, supra note 34, at 225; Spigelman, Principle of legality and the clear statement principle, supra note 34; Graham, A Unified Theory of Statutory Interpretation, supra note 33; Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations v. Gribbles Radiology Pty Ltd (2005) 214 ALR 24, [21] per Gleeson, Hayne, Callinan and Heydon J.J.Google Scholar
41 Charney, Jonathan, Universal International Law, 87 Am. J. OF Int'l L. 529 (1993); Lisa Churma, International Law-Making in a Community Context: Not a True Reflection of a Community Interest, 2 Int'l Legal Theory 40 (1996); Michael Gadbaw, Intellectual Property and International Trade: Merger or Marriage of Convenience, 22 Vanderbilt J. Transnat'l L. 223 (1989); Shaun Vorster & Philip Nel, Tracing power relations in the global knowledge structure: Two case studies, 22 Politikon 52 (1995).Google Scholar
42 On the legislative process, see Johnstone, Quentin, Evaluation of the Rules of Statutory Interpretation, 3 U. Kansas L. R. 1, 15 (1955); Harry Evans, Odgers’ Australian Senate Practice 2 (11th ed., 2001); Ian Harris, Bernard Wright & Peter E Fowler, Australian House Of Representatives Practice (5th ed. 2005); Australian Department Of The Prime Minister And Cabinet, Cabinet Handbook (5th ed. 2004).Google Scholar
43 Australian Department Of The Prime Minister And Cabinet, Legislation Handbook (1999); Jonathan Macey, Public Choice: The Theory of the Firm and the Theory of Market Exchange, 74 Corn. L. Rev. 43 (1988).Google Scholar
44 Reformulation of the argument in Harris, Wright and Fowler, supra note 43, purporting to follow the argument in Peter Schanck, The Only Game in Town: An Introduction to Interpretive Theory, Statutory Construction and Legislative Histories, 38 U. Kan. L. Rev. 815 (1990).Google Scholar
45 Hart & Sacks, supra note 34. See also Frickey, Eskridge and, supra note 34, at 334–335.Google Scholar
46 Popkin, William, The Collaborative Model of Statutory Interpretation, 61 S. Cal. L. Rev. 541, 567 (1988); Mark Seidenfeld, A Civic Republican Justification for the Bureaucratic State, 105 Harv. L. Rev. 1511,1532 (1992).Google Scholar
47 Argument based upon Robert Shiller, Irrational Exuberance (2000); William Eskridge, Politics without Romance: Implications of Public Choice Theory for Statutory Interpretation, 74 Va. L. Rev. 275 (1988); Jonathan Macey, Promoting Public-Regarding Legislation Through Statutory Interpretation: An Interest Group Model, 86 Colum. L. Rev. 223 (1986).Google Scholar
48 Staszewski, Glen, Avoiding Absurdity, 81 Ind. L. J. 1001 (2006); Cass Sunstein, Beyond the Republican Revival, 97 Yale L. J. 1539 (1988).Google Scholar
49 Eskridge, William & Frickey, Philip, Legislation Scholarship and Pedagogy in the Post-Legal Process Era, 48 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 691, 694–701 (1987); Justice Murray Gleeson, Judicial Legitimacy, 20 Aus. B. Rev. 4, 6 (2000); Justice Michael McHugh, The strengths of the weakest arm, 25 Aus. Bar Rev. 181 (2004); Marbury v. Madison, 5 US (1 Cranch) 137, 169.Google Scholar
50 In Re: Ericson, 815 F 2d 1090, 1094 (7th Cir, 1987); Eskridge & Frickey, Statutory Interpretation as Practical Reasoning, supra note 34, at 341-342; Patricia Wald, Some Observations on the Use of Legislative History in the 1981 Supreme Court Term, 68 Iowa L. Rev. 195, 199 (1983); Cass Sunstein, Principles, Not Fictions, 57 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1247, 1247 (1990); Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations 33 (1958); Michael Zander, The lawmaking Process 57 (1980); Theophanous v. Herald & Weekly Times Ltd (1994) 182 CLR 104, 196; Shell Oil Co v. Iowa Department of Revenue, 109 S Ct 278, 281.Google Scholar
51 NLRB v. Federbush Co, 121 F 2d 954, 957 (2nd Cir); Stanley Fish, Change, 86 S. A. Q. 423, 423 (1987); Justice James Spigelman (Opening address), Principle of legality and the clear statement principle, New South Wales Bar Association Conference (2005); Schanck, supra note 44, at 835; John Bell and Sir George Engle, Cross on Statutory interpretation 165–166 (3rd ed., 1995),Google Scholar
52 See for example, Theophanous v Herald & Weekly Times Ltd (1994) 182 CLR 104, 196; Stevens v. Kabushiki Kaisha Sony Computer Entertainment (2005) 224 CLR 193 per McHugh J; Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations v. Gribbles Radiology Pty Ltd, [21] per Gleeson, Hayne, Callinan and Heydon JJ.Google Scholar
53 George Hudson Ltd v Australian Timber Workers Union (1923) 32 CLR 413.Google Scholar
54 National Westminster Bank c v. Spectrum Plus Ltd (2005) AC 680, 64, per Hope L.J.; Babaniaris v. Lutony Fashions Pty Ltd (1987) 163 CLR 1, 13–14, per Mason J.; Takapana Investments Pty Ltd v. Teco Information Systems Co Ltd (1988) 82 FCR 25, 32, per Goldberg J.; Esso Australia Resources Ltd v. FCT (1997) 150 ALR 117, 121; Towney v. Minister for Land and Water Conservation for New South Wales (1997) 147 ALR 402; Nettlefold Advertising Pty Ltd v. Nettlefold Signs Pty Ltd (1998) 90 FCR 453, 470; Telstra Corp Ltd v. Treloar (2000) 102 FCR 595, 603, per Branson and Finkelstein J.J.; Algama v. Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (2001) 115 FCR 253, 263–264, per Whitlam and Katz J.J.; Repatriation Commission v Gorton (2001) 110 FCR 321, 327–341, per Heerey J., 333 per Emmett J, 334–345 per Allsop J; Federal Commissioner of Taxation v. Energy Resources of Australia Ltd (2003) 204 ALR 487, 492–493, per Ryan and Finkelstein J.J.; NATB v. Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2003) 133 FCR 506, 519; Jones v. Daniel (2004) 212 ALR 588, 594, per Moore J; Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs v. Hicks (2004) 138 FCR 475, 477 per Hill J; SOK v Minister for Immigration and Indigenous Affairs (2005) 85 ALD 323, 329, per Branson J, 331, per Marshall J; Vigolo v. Bostin, [25], per Gleeson C.J.; William Eskridge, Overriding Supreme court Statutory Interpretation Decisions, 101 Yale L. J. 331, 397 (1991); Edward Levi, An Introduction to Legal Reasoning, 15 U. Chic. L. Rev. 501, 540 (1948); Burnet v Coronado Oil & Gas Co 285 US 393, 405-407; Erie RR Co v. Tompkins, 304 US 64, 77–78; Apex Hosiery Co v. Leader, 310 US 469, 488-489; Cleveland v. United States, 329 US 14, 18.Google Scholar
55 Lord Harry Woolf, Access to Justice: Interim Report to the Lord Chancellor on the civil justice system in England AND Wales (1995); Queensland v. J L Holdings Pty Ltd (1997) 189 CLR 146; Bright v. Femcare Ltd (2002) 195 ALR 574, 605–606, per Finkelstein J.; Justice James Spigelman, Just, Quick and Cheap: A New Standard for Civil Procedure, 38 L. Soc'y J. 24 (2000); Richard Ackland, Lawyers in Limbo as bar Raised, Sydney Morning Herald 17 (Sydney) 10 March 2000; Justice James Spigelman, Case Management in New South Wales (Speech delivered at the Annual Judges Conference, 22 August 2006).Google Scholar
56 Telstra Corp Ltd v. Treloar, supra note 54, at 602, per Branson and Finkelstein JJ.; Paul Dame, Note: Stare Decisis, Chevron, and Skidmore: Do Administrative Agencies Have the Power to Overrule Courts?, 44 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 405, 405 (2002); Eskridge, supra note 54, 401; Ronald Heiner, Imperfect Decisions and the Law: On the Evolution of Legal Precedent and Rules, 15 J. Legal Stud. 227 (1986); Thomas Lee, Stare Decisis in Economic Perspective: An Economic Analysis of the Supreme Court's Doctrine of Precedent, 78 N. C. L. Rev. 643 (2000); Henry Monaghan, Stare Decisis and Constitutional Adjudication, 88 Colum. L. Rev. 723, 744–746 (1988); Richard Pierce, Reconciling Chevron and Stare Decisis, 85 Geo. L. J. 2225 (1997); Frederick Schauer, Precedent, 39 Stan. L. Rev. 571, 599 (1987); Robert von Moschzisker, Stare Decisis in Courts of Last Resort, 37 Harv. L. Rev. 409, 410 (1924); Morange v. State Marine Lines Inc, 398 US 375, 403, per Harlan J.Google Scholar
57 Lee, supra note 56, at 650-652; Caleb Nelson, Stare Decisis and Demonstrably Erroneous Precedents, 87 Va. L. Rev. 1, 63 (2001).Google Scholar
58 See on the problem of ill-fitting legal-transplants, Pierre Legrand, What “Legal Transplants”?, in Adapting Legal Cultures 55–57 (David Nelson & Johannes Feest eds., 2001); Daniel Berkowitz, Katharina Pistor & Jean-Francois Richard, The Transplant Effect, 51 Am. J. Comp. L. 163 (2003); Otto Kahn Freund, On Uses and Misuses of Comparative Law, 37 Mod. L. Rev. 1 (1974); Maximo Langer, From Legal Transplants to Legal Translations: The Globalization of Plea Bargaining and the Americanization Thesis in Criminal Procedure, 45 Harv. Int'l L. J. 1 (2004); Katharina Pistor, The Standardization of Law and Its Effect on Developing Economies, 50 Am. J. Comp. L. 97 (2002); Hideki Kanda and Curtis J Milhaupt, Re-examining Legal Transplants: The Director's Fiduciary Duty in Japanese Corporate Law, Working Paper No 219, Columbia Law and Economics, (2003). See also: Lake Macquarie Shire Council v. Aberdare County Council (1970) 123 CLR 327, 331. per Barwick C.J.; Street v. Queensland Bar Association (1989) 168 CLR 461, 537, per Dawson J.; McGinty v Western Australia (1996) 186 CLR 140; Singh v. Commonwealth (2004) 209 ALR 355, per McHugh J; Jeffrey Goldsworthy, Originalism in Constitutional Interpretation, 25 Fed. L. Rev. 1 (1997). Follows discussion on obtaining the correct interpretation in: Peter Margulies, Judging Terror in the “Zone of Twilight”: Exigency, Institutional Equity, and Procedure After September 11, 84 B. U. L. Rev. 383 (2004); Lawrence Marshall, “Let Congress Do It”: The Case for An Absolute Rule of Statutory Stare Decisis, 88 Mich. L. Rev. 177, 199 (1989); Thereses Maynard, The Uniform Limited Offering Exemption: How “Uniform” is “Uniform”? -An Evaluation and Critique of the ULOE, 36 Emory L. J. 357, 400 (1987). Implicit in: William N Eskridge, Book Review: No Frills Textualism: Judging Under Uncertainty, 119 Harv. L. Rev. 2041, (2006); Michael Healy, Communis Opinio and the Methods of Statutory Interpretation: Interpreting Law or Changing Law, 43 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 539, 622 (2001); Stephen Ross and Daniel Tranen, The Modern Parol Evidence Rule and Its Implications for New Textualist Statutory Interpretation, 87 Geo. L.J. 195 (1998).Google Scholar
59 On the legislative process see: Johnstone, supra note 42, at 15; Evans, supra note 42, at 2; Harris, Wright and Fowler, supra note 42; Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, supra note 42.Google Scholar
60 Christiansen, Thomas, Falkner, Gerda & Jorgensen, Knud Erik, Theorizing EU treaty reform: beyond diplomacy and bargaining, 9 J. Euro. Pub. Pol 12 (2002); Gerda Falkner, EU treaty reform as a three-level process, 9 J. Euro. Pub. Pol 1 (2009); Vincy Fon and Francesco Parisi, The Formation of International Treaties, 3 Rev. L. & Econ. 37 (2007); Morten F Greve and Knud Erik Jorgensen, Treaty reform as constitutional politics – a longitudinal view, 9 J. Euro. Pub. Pol (2002). See also on the cost of legislating, Eskridge, supra note 39, at 1525; Eskridge, supra note 58; Marshall, supra note 58, at 197-200; Ross and Tranen, supra note 58; Amanda Tyler, Continuity, Coherence, and the Canons, 99 Nw. U. L. Rev. 1389, 1409-1410 (2005).Google Scholar
61 Elhauge, Einer, Preference-Eliciting Statutory Default Rules, 102 Colum. L. Rev. 2162 (2002); Einer Elhauge, Preference-Estimating Statutory Default Rules, 102 Colum. L. Rev. 2027, 2087 (2002).Google Scholar
62 Emile Durkheim, The Division of Labour in Society (1893).Google Scholar
63 Eskridge, supra note 39, at 1525;Google Scholar
64 Tyler, supra note 60, at 1408–1409.Google Scholar
65 Pierce, supra note 56, at 2238; Schauer, supra note 56, at 572–575.Google Scholar
66 See on the unpredictability of “vague” language, hadfield, weighing the value of vagueness: an economic Perspective on Precision in the law 541–543 (1994); Kolender v. Lawson, 461 US 352 (1983).Google Scholar
67 Telstra Corp Ltd v. Treloar, supra note 54, at 602, per Branson and Finkelstein J.J.; Justice Murray Gleeson, The State of the Judicature, 76 Austral. L. J. 24, 29–30 (2002); Susan Kenny, Maintaining Public Confidence in the Judiciary: A Precarious Equilibrium, 25 Melb. U. L. Rev. 209 (1999); Justice Michael Kirby, Precedent law, practice and trends in Australia, 28 Austral. Bar Rev. 243, 243 (2007); McHugh, supra note 49; Pierce, supra note 56, at 2239; Justice James Spigelman, Negligence: The Last Outpost of the Welfare State, 76 Austral. L. J. 432 (2002).Google Scholar
68 Kenny, supra note 67; McHugh, supra note 49, at 192.Google Scholar
69 Follows the discussions in: Monaghan, supra note 56, at 749-753; Pierce, supra note 56, at 2241; Ronald Sackville, Continuity and Judicial Creativity - Some Observations, 20 Univ. of N. S. Wales L. J. 145, 149 (1997). See e.g. Theophanous v. Herald & Weekly Times Ltd, and the reaction in: Margo Kingston, Government Reversal on Free Speech, Sydney Morning Herald (Sydney), 2 October 1996, at 1. See also City of Akron v. Akron Centre for Reproductive Health Inc 463 US 416, 419-420; Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 492 US 490, 518-519; Planned Parenthood v Casey, 202 US 833, 845–869.Google Scholar
70 Thompson v. Byrne (1999) 161 ALR 632, 646 per McHugh J; Larry Alexander, Constrained by Precedent, 63 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1, 9-13 (1989); Meir Dan-Cohen, Bureaucratic Organizations and the Theory of Adjudication, 85 Colum. L. Rev. 1, 31 (1985); Randall Graham, ‘A Unified Theory of Statutory Interpretation', supra note 33; Jennifer McGruther, Chevron vs. Stare Decisis, 81 Wash. U. L. Q. 6, 612 (2003); Alfonso Miguel, Equality before the Law and Precedent, 10 Ratio Juris 372 (1997); Pierce, supra note 56, at 2243; Justice Antonin Scalia, The Rule of Law as a Law of Rules, 56 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1175, 1178 (1989); Schauer, supra note 56, at 595-598; Pamela Stephens, The new retroactivity doctrine: equality, reliance and stare decisis, 48 Syracuse L. Rev. 1515 (1998).Google Scholar
71 Telstra Corp Ltd v. Treloar, supra note 54, at 602, per Branson and Finkelstein J.J.; Dame, supra note 56, at 405; Pierce, supra note 56; Morange v. State Marine Lines Inc, 403, per Harlan J.Google Scholar
72 See on constitutional law: Lake Macquarie Shire Council v. Aberdare County Council; Street v Queensland Bar Association; McGinty v Western Australia; Singh v Commonwealth.Google Scholar
73 See on the importance of geographic equality: Leeth v. Commonwealth (1992) 174 CLR 455; McGruther, supra note 70. See also, Burrows, Remedial Coherence and Punitive Damages in Equity, supra note 23, at 390; Justice Peter Young, Equity, Contract and Conscience, in Equity in Commercial law 512 (Simone Degeling & James Edelman eds., 2005); Aquaculture Corporation v. New Zealand Green Mussel Co. Ltd. (1990) 3 NSLR 299, per Cooke P; Burrows, supra note 23; Michael Tilbury, Fallacy or Furphy? Fusion in a Judicature World, 26 U. N. S. Wales L. J. 357, 358 (2003).Google Scholar
74 Of course, this addresses only one concern with MiFID and the Takeover Directive. It does not address all concerns. For example, there are arguments that some of the specific provisions in MiFID and the Takeover Directive are inappropriate.Google Scholar
You have
Access