1-8 of 8 Results

  • Keyword: comity x
Clear all

Chapter

Ross Cranston, Emilios Avgouleas, Kristin van Zweiten, Theodor van Sante, and Christoper Hare

This chapter first sets out seven cases that illustrate some of the legal problems arising from international banking. Many of these cases are not new, nor are most confined to banking. The chapter outlines of how these problems have been handled followed by an examination of the broader principles underlying the resolution of the harder cases. Comity, balancing, cooperation, and harmonization are considered. Jurisdictional clashes over banking matters continue to occur. Some are resolvable in accordance with established legal doctrine, some in accordance with bilateral and multilateral agreements between states. There remains a question mark over how much is achievable in reducing the conflict by pursuing notions of jurisdiction, comity, and the balancing of interests. Rather, shared concerns on substantive issues, such as money laundering and terrorist financing, are more likely to lead to deference by, and cooperation between, jurisdictions.

Chapter

At common law, the judges will hold administrative conduct to be unlawful on any of three grounds: error of law, lack of due process, or the improper exercise of discretionary power. This chapter discusses how (and to what extent) the three grounds of judicial review are supported by constitutional principle. Each ground must be controlled by the principle of comity. The principle of comity requires judges to defer to administrative authorities on some issues, to some extent; the chapter explains the limits of deference, and the difference—and the connections—between the rule of law and the rule of judges.

Chapter

At common law, the judges will hold administrative conduct to be unlawful on any of three grounds: error of law (and certain sorts of error of fact), lack of due process, and the improper exercise of discretionary power. This chapter discusses how (and to what extent) the three grounds of judicial review are supported by constitutional principle. Each ground must be controlled by the principle of comity. The principle of comity requires judges to defer to administrative authorities on some issues, to some extent; the chapter explains the limits of deference and the difference—and the connections—between the rule of law and the rule of judges.

Chapter

This chapter examines the issue of jurisdictional problems in competition law, at the ‘internationalisation’ of competition law and the efforts to deal with competition issues at a global level to match the global operations of undertakings on world markets.. It looks first at the question of extraterritoriality in public international law, particularly the concept of objective territoriality. It considers the distinction between prescriptive jurisdiction and enforcement jurisdiction and how these might apply to competition law. It then looks at the development of the effects doctrine in US law and the concept of comity, and at the position of foreign plaintiffs in US courts. It considers how the EU takes jurisdiction by the application of the single economic entity doctrine and by the development of the implementation doctrine and the qualified effects doctrine. The chapter concludes by examining how international cooperation seeks to help solve jurisdictional problems. It looks at the bilateral agreements into which the EU has entered, and the multilateral cooperation to which the EU is party, including cooperation within UNCTAD, the OECD, the WTO and the International Competition Network (ICN).

Chapter

This chapter draws a distinction between public, institutional enforcement of competition law, which may raise issues of public international law, and private actions before national courts. The coexistence of competition law regimes around the world means that companies that trade internationally may find themselves subject to the law of a ‘foreign’ state. While in the US the effects doctrine is relied on to assert jurisdiction, in the EU there has been no explicit adoption of the effects doctrine. Instead, the EU relies upon an ‘implementation’ doctrine. Under principles of comity a state may recognize the interests of another state when applying its competition law. Multilateral initiatives have been taken to try to resolve difficulties, but there is at present no single global agreement on competition law.

Chapter

This chapter explains the overlapping ideas of natural justice, procedural fairness, and due process, and discusses the importance of comity between judges and administrative agencies. The elements of process are outlined: notice and disclosure, oral hearings, waiver, reconsideration, and appeals. Proportionality is presented as a general principle of the procedural duties of public authorities, and the chapter explains the three process values: procedural requirements can improve decisions, treat people with respect, and subject the administration to the rule of law. The chapter explains the irony of process: the law must sometimes require procedures that impose disproportionate burdens on administrative authorities, in order to protect due process. The chapter concludes with an explanation of discretion in process, and of the potential dangers involved in administrative processes.

Chapter

This chapter explains the overlapping ideas of natural justice, procedural fairness, and due process, and discusses the importance of comity between judges and administrative agencies. The elements of process are outlined: notice and disclosure, oral hearings, waiver, reconsideration, and appeals. Proportionality is presented as a general principle of the procedural duties of public authorities, and the chapter explains the three process values: procedural requirements can improve decisions, treat people with respect, and subject the administration to the rule of law. The chapter explains the irony of process: the law must sometimes require procedures that impose disproportionate burdens on administrative authorities, in order to protect due process. The chapter concludes with an explanation of discretion in process and of the potential dangers involved in administrative processes.

Chapter

This chapter explores the international dimension of competition law from two perspectives. It begins by describing the growth of international institutions involved in the development of competition law and policy, with particular reference to the International Competition Network (the ‘ICN’), the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (the ‘OECD’) and the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (‘UNCTAD’). It then looks at a more technical issue, which is the extent to which a sovereign state (or the European Union) can apply its competition law extraterritorially to conduct beyond its borders that has a harmful effect within it: this will briefly be considered from a theoretical perspective, after which the positions in the US, EU and UK will be examined in turn. The chapter concludes by briefly examining the extent to which a state may wish to block the application of a foreign competition law to its businesses.