1,659 research outputs found
Can markets do the job of regulators?
No full textThere are four common types of market failures that support a call for regulatory intervention. Three of these were identifiable during the Banking Royal Commission, writes law school head and regulation expert Dr Benedict Sheehy
Law, the Sharing Economy, and Platform Technology Businesses
No full textIn this innovative book, Juan Diaz-Granados and Benedict Sheehy offer a meticulous examination of the legal foundations, structures and challenges, as well as potential solutions for the legal and regulatory issues posed by the rise of platform-based businesses. With examples drawn from the Sharing Economy, such as Uber and Airbnb, Diaz-Granados and Sheehy demonstrate how law facilitates and constrains the operation of these companies as they deliver convenient goods and services. They offer fresh insights into how and why these platforms disrupt existing legal norms, economic markets and social practices.</p
Recommended from our members
Law, the sharing economy, and platform technology businesses /
No full text"In this innovative book, Juan Diaz-Granados and Benedict Sheehy offer a meticulous examination of the legal foundations, structures and challenges, as well as potential solutions for the legal and regulatory issues posed by the rise of platform-based businesses. With examples drawn from the Sharing Economy, such as Uber and Airbnb, Diaz-Granados and Sheehy demonstrate how law facilitates and constrains the operation of these companies as they deliver convenient goods and services. They offer fresh insights into how and why these platforms disrupt existing legal norms, economic markets and social practices. The authors' analysis provides an innovative law-based model, the Platform Operator-User-Provider model ("PUP"), which forms a foundation for their evaluation. Using this model, they are able to identify and differentiate a variety of PUPs not previously understood, but which differentiation makes their analysis and regulation significantly clearer. They explore potential legal categorizations of the PUP's actors and their relationships and propose a novel regulatory approach consistent with the PUP's triangular structure. This novel approach balances private interests with the public good by addressing power imbalances in the Sharing Economy. It supports platform operators' private interests while implementing publicly oriented regulations that favor consumers and workers in ways that see all of law's obligations fulfilled while delivering both the economic boon and the social promise of technology. An essential read for advanced law students, academics, legal professionals, policymakers and judges, this book offers critical insights and useful analytical frameworks to understand the Sharing Economy's platform technology businesses from a legal perspective"-
The Ministry of The Sisters of the Order St. Benedict in the Province of Alberta 1955 to 2011
Full text linkNotes - A history of the Sisters of the Order St. Benedict in Oyen, AB from 1955 to 2011 (2 pages
Soft Law
No full textSoft law is a category of law that is not enforced by public authorities. Rather, it is type of norms or principles that are an expression of what is generally accepted among parties to whom it applies. As such, it is intended to influence the conduct of parties rather than force parties into certain types of behaviors that comply with the rules (Cini 2000). The term “soft law” covers a wide range of instruments that have different focuses. As a result, it is difficult to formulate a comprehensive, coherent set of criteria to include an instrument in the category of soft law. Soft law includes rules, principles, norms, and prescriptions and can be found in contracts, resolutions, recommendations, codes of conduct, and whole host of other instruments such as standards and guide (Boyle 1999; Weeks 2016; Sheehy 2019). In summary, soft law can be defined as “normative provisions contained in non-binding texts” (Shelton 2000)
Corporate social responsibility, sustainability, sustainable development and corporate sustainability:What is the difference, and does it matter?
Full text linkThe terms “corporate social responsibility” (CSR), “sustainability”, “sustainable develop-ment” and “corporate sustainability” (CS) are critical terms for developing, analysing and evaluating public and private policy goals. These terms are used to make decisions about investment, policy development, and strategy creation. The terms emerged in different fields of endeavour at different points in time. Accordingly, they have different meanings; however, over time they have come to be used interchangeably mixing up policy agendas, confusing managers, regulators, activists and the public at large. We demonstrate that CSR is the best term for focusing on individual business organisations, “corporate sustainability” is an organisation level environmental policy, “sustainable development” is a public policy, and “sustainability” is the broadest term encompassing global local and organisational levels.</p
OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises
No full textThe OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises are far reaching recommendations for responsible business conduct that 42 adhering governments – representing all regions of the world and accounting for 85% of foreign direct investment – encourage their enterprises to observe wherever they operate. The Guidelines were updated in 2011 for the fifth time since they were first adopted in 1976. This booklet contains the official version of the text, implementation procedures and commentary of the 2011 update
Corporate Militaries and States: Actors, Interactions and Reactions
No full textFollowing the military forces of the United States and the United Kingdom, private military firms (PMFs) make up the third largest contingent in Iraq. These corporate warriors are large enough to launch invasions of small sovereign states and are often employed by whomever has sufficient funds to retain their services. Such entities create serious challenges for modern international law. In their article, Virginia Newell and Benedict Sheehy approach the PMF conundrum from a number of different perspectives so as to better elucidate the difficulties that states have had, are having, and will face in the future, as they strive to effectively utilize, and at the same time regulate, PMFs. The first part of the article concentrates on the definitional problems one encounters when attempting to conceptualize PMFs and their activity. The second part explores the different types of interactions between PMFs and states and queries whether the key to effective regulation is to focus on the nature of the interactions. The final part explores the variety and efficacy of the different state regulatory regimes that have been imposed on PMF
Interview with Benedict Anderson
No full textOn October 1, 2008, Benedict Anderson presented a talk at Columbia University in which he discussed his upcoming book, a biography of the Chinese-Indonesian journalist Kwee Thiam Tjing. Having found a book of Kwee’s writings in a second-hand bookshop in Indonesia in 1962, Anderson describes his surprise that no one could identify the pseudonymous author, who wrote what Anderson considers to be “the greatest piece of prose written in the first half of the 20th century by anybody in Indonesia.” For years after Kwee’s death, Anderson explains, details of the journalist’s life and work were forgotten. It was only recently that Anderson was himself able to write about the author, in the process considering the role of cosmopolitanism in the life of the colonial subject
Business Judgment Rule
No full textThe business judgment rule is a rule in corporate law which provides directors of a business corporation a defense in lawsuits where corporate decisions have been challenged in the courts. The rule provides a defense where directors can demonstrate that they have acted in good faith. The rule is based on the general corporate law principle that the courts will not impose liability where a corporate decision has had negative consequences for the company provided that the directors have acted in the best interests of the company when taking those decisions (Arsht 1979; Sheehy and Feaver 2014)
- …
