The Experts below are selected from a list of 3729 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Linda S. Mullenix - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
New Trends in Standing and Res Judicata for Collective Suits, Report for Common Law Countries
2007Co-Authors: Linda S. MullenixAbstract:This General Report, as part of the Proceedings of the XIII World Congress of Procedural Law on the topic of new trends in procedural Law, gathers the national reports of Common Law countries relating to new trends in standing and res judicata in collective actions. The national reports include description and analyses from Australia (authored by Dr. Peter Cashman), Canada (authored by Dr. Craig E. Jones), England and Wales (authored by Dr. Rachel Mulheron), and the United States (authored by Prof. Margaret Y.K. Woo). Although every effort was extended to conform the Common Law reports on standing and res judicata to parallel civil Law countries, the reports diverge in coverage and analysis because the civil Law appreciation of collective actions is different than that of civil Law countries.Because of conceptual and linguistic differences, some concepts in civil Law countries, in relation to collective suits, have no counterparts in Common Law countries. Similarly, Common Law countries have developed some rules, procedures, and doctrines, or jurisprudence that is alien to civil Law regimes. Hence, parallelism has been preserved where it makes sense and has been omitted where there is no Common Law analogue to civil Law concepts. However, in those instances where Common Law has analytical concepts not present in civil Law systems, these divergences have been noted.Part I of this report contains a description and summary of the national reports. These national reports summarize the status of collective actions or Lawsuits in their respective jurisdictions. As will be seen, the status of collective actions in the Common Law countries is derivative either of legislative or judicial rulemaking sources. Differences in the treatment of collective actions in Common Law countries are partially the consequences of the governmental structure of each Common Law Country. Hence, as Australia is a federation comprised of several states, an appreciation of the Australian collective action reflects state-enacted provisions, as well as federal legislation. This is true in Canada, as well, where collective actions are the consequence of legislative initiatives from independent Canadian provinces. In the United Kingdom and Wales, the availability of collective actions again is derivative of the particular jurisdiction. In the United States, collective actions may be pursued in a two-tier court system. The discussion of collective actions for the United States focuses on federal procedure in the federal courts. However, it should be kept in mind that collective actions may be pursued in state courts in the United States, pursuant to local rules.Part B canvasses the experience of Common Law countries, each of which has some legislative statutes or judicially-created rules that provides for collective or class action litigation. Common Law countries have fairly well-developed systems of collective actions, in comparison to civil Law countries where such concepts are relatively recent. Among the Common Law countries, the United States had perhaps the oldest or most longstanding experience with collective actions, in the form of the American class action. The American class action is a rule-based system for aggregating claims into a representative action. In both Australia and Canada, several (but not all) states and provinces have enacted class legislation which is modeled on the American class action rule, but diverges from the American model in several crucial respects. In addition, the jurisprudence surrounding class actions in Australian states and Canadian provinces has developed independent of American class action jurisprudence. Finally, collective actions in the United Kingdom, Scotland, and Wales are conceptually the most remote from the American class action model.Part II of this general report then turns to a consideration of the narrower topics in the jurisprudence of collective actions: namely, the current status of concepts of standing and res judicata in class actions or collective actions. This section begins with an introduction that outlines Anglo-American Common Law concepts of collective rights, in comparison to concepts held by civil Law jurisdictions. This section of the report also considers the role of defendant classes in each Country’s jurisprudence, as well as concepts of due process and opt-in and opt-out rights.
-
General Report on Common Law Countries, New Trends in Procedure
2007Co-Authors: Linda S. MullenixAbstract:This General Report, as part of the Proceedings of the XIII World Congress of Procedural Law on the topic of new trends in procedural Law, gathers the national reports of Common Law countries relating to new trends in standing and res judicata in collective actions. The national reports include description and analyses from Australia (authored by Dr. Peter Cashman), Canada (authored by Dr. Craig E. Jones), England and Wales (authored by Dr. Rachel Mulheron), and the United States (authored by Prof. Margaret Y.K. Woo). Although every effort was extended to conform the Common Law reports on standing and res judicata to parallel civil Law countries, the reports diverge in coverage and analysis because the civil Law appreciation of collective actions is different than that of civil Law countries.Because of conceptual and linguistic differences, some concepts in civil Law countries, in relation to collective suits, have no counterparts in Common Law countries. Similarly, Common Law countries have developed some rules, procedures, and doctrines, or jurisprudence that is alien to civil Law regimes. Hence, parallelism has been preserved where it makes sense and has been omitted where there is no Common Law analogue to civil Law concepts. However, in those instances where Common Law has analytical concepts not present in civil Law systems, these divergences have been noted.Part I of this report contains a description and summary of the national reports. These national reports summarize the status of collective actions or Lawsuits in their respective jurisdictions. As will be seen, the status of collective actions in the Common Law countries is derivative either of legislative or judicial rulemaking sources. Differences in the treatment of collective actions in Common Law countries are partially the consequences of the governmental structure of each Common Law Country. Hence, as Australia is a federation comprised of several states, an appreciation of the Australian collective action reflects state-enacted provisions, as well as federal legislation. This is true in Canada, as well, where collective actions are the consequence of legislative initiatives from independent Canadian provinces. In the United Kingdom and Wales, the availability of collective actions again is derivative of the particular jurisdiction. In the United States, collective actions may be pursued in a two-tier court system. The discussion of collective actions for the United States focuses on federal procedure in the federal courts. However, it should be kept in mind that collective actions may be pursued in state courts in the United States, pursuant to local rules.Part B canvasses the experience of Common Law countries, each of which has some legislative statutes or judicially-created rules that provides for collective or class action litigation. Common Law countries have fairly well-developed systems of collective actions, in comparison to civil Law countries where such concepts are relatively recent. Among the Common Law countries, the United States had perhaps the oldest or most longstanding experience with collective actions, in the form of the American class action. The American class action is a rule-based system for aggregating claims into a representative action. In both Australia and Canada, several (but not all) states and provinces have enacted class legislation which is modeled on the American class action rule, but diverges from the American model in several crucial respects. In addition, the jurisprudence surrounding class actions in Australian states and Canadian provinces has developed independent of American class action jurisprudence. Finally, collective actions in the United Kingdom, Scotland, and Wales are conceptually the most remote from the American class action model.Part II of this general report then turns to a consideration of the narrower topics in the jurisprudence of collective actions: namely, the current status of concepts of standing and res judicata in class actions or collective actions. This section begins with an introduction that outlines Anglo-American Common Law concepts of collective rights, in comparison to concepts held by civil Law jurisdictions. This section of the report also considers the role of defendant classes in each Country’s jurisprudence, as well as concepts of due process and opt-in and opt-out rights.
Frederick Steimling - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Expanding Telecommunications Services in a New Age: How Legal Traditions and Licensing Procedures Impact Telecommunications Industries Around the World
2019Co-Authors: Frederick SteimlingAbstract:This is an empirical study of the differences in quality and price of telecommunication services in 38 countries. The countries are categorized based on their legal tradition (i.e. civil or Common Law) and spectrum licensing procedure (i.e. auction or comparative hearing). In theory, comparing indicators used by the World Bank, International Telecommunications Union, and other organizations to measure prices and assess the quality of a Country’s telecommunication industry will indicate which policy approaches have improved the overall quality of the telecommunications industry. The report also discusses how “successful” regulators have introduced competition in the telecommunications industry and demonstrates what countries falling behind might achieve if they adjust their policies appropriately. Since there are several possible explanations for the observed differences, the study controls for factors that may explain for the observed differences aside from legal tradition, including population density, rural population, and GDP per capita and in the analysis of licensing procedure, the study controls aforementioned variables as well as corruption and the strength of legal rights. The report concludes that status as either a civil or Common Law Country and a Country’s choice of licensing procedure strongly influence national telecommunications industries as measured by subscribership, accessibility, costs, the market share of leading operators, and broadband speeds. In five of six the indicators, civil Law countries outperformed their Common Law counterparts in terms of quality of service measures and consumer prices. In five of the six indicators, auction countries seemingly have created higher quality telecommunication industries. Neither legal tradition nor licensing procedure seem to have a measurable effect on the cost of broadband services.
Jo-anne Wemmers - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Victim Policy Transfer: Learning From Each Other
European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 2005Co-Authors: Jo-anne WemmersAbstract:This paper looks at the recent introduction of victim impact statements in several European countries. It asks whether victim impact statements are a positive addition to victim policy and practice in Europe and examines the challenges of adapting to the civil legal tradition a tool that was developed in a Common Law Country.
Priya Lele - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Law finance and politics the case of india
Law & Society Review, 2009Co-Authors: John Armour, Priya LeleAbstract:The process of liberalisation of India's economy since 1991 has brought with it considerable development both of its financial markets and the legal institutions which support these. An influential body of recent economic work asserts that a Country's 'legal origin'-as a civilian or Common Law jurisdiction-plays an important part in determining the development of its investor protection regulations, and consequently its financial development. An alternative theory claims that the determinants of investor protection are political, rather than legal. We use the case of India to test these theories. We find little support for the idea that India's legal heritage as a Common Law Country has been influential in speeding the path of regulatory reforms and financial development. There is a complementarity between (i) India's relative success in services and software, (ii) the relative strength of its financial markets for outside equity, as opposed to outside debt, and (iii) the relative success of stock market regulation, as opposed to reforms of creditor rights. We conclude that political explanations have more traction in explaining the case of India than do theories based on 'legal origins'.
John J. Capowski - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
China’s Uniform Provisions of Evidence of the People's Court and the Convergence of Civil Law and Common Law
SSRN Electronic Journal, 2009Co-Authors: John J. CapowskiAbstract:With recent judicial reforms in both civil and Common Law jurisdictions, the distinctions between the two systems are lessening. As these reforms continue, the civil Law/Common Law categories are loosing meaning and, except as an historical construct, may become irrelevant. One hallmark of the civil Law system has been the judge who frames issues and calls and questions witnesses. Other civil Law characteristics include a reliance upon written evidence, minimal use of precedent, and an indistinct trial process. Conversely, Common Law systems grant attorneys great control over the trial process, have complex codes controlling the introduction of evidence, rely heavily upon precedent, and have a distinct trial process. Now in many civil Law countries, attorneys are taking a lead role in calling and questioning witnesses. At the same time, Common Law judges are becoming more active in framing issues and controlling the litigation process. China, a traditionally civil Law Country, is in the process of developing and adopting rules of evidence that are partially inspired by the evidence rules in place in the United States, a Common Law Country. In developing and implementing the Uniform Provisions of Evidence, China’s reform effort mirrors the merger in civil Law and Common Law countries that is taking place in so many other countries. This article focuses on the historical distinctions between civil and Common Law countries, the merger that is taking place between the two systems, and China’s Draft Uniform Provisions of Evidence as an example of this harmonization of the civil and Common Law systems.