The Experts below are selected from a list of 206319 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Patricia L Bellia - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
wikileaks and the Institutional Framework for national security disclosures
2012Co-Authors: Patricia L BelliaAbstract:WikiLeaks’ successive disclosures of classified U.S. documents throughout 2010 and 2011 invite comparison to publishers’ decisions forty years ago to release portions of the Pentagon Papers, the classified analytic history of U.S. policy in Vietnam. The analogy is a powerful weapon for WikiLeaks’ defenders. The Supreme Court’s decision in the Pentagon Papers case signaled that the task of weighing whether to publicly disclose leaked national security information would fall to publishers, not the executive or the courts, at least in the absence of an exceedingly grave threat of harm.The lessons of the Pentagon Papers case for WikiLeaks, however, are more complicated than they may first appear. The Court’s per curiam opinion masks areas of substantial disagreement as well as a number of shared assumptions among the Court’s members. Specifically, the Pentagon Papers case reflects an Institutional Framework for downstream disclosure of leaked national security information, under which publishers within the reach of U.S. law would weigh the potential harms and benefits of disclosure against the backdrop of potential criminal penalties and recognized journalistic norms. The WikiLeaks disclosures show the instability of this Framework by revealing new challenges for controlling the downstream disclosure of leaked information and the corresponding likelihood of “unintermediated” disclosure by an insider; the risks of non-media intermediaries attempting to curtail such disclosures, in response to government pressure or otherwise; and the pressing need to prevent and respond to leaks at the source.
-
wikileaks and the Institutional Framework for national security disclosures
Yale Law Journal, 2012Co-Authors: Patricia L BelliaAbstract:WikiLeaks’ successive disclosures of classified U.S. documents throughout 2010 and 2011 invite comparison to publishers’ decisions forty years ago to release portions of the Pentagon Papers, the classified analytic history of U.S. policy in Vietnam. The analogy is a powerful weapon for WikiLeaks’ defenders. The Supreme Court’s decision in the Pentagon Papers case signaled that the task of weighing whether to publicly disclose leaked national security information would fall to publishers, not the executive or the courts, at least in the absence of an exceedingly grave threat of harm. The lessons of the Pentagon Papers case for WikiLeaks, however, are more complicated than they may first appear. The Court’s per curiam opinion masks areas of substantial disagreement as well as a number of shared assumptions among the Court’s members. Specifically, the Pentagon Papers case reflects an Institutional Framework for downstream disclosure of leaked national security information, under which publishers within the reach of U.S. law would weigh the potential harms and benefits of disclosure against the backdrop of potential criminal penalties and recognized journalistic norms. The WikiLeaks disclosures show the instability of this Framework by revealing new challenges for controlling the downstream disclosure of leaked information and the corresponding likelihood of “unintermediated” disclosure by an insider; the risks of non-media intermediaries attempting to curtail such disclosures, in response to government pressure or otherwise; and the pressing need to prevent and respond to leaks at the source. author. Professor of Law and Notre Dame Presidential Fellow, Notre Dame Law School. I thank A.J. Bellia, Rick Garnett, Nicole Garnett, Andrea Matwyshyn, John Nagle, and Mary-Rose Papandrea for thoughtful discussions and comments, and research librarian Christopher O’Byrne for expert research assistance. wikileaks and national security disclosures 1449 feature contents
Tracy Dennison - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the Institutional Framework of russian serfdom
Cambridge Books, 2014Co-Authors: Tracy DennisonAbstract:Russian rural history has long been based on a 'Peasant Myth', originating with nineteenth-century Romantics and still accepted by many historians today. In this book, Tracy Dennison shows how Russian society looked from below, and finds nothing like the collective, redistributive and market-averse behaviour often attributed to Russian peasants. On the contrary, the Russian rural population was as integrated into regional and even national markets as many of its west European counterparts. Serfdom was a loose garment that enabled different landlords to shape economic institutions, especially property rights, in widely diverse ways. Highly coercive and backward regimes on some landlords' estates existed side-by-side with surprisingly liberal approximations to a rule of law. This book paints a vivid and colourful picture of the everyday reality of rural Russia before the 1861 abolition of serfdom.
-
The Institutional Framework of Russian Serfdom
2011Co-Authors: Tracy DennisonAbstract:1. Why is Russia different? Culture, geography, institutions 2. Voshchazhnikovo: a microcosm of nineteenth-century Russia 3. Household structure and family economy 4. The rural commune 5. Land and property markets 6. Labour markets 7. Credit and savings 8. Retail markets and consumption 9. The Institutional Framework of Russian serfdom.
Martin Schmidt - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Changing the Institutional Framework of Statutory Audit: Internal Stakeholders' Perceptions of the Associated Benefit and Costs
European Accounting Review, 2014Co-Authors: Klaus Ruhnke, Martin SchmidtAbstract:AbstractThis paper analyses the expected benefits and costs associated with changes to the Institutional Framework of statutory audits. We focus on five changes: Mandatory external audit firm rotation, auditor appointment by an independent regulator, a general ban on providing non-audit services, a ban on providing non-audit services to audit clients, and mandatory joint audits. We survey supervisory board members and management representatives from German companies to analyse how these changes affect the following beneficial attributes: Client-specific expertise and knowledge, general professional competence and expertise, independence and professional scepticism, and reputation. Our results show that none of the proposed changes is expected to increase the benefit of audits. A ban on non-audit services to audit clients is perceived to have the least disadvantageous effect, followed by a general ban on non-audit services, mandatory external audit firm rotation, appointment by an independent regulator, an...
-
Changing the Institutional Framework of the Statutory Audit: Internal Stakeholders’ Perceptions of the Associated Benefits and Costs
2014Co-Authors: Klaus Ruhnke, Martin SchmidtAbstract:This paper analyses the expected benefits and costs associated with changes to the Institutional Framework of statutory audits. We focus on five changes: Mandatory external audit firm rotation, auditor appointment by an independent regulator, a general ban on providing non-audit services, a ban on providing non-audit services to audit clients, and mandatory joint audits. We survey supervisory board members and management representatives from German companies to analyse how these changes affect the following beneficial attributes: Client-specific expertise and knowledge, general expertise, independence and professional scepticism, and reputation. Our results show that none of the proposed changes is expected to increase the benefit of audits. A ban on non-audit services to audit clients is perceived to have the least disadvantageous effect, followed by a general ban on non-audit services, mandatory external audit firm rotation, appointment by an independent regulator, and mandatory joint audits. Although all changes are expected to increase auditor independence and professional scepticism, this increase is offset by a decrease in other beneficial attributes, particularly client-specific expertise and knowledge. Compared to supervisory board members, management representatives anticipate significantly larger decreases in the benefit of audits and significantly larger increases in costs.
Michael J Lynskey - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
transformative technology and Institutional transformation coevolution of biotechnology venture firms and the Institutional Framework in japan
Research Policy, 2006Co-Authors: Michael J LynskeyAbstract:Abstract Japan is developing a national strategy for biotechnology, which it sees as a transformative technology of strategic importance. Significant Institutional transformation has occurred, including changes to the legal structure of universities, partly in an effort to enhance technology transfer. These and other Institutional changes are proving conducive to entrepreneurship, and have developed alongside an increase in the number of biotechnology venture firms. This paper presents an overview of these Institutional transformations, in the light of recent deregulation and legislative changes. It posits that the emergence of bioventure firms, the increase in their number and, arguably, their changing nature are manifestations of the coevolution of organizations with changes to the Institutional Framework. Finally, it gives examples of several bioventures, based on interviews conducted with the founders and chief scientists in Japan, and reveals some of the salient characteristics of these firms.
Klaus Ruhnke - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Changing the Institutional Framework of Statutory Audit: Internal Stakeholders' Perceptions of the Associated Benefit and Costs
European Accounting Review, 2014Co-Authors: Klaus Ruhnke, Martin SchmidtAbstract:AbstractThis paper analyses the expected benefits and costs associated with changes to the Institutional Framework of statutory audits. We focus on five changes: Mandatory external audit firm rotation, auditor appointment by an independent regulator, a general ban on providing non-audit services, a ban on providing non-audit services to audit clients, and mandatory joint audits. We survey supervisory board members and management representatives from German companies to analyse how these changes affect the following beneficial attributes: Client-specific expertise and knowledge, general professional competence and expertise, independence and professional scepticism, and reputation. Our results show that none of the proposed changes is expected to increase the benefit of audits. A ban on non-audit services to audit clients is perceived to have the least disadvantageous effect, followed by a general ban on non-audit services, mandatory external audit firm rotation, appointment by an independent regulator, an...
-
Changing the Institutional Framework of the Statutory Audit: Internal Stakeholders’ Perceptions of the Associated Benefits and Costs
2014Co-Authors: Klaus Ruhnke, Martin SchmidtAbstract:This paper analyses the expected benefits and costs associated with changes to the Institutional Framework of statutory audits. We focus on five changes: Mandatory external audit firm rotation, auditor appointment by an independent regulator, a general ban on providing non-audit services, a ban on providing non-audit services to audit clients, and mandatory joint audits. We survey supervisory board members and management representatives from German companies to analyse how these changes affect the following beneficial attributes: Client-specific expertise and knowledge, general expertise, independence and professional scepticism, and reputation. Our results show that none of the proposed changes is expected to increase the benefit of audits. A ban on non-audit services to audit clients is perceived to have the least disadvantageous effect, followed by a general ban on non-audit services, mandatory external audit firm rotation, appointment by an independent regulator, and mandatory joint audits. Although all changes are expected to increase auditor independence and professional scepticism, this increase is offset by a decrease in other beneficial attributes, particularly client-specific expertise and knowledge. Compared to supervisory board members, management representatives anticipate significantly larger decreases in the benefit of audits and significantly larger increases in costs.
