No abstract

Use policyThe full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that:• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.Please consult the full DRO policy for further details. Abstract: In this Article, we intend to fill a gap in the comparative law literature by adopting a case-based approach to comparative corporate law that highlights the important dimension of specific cases in corporate law matters and how identifiable, but limited issues arising from such case disputes are resolved in different jurisdictions. Our study is based on ten cases used in a wider research project and their solutions in ten countries: eight European countries, the United States, and Japan. We assess the solutions to these cases using quantitative methods of network and cluster analysis. We also seek to enquire whether conceptual differences exist between countries in terms of the source, form, style, and substance of the legal rules which comprise their corporate laws. The findings of this assessment are used to evaluate arguments developed in the academic comparative company literature which posit that the existence of fundamental differences in the protection of shareholders across countries reduces the scope for convergence in corporate law systems. The case-based evaluation is also applied to make a contribution towards other influential theories in comparative law, particularly the "legal origins" theorem and the "legal transplants" debate. For example, while we find some evidence of legal transplants, we will show that the notion of legal origins has only limited value in today's corporate law. Furthermore, the research has a public policy dimension since the existence or absence of differences matters for the question of whether formal harmonization of corporate law in the EU, or further afield, is necessary, desirable, or at all possible.

Employment Law in Context combines extracts from leading cases, articles, and books with commentary to provide a full critical understanding of employment law. As well as providing a grounding in individual labour law, this title offers detailed analysis of the social, economic, political, and historical context in which employment law operates, drawing attention to key and current areas of debate. An innovative running case study contextualizes employment law and demonstrates its practical applications by following the life-cycle of a company from incorporation, through expansion, to liquidation. Reflection points and further reading suggestions are included. The volume is divided into eight main Parts. The first Part provides an introduction to employment law. The next Part looks at the constitution of employment and personal work contracts. This is followed by Part III, which examines the content of the personal employment contract and the obligations imposed by the common law on employers and employees. The fourth Part is about statutory employment rights. The fifth Part covers equality law. Part VI looks at the common law and statutory regulation of dismissals. The Part that follows considers business reorganizations, consultation, and insolvency. Finally, Part VIII describes collective labour law.

Use policyThe full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that:• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.Please consult the full DRO policy for further details. Abstract: In this Article, we intend to fill a gap in the comparative law literature by adopting a case-based approach to comparative corporate law that highlights the important dimension of specific cases in corporate law matters and how identifiable, but limited issues arising from such case disputes are resolved in different jurisdictions. Our study is based on ten cases used in a wider research project and their solutions in ten countries: eight European countries, the United States, and Japan. We assess the solutions to these cases using quantitative methods of network and cluster analysis. We also seek to enquire whether conceptual differences exist between countries in terms of the source, form, style, and substance of the legal rules which comprise their corporate laws. The findings of this assessment are used to evaluate arguments developed in the academic comparative company literature which posit that the existence of fundamental differences in the protection of shareholders across countries reduces the scope for convergence in corporate law systems. The case-based evaluation is also applied to make a contribution towards other influential theories in comparative law, particularly the "legal origins" theorem and the "legal transplants" debate. For example, while we find some evidence of legal transplants, we will show that the notion of legal origins has only limited value in today's corporate law. Furthermore, the research has a public policy dimension since the existence or absence of differences matters for the question of whether formal harmonization of corporate law in the EU, or further afield, is necessary, desirable, or at all possible.

Several justifications are cited in the academic literature in favour of common law and statutory intervention in the field of labour law. However, these justifications have been criticised for ignoring the realities of the contemporary labour market and for even bothering to undertake such an exercise as attempting to identify a theoretical explanation for the discipline in the first place. One must therefore ask to what extent traditional justifications for the legal regulation of the employment relationship have become frayed at the edges as a result of changes in underlying political, social, economic. and industrial conditions over the past half century. This chapter seeks to contribute to this debate by demonstrating how an account of justice based on ‘non-domination’ grounded in contemporary civic republican political theory can prove helpful in shedding new light on the rationales for labour law intervention in the twenty-first century.