Class Action Lawsuits in Europe: A Comparative and Economic Analysis

Dawidowicz, Ricardo

doi:10.1007/978-94-007-7110-9_10

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Moving away from subjective rights is a challenge as far as the law is concerned, and one that happens unevenly across jurisdictions. Whereas common law jurisdictions (the USA, the UK, Australia, Canada) tend to be more open to recognizing the ability of interests other than subjective rights being litigated, civil law countries are less amenable to the proposition (Dawidowicz, 2013). International law, too, is generally opposed to the notion of actio popularis , or the idea that entities not directly affected by a wrong can bring claims for its redress, as is also generally underprepared to deal with entities other than States as litigants (Morss, 2013).…”

Section: A More Effective Way Of Engaging Stakeholders: the Adaptive Regulatory Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Heritage values and legal rules

Wells

Lixinski

2017

JCHMSD

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Existing regulatory frameworks for identifying and treating historic buildings and places reflect deference to expert rule, which privileges the values of a small number of heritage experts over the values of the majority of people who visit, work, and reside in historic environments. The purpose of this paper is to explore a fundamental shift in how US federal and local preservation laws address built heritage by suggesting a dynamic, adaptive regulatory framework that incorporates heterodox approaches to heritage and therefore is capable of accommodating contemporary sociocultural values. Design/methodology/approach The overall approach used is a comparative literature review from the fields of heterodox/orthodox heritage, heterodox/orthodox law, adaptive management, and participatory methods to inform the creation of a dynamic, adaptive regulatory framework. Findings Tools such as dialogical democracy and participatory action research are sufficiently pragmatic in implementation to envision how an adaptive regulatory framework could be implemented. This new framework would likely require heterodox definitions of law that move beyond justice as a primary purpose and broaden the nature of legal goods that can be protected while addressing discourses of power to benefit a larger group of stakeholders. Practical implications The authors suggest that an adaptive regulatory framework would be particularly beneficial for architectural and urban conservation planning, as it foregrounds considerations other than property rights in decision-making processes. While such a goal appears to be theoretically possible, the challenge will be to translate the theory of an adaptive regulatory framework into practice as there does not appear to be any precedent for its implementation. There will be issues with the need for increased resources to implement this framework. Originality/value To date, there have been few, if any, attempts to address critical heritage studies theory in the context of the regulatory environment. This paper appears to be the first such investigation in the literature.

show abstract

Section: A More Effective Way Of Engaging Stakeholders: the Adaptive Regulatory Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%