Saturday, 16 April 2016

Comparative Company Law – 2nd edition – suggestions?

First edition published in 2013 (see Amazon and Hart websites). 

Now we’re planning a second edition. What shall we change? We have some plans, but we’d also be very happy to get comments and suggestions via email.

Sunday, 10 April 2016

Different uses of the term ‘letterbox companies’

The news reporting of the ‘Panama papers’ frequently mentions ‘letterbox companies’ (eg, see a simple Google news search). In recent academic research, the same term has also been used in a number of publications (see Google scholar search, starting 2010). But there is the potential of misunderstandings as there are at least two different types of letterbox companies, let’s call them:
  • Type A: companies that do business in one country, but are incorporated with only a ‘letterbox’ in another jurisdictions.
  • Type B: companies that are mere ‘special purpose entities’, ie those too merely have a ‘letterbox’ in the country of incorporation, but they only hold financial assets and are not involved in any business activity in any country.
The ‘Panama papers’ concerned the ‘type B letterbox companies’ and those may indeed be seen as potentially problematic as they may be used for purposes of tax evasion (or at least tax avoidance), money laundering etc – while ‘type A letterbox companies’ may potentially be seen as a legitimate choice of law. So, for a legal assessment – be it of relevant rules of conflict of laws or, in the EU, the freedom of establishment – it is crucial to be clear which type of letterbox companies an analysis aims to address.

Should I quit social media for good?

So I have said it. In the last couple of months, I have hardly been on Twitter, this blog has been rather dormant, and my Linkedin, Facebook etc accounts are merely passive anyway. So did I miss anything (or did anyone miss me)? In any case, it feels good to know that it can be done in order to spend more time with the variant of reality that is not related to social media.
   To answer the question, I’m not going to quit, but will only use it if I want to (which may state the obvious). So, for this blog this means that I’m not going to return the one-blog-post-per-week cycle that I had until half a year ago, but there may be a bit more activity than recently.

Tuesday, 16 February 2016

Comparative Law (book): reviews and slides

Ok, first the vanity part of this blog post: it’s nice to see that the reviews of my Comparative Law keep coming in: so, apparently, it is ‘thought-provoking’ and of ‘high quality’ (Bogdan), ‘very interesting, well-written, and accessible’ (Pozzo), ‘a readable tour de force’ (Patrignani), ‘compelling’ (Xanthaki), ‘a thoroughly enjoyable read (Marique) and ‘innovative’ (Shen). Ok, I cherry-picked a bit! For some more extracts see the site accompanying the book.

On this website there are also Powerpoint slides on the themes of this book, which I just updated (as I was teaching a new comparative-law module last term); maybe of interest for some.

Saturday, 9 January 2016

Varieties of Legal Systems: Towards a New Global Taxonomy (revised paper now online)


I blogged about this paper a year ago (the title was still a bit different) and eventually it has been accepted for publication. The abstract reads:
Legal scholars, economists and other social scientist often refer to the idea that countries can be classified into a number of ‘legal families’ or ‘legal origins’. Yet, this research is unsatisfactory as regards the actual classifications of the legal systems of the world. It is the aim of this paper to fill this gap and to develop a more robust taxonomy of legal systems. This taxonomy is based on a new dataset of 156 countries that is subsequently analysed with tools of network analysis. Applying cluster optimisation, this paper finds that the world’s legal systems can be divided into four clusters. It displays those clusters in a map, akin to the Inglehart-Welzel cultural map. It is suggested that those findings have important implications, not only for our understanding of the legal world, but also for the feasibility of legal transplants and harmonisation.
And the map above is of course this map of clusters. The new version of the paper is available here.

Update: and now also on the Early View site of the Journal.

Saturday, 26 December 2015

Greetings from Singapore (with some thoughts on Ferguson’s Empire)

I’m enjoying my time in Singapore where I’m a visiting fellow at NUS in December. It’s always nice to stay at a place for a bit longer than a conference visit (which I did in Singapore two years ago) and learn about a country’s history, culture, laws (including the more unusual ones, cf also above) etc.
  I also used the occasion to read Ferguson’s Empire: How Britain Made the Modern World (2003). This book has been controversial but it reads very well and it does address in quite some detail the dark sides of the British empire. However, overall, the conclusion is more positive – phrased as the hypothetical that ‘it must be said that the experiment of running the world without the Empire cannot be adjudged and unqualified success’; in particular that ‘there is good evidence that the imposition of British-style institutions has tended to enhance a country’s economic prospects’ (with examples of British law, administration and government) (pp 369-371). 
  It reminds me a bit of my ‘overfitting legal transplants’; sometimes foreign ideas can be quite helpful – and indeed Singapore may be an example where the transplanted English law is regarded as something valuable.
  The question is, however, whether the positive aspects associated with the British colonial empire could not also have been achieved without the negative ones. Focussing on the rule of law, it can be seen that many countries ranked in ‘top 20’ (see eg here) have not been part of the British empire: eg, the Nordic countries but also South Korea and Japan. So, as always, making a general assessment about complex historical events is problematic since any causal linkages are not that clear.

Sunday, 8 November 2015

Are there English-speaking countries that have a Civil Code? And are there non-English-speaking countries without a Civil Code?

Working on my taxonomy paper – one of the reviewers doesn’t like the variable on ‘English as one of the official languages’. Now, I’ll use whether countries have a ‘Civil Code’ (including countries with a Code of Obligations but not simply a contract act) as a proxy – based on the thinking that those two variables are fairly well correlated. But there are some differences, based on data for 156 countries:


Civil Code
Yes
No
English
language
No
102
18
Yes
8
28

So, which type of countries are behind the two exceptions?
  • The eight countries with a Civil Code but English language are some of the mixed legal systems, ie English is one of the official languages but there is distinct (sometimes even dominant) civil law influence, eg, Eritrea, Mauritius, Malta, Philippines.
  • The 18 countries without a Civil Code but also without English language are the Nordic countries, a minority of countries from the former Yugoslavia and the Middle East, some mixed legal systems (Israel, Sri Lanka), and some countries which are typically classified as common law one but which don’t have English as an official language any more (eg, Bangladesh, Cyprus, Nepal).

Sunday, 25 October 2015

Comparative Law – 2nd edition? – suggestions?

Just published a bit more than a year ago but I’m in early discussions about the second edition of my Comparative law book.  What shall I change? 

I have some plans – which I won’t disclose here…. but I’d also be very happy to get some comments and suggestions via email

Sunday, 18 October 2015

Academic staff lists of law school websites: what’s mentioned?

Sunday morning empirics - first the results:

Country
(and n)
PhD / Dr mentioned
Ranks mentioned
Order by rank
US (10)
10%
100%
0%
UK (10)
70%
80%
0%
Australia (6)
0%
100%
67%
Canada (3)
0%
67%
0%
Singapore (1)
100%
100%
100%
Hong Kong (1)
100%
0%
0%

Method: I looked at the top 100 universities of the Times Higher ranking, then excluded the non-Anglophone universities and those without a law school, and capped the observations to ten per country (relevant for the UK and the US). Then, I checked the academic staff lists/faculty directories of the law school websites (ie the main list, not further sites which may provide additional information), and counted (i) whether doctorate titles were mentioned, (ii) whether ranks were fully mentioned (Professor, Associate Professor, Lecturer, etc; ie not just Prof or Dr), and (3) whether the website is ordered by those ranks.
   Now to the results of the table (with the >66% fields highlighted): interesting to see a US/UK split in terms of mentioning PhD titles with Singapore and Hong Kong, but not Australia and Canada, following the UK in mentioning them. Ranks are usually mentioned but some exceptions in the UK, Canada and Hong Kong – while in Australia and Singapore it may go further in terms of ordering the staff lists according to rank.
   The question remains: what explains those differences and how should it be done (ie should one emphasise or de-emphasise hierarchies and titles)?