Before we consider the future of ‘globalisation’ we must deﬁne its nature and outline its past. This is a complex and contested concept. If we take growing international interconnectedness – increasing ﬂows of trade, investment and communications between nations – to be what most people mean by the term, then ‘globalisation’ has been happening for the last 50 years. Moreover, new technologies – long distance jets, satellites, IT, ﬁbre optic cables – have made international travel, media and ﬁnancial exchanges far easier, enabling dramatic increases in trafﬁc volumes. The key questions are threefold. First, are these economic and social processes linking nations since 1945 unprecedented? Second, are these processes developing at the expense of state and national governance, that is, are national economies dissolving into a global marketplace and relations between states becoming secondary to more complex interactions between a variety of economic, social and political agencies? Third, is international economic interconnectedness set to increase or decrease?
Paul Hirst and Grahame Thompson
Since the 1980s it had been fashionable to suggest that there was little that individual countries could do in the face of global economic forces, and any attempt to pursue independent policies would be doomed to failure. ‘Even China’, it was often said, was embracing the global free market. The idea that developing countries, such as India, could promote their own developmental interests by sheltering behind exchange controls or national planning had been swept away along with the Berlin Wall. In the globalized economy of the twenty-first century, it was argued, national governments had to go with the flow of global markets. As the 2008 international financial crisis was breaking, the global strategy firm Oxford Analytica held one of its usual daily analysis sessions, but open to those attending its annual conference. The chair briefly summarised the unfolding global crisis, and then went round the table asking the various national experts to report. Despite the consensus referred to above, the reports did not paint a picture of a uniform globalised market to which each country related in the same way. The US and UK had been referred to in the opening statement, being very much at the centre of whatever it was that had caused the worst economic crisis since the 1930s. But when the expert on Brazil was called, he reported that the socialist President Lula had kept its financial sector rather independent of the global markets. Next India, and here too it was reported that it actually hadn’t opened itself up to the global market quite as much as might have been thought. Then China, where, it was reported, the Communist Party had maintained rather a firm grip.
Since the inception of the State, creativity has been of critical importance. This chapter introduces the basic concepts of how creativity has been central and continues to be so. It argues that the development of legal rules has seen a gradual shift away from the consideration of creativity as a relevant factor in regulation. This has been exacerbated through the use of proprietary and capitalistic concepts. This chapter outlines the subsequent chapters, and provides an indication of the reforms that are proposed later in the monograph
John N. Adams
This chapter begins with a brief discussion of the earliest form of patents in 500 B.C. in Greece and a pre-modern patent system in Venice, Italy in the fifteenth century, followed by a review of the origin of the United Kingdom patent system during the industrial revolution in the sixteenth century. It discusses cases and literature influential in the series of patent reforms in the nineteenth century and the development of fundamental conditions for a patent grant, including the novelty, inventive step, and sufficient disclosure for the specification as well as the introduction of the pre-grant examination on these conditions. In particular, special attention is paid to Liardet v. Johnson (1778), viewed as crucial to the development of modern patent law. The chapter also includes brief overviews of the development of patent systems in the United States, France and Germany, and patent related international agreements.
This book is an attempt to provide a thorough chronological analysis of the European Union’s (EU) existing law and policy in the field of international trade. This book analyses the evolution of the EU’s external trade relations, as well as its common commercial policy competence through the years, starting with the Treaty of Rome up until the Treaty of Lisbon, as a background for understanding the EU’s present role in the World Trade Organization (WTO) framework. Thus, a legal analysis of EU trade policy after the Treaty of Rome, after the conclusion of the WTO Agreement, at the Treaty of Amsterdam, at the Treaty of Nice, and at the Treaty of Lisbon is provided, taking into account the most recent constitutional developments by the Lisbon Treaty on division of competences between the EU and its Member States.
Edited by Alexander-Stamatios Antoniou, Cary Cooper and Caroline Gatrell
It is over half a century since the first sex discrimination laws were enacted. No doubt the women who fought during the 1960s and 1970s, for equality of pay and opportunity, would have imagined a fairer world than the one we find ourselves in today. There are certainly some areas where improvements have been made. More women make it to middle management levels, and many formal barriers preventing women from reaching the top levels in organizations have been removed. Yet as Chapter 10 (Burkinshaw and White) demonstrates, for those women who do make it to the highest levels within their occupations, fitting in with male-dominated cultures can be challenging. According to Chapter 12 (Antoniou and Aggelou) social and gender stereotypes still dictate the way female managers ought to behave and the ones who defy them often face multiple consequences. And as Gatrell and Peyton (Chapter 18) observe some mechanisms barring women from career advancement have remained firmly in place until the present decade.
Edited by Daniel Kraus, Thierry Obrist and Olivier Hari
Rob van Gestel and Andreas Lienhard
Who are the best legal scholars in Europe in different fields of law? Which journals are considered the best in Europe and what sorts of assessment methods do editorial boards and publishers apply when evaluating manu¬scripts? These are but a few of the questions that are difficult to answer for legal academics, university managers and funding bodies. To outsiders, these kinds of questions might seem trivial, because in most other (social) sciences many scholars know each other’s h-index, there are official rankings of journals and publishers, and editorial boards are quite clear about the standards they apply for (single or double blind) peer review. In law, however, all this is different. Not only do legal academics in Europe publish a wide variety of articles, essays, books, commentaries, case notes and so on, in a broad range of languages, about a wide variety of national legal systems; but unlike scholars in the hard sciences, they also address multiple audiences. The readership of legal scholars ranges from other academics to courts, solicitors, legislators and so on. Without realizing it, the absence of uniform evaluation practices for academic legal publications may have unexpected consequences.
Edited by Timo Minssen, Janne R Herrmann and Jens Schovsbo
W. Richard Scott, Raymond E. Levitt and Michael J. Garvin
We do not subscribe to a goal of unconstrained development for its own sake; but assuring an adequate supply of civic infrastructure (including housing, roads and public transport, power, water supply and sanitation) is essential to meet the needs of developing countries where populations are growing and becoming more urbanized, as well as those of developed countries where infrastructure is aging and in need of repair and/or replacement. Important as it is, however, providing the necessary infrastructure confronts severe difficulties. Governments of emerging market countries face enormous shortfalls in financial and governance capacity in delivering sorely needed new infrastructure for their growing populations. At the same time, financially strapped governments of mature market economies are struggling to upgrade and retrofit their aging and obsolete infrastructure. Societies at both ends of the development spectrum need more robust project governance structures that can enable new forms of financing coupled with improved systems of managerial oversight and control. Infrastructure is central to societal welfare, and the high cost of replicating the “last mile of pipe or wire” often requires a monopolistic state provision or regulated private provision strategy. We would thus ordinarily expect that the state would play a major role in its prioritization, funding, development and operation. However, historically this has not always been the case. Specific countries vary in their experience, but the United States (US) is not atypical. As Miller and Floricel (2000) point out, during much of the nineteenth century US transportation systems and power networks were built by private entrepreneurs, with minimal public involvement. Toward the end of the century, large corporate groups replaced the entrepreneurs but still experienced only modest public oversight. However, during the Progressive era of the early twentieth century, private initiatives were increasingly regulated and, over time, nationalized as public enterprises. For the greater part of the century, federal, state and local authorities planned, funded, built and operated the bulk of infrastructure. However, during the 1980s, buoyed by a more conservative political wave, calls intensified for the privatization of these enterprises. From that period to the present, varying combinations of private and public entities have partnered to provide these facilities and services.