Manifesting Loyalty

  • R. Eljalill Tauschinsky


Even though loyalty has a certain aspirational quality, it nevertheless carries legal consequences. Mostly, the duty of loyalty is expressed in reflexive and justificatory exercises. Fiduciary loyalty requires reflection on the motives and interests at play in adopting delegated and implementing acts.


  1. Abazi V, Tauschinsky E (2015) Reasons of control and trust: grounding the public need for transparency in the European Union. Utrecht Law Rev 11(2):78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alexander GS (2000) A cognitive theory of fiduciary relationships. Cornell Law Rev 85:767Google Scholar
  3. Allison GT, Halperin MH (1972) Bureaucratic politics: a paradigm and some policy implications. World Polit 24:40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arnold T (1932) The role of substantive law and procedure in the legal process. Harv Law Rev 45(4):617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ashdown MJ (2010) In defence of the rule in Re Hastings-Bass. Trusts Trustees 16(10):826CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barnard C (2010) The substantive law of the EU: the four freedoms, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p 165 et seqGoogle Scholar
  7. Birks P (2000) The content of fiduciary obligation. Israel Law Rev 34:3Google Scholar
  8. Blair MM, Stout LA (2001) Trust, trustworthiness, and the behavioral foundations of corporate law. Univ Pa Law Rev 149(6):1735CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Boedker C, Chua WF (2013) Accounting as an affective technology: a study of circulation, agency and entrancement. Account Organ Soc 38:245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bouwen P (2002) Corporate lobbying in the European Union: the logic of access. J Eur Publ Policy 9(3):365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bovens M (2007) Analysing and assessing accountability: a conceptual framework. Eur Law J 13(4):447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bovens M (2010) Two concepts of accountability: accountability as a virtue and as a mechanism. West Eur Polit 33(5):946CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bradley K (2006) Comitology and the courts: tales of the unexpected. In: Hofmann H, Türk A (eds) EU administrative governance. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  14. Calliess C (2002) Gemeinwohl in der Europäischen Union – Über den Staaten- und Verfassungsverbund zum Gemeinwohlverbund. In: Brugger W, Kirste S, Anderheiden M (eds) Gemeinwohl in Deutschland, Europa und der Welt. Nomos, Baden-Baden, p 173Google Scholar
  15. Chambers R (2002) Liability. In: Birks P, Pretto-Sakmann A (eds) Breach of trust. Hart Publishing, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  16. Clark K (1996) Do we have enough ethics in Government Yet?: an answer from fiduciary theory. Univ Ill Law Rev 57(1):82–83Google Scholar
  17. Coen D, Richardson J (2009) Lobbying the European Union: institutions, actors, and issues. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  18. Conaglen M (2005) The nature and function of fiduciary loyalty. Law Q Rev 121:452Google Scholar
  19. Conaglen M (2008) Public-private intersection: comparing fiduciary conflict doctrine and bias. Public Law 1:58Google Scholar
  20. Cook WW (1933) “Substance” and “Procedure” in the conflict of laws. Yale Law J 42(3):333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Cooter R, Freedman BJ (1991) The fiduciary relationship: its economic character and legal consequences. N Y Univ Law Rev 66:1045Google Scholar
  22. Craig P (1983) Administrative law. Sweet & Maxwell, London, p 261 et seqGoogle Scholar
  23. Craig P (2012) EU administrative law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p 340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Craig P (2016) Comitology, rulemaking and the Lisbon Settlement: tensions and strains. In: Bergström CF, Ritleng D (eds) Rulemaking by the European Commission: the new system for delegation of powers. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p 187 et seqGoogle Scholar
  25. Curtin D (2006) Delegation to EU non-majoritarian agencies and emerging practices of public accountability. In: Gerardin D, Rudolphe M, Petit N (eds) Regulation through Agencies in the EU: a new paradigm of European governance? Routledge, Abingdon, p 87Google Scholar
  26. Curtin D, Brouwer O (2009) Why? The giving reasons requirements of EU administration. In: Bulterman M et al (eds) Views of European Law from the mountain: Liber Amicorum Piet Jan Slot. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den RijnGoogle Scholar
  27. Curtin D, Mair P, Papadopoulos Y (2010) Positioning accountability in European Governance: an introduction. West Eur Polit 33(5):929CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Curtin D, Hofmann H, Mendes J (2013) Constitutionalising EU executive rule-making procedures: a research agenda. Eur Law J 19(1):1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. de Gaay Fortman B (2004) Quod omnes tangit…. In: Torfs R (ed) Canonical Testament. Peeters, Leuven, p 31 et seqGoogle Scholar
  30. de Schutter O (2002) Europe in search of its civil society. Eur Law J 8(2):198Google Scholar
  31. Dervin B (1998) Sense-making theory and practice: an overview of user interests in knowledge seeking and use. J Knowl Manag 2(2):36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Falk R, Strauss A (2001) Toward global parliament. Foreign Aff 80(1):212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Feintuck M (2004) ‘The public interest’ in regulation. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p 10 et seqCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Finer H (1941) Administrative responsibility in democratic government. Public Adm Rev 1(4):335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Flannigan R (2004) The boundaries of fiduciary accountability. New Zealand Law Rev:215Google Scholar
  36. Flannigan R (2009) The core nature of fiduciary accountability. New Zealand Law Rev:375Google Scholar
  37. Folger R (1998) Fairness as moral virtue. In: Schminke M (ed) Managerial ethics: moral management of people and processes. Psychology Press, London, p 14Google Scholar
  38. Føllesdal A (2006) EU legitimacy and normative political theory. In: Cini M, Bourne AK (eds) Palgrave advances in European Union studies. Palgrave, Basingstoke, p 172Google Scholar
  39. Fox-Decent E (2005) The fiduciary nature of state legal authority. Queens Law J 31:259Google Scholar
  40. Fox-Decent E (2010) Democratizing common law constitutionalism. McGill Law J 55:511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Fox-Decent E (2014) Fiduciary authority and the service conception. In: Gold A, Miller P (eds) Philosophical foundations of fiduciary law. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  42. Franchino F (2000) The commission’s executive discretion: information and comitology. J Theor Polit 12(2):155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Franck TM (1998) Fairness in international law and institutions. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Fritz Morstein M (1965) Verwaltung: eine einführende Darstellung. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin, p 225Google Scholar
  45. Fritzsche A (2010) Discretion, scope of judicial review and institutional balance in European Law. Common Market Law Rev 47:361Google Scholar
  46. Gabaldon TA (1995) Feminism, fairness and fiduciary duty in corporate and securities law. Texas J Women Law 5:1Google Scholar
  47. Galligan D (1997) Due process and fair procedures: a study of administrative procedures. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Galoob SR, Leib EJ (2014) Intentions, compliance and fiduciary obligations. Legal Theory 20(2):1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Gaudreault-DesBiens JF (2014) Cooperative federalism in search of a normative justification: considering the principle of federal loyalty. Const Forum 23:1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Getzler J (2006) Rumdorf market and the genesis of fiduciary obligations. In: Burrow A, Rodger A (eds) Mapping the law: essays in memory of Peter Birks. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p 594Google Scholar
  51. Getzler J (2011) An interdisciplinary view of fiduciary law: “As if” – accountability and counterfactual trust. Boston Univ Law Rev 91:973Google Scholar
  52. Getzler J (2014) Ascribing and limiting fiduciary obligations: understanding the operation of consent. In: Gold AS, Miller PB (eds) Philosophical foundations of fiduciary law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p 39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Glover J (2012) Public officials, public trusts and fiduciary duties. In: Coghill K, Sampford C, Smith T (eds) Fiduciary duty and the atmospheric trust. Ashgate, FarnhamGoogle Scholar
  54. Gold AS (2014) The loyalties of fiduciary law. In: Gold AS, Miller PB (eds) Philosophical foundations of fiduciary law. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Goodhart M (2011) Democratic accountability in global politics: norms, not agents. J Polit 73(1):45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Grant RW, Keohane RO (2005) Accountability and abuses of power in world politics. Am Polit Sci Rev 99(1):29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Greenwood J (2007) Review article: organized civil society and democratic legitimacy in the European Union. Br J Polit Sci 37:333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Grundmann S (1998) The evolution of the Trust and Treuhand in the 20th century. In: Helmholz R, Zimmermann R (eds) Itinera Fiduciae: Trust and Treuhand in historical perspective. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin, p 484 et seqGoogle Scholar
  59. Häberle P (1970) Öffentliches Interesse als juristisches Problem. Athenäum Verlag, Weinheim, p 213Google Scholar
  60. Hansard TC (1817) The parliamentary debates from the year 1803 to the present time, vol XXXVI. Hansard, London, p 1227Google Scholar
  61. Harlow C (2002) Accountability in the European Union. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Hatje A (2001) Loyalität als Rechtsprinzip in der Europäischen Union. Nomos, Baden-BadenGoogle Scholar
  63. Held V (1970) The public interest and individual interests. Basic Books Inc, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  64. Hirschman AO (1970) Exit, voice and loyalty: responses to decline in firms, organizations and states. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  65. Hofmann H, Alexander T (2006) Policy implementation. In: Hofmann H, Türk A (eds) EU administrative governance. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Hudson A (2010) Equity and trusts, 6th edn. Routledge-Cavendish, London, p 334 et seqGoogle Scholar
  67. Jos PH, Tompkins ME (2004) The accountability paradox in an age of reinvention: the perennial problem of preserving character and judgment. Adm Soc 36(3):255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Kahl W (2011) Art. 4 EUV (Absatz 3). In: Calliess C, Ruffert M (eds) EUV/AEUV Kommentar, 4th edn. Verlag CH Beck, Munich, p 106 et seqGoogle Scholar
  69. Kassim H, Menon A (2003) The principal-agent approach and the study of the European Union: promise fulfilled? J Eur Publ Policy 10(1):121Google Scholar
  70. Klamert M (2014) The principle of loyalty in EU law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p 20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Klüver H (2013) Lobbying in the European Union: interest groups, lobbying coalitions, and policy change. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Kochenov D (2014) EU citizenship without duties. Eur Law J 20(4):482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Koeppl P (2000) The acceptance, relevance and dominance of lobbying the EU commission – a first-time survey of the EU commission’s civil servants. J Public Aff 1(1):69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Koller P (2002) Das Konzept des Gemeinwohls: Versuch einer Begriffsexplikation. In: Brugger W, Kirste S, Anderheide M (eds) Gemeinwohl in Deutschland, Europa und der Welt. Nomos, Baden-BadenGoogle Scholar
  75. Langbein JH (2005) Questioning the trust law duty of loyalty: sole interest or best interest? Yale Law J 114:929Google Scholar
  76. Larsson T (2003) Pre-cooking in the European Union: the World of Expert Groups. Norstedts Juridik AB, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  77. Lee S, Ditko S (1962) Spiderman (Amazing Fantasy), vol 15. Marvel Comics, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  78. Leib EJ (2009) Friends as fiduciaries. Wash Univ Law Rev 86:665Google Scholar
  79. Leib EJ, Ponet DL (2012) Fiduciary representation and deliberative engagement with children. J Polit Philos 20(2):178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Leib EJ, Ponet DL, Serota M (2013) Translating fiduciary principles into public law. Harv law Rev Forum 126:91Google Scholar
  81. Lempert R (1992) Discretion in a behavioural perspective: the case of a public housing eviction board. In: Hawkins K (ed) The uses of discretion: perspectives from law and social sciences. Clarendon Press, Oxford, p 213Google Scholar
  82. Lind EA, Kanfer R, Earley PC (1990) Voice, control, and procedural justice: instrumental and noninstrumental concerns in fairness judgments. J Pers Soc Psychol 59(5):952CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Litman M (2007) Fiduciary law in the hospital context: the prescriptive duty of protective intervention. Health Law J 15:295Google Scholar
  84. Loughlin M (1978) Procedural fairness: a study of the crisis in administrative law theory. Univ Toronto Law J 28(2):215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Lucy WNR, Mitchell C (1996) Replacing private property: the case for Stewardship. Camb Law J 55(3):566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Luhmann N (1996) Quod Omnes Tangit: Remarks on Jürgen Habermas’s Legal Theory. Cardozo Law Rev 17:883Google Scholar
  87. Macdonald RA (1980a) Judicial review and procedural fairness in administrative law: I. McGill Law J 25:520Google Scholar
  88. Macdonald RA (1980b) Judicial review and procedural fairness in administrative law: II. McGill Law J 26:1Google Scholar
  89. Majone G (2001) Two logics of delegation: agency and fiduciary relations in EU governance. Eur Union Polit 2(1):103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Maloney W (2008) The professionalization of representation: biasing participation. In: Kohler-Koch B, De Bièvre D, Maloney W (eds) Opening EU-Governance to civil society: gains and challenges. CONNEX, Mannheim, p 78 et seq. CONNEX report No 5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Mansbridge J (2014) A contingency theory of accountability. In: Bovens M, Goodin RE, Schillemans T (eds) Oxford handbook of public accountability. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  92. Martin JE (2001) Hanbury and Martin on modern equity, 16th edn. Sweet & Maxwell, London, p 612 et seqGoogle Scholar
  93. Mashaw JL (1981) Administrative due process: the quest for a dignitary theory. Boston Univ Law Rev 61:885Google Scholar
  94. Mashaw JL (2005) Structuring a “Dense Complexity”: accountability and the project of administrative law. Iss Legal Scholarsh 5(1):1. Article 4Google Scholar
  95. Mayntz R (1978) Soziologie deröffentlichen Verwaltung. Juristischer Verlag CF Müller, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  96. Mendes J (2011) Participation in EU rule-making: a rights-based approach. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p 249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Miller PB (2013) Justifying fiduciary remedies. Univ Toronto Law Rev 63(4):570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Mitchell LE (1993) Fairness and trust in corporate law. Duke Law J 43(3):425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Mitchell LE (2001) The importance of being trusted. Boston Univ Law Rev 81:591Google Scholar
  100. Moravscik A, Sangiovanni A (2003) On democracy and “public interest” in the European Integration. In: Mayntz R, Streeck W (eds) Die Reformierbarkeit der Demokratie, Innovationen und Blockaden: Festschrift für Fritz W. Scharpf. Campus Verlag, FrankfurtGoogle Scholar
  101. Mortelmans K (1998) The principle of loyalty to the community (Article 5 EC) and the obligations of the community institutions. Maastricht J Eur Comp Law 5:67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Mulgan R (2000) “Accountability”: an ever-expanding concept? Public Adm 78(3):555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Mullan DJ (1975) Fairness: the new natural justice? Univ Toronto Law J 25(3):281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Murphy K, Tyler TR, Curtis A (2009) Nurturing regulatory compliance: is procedural justice effective when people question the legitimacy of the law? Regul Gov 3:1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Neill P (1998) The duty to give reasons: the openness of decision-making. In: Forsyth C, Hare I (eds) The Golden Metwand and the Crooked Cord: essays in Honour of Sir William Wade QC. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  106. Niles RD (1960) Trustee accountability in the absence of breach of trust. Columbia Law Rev 60(2):141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Nollkaemper A (2015) Power and responsibility. In: Di Stefano A (ed) A Lackland Law? Territory, effectiveness and jurisdiction in international and EU law. G Giappichelli Editore, TurinGoogle Scholar
  108. Oliver D (2010) Psychological constitutionalism. Camb Law J 69(3):639CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Oliver D (2013) Accountability and the foundations of British democracy—the public interest and public service principles. In: Bamforth N, Leyland P (eds) Accountability in the contemporary constitution. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  110. Painter-Morland M (2006) Redefining accountability as relational responsiveness. J Bus Ethics 66(1):89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Penner JE (2014) Is loyalty a virtue, and even if it is, does it really help explain fiduciary liability? In: Gold AS, Miller PB (eds) Philosophical foundations of fiduciary law. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  112. Perez F (2013) Political communication in Europe: the cultural and structural limits of the European public sphere. Palgrave Macmillan, BasingstokeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Persson T, Roland G, Tabellini G (1997) Separation of powers and political accountability. Q J Econ 112(4):1163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Phillips JC (1977) Some instances of the trustee’s duty to act fairly between different classes of beneficiaries. Univ Queensland Law J 10(1):83Google Scholar
  115. Philp M (2009) Delimiting democratic accountability. Polit Stud 57:28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Ribstein LE (2011) Fencing fiduciary duties. Boston Univ Law Rev 91:899Google Scholar
  117. Roberts J (1991) The possibilities of accountability. Account Organ Soc 16(4):355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. Roberts J (2009) No one is perfect: the limits of transparency and an ethic for ‘intelligent’ accountability. Account Organ Soc 34:957CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Roberts J, Jones M (2009) Accounting for self interest in the credit crisis. Account Organ Soc 34:856CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. Roberts J, Scapens R (1985) Accounting systems and systems of accountability: understanding accounting practices in their organisational contexts. Account Organ Soc 10(4):443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. Rowling JK (2010) Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. Bloomsbury, LondonGoogle Scholar
  122. Ryffel H (1965) Eigenverantwortlichtkeit. In: Marx FM (ed) Verwaltung: ein einführende Darstellung. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin, p 469Google Scholar
  123. Samet I (2008) Guarding the fiduciary’s conscience—a justification of a stringent profit-stripping rule. Oxf J Legal Stud 28(4):763CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. Scallen EA (1993) Promises broken vs promises betrayed: metaphor, analogy and the new fiduciary principle. Univ Ill Law Rev:897Google Scholar
  125. Schedler A (1999) Conceptualizing accountability. In: Schedler A, Diamond L, Plattner MF (eds) The self-restraining state: power and accountability in new democracies. Lynne Rienne Publishers, Boulder, p 15 et seqGoogle Scholar
  126. Scheffler H-H (1974) Die Pflicht zur Begründung con Maßnahmen nach den europäischen Gemeinschaftsverträgen. Duncker & Humblodt, Berlin, p 49 et seqGoogle Scholar
  127. Schockweiler F (1989) La Motivation des Decision Individuelles en Droit Communautaire et en Droit National. Cahiers de Droit Européen 25(1–2):3Google Scholar
  128. Schønberg S (2000) Legitimate expectations in administrative law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p 3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. Schrauwen A (ed) (2005) Rule of reason: rethinking another classic of European Legal Doctrine (Hogendorp Papers), vol 4. European Law Publishing, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  130. Schwarze J (2004) The legal protection of the individual against regulations in European Union Law: remarks on the ECJ judgment in the case UPA of 25 July 2002 in view of the European Constitutional Reform. Eur Public Law 10(2):285Google Scholar
  131. Schwarze J (2006) European administrative law, 2nd edn. Sweet and Maxwell, London, p 1400 et seqGoogle Scholar
  132. Schweiker W (1993) Accounting for ourselves: accounting practice and the discourse of ethics. Account Organ Soc 18(2):231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  133. Sharpston E (2012) Preface. In: Cloots E, De Baere G, Sottiaux S (eds) Federalism in the European Union. Hart, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  134. Sinclair A (1995) The chameleon of accountability: forms and discourses. Account Organ Soc 20:219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  135. Smith L (2003) The motive not the deed. In: Getzler J (ed) Rationalizing property, equity and trusts: essays in Honour of Edward Burn. Butterworths, LondonGoogle Scholar
  136. Smith L (2014) Fiduciary relationships: ensuring the loyal exercise of judgement on behalf of another. Law Q Rev 130:608Google Scholar
  137. Sossin L (2003) Public fiduciary obligations, political trusts and the equitable duty of reasonableness in administrative law. Saskatchewan Law Rev 66:129Google Scholar
  138. Stein L (1865) Die Verwaltungslehre. JG Cotta, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  139. Stewart RB (2014) Remedying disregard in global regulatory governance: accountability, participation and responsiveness. Am J Int Law 108:211Google Scholar
  140. Stout LA (2002) In praise of procedure: an economic and behavioural defense of Smith v. Van Gorkom and the business judgement rule. Northwest Univ Law Rev 96(2):675Google Scholar
  141. Todd P, Watt G (2003) Cases & material on equity and trusts, 4th edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p 450Google Scholar
  142. Tyler TR (1988) What is procedural justice?: criteria used by citizens to assess to fairness of legal procedures. Law Soc Rev 22(1):103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  143. Tyler TR, Lind EA (1992) A relational model of authority in groups. Adv Exp Soc Psychol 25:115Google Scholar
  144. van Oudenaren J (2015) European integration: an uncertain prospect. In: Tiersky R, Jones E (eds) Europe today: a twenty-first century introduction, 5th edn. Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, p 300Google Scholar
  145. Wade W (1978) Administrative law, 4th edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p 393Google Scholar
  146. Wade W, Forsyth C (2014) Administrative law, 11th edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p 373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  147. Waring SK et al (2013) The impact of accountability on motivational goals and the quality of advice provided in crisis negotiations. Psychol Public Policy Law 19(2):137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  148. Wille A (2001) Die Pflicht der Organe der Europäischen Gemeinschaft zur loyalen Zusammenarbeit mit den Mitgliedsstaaten. Nomos, Baden-BadenGoogle Scholar
  149. Worthington S (2006) Equity, 2nd edn. Clarendon, Oxford, p 13 et seqCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  150. Yablon CM (1991) The allocation of burdens of proof in corporate law: an essay on fairness and fuzzy sets. Cadozo Law Rev 13:497Google Scholar
  151. Zonderop Y (2012) Polderen 3.0: Nederland & het Algemeen Belang. I S V W Uitgevers/Luisterwijs, LeusdenGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. Eljalill Tauschinsky
    • 1
  1. 1.WalldorfGermany

Personalised recommendations