Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Multiple Facets of Law Enforcement

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Enforcement and Effectiveness of the Law - La mise en oeuvre et l’effectivité du droit

Part of the book series: Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law ((GSCL,volume 30))

  • 459 Accesses

Abstract

Ordering society and economy by means of legal rules is a widespread objective in modern times. The effectiveness of such rules therefore is a common concern in many countries. This paper sheds light upon the relation between substantive laws and enforcement and on the characteristic features of various enforcement tools. One of the trends of modern legal development is the quasi-experimental use of varying enforcement measures of administrative law, private law and criminal law, highlighted by the examples of competition law and consumer law. A second trend outlined in the paper is the one towards alternative dispute resolution (ADR) in its various forms: arbitration, ombudsman complaint procedures, mediation and conciliation. A further part deals with societal, non-legal enforcement mechanisms which are gaining ground especially in cross-border relations increasingly governed by soft law.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See Peter (1957).

  2. 2.

    Böhmer (1950), p. 95.

  3. 3.

    von Jhering (1897); the book has its origins in a lecture given in Vienna in 1872; in the German original the word “Recht” covers both the individual entitlement and the law as a body of rules.

  4. 4.

    Co-operative Insurance Society Ltd. v. Argyll Stores, [1997] UKHL 17, [1997] All ER 297 where Lord Hoffmann said that “any application to enforce the order [for specific enforcement] is likely to be a heavy and expensive piece of litigation.”

  5. 5.

    See Zweigert and Kötz (1998), p. 473 f. for Germany, p. 474 ff. for France.

  6. 6.

    For a comparative assessment, see Martiny (2000), pp. 1239–1274, dealing with the laws of Germany, p. 1241, Austria, p. 1248, Switzerland, p. 1254, France, p. 1259, England, p. 1265, and the USA, p. 1267.

  7. 7.

    Veil and Brüggemeier (2015), p. 302; the authors deal with German law exclusively. In a similar sense for Swiss law, Bohrer (2015), p. 272, calling for a “holistic” concept of capital market enforcement.

  8. 8.

    Darcy v. Allein (The Case of Monopolies), 77 Eng. Rep. 1260 (K.B. 1603).

  9. 9.

    See e.g. the early English decision Mitchel v. Reynolds, 24 Eng. Rep. 347 (K.B. 1711); Prentice (2015), para. 16-085.

  10. 10.

    Halsbury’s Laws of England (2015), paras. 712 ff.

  11. 11.

    An Act to protect trade and commerce against unlawful restraints and monopolies (Sherman Antitrust Act), 26 Stat. 209 (1890), 15 USC §§ 1–7.

  12. 12.

    The significance of this change is stressed by Areeda et al. (2004), para. 131.

  13. 13.

    Federal Trade Commission Act, 38 Stat. 717, 15 USC §§ 41–58.

  14. 14.

    See now, replacing previous legal acts, Council Regulation No. 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty, OJ 2003 L 1/1.

  15. 15.

    An Act to supplement existing laws against unlawful restraints and monopolies, and for other purposes (Clayton Antitrust Act, 2014), Pub.L. 63–212, 38 Stat. 730, 15 USC §§ 12–27.

  16. 16.

    For a survey of the law of the Member States of the European Union see Waelbroeck et al. (2004). See also the reports on the laws of the USA (Hannah Buxbaum), Germany (Wulf-Henning Roth), France (Laurence Idot) and Italy (Carlo Castronovo) in Basedow (2007a).

  17. 17.

    Directive 2014/104/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 November 2014 on certain rules governing actions for damages under national law for infringement of the competition law provisions of the Member States and of the European Union, OJ 2014 L 349/1; as to its purpose see in particular recital 3.

  18. 18.

    See Article 32 of the Fair Trade Act of 2011, English translation available on the website of the Taiwanese Fair Trade Commission (www.ftc.gov.tw →laws and regulations →Fair Trade Act).

  19. 19.

    Article 3(3) of Directive 2014/104/EU.

  20. 20.

    See for Germany the recent proposals submitted by the Monopolkommission (2015), paras. 196 ff. for hard core cartels.

  21. 21.

    See Article L.420-6(1) of the Commercial Code; cf. de Giles (2003), pp. 20–28 and 68–73.

  22. 22.

    See Article 89 of the Japanese Antimonopoly Act, English translation on the website of the Japan Fair Trade Commission (www.jftc.go.jp/en, →Legislation & Guidelines).

  23. 23.

    Howell (2010), p. 5 with figure 1.

  24. 24.

    Howell (2010), p. 8.

  25. 25.

    Bout et al. (2015), p. 531, para. 1405 at.

  26. 26.

    See Ida (2011), para. 75.

  27. 27.

    See e.g. von Hippel (1973) pp. 268–283, revised in von Hippel (1986), § 6.

  28. 28.

    See the papers published in Lima Marques and Gsell (2016), e.g. Lima Marques (2016), p. 49 f.; several further papers refer to consumers as “vulnerable”.

  29. 29.

    Schäfer (1999), pp. 68, 73 f.

  30. 30.

    See above at fn. 4 f.

  31. 31.

    For a general assessment of the theoretical background of litigation from an economic perspective see Shavell (2004), p. 389 f.

  32. 32.

    See below, Sect. 3.2.

  33. 33.

    Established in Brussels in 2002; see the website: http://www.carteldamageclaims.com.

  34. 34.

    For such a case see CJEU 21 May 2015, case C-352/13 (Cartel Damage Claims (CDC) Hydrogen Peroxide SA v. Akzo Nobel NV and others), ECLI:EU:C:2015:335; cf. Wurmnest (2016).

  35. 35.

    Commission Recommendation of 11 June 2013 on common principles for injunctive and compensatory collective redress mechanisms in the Member States concerning violations of rights granted under Union Law (2013/396/EU), OJ 2013 L 201/60.

  36. 36.

    Lag (2002:599) om grupprättegång, Svensk Författningssamling 2002:599, see in particular § 14 on opting in; on the preparatory work for this law see Dopffel and Scherpe (1999), p. 443 ff.

  37. 37.

    For the Italian opt-in class action see art. 140bis on the azione di classe of the Codice del consumo, introduced by the Law no. 244 of 24 December 2007 as amended; for a valuable assessment of Italian practice see Afferni (2016).

  38. 38.

    The French class-action is regulated in Articles L.423-1–L.423-26 of the Code de la consommation; for a closer analysis, see Guinchard et al. (2014), paras. 2254-1 ff.

  39. 39.

    For example, it is available for consumer litigation exclusively in Italy and France, but for all kinds of disputes in Sweden; in France only accredited consumer organizations are entitled to bring such a class action, while in Italy and Sweden every member of the group may initiate the corresponding procedure. In France the compensation of immaterial loss such as pain and suffering is excluded, while Italian law does not provide for such a restriction.

  40. 40.

    Afferni (2016), p. 88 explains this “burden of opting-in”; it appears for example manageable where the class of plaintiffs consists of the patients who were treated in a given hospital during a specific period of time, see the case at p. 87, but it is too heavy where all customers of a particular flu shot, invited by public notices in a newspaper, are concerned, see the case at p. 88.

  41. 41.

    Gesetz über Unterlassungsklagen bei Verbraucherrechts- und anderen Verstößen (Unterlassungsklagengesetz – UklaG) of 26 November 2001, Bundesgesetzblatt I-3422 as amended.

  42. 42.

    Published on the website of the Legal Information Institute of Cornell University Law School, www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp. See Rule 23.

  43. 43.

    See Article 81 and Schedule 8 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, 2015 c. 15; Schedule 8 amended the Competition Act 1998 and the Enterprise Act 2002 by introducing appropriate provisions.

  44. 44.

    See the data presented by Fitzpatrick (2010), p. 830 ff. At p. 845 the author concludes that in 2006 and 2007 District Court Judges approved 688 class action settlements involving more than $33 billion; of this amount around $5 billion or 15% was awarded to class action lawyers.

  45. 45.

    Article L.213-1 Code de la consommation; cf. Raymond (2014), paras. 193 ff.

  46. 46.

    Article 121-3 Code de la consommation; cf. Raymond (2014), paras. 217–222.

  47. 47.

    Articles 122-8 and 122-9 Code de la consommation; Raymond (2014), paras. 308 f.

  48. 48.

    Articles 122-6 and 122-7 Code de la consommation; Raymond (2014), para. 409.

  49. 49.

    See Calais-Auloy and Temple (2010), p. 19 f., para. 18 who refer to former unsuccessful efforts for a “dépénalisation”.

  50. 50.

    Morris and Little (1999), pp. 43–76; von Hippel (2000), p. 117 ff. With regards to insurance various national ombudsman institutions have been compared by Reichert-Facilides (1999), pp. 169–187.

  51. 51.

    See Waye and Morabito (2012), pp. 4–7; for a predecessor mechanism see Reich (1992), pp. 809–813; from a comparative perspective Ali and Da Roza (2012), p. 500 ff.

  52. 52.

    See § 4(1a) Gesetz über die Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht (Finanzdienstleistungsaufsichtsgesetz—FinDAG) of 22 April 2002, Bundesgesetzblatt I-1310 as amended.

  53. 53.

    See § 47a Telekommunikationsgesetz (TKG) of 22 June 2004, Bundesgesetzblatt I-1190 as amended.

  54. 54.

    See Bernitz and Draper (1986), pp. 65–80; Dopffel and Scherpe (1999), p. 431 f. See the website www.konsumentverket.se where information is available in several languages.

  55. 55.

    Bernitz and Draper (1986), p. 70 ff.; Dopffel and Scherpe (1999), p. 433.

  56. 56.

    Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 October 2004 on cooperation between national authorities responsible for the enforcement of consumer protection laws (the Regulation on consumer protection cooperation), OJ 2004 L 364/1.

  57. 57.

    See Articles 2(1) and 3(b) of Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004.

  58. 58.

    See Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004.

  59. 59.

    This tendency emerges from recent policy papers of the European Commission, see Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council assessing the effectiveness of Regulation (EC) no. 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 October on the cooperation between national authorities responsible for the enforcement of consumer protection laws (the Regulation on consumer protection cooperation), COM(2016) 284 final of 25 May 2016; Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and oft he Council on cooperation between national authorities responsible for the enforcement of consumer protection laws, COM(2016) 283 final of 25 May 2016 which is intended to repeal and replace Reg. 2006/2004.

  60. 60.

    See on legal aid in Germany below, fn. 79.

  61. 61.

    See above, Sect. 1.2.

  62. 62.

    For a general survey see Nolan-Haley (2013); the author dedicates special chapters of her book to negotiation, mediation, arbitration, dispute resolution in the court system and hybrid dispute resolution procedures, including ombudspersons. Esplugues and Barona (2014), p. 11 f. distinguish negotiation inter partes from the mechanisms involving a neutral third person, either devoid of decision-making powers (mediation, conciliation, ombudsman), or equipped with such power (arbitration).

  63. 63.

    For a recent comparative survey with 12 national reports from Australia, China, England and Wales, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Japan, Korea, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and the United States see Esplugues and Barona (2014).

  64. 64.

    See Pirenne (1933), here cited from the 4th edition of the German translation, UTB 1976, p. 55 f.

  65. 65.

    On the formation of maritime law in these places see Wagner (1906), pp. 40–45.

  66. 66.

    See e.g. the Court of Arbitration of the Waren-Verein der Hamburger Börse e.V. https://www.waren-verein.de/en/court-of-arbitration.

  67. 67.

    See e.g. for the German coffee import association, Deutscher Kaffeeverband e.V., the arbitration rules at www.kaffeeverband.de/der-verband/leistungen-ziele-aufgaben/schiedsgericht.

  68. 68.

    In the law and economics literature a number of publications by Lisa Bernstein have been very influential; see, for diamonds, Bernstein (1992), pp. 117–121 on trade custom, pp. 124–130 on the arbitration system.

  69. 69.

    Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, Done at New York on 10 June 1958, 330 UNTS 38.

  70. 70.

    See the most recent version, the 2012 Arbitration Rules, available at www.iccwbo.org.

  71. 71.

    UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, several versions on the website of UNCITRAL: www.uncitral.org.

  72. 72.

    UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration 1985 with Amendments as adopted in 2006, www.uncitral.org.

  73. 73.

    See the table in Basedow (2015), p. 382.

  74. 74.

    See above, Sect. 2.3.

  75. 75.

    See von Hippel (1986), p. 159 ff.

  76. 76.

    See above, the text at fn. 52–55.

  77. 77.

    See above, fn. 50.

  78. 78.

    See above, fn. 51.

  79. 79.

    Gesetz über die Prozesskostenhilfe of 13.6.1980, Bundesgesetzblatt (Federal Law Gazette; hereinafter BGBl.) I 677; Gesetz über die Rechtsberatung und Vertretung für Bürger mit geringem Einkommen of 18.6.1980, BGBl. I 689.

  80. 80.

    Cf. von Hippel (1973), p. 271 ff.

  81. 81.

    Dopffel and Scherpe (1999), p. 433 on the Market Court—marknadsdomstolen.

  82. 82.

    Sievers (2001). For mediation see below Sect. 3.4.

  83. 83.

    Scherpe (2002), pp. 110 ff., 171 ff.

  84. 84.

    28 U.S. Code § 651 as amended by Pub.L. 105–315 of 30 October 1998, 112 Stat. 2998.

  85. 85.

    Directive 2013/11/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013 on alternative dispute resolution for consumer disputes and amending Regulation (EC) No. 2006/2004 and Directive 2009/22/EC (Directive on consumer ADR), OJ 2013 L 165/63 (henceforth: ADR Directive).

  86. 86.

    The German statute implementing the ADR Directive explicitly deals with dispute resolution entities established by public authorities, see § 28 of the Gesetz über alternative Streitbeilegung in Verbrauchersachen of 19 February 2016, Bundesgesetzblatt (BGBl.) I-254.

  87. 87.

    Both are explicitly listed in 28 U.S. Code § 651(a).

  88. 88.

    See Article 10 ADR Directive and recital 43.

  89. 89.

    See Articles 6–10 ADR Directive.

  90. 90.

    See Article 10(2) ADR Directive.

  91. 91.

    See the rules of procedure (Verfahrensordnung) on the website www.versicherungsombudsmann.de; for a general survey and appraisal see Basedow (2007b), pp. 49–63.

  92. 92.

    Hopt and Steffek (2013), p. 11; for a more recent comparative assessment of the law relating to mediation and additional national reports see Esplugues and Marquis (2015).

  93. 93.

    Hopt and Steffek (2013), p. 16.

  94. 94.

    Directive 2008/52/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on certain aspects of mediation in civil and commercial matters, OJ 2008 L 136/3; see for a closer analysis, Esplugues (2014), pp. 485–771; this long report is based on 22 reports on the laws of EU Member States contained in the same volume.

  95. 95.

    See above at fn. 82.

  96. 96.

    According to § 15a of the Introductory Law of the Code of civil procedure it is up to the single Länder, i.e. the German states to decide whether mediation is compulsory or not. For example, the biggest German Land North Rhine-Westphalia initially required a certificate on unsuccessful mediation as a precondition for any lawsuit involving a value of less than 1200 DM (about 600 €), see Article 1 § 10 Gesetz zur Ausführung von § 15a EGZPO of 9 May 2000, Gesetz- und Verordnungsblatt Nordrhein-Westfalen (GV NRW) 2000, 476, but repealed this requirement some years later by the law of 20 November 2007, GV NRW 2007, 583. The mediation requirement has been maintained for disputes in matters of discrimination and between neighbours.

  97. 97.

    Such contract terms have explicitly been upheld by the German Federal Court (Bundesgerichtshof, BGH), see BGH 14 January 2016, Verbraucher und Recht 2016, 227 with an annotation by Burkhard Lensing.

  98. 98.

    For surveys of the many aspects of this phenomenon, see Jansen and Michaels (2008); Calliess (2014); Cafaggi (2012).

  99. 99.

    The UN-RBP Code is contained in UN Doc. TD/RBP/Conf./10 of 2 May 1980; also published in Wirtschaft und Wettbewerb (WuW) 1982, p. 32.

  100. 100.

    The most recent version is UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts, UNIDROIT 2010.

  101. 101.

    See the ICC website, www.iccwbo.org →products and services →Incoterms 2010.

  102. 102.

    The Hague Principles and the official Commentary are reproduced in print in both English and French in Uniform Law Review 20 (2015), pp. 365–489.

  103. 103.

    See the website of the IFRS Foundation, www.ifrs.org.

  104. 104.

    Available on the website of the ILO, www.ilo.org →Labour standards →Informationa Resources and Publications →Free Trade Agreements and Labour Rights →ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work.

  105. 105.

    United Nations 2011; cf. Ruggie (2007), pp. 819–840.

  106. 106.

    In accordance with Regulation No. 1606/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 July 2002 on the application of international accounting standards, OJ 2002 L 243/1 the European Commission, assisted by a special Committee, decides on the application of single accounting standards by Commission Regulation, see for example Commission Regulation (EU) No 183/2013 of 4 March 2013 amending Regulation (EC) No 1126/2008 adopting certain international accounting standards in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1606/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards International Financial Reporting Standard 1, OJ 2013 L 61/6.

  107. 107.

    See Article 46a(1)(a) of Directive 78/660/EEC as amended by Directive 2006/46/EC of the European Parliament and of Council of 14 June 2006 amending Council Directives 78/660/EEC on the annual accounts of certain types of companies, 83/349/EEC on consolidated accounts, 86/635/EEC on the annual accounts and consolidated accounts of banks and other financial institutions and 91/674/EEC on the annual accounts and consolidated accounts of insurance undertakings, OJ 2006 L 224/1.

  108. 108.

    See Article 46a(1)(b) of Directive 78/660/EEC as amended in 2006; cf. Leyens (2016), p. (401) who presents a survey of similar comply-or-explain rules in some national laws as well, see pp. 380–401.

  109. 109.

    See Leyens (2015), pp. 611–654.

  110. 110.

    See Article 19a of Directive 2013/34/EU as amended by Directive 2014/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2014 amending Directive 2013/34/EU as regards disclosure of non-financial and diversity information by certain large undertakings and groups, OJ 2014 L 330/1.

  111. 111.

    Recital 9 of Directive 2014/95/EU.

  112. 112.

    See Article 6(2)(b) of Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No. 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’), OJ 2005 L 149/22.

  113. 113.

    See Article 3(3)(d) of Directive 2001/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 December 2001 on general product safety, OJ 2001 L 11/4.

  114. 114.

    See e.g. Aust (2000), pp. 18 and 20–21.

  115. 115.

    See e.g. Lake (1984–85), pp. 331–354; Lutter (1982).

  116. 116.

    See e.g. Fornasier (2015), p. 288 ff.

  117. 117.

    Cf. for international framework agreements the examples provided by Thüsing (2010), p. 92; Fornasier (2015), p. 294.

  118. 118.

    See fn. 104.

  119. 119.

    Krause (2012), p. 758.

  120. 120.

    Fornasier (2015), p. 294 f.; Krause (2012), p. 757.

  121. 121.

    For a broader survey and analysis not confined to labour law see Scott (2012), pp. 151–156.

  122. 122.

    On the significance of reputation for the emergence of private ordering see Richman (2004), pp. 2328–2367.

References

  • Afferni G (2016) “Opt-in” class actions in Italy: why are they failing? J Eur Tort Law 7:82–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ali S, Da Roza A (2012) Alternative dispute resolution in financial markets – some more equal than others: Hong Kong’s proposed financial dispute resolution centre in the context of experience in the UK, US, Australia and Singapore. Pac Rim Law Policy J 21:485–531

    Google Scholar 

  • Areeda P, Kaplow L, Edlin A (2004) Antitrust analysis, 6th edn. Aspen Publishers

    Google Scholar 

  • Aust A (2000) Modern treaty law and practice. Cambridge University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Basedow J (ed) (2007a) Private enforcement of competition law. Kluwer Law International

    Google Scholar 

  • Basedow J (2007b) Small claims in a high cost country: The German Insurance Ombudsman. Scand Stud Law 50:49–63

    Google Scholar 

  • Basedow J (2015) EU law in international arbitration: referrals to the European court of justice. J Int Arbitr 32:367–386

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernitz U, Draper J (1986) Consumer protection in Sweden: legislation, institutions and practice, 2nd edn. LiberFörläg

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernstein L (1992) Opting out of the legal system: extralegal contractual relations in the diamond industry. J Leg Stud 21:115–158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Böhmer G (1950) Grundlagen der Bürgerlichen Rechtsordnung, vol 1. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Bohrer A (2015) Kapitalmarktrecht zwischen öffentlich-rechtlicher und privatrechtlicher Normdurchsetzung. In: Fleischer H, Kalss S, Vogt HU (eds) Enforcement im Gesellschafts- und Kapitalmarktrecht 2015. Mohr Siebeck, pp 243–275

    Google Scholar 

  • Bout R, Bruschi M, Luby-Gaucher, M, Poillot-Péruzzetto S (eds) (2015) Le Lamy Droit Économique. Wolters Kluwer France

    Google Scholar 

  • Cafaggi F (ed) (2012) Enforcement of transnational regulation. Edward Elgar

    Google Scholar 

  • Calais-Auloy J, Temple H (2010) Droit de la consommation – Précis Dalloz, 8th edn. Dalloz

    Google Scholar 

  • Calliess GP (ed) (2014) Transnationales Recht. Mohr Siebeck

    Google Scholar 

  • de Giles D (2003) Le droit pénal de la concurrence en Europe: 1-Premier bilan et perspectives en France – 2-L’expérience européenne, La semaine juridique – Entreprise et Affaires (JCP-E), 20–28 and 68–73

    Google Scholar 

  • Dopffel P, Scherpe JM (1999) “Grupptalan” – Die Bündelung gleichgerichteter Interessen im schwedischen Recht. In: Basedow J, Hopt KJ, Kötz H, Baetge D (eds) Die Bündelung gleichgerichteter Interessen im Prozess. Mohr Siebeck, pp 429–451

    Google Scholar 

  • Esplugues C (2014) Civil and Commercial Mediation in the EU after the Transposition of Directive 2008/52/EC. In: Esplugues C (ed) Civil and commercial mediation in Europe – cross-border mediation. Intersentia, pp 485–771

    Google Scholar 

  • Esplugues C, Barona S (2014) ADR mechanisms and their incorporation into global justice in the twenty-first century: some concepts and trends. In: Esplugues C, Barona S (eds) Global perspectives on ADR. Intersentia, pp 1–52

    Google Scholar 

  • Esplugues C, Marquis L (eds) (2015) New developments in civil and commercial mediation. Springer

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitzpatrick B (2010) An empirical study of class action settlements and their fee awards. J Empir Leg Stud 7:811–846

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fornasier M (2015) Transnational collective bargaining – the case of international framework agreements – a legal analysis. Eurorpäische Zeitschrift für Arbeitsrecht, pp 281–296

    Google Scholar 

  • Guinchard S, Chainais C, Ferrand F (2014) Procédure civile – droit interne et droit de l’Union européenne, 32nd edn. Précis Dalloz

    Google Scholar 

  • Halsbury’s Laws of England (2015) Vol 97, 5th edn. LexisNexis

    Google Scholar 

  • Hopt K, Steffek F (2013) Mediation: comparison of laws, regulatory models, fundamental issues. In: Hopt K, Steffek F (eds) Mediation – principles and regulation in comparative perspective. OUP, pp 1–130

    Google Scholar 

  • Howell B (2010) Sentencing of antitrust offenders: what does the data show? http://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/about/commissioners/selected-articles/Howell_Review_of_Antitrust_Sentencing_Data.pdf

  • Ida M (2011) Wirtschaftsstrafrecht. In: Baum H, Bälz M (eds) Handbuch Japanisches Handels- und Wirtschaftsrecht. Heymanns, pp 1461–1487

    Google Scholar 

  • Jansen N, Michaels R (eds) (2008) Beyond the state – rethinking private law. Mohr Siebeck

    Google Scholar 

  • Krause R (2012) International framework agreements as instrument for the legal enforcement of freedom of association and collective bargaining? The German Case. Comp Labor Law Policy J 33:749–773

    Google Scholar 

  • Lake R (1984–85) Letters of intent: a comparative examination under English, U.S., French and West German Law. George Wash J Int Law Econ 18:331–354

    Google Scholar 

  • Leyens P (2015) Selbstbindung an untergesetzliche Verhaltensregeln. Archiv für die civilistische Praxis:611–654

    Google Scholar 

  • Leyens P (2016) Comply or explain im Europäischen Privatrecht. Zeitschrift für Europäisches Privatrecht (ZEuP), 388–426

    Google Scholar 

  • Lima Marques C (2016) A vulnerabilidade dos analfabetos e dos idosos na sociedade de consumo brasileira: primeiros estudos sobre a figura do assédio de consumo. In: Lima Marques C, Gsell B (eds) Novas tendências do direito do consumidor. Thomson Reuters Revista dos Tribunais, pp 46–87

    Google Scholar 

  • Lima Marques C, Gsell B (eds) (2016) Novas tendências do direito do consumidor. Thomson Reuters Revista dos Tribunais

    Google Scholar 

  • Lutter M (1982) Der Letter of Intent. Heymann

    Google Scholar 

  • Martiny D (2000) Unterhaltsrang und -rückgriff, vol 2. Mohr Siebeck

    Google Scholar 

  • Monopolkommission (2015) Strafrechtliche Sanktionen bei Kartellverstößen, Sondergutachten 72, Nomos

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris P, Little G (1999) The Ombudsmen and consumer protection. In: Cartwright P (ed) Consumer protection in financial services. Kluwer, pp 43–76

    Google Scholar 

  • Nolan-Haley J (2013) Alternative dispute resolution in a nutshell, 4th edn. West Publishing

    Google Scholar 

  • Peter H (1957) Actio und Writ – Eine vergleichende Darstellung römischer und englischer Rechtsbehelfe. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Pirenne H (1933) La civilisation occidentale au Moyen Age du milieu du 15e siècle — Le mouvement économique et social. In: Glotz G, Histoire du Moyen Age, vol. VIII, 2nd section of l’Histoire générale, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Prentice DD (2015) Illegality and public policy. In: Chitty on contracts, vol I – general principles, 32 edn. Sweet & Maxwell

    Google Scholar 

  • Raymond G (2014) Droit de la consommation, 3rd edn. LexisNexis

    Google Scholar 

  • Reich N (1992) Die Einrichtung eines Bankenombudsmanns in Australien – ein Modell für selbstverwalteten Verbraucherschutz? Wertpapier-Mitteilungen, pp 809–813

    Google Scholar 

  • Reichert-Facilides F (1999) Der Versicherungsombudsmann im Ausland – Ein vergleichender Überblick. In: Basedow J, Donath R, Meyer U, Rückle D, Schwintowski HP (eds) Anleger- und objektgerechte Beratung. Private Krankenversicherung. Ein Ombudsmann für Versicherungen, Versicherungswissenschaftliche Studien (VersWissStud 11), Nomos, pp 169–187

    Google Scholar 

  • Richman B (2004) Firms, courts and reputation mechanisms: towards a positive theory of private ordering. Columbia Law Rev 104:2328–2367

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruggie JG (2007) Business and human rights: the evolving international agenda. Am J Int Law 101:819–840

    Google Scholar 

  • Schäfer HB (1999) Anreizwirkungen bei der Class Action und der Verbandsklage. In: Basedow J, Hopt KJ, Kötz H, Baetge D (eds) Die Bündelung gleichgerichteter Interessen im Prozess. Mohr Siebeck, pp 67–100

    Google Scholar 

  • Scherpe JM (2002) Außergerichtliche Streitbeilegung in Verbrauchersachen – Ein deutsch-dänischer Rechtsvergleich. Mohr Siebeck

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott C (2012) Non-judicial enforcement of transnational private regulation. In: Cafaggi F (ed) Enforcement of transnational regulation. Edward Elgar, pp 147–164

    Google Scholar 

  • Shavell S (2004) Foundations of economic analysis of law. Belknap Harvard

    Google Scholar 

  • Sievers N (2001) Mediation als alternative Konfliktlösungsmöglichkeit auch in Deutschland? – Eine rechtsvergleichende Untersuchung am Beispiel der argentinischen mediación previa, Lang

    Google Scholar 

  • Thüsing G (2010) International framework agreements: Rechtliche Grenzen und praktischer Nutzen. Recht der Arbeit, pp 78–93

    Google Scholar 

  • Veil R, Brüggemeier A (2015) Kapitalmarktrecht zwischen öffentlich-rechtlicher und privatrechtlicher Normdurchsetzung. In: Fleischer H, Kalss S, Vogt HU (eds) Enforcement im Gesellschafts- und Kapitalmarktrecht 2015. Mohr Siebeck, pp 279–309

    Google Scholar 

  • von Hippel E (1973) Besserer Rechtsschutz des Verbrauchers? RabelsZ 37:268–283

    Google Scholar 

  • von Hippel E (1986) Verbraucherschutz, 3rd edn. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  • von Hippel T (2000) Der Ombudsmann im Bank- und Versicherungswesen. Mohr Siebeck

    Google Scholar 

  • von Jhering R (1897) Der Kampf ums Recht, 13th edn. Wien, Manz

    Google Scholar 

  • Waelbroeck D, Slater D, Even-Shoshan G (2004) Study on the conditions of claims for damages in case of infringement of EC competition rules. http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/actionsdamages/comparative_report_clean_en.pdf

  • Wagner R (1906) Handbuch des Seerechts. Einleitung – Personen des Seerechts, 2nd edn. Duncker & Humblot

    Google Scholar 

  • Waye V, Morabito V (2012) Collective forms of consumer redress: financial Ombudsman case study. J Corp Law Stud 12:1–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wurmnest W (2016) International jurisdiction in competition damages cases under the Brussels I regulation: CDC hydrogen peroxide. Com Mkt Law Rev 53:225–248

    Google Scholar 

  • Zweigert K, Kötz H (1998) An introduction to comparative law, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Max Planck Institute for Comparative and International Private Law, Hamburg, Germany

    Jürgen Basedow

  2. University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany

    Jürgen Basedow

  3. Institut de droit international, Hamburg, Germany

    Jürgen Basedow

Authors
  1. Jürgen Basedow
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jürgen Basedow .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Law, Universidad de Montevideo, Montevideo, Uruguay

    Nicolás Etcheverry Estrázulas

  2. International Academy of Comparative Law, Paris, France

    Diego P. Fernández Arroyo

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer international Pubishing Switzerland AG, part of Springer Nature

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Basedow, J. (2018). The Multiple Facets of Law Enforcement. In: Etcheverry Estrázulas, N., Fernández Arroyo, D. (eds) Enforcement and Effectiveness of the Law - La mise en oeuvre et l’effectivité du droit. Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law, vol 30. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93758-8_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93758-8_1

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-93757-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-93758-8

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation