The war in Ukraine has brought about an unprecedented change in the way the European Union addresses migration-related issues. Following the invasion of Ukraine by Russian forces in late February 2022, the Council of the European Union adopted an Implementing Decision establishing the existence of a mass influx of displaced persons from Ukraine within the meaning of Article 5 of Council Directive 2001/55/EC, for the first time activating its temporary protection mechanism. While the Directive’s provisions reflect the founding principles of the European Union, the specific vulnerabilities of international migrants require suitable social provisions to afford them a standard of living as required to ensure their health and well-being for the duration of the protection provided by the Directive. The purpose of this article is to discuss the nature of the challenges arising from this first application of the ‘Temporary Protection Directive’, as well as the impact of these challenges on the Directive’s efficacy and on the scope of the protection for the displaced persons covered by it. It argues, first, that the joint interpretation of the Directive and the Council Decision significantly limits the personal scope of the protection, leaving certain categories of migrants behind. The paper then goes on to examine the Directive’s substance and suggests that a broad interpretation of its social protection provisions reveals new difficulties regarding the financing and sustainability of this protection and its sustainability.
by Marie-Elisabeth Boggio*
This paper is a short overview of my research on parliamentary practices and the comparison I make between practices in the French Parliament and in the UK Parliament. We know that both are governed by written rules. On the one hand, the UK Houses of Parliament are run according to Standing Orders and certain Parliament Acts. On the other hand, the French Chambres are governed by Internal Rules and several organic laws which are enforced by the Conseil constitutionnel(Constitutional Council). But these written rules are not enough to describe precisely and comprehensively the running of Parliaments: more rules are needed to govern the respective Houses/Chambres. These rules are unwritten and we call them “parliamentary practices”. This paper will describe the concept of “parliamentary practices”, a category on which little research has been carried out, at least in France. It will also explain the reason why a comparison between France and the United Kingdom might be of interest on this topic. Finally, there will be a comparative study of some practices to demonstrate their significance for parliamentary proceedings in both countries.
by Hwa-Jin Kim*
This Article offers an assessment of the preliminary evidence that the market for corporate control functions as a disciplinary mechanism for poor corporate governance in Korea. It analyzes SK Corporation’s fight against Sovereign Asset Management, contest for control over the Hyundai Group, KT&G’s fight against Carl Icahn, and LG Group and Carlyle’s proxy contest against Hanaro Telecom, together with relevant laws and regulations. These high-profile cases dramatically exemplified the role of takeovers in the improvement of the corporate governance of Korean companies, and brought about active policy discussions in respect of the market for corporate control and takeover defenses. This Article will also provide a quick overview over the provisions in draft new Korean Commercial Code related to the market for corporate control and takeover defenses, including squeeze-out, poison pills, and dual-class commons. This Article argues that as the increasing exposure of control to the market could eliminate the inefficient controlling shareholder system in Korea, the new Korean Commercial Code should strike a balance between the active market for corporate control and effective takeover defensive tactics for the benefit of all shareholders and the value of the company.
by Sabrina Nanchahal*
Despite extensive litigation concerning restitution claims against the tax authority in the English courts, the role and parameters of the change of position defence have not been satisfactorily established in this context. German law provides a clear example of how these issues can be addressed within a public law restitution framework. This article explores the conceptual basis for the German position before turning to the current English framework. An analysis of the application of the defence according to unjust enrichment principles emphasises the practical and conceptual difficulties the English courts have faced in such claims. In light of these issues, two alternative potential developments of the defence are examined with the aim of achieving a conceptually cohesive common law restitution framework.