Volume 3, Issue 1 - 22nd Annual Conference of the European Association of Law and Economics, Slovenia

Introduction to the Twenty-Second Annual Conference of the European Association of Law and Economics, Ljubljana, Slovenia

The text of a Laudatio delivered on September 16, 2006 by Professor Francesco Parisi on the occasion of the awarding of an honorary membership in the European Association of Law and Economics (EALE) to Professor Pietro Trimarchi. This was the first such honorary membership awarded by this association.

The popularity of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) is the subject of much controversy. This paper examines usage of the ICJ by all United Nations (UN) member states as compared with its usage by those states with the top-ten economies of the world. Five hypotheses explaining the decrease in ICJ usage by the top-ten economies are presented as follows: (1) a home-bias of judges, (2) the diversification of international tribunals, (3) changes in the composition of the cases filed, (4) the (re-)allocation of power, and (5) an increased heterogeneity of external institutions among UN member states. We find empirical evidence that an increase in UN membership has led to increased heterogeneity, which in turn has led to a decline in usage of the ICJ by the top-ten economies.

This paper develops a stylized model of international treaty formation and analyzes the different modalities with which states can become part of an international treaty according to the procedures set forth by the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. We consider the rules governing accession to international treaties, distinguishing between three situations: (i) Treaties for which acceptance of a new member requires unanimous approval of the signatory states with an amendment of the original treaty agreement (closed treaties); (ii) Treaties where acceptance of a new member is made possible through approval by a majority of the existing member states (semi-open treaties); and (iii) Treaties where the original member states have agreed to leave the treaty open for accession by other states (open treaties).

The corporate lawyer-client privilege is increasingly controversial. Courts assert that the privilege promotes corporate compliance with the law as long as it is restricted to communications in furtherance of legal advice. This article assumes the privilege increases the probability that a corporation will escape liability. Courts can apply various tests to determine whether the agent who communicated with the corporate attorney can be defined as a representative of the corporation. The most restrictive test, the “control group” test, has been rejected by most American jurisdictions, but it has recently re-emerged in the United Kingdom. The author proposes that this test motivates corporations to restructure their optimal internal decision-making processes in order to “squeeze” into the privilege. When plaintiffs are uninformed about the internal organization of a corporate defendant, even corporations that cannot squeeze into the test have an incentive to mimic the behavior of privileged corporations, and consequently pursue socially harmful actions. These findings are supported by case law from control group jurisdictions.

This paper investigates the evolution of competition policy decisions in the US and, particularly, in the EU, concerning mandatory access to an essential facility held by a dominant firm. Based on some recent and controversial EU antitrust decisions, we outline a comprehensive test for identifying an essential facility and consequently imposing a mandatory access obligation on dominant firms.

This paper provides a coherent framework for classifying cases with multiple tortfeasors in relation to the efficient allocation of liability across the tortfeasors. We construct a simple model in which various tortfeasors contribute to a loss, and consider efficient liability rules under various assumptions.