國立虎尾科技大學 |

Jurisprudence for prudential measures in international trade in financial services.

紀錄類型:	書目-語言資料,手稿 : Monograph/item
正題名/作者:	Jurisprudence for prudential measures in international trade in financial services./
作者:	Jung, Byungsik.
面頁冊數:	1 online resource (125 pages)
附註:	Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 71-08, Section: A, page: 3012.
標題:	Law. -
電子資源:	click for full text (PQDT)
ISBN:	9781124114712

Jurisprudence for prudential measures in international trade in financial services.
Jung, Byungsik.

Jurisprudence for prudential measures in international trade in financial services. - 1 online resource (125 pages)

Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 71-08, Section: A, page: 3012.

Thesis (S.J.D.)--American University, 2009.

Includes bibliographical references

Prudential measures are financial regulations for consumer protection, soundness of financial institution and stability of financial markets A prudential measure is the most powerful affirmative defense since it prevails over all obligations and commitments under international treaties as long as it is not abused. A host state has a wide discretion in regulating prudential measures and thus is tempted to use them as non-tariff trade barriers. Furthermore, prudential measures would result in regulatory expropriation and thus a host state would be obliged to compensate a foreign investor's loss. Therefore, this paper is to develop a standard of review for jurisprudence on prudential measure in order to prevent abuse of prudential discretion. In addition, this paper aims to prove that prudential measures are not subject to regulatory expropriation and compensation as long as they fall within police power.

Electronic reproduction.
Ann Arbor, Mich. :
ProQuest,
2018

Mode of access: World Wide Web

ISBN: 9781124114712Subjects--Topical Terms:

671705
Law.
Index Terms--Genre/Form:

554714
Electronic books.

Jurisprudence for prudential measures in international trade in financial services.
LDR:03657ntm a2200337K 4500 001 912450
005 20180608141654.5
006 m o u
007 cr mn||||a|a||
008 190606s2009 xx obm 000 0 eng d
020 $a 9781124114712
035 $a (MiAaPQ)AAI3416995
035 $a AAI3416995
040 $a MiAaPQ $b eng $c MiAaPQ
100 1 $a Jung, Byungsik. $3 1184812
245 1 0 $a Jurisprudence for prudential measures in international trade in financial services.
264 0 $c 2009
300 $a 1 online resource (125 pages)
336 $a text $b txt $2 rdacontent
337 $a computer $b c $2 rdamedia
338 $a online resource $b cr $2 rdacarrier
500 $a Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 71-08, Section: A, page: 3012.
500 $a Adviser: James Holbein.
502 $a Thesis (S.J.D.)--American University, 2009.
504 $a Includes bibliographical references
520 $a Prudential measures are financial regulations for consumer protection, soundness of financial institution and stability of financial markets A prudential measure is the most powerful affirmative defense since it prevails over all obligations and commitments under international treaties as long as it is not abused. A host state has a wide discretion in regulating prudential measures and thus is tempted to use them as non-tariff trade barriers. Furthermore, prudential measures would result in regulatory expropriation and thus a host state would be obliged to compensate a foreign investor's loss. Therefore, this paper is to develop a standard of review for jurisprudence on prudential measure in order to prevent abuse of prudential discretion. In addition, this paper aims to prove that prudential measures are not subject to regulatory expropriation and compensation as long as they fall within police power.
520 $a In order to develop an appropriate standard for prudential discretion, this paper reviewed various standards regarding abuse of discretion such as a good-faith principle, margin of appreciation, state of necessity and fair and equitable treatment. The common criterion applicable to all standards above is a good-faith principle. Therefore, a prudential discretion also must meet the following requirements deriving from a good-faith principle: (i) prudential purpose, (ii) reasonable relationship between prudential purpose and a taken measure, and (iii) balance between secured prudential supervision and impaired interest.
520 $a Regulatory expropriation is a host state's substantial interference with a foreign investor's property or with the investor's legitimate expectation. Regulatory expropriation requires compensation unless it falls within police power. Police power is the exercise of a state's regulatory discretion which is conducted in a good-faith manner. This police power does not amount to a significant deprivation of a investor's property compared to a secured public interest, and thus is not subject to compensation. In fact, a regulatory expropriation hardly exists in financial services because financial services are heavily regulated to the extent that foreign investors would expect that their investment will be interfered by a host state for prudential reasons. Furthermore, prudential carve-out can be a good defense against regulatory expropriation because a state's regulatory action for prudential reasons is likely to fall within the police power.
533 $a Electronic reproduction. $b Ann Arbor, Mich. : $c ProQuest, $d 2018
538 $a Mode of access: World Wide Web
650 4 $a Law. $3 671705
650 4 $a Banking. $2 bicssc $3 810653
655 7 $a Electronic books. $2 local $3 554714
690 $a 0398
690 $a 0770
710 2 $a ProQuest Information and Learning Co. $3 1178819
710 2 $a American University. $3 1184810
856 4 0 $u http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=3416995 $z click for full text (PQDT)