TL;DR: In this article, it was shown that Congress intended the courts to implement (that is, to take into account in the decision of cases) only that value we would today call consumer welfare, which is the maximization of wealth or consumer want satisfaction.
Abstract: DESPITE the obvious importance of the question to a statute as vaguely phrased as the Sherman Act, the federal courts in all the years since 1890 have never arrived at a definitive statement of the values or policies which control the law's application and evolution. The question of values, therefore, remains central to controversy about this basic law and its interpretation. More than one factor bears upon the answer to the question. Courts do not and should not, for example, attempt to administer any policy a legislature may seek to thrust upon them.1 Nevertheless, a starting point is the question of legislative intent.2 In this paper I propose to examine that question. My conclusion, drawn from the evidence in the Congressional Record, is that Congress intended the courts to implement (that is, to take into account in the decision of cases) only that value we would today call consumer welfare. To put it another way, the policy the courts were intended to apply is the maximization of wealth or consumer want satisfaction. This requires courts to distinguish between agreements or activities that increase wealth through efficiency and those that decrease it through restriction of output. Failure to settle the issue of values has led inevitably to a degree of ir-
TL;DR: In this article, the authors provide guidance on how best to recognise and protect the land rights of the rural poor and investigate the various over-arching issues related to the statutory recognition of customary land rights.
Abstract: Given the recent trend of granting vast areas of African land to foreign investors, the urgency of placing real ownership in the hands of the people living and making their livelihood upon lands held according to custom cannot be overstated. This publication provides guidance on how best to recognise and protect the land rights of the rural poor and investigates the various over-arching issues related to the statutory recognition of customary land rights. It cautions lawmakers that even excellent laws may, in their implementation, fall prey to political manipulation and suggests various oversight and accountability mechanisms that may be established to ensure that the law is properly implemented, the land claims of rural communities are protected and the legislative intent of the law is realised.
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors discuss the critical differences between independent, outside, and disinterested directors, arguing that these manifestations serve different purposes and should not be confused with each other.
Abstract: Despite the surprisingly shaky support in empirical research for the value of independent directors, their desirability seems to be taken for granted in policy-making circles. Yet important elements of the concept of and rationale for independent directors remain curiously obscure and unexamined. As a result, the empirical findings we do have may be misapplied, and judicial gap-filling may be harder than imagined when legislative intent cannot be divined or is contradictory. This article attempts to unpack the concept broadly understood by the term independent director and to distinguish among its various concrete manifestations. In particular, I discuss the critical differences between independent, outside, and disinterested directors, arguing that these manifestations serve different purposes and should not be confused with each other. This discussion is illustrated with examples from United States state and federal laws as well as stock exchange regulations, and supplemented with comparative reference to the United Kingdom, Germany, and Japan, with a brief mention of Chinese practice as well. I also argue that the whole purpose of having independent directors is surprisingly undertheorized, leading to inconsistent rules, in particular regarding the effect of director shareholding, both across countries and within the United States.