Corporate Responsibility for Economic,Social and Cultural Rights: Rights in Search of a Remedy?

It is no longer a revelation that companies have some responsibility to uphold human rights. However, delineating the boundaries of the relationship between business and human rights is more vexed. What is it that we are asking corporations to assume responsibility for and how far does that responsibility extend? This article focuses on the extent to which economic, social and cultural rights fall within a corporation’s sphere of responsibility. It then analyses how corporations may be held accountable for violations of such rights. Specifically, the article considers the use of soft law as a protective mechanism; it also details how victims of harmful corporate behaviour are using litigation (pursuant to ATCA and common law domestic causes of action) to seek redress and recognition of the harms they have directly or indirectly experienced. The article concludes with an analysis of Professor Ruggie’s (the United Nations Special Representative on the issue of transnational corporations and human rights) 2008 and 2009 Reports in which it is suggested that a respect-based framework must be interpreted as imposing proactive requirements on companies to prevent the infringement of human rights. Future efforts must also be directed towards the recognition of a specialised complementary corporate responsibility to protect human rights.     

From priority-setting to articulation of demand: Foresight for research and innovation policy and strategy

The paper addresses the application of foresight to research and innovation policy and strategy. It seeks to show an evolution away from a traditional focus on broad-based technological priority setting to a much more focussed and adapted set of applications. The inherent limitations of prioritisation processes are discussed. The more limited aim of articulating specific fields is noted. Recent trends in research and innovation policy have opened new opportunities for the application of foresight. Systemic and demand-side policies require a shared vision on the part of purchasers and suppliers. The role of foresight in such contexts needs both to be enhanced and better understood.An increasing structural focus for foresight exercises is associated not only with broader R&I system reform but also with an engagement with new-wave innovation policies. The success of demand-side measures such as cluster policies and the use of procurement or regulation to stimulate innovation is dependent upon the formation of a common vision between the supply and demand sides, opening the possibility for the application of foresight approaches. We note the emergence of a combination of corrective, disruptive and creative roles.     

An Exploration of the Conditional Timing Performance of UK Unit Trusts

Abstract:  We examine the conditional market timing performance of UK unit trusts between January 1988 and December 2002. We find no evidence of superior conditional market timing performance by UK unit trusts either across different portfolios of trusts or by individual trusts. We also find that benchmark investing is significant for UK unit trusts and trusts have high numerical risk aversion to deviations from the benchmark. Our findings suggest that UK trusts act like benchmark investors.     

Patent Hold‐Up and Antitrust: How A Well‐Intentioned Rule Could Retard Innovation

Licensing technology essential to a standard can present a hold‐up problem. After designing new products incorporating a standard, a manufacturer could be confronted by an innovator asserting patent rights to essential technology. This hold‐up problem can be solved with a damages remedy provided by antitrust or some other body of law, but a damages remedy can reduce the innovator's licensing revenue and thereby retard innovation. The availability of an ex post damages remedy also alters the licensing terms in ex ante bargaining with the result that fewer socially beneficial R&D projects are undertaken.