DOCSLIB.ORG

The London School of Economics and Political Science State-Led Coercive Takeovers in Putin's Russia: Explaining the Underlying

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The London School of Economics and Political Science State-Led Coercive Takeovers in Putin's Russia: Explaining the Underlying The London School of Economics and Political Science State-led coercive takeovers in Putin’s Russia: explaining the underlying motives and ownership outcomes Andrew Yorke A thesis submitted to the Department of Government at the London School of Economics and Political Science for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, London, April 2014 Declaration I certify that the thesis I have presented for examination for the MPhil/PhD degree of the London School of Economics and Political Science is solely my own work other than where I have clearly indicated that it is the work of others (in which case the extent of any work carried out jointly by me and any other person is clearly identified in it). The copyright of this thesis rests with the author. Quotation from it is permitted, provided that full acknowledgement is made. This thesis may not be reproduced without my prior written consent. I warrant that this authorisation does not, to the best of my belief, infringe the rights of any third party. Abstract Since Vladimir Putin first became Russia’s President in 2000, the state has played an increasingly active and interventionist role in the economy, including through its involvement in a large number of coercive takeovers of privately-owned businesses. The best known case is the Yukos affair, but there have been many other, less prominent takeovers. These have largely been explained as predatory acts by state officials seeking to enrich themselves or increase their power. This has contributed to the perception that Putin’s Russia is a kleptocracy, with the state given free rein to engage in economically-destructive attacks on property rights. This thesis studies a number of state-led coercive takeovers in Putin’s Russia, including the Yukos affair, and argues that they cannot be explained as predatory acts initiated by rent- seeking state officials. Instead, they were the work of state officials attempting to pursue economic development while countering perceived threats to state sovereignty. The Yukos affair resulted in the company’s de facto nationalisation and heralded a broader trend of expanding state ownership in the economy. But two other coercive takeovers studied here instead resulted in the companies being transferred to new private owners. In other cases where nationalisation was the clear goal, the state-owned companies who emerged as buyers chose indirect forms of ownership over their new assets. The varying ownership outcomes are found to have been determined by institutional factors which constrained the behaviour of the state, contributing to its preference for takeovers that were negotiated rather than entirely coercive, and turning each case into a bargaining game between state and targeted business owner. Thus Russia is some way from kleptocracy, not only because of the developmental aspirations of its political leadership, but also thanks to partial progress towards institutional checks on arbitrary state coercion. Acknowledgements This thesis is dedicated to my sons Gideon and Laurence, whose arrival is the reason for it having taken longer than expected, and also to my wife Rachel, who is the reason I have nevertheless managed to complete it. She has never doubted the value of what I was doing and always ensured that I had the space and time necessary to keep making progress. I am deeply grateful to my supervisor David Woodruff, who has been immensely supportive whilst also nudging me to venture out of my comfort-zone. I could not have asked for a better mentor. I am also indebted to Archie Brown, whose encouragement and example (both during my postgraduate study at St Antony’s over a decade ago, and subsequently) are the reason I have been pulled towards academic research. I would like to acknowledge the generous financial support provided to me by the LSE in the form of a full PhD scholarship. My research trip to Moscow proved to be both productive and lots of fun, thanks largely to my friends and hosts, Dima Ganovsky, Nastya Galochkina, Lena Isen and Hugo Stolkin. I am particularly grateful to Hugo both for his hospitality and his determination to help me get to the bottom of some obscure but pertinent points of Russian law. I am greatly indebted to him, and to all the Moscow-based journalists and experts who took the time to talk to me about my work. Contents Declaration ............................................................................................................................. 2 Abstract .................................................................................................................................. 3 Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................ 4 Contents ................................................................................................................................. 5 List of figures and tables ........................................................................................................ 8 Chapter 1: State-led coercive takeovers in Putin’s Russia ................................................. 10 Specifying and naming the domain of cases ........................................................................ 13 Research question 1: what motivates state actors to instigate state-led coercive takeovers?15 Rent-seeking, kleptocracy and the “sovereign development” hypothesis ........................... 19 Research question 2: ownership outcome of state-led coercive takeovers .......................... 28 Towards a theory of the ownership outcomes ..................................................................... 30 Do institutions constrain state coercion in Russia? .............................................................. 35 Method ................................................................................................................................. 37 Data sources ......................................................................................................................... 41 Structure of the thesis ........................................................................................................... 45 Chapter 2. Yukos, Russneft’ and Bashneft’ ........................................................................ 49 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 49 Outline case narratives ......................................................................................................... 52 Yukos ............................................................................................................................... 52 Russneft’ .......................................................................................................................... 55 Bashneft’ .......................................................................................................................... 58 Research question 1: causes of the state-led coercive takeovers ......................................... 60 Ordered from the top ........................................................................................................ 60 Yukos ............................................................................................................................... 62 Underlying causes ........................................................................................................ 65 Russneft’ .......................................................................................................................... 69 Bashneft’ .......................................................................................................................... 77 Rakhimov’s ouster ....................................................................................................... 79 The coercive takeover .................................................................................................. 84 Research question 2: explaining the ownership outcomes ................................................... 87 Factions and rent-seeking ................................................................................................ 87 Limitations of state ownership ......................................................................................... 89 Contingent nature of the outcomes .................................................................................. 90 The takeover as bargaining game .................................................................................... 91 Relating the cases to the theory ....................................................................................... 93 Yukos ........................................................................................................................... 93 Russneft’ and Bashneft’ ............................................................................................. 102 Contrasting fates of the existing owners .................................................................... 117 Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 119 Explaining the causes of the takeovers ...................................................................... 119 Explaining the ownership outcomes .......................................................................... 121 Chapter 3. Gazprom’s campaign to re-take “lost” assets ...............................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Rosneft's Offshore Partnerships: the Re-Opening of the Russian
    140 Polar Record 49 (249): 140–153 (2013). c Cambridge University Press 2012. doi:10.1017/S0032247412000137 Rosneft’s offshore partnerships: the re-opening of the Russian petroleum frontier? Indra Overland and Jakub Godzimirski Norwegian Institute of International Affairs, PB 8159, Dept., 0033 Oslo, Norway ([email protected]) Lars Petter Lunden and Daniel Fjaertoft Sigra Group, Fagerheimgata 8, 0567 Oslo, Norway Received December 2011; first published online 2 April 2012 ABSTRACT. During an intense period of only 14 months, from June 2010 to August 2011, six major cooperation agreements between oil companies were announced in Russia. Almost all of these partnerships involved offshore projects, with an international oil company as one of the partners and Rosneft as the other. The agreements were concentrated along Russia’s Arctic petroleum frontier, and the three that survived the longest involved oil or gas extraction in the Arctic. This article analyses and compares the contents and contexts of the agreements, to ascertain what they have to tell about access for international companies to Russia’s offshore petroleum resources and the influence of competing Russian political actors over the country’s petroleum sector. The article argues that the new partnerships did represent an intention to open up the Russian continental shelf, and that the agreements were driven and shaped by a series of needs: to secure foreign capital and competence, to reduce exploration risk, to lobby for a better tax framework, to show the government that necessary action was being taken to launch exploration activities, to improve Rosneft’s image abroad, and either to avert or prepare for future privatisation of state companies such as Rosneft.
    [Show full text]
  • Business Quarterly (Summer 2017)
    Summer 2017 Regional Development With AEB updates on: #investment climate in Russia, #localisation in the Russian regions, #discovering Krasnodar Region, #St. Petersburg investment legislation, #AEB news, #Committee activities, #member news, and #new members. | Introduction AEB Business Quarterly | Summer 2017 Dear readers, Welcome to the summer issue of the AEB Business Quarterly! The Association of European Businesses represents the interests of foreign investors in Russia and sup- ports foreign companies operating on the Russian market. Far more than 50% of foreign direct invest- ments originate from the European Union, so the country’s investment attractiveness is of vital impor- tance for the AEB. The AEB is focused on engaging with the Russian regions. We have two Regional Committees: the North-Western and the Southern ones with the offices in Saint Petersburg and Krasnodar correspondingly. They actively cooperate with the regional and local authorities and take part in the work of the investment councils of the governments of the Krasnodar and Leningrad regions, and the city of St. Petersburg. On 1 June 2017, the AEB signed an Agreement on Cooperation with Leningrad region within the framework of the St.Petersburg International Forum. The AEB regularly holds presentations of the investment potential of the regions in Moscow. Thus, recently we have hosted several events on the investment potential of the Altai and Sakhalin regions, the North Caucasus and the Chuvash Republic. The Association regularly organises business missions to the Russian regions and meetings with the regional governors, enabling companies to get acquainted with the investment opportunities of the given region as well as the terms of co- operation and development.
    [Show full text]
  • The Killing of William Browder
    THE KILLING OF WILLIAM BROWDER THE KILLING OF WILLIAM BROWDER Bill Browder, the fa lse crusader for justice and human rights and the self - styled No. 1 enemy of Vladimir Putin has perpetrated a brazen and dangerous deception upon the Weste rn world. This book traces the anatomy of this deception, unmasking the powerful forces that are pushing the West ern world toward yet another great war with Russia. ALEX KRAINER EQUILIBRIUM MONACO First published in Monaco in 20 17 Copyright © 201 7 by Alex Krainer ISBN 978 - 2 - 9556923 - 2 - 5 Material contained in this book may be reproduced with permission from its author and/or publisher, except for attributed brief quotations Cover page design, content editing a nd copy editing by Alex Krainer. Set in Times New Roman, book title in Imprint MT shadow To the people of Russia and the United States wh o together, hold the keys to the future of humanity. Enlighten the people generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like the evil spirits at the dawn of day. Thomas Jefferson Table of Contents 1. Bill Browder and I ................................ ................................ ............... 1 Browder’s 2005 presentation in Monaco ................................ .............. 2 Harvard club presentation in 2010 ................................ ........................ 3 Ru ssophobia and Putin - bashing in the West ................................ ......... 4 Red notice ................................ ................................ ............................ 6 Reading
    [Show full text]
  • FY2020 Financial Results
    Norilsk Nickel 2020 Financial Results Presentation February 2021 Disclaimer The information contained herein has been prepared using information available to PJSC MMC Norilsk Nickel (“Norilsk Nickel” or “Nornickel” or “NN”) at the time of preparation of the presentation. External or other factors may have impacted on the business of Norilsk Nickel and the content of this presentation, since its preparation. In addition all relevant information about Norilsk Nickel may not be included in this presentation. No representation or warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the accuracy, completeness or reliability of the information. Any forward looking information herein has been prepared on the basis of a number of assumptions which may prove to be incorrect. Forward looking statements, by the nature, involve risk and uncertainty and Norilsk Nickel cautions that actual results may differ materially from those expressed or implied in such statements. Reference should be made to the most recent Annual Report for a description of major risk factors. There may be other factors, both known and unknown to Norilsk Nickel, which may have an impact on its performance. This presentation should not be relied upon as a recommendation or forecast by Norilsk Nickel. Norilsk Nickel does not undertake an obligation to release any revision to the statements contained in this presentation. The information contained in this presentation shall not be deemed to be any form of commitment on the part of Norilsk Nickel in relation to any matters contained, or referred to, in this presentation. Norilsk Nickel expressly disclaims any liability whatsoever for any loss howsoever arising from or in reliance upon the contents of this presentation.
    [Show full text]
  • The Russia You Never Met
    The Russia You Never Met MATT BIVENS AND JONAS BERNSTEIN fter staggering to reelection in summer 1996, President Boris Yeltsin A announced what had long been obvious: that he had a bad heart and needed surgery. Then he disappeared from view, leaving his prime minister, Viktor Cher- nomyrdin, and his chief of staff, Anatoly Chubais, to mind the Kremlin. For the next few months, Russians would tune in the morning news to learn if the presi- dent was still alive. Evenings they would tune in Chubais and Chernomyrdin to hear about a national emergency—no one was paying their taxes. Summer turned to autumn, but as Yeltsin’s by-pass operation approached, strange things began to happen. Chubais and Chernomyrdin suddenly announced the creation of a new body, the Cheka, to help the government collect taxes. In Lenin’s day, the Cheka was the secret police force—the forerunner of the KGB— that, among other things, forcibly wrested food and money from the peasantry and drove some of them into collective farms or concentration camps. Chubais made no apologies, saying that he had chosen such a historically weighted name to communicate the seriousness of the tax emergency.1 Western governments nod- ded their collective heads in solemn agreement. The International Monetary Fund and the World Bank both confirmed that Russia was experiencing a tax collec- tion emergency and insisted that serious steps be taken.2 Never mind that the Russian government had been granting enormous tax breaks to the politically connected, including billions to Chernomyrdin’s favorite, Gazprom, the natural gas monopoly,3 and around $1 billion to Chubais’s favorite, Uneximbank,4 never mind the horrendous corruption that had been bleeding the treasury dry for years, or the nihilistic and pointless (and expensive) destruction of Chechnya.
    [Show full text]
  • Information on IRC – R.O.S.T., the Registrar of the Company and the Acting Ballot Committee of MMC Norilsk Nickel
    Information on IRC – R.O.S.T., the registrar of the Company and the acting Ballot Committee of MMC Norilsk Nickel IRC – R.O.S.T. (former R.O.S.T. Registrar merged with Independent Registrar Company in February 2019) was established in 1996. In 2003–2015, Independent Registrar Company was a member of Computershare Group, a global leader in registrar and transfer agency services. In July 2015, IRC changed its ownership to pass into the control of a group of independent Russian investors. In December 2016, R.O.S.T. Registrar and Independent Registrar Company, both owned by the same group of independent investors, formed IRC – R.O.S.T. Group of Companies. In 2018, Saint Petersburg Central Registrar joined the Group. In February 2019, Independent Registrar Company merged with IRC – R.O.S.T. Ultimate beneficiaries of IRC – R.O.S.T. Group are individuals with a strong background in business management and stock markets. No beneficiary holds a blocking stake in the Group. In accordance with indefinite License No. 045-13976-000001, IRC – R.O.S.T. keeps records of holders of registered securities. Services offered by IRC – R.O.S.T. to its clients include: › Records of shareholders, interestholders, bondholders, holders of mortgage participation certificates, lenders, and joint property owners › Meetings of shareholders, joint owners, lenders, company members, etc. › Electronic voting › Postal and electronic mailing › Corporate consulting › Buyback of securities, including payments for securities repurchased › Proxy solicitation › Call centre services › Depositary and brokerage, including escrow agent services IRC – R.O.S.T. Group invests a lot in development of proprietary high-tech solutions, e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • November 1-30, 2020
    UZBEKISATN– NOVEMBER 1-30, 2020 UZBEKISATN– NOVEMBER 1-30, 2020 ....................................................................................................................................... 1 TOP NEWS OF THE PERIOD ................................................................................................................................................................ 2 Government intends to increase excise tax rates on petrol and diesel 2 Leading trade partners of Uzbekistan 2 POLITICS AND LAW ................................................................................................................................................................................. 3 Namangan plans to build an international business center: Alisher Usmanov to contribute to the implementation of the project 3 Uzbekistan rises in the Legatum Prosperity Index 3 Worldwide Cost of Living 2020 report: Tashkent among cheapest cities to live in 4 International Organization of Migration to open its office in Uzbekistan 4 Central Asia, EU reaffirm their commitment to build strong relations 5 Facilitating Uzbekistan's Accession to the WTO 7 Economy AND FINANCE ...................................................................................................................................................................... 8 Uzbekistan takes first place in the world in terms of gold sold in the third quarter 8 The National Venture Fund UzVC is being created 8 Diesel fuel production of Euro-4 and Euro-5 standards starts in Ferghana region 9 Food
    [Show full text]
  • The Meltdown of the Russian Federation in the Early 1990S Nationalist Myth-Building and the Urals Republic Project Alexander Kuznetsov
    The Meltdown of the Russian Federation in the Early 1990s Nationalist Myth-Building and the Urals Republic Project Alexander Kuznetsov Abstract: In the early 1990s after the collapse of the USSR, the new Russian state faced strong nationalist claims for sovereignty and increased autonomy from the side of regional elites. These nationalist challenges at the sub-national level were seriously considered by many experts to be a potential cause for the further breakup of Russia into a number of new independent states. The nationalist movements in ethnic republics like Chechnya, Tatarstan and Sakha-Yakutia, and their contribution to possible scenario of the disintegration of the Russian Federation, have been researched frequently in post- Soviet-studies literature. However, the examination of the impact of nationalistic ideas in ethnically Russian regions (oblasts) at the beginning of the 1990s has not received the same level of attention from political scientists. The Sverdlovsk oblast is a case study for this research. In the early 1990s, the creation of the Urals republic began in this region. This paper argues that the Sverdlovsk oblast’s claims for increased autonomy included elements of myth-construction within a sub-state nationalist ideology. The first section of this paper briefly contextualizes the events that occurred during the end of the 1980s and the beginning of the 1990s that led to the growth of strong sub-nationalist movements in post-Communist Russia. The second section gives details of the Urals republic project, launched in the Sverdlovsk oblast in 1993, and defines the presence of nationalist myth- making elements in this regional movement.
    [Show full text]
  • Russi-Monitor-Monthl
    MONTHLY May 2020 CONTENTS 3 17 28 POLAND AND DENMARK BEGIN BELARUS RAMPS UP RUSSIAN ECONOMY COMES CONSTRUCTION OF BALTIC DIVERSIFICATION EFFORTS BADLY BECAUSE OF PANDEMIC PIPE PROJECT TO CHALLENGE WITH U.S. AND GULF CRUDE RUSSIAN GAS DOMINANCE PURCHASES POLAND AND DENMARK BEGIN CONSTRUCTION OF BALTIC PIPE PROJECT CORONAVIRUS IN RUSSIA: BAD NEWS FOR 3 TO CHALLENGE RUSSIAN GAS DOMINANCE 20 THE COUNTRY MOSCOW: THE CAPITAL RUSSIA UNVEILS RESCUE PLAN FOR OIL 5 OF RUSSIAN CORONAVIRUS OUTBREAK 22 SECTOR VLADIMIR PUTIN SUFFERS PRESTIGIOUS 6 FAILURE IN VICTORY DAY CELEBRATIONS 23 TENSIONS RISE IN THE BLACK SEA RUSSIA EASES LOCKDOWN YET OFFERS ROSNEFT, TRANSNEFT IN NEW FEUD OVER 8 LITTLE SUPPORT TO CITIZENS 25 TRANSPORTATION TARIFFS ROSNEFT’S SECHIN ASKS OFFICIALS FOR NEW TAX RELIEFS DESPITE RECENT GAZPROM IS TURNING TOWARDS CHINA, 10 MISHAPS 27 BUT THERE ARE PROBLEMS FRADKOV REMAINS AT THE HELM OF THE RUSSIAN ECONOMY COMES BADLY 12 KREMLIN’S “INTELLIGENCE SERVICE” 28 BECAUSE OF PANDEMIC RUSSIA STEPS UP DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS AS RUSSIA AIMS TO BOOST MILITARY FACILITIES 14 KREMLIN AIDE KOZAK VISITS BERLIN 30 IN SYRIA GAZPROM’S NATURAL GAS EXPORT RUSSIA–NATO TENSIONS CONTINUE ON 16 REVENUE DECLINED DRAMATICALLY IN Q1 32 BOTH FLANKS BELARUS RAMPS UP DIVERSIFICATION RUSSIA, BELARUS SQUABBLE OVER GAS EFFORTS WITH U.S. AND GULF CRUDE DELIVERIES IN NEW CHAPTER OF ENERGY 17 PURCHASES 34 WAR RUSSIA’S ROSNEFT HAS NEW OWNERSHIP RUSSIA FACES BIGGEST MILITARY THREAT 19 STRUCTURE BUT SAME CEO 36 FROM WEST, SHOIGU SAYS 2 www.warsawinstitute.org 4 May 2020 POLAND AND DENMARK BEGIN CONSTRUCTION OF BALTIC PIPE PROJECT TO CHALLENGE RUSSIAN GAS DOMINANCE Construction of a major gas pipeline from Norway is to begin in the coming days, Polish President Andrzej Duda said in the morning of May 4.
    [Show full text]
  • Organized Crime and the Russian State Challenges to U.S.-Russian Cooperation
    Organized Crime and the Russian State Challenges to U.S.-Russian Cooperation J. MICHAEL WALLER "They write I'm the mafia's godfather. It was Vladimir Ilich Lenin who was the real organizer of the mafia and who set up the criminal state." -Otari Kvantrishvili, Moscow organized crime leader.l "Criminals Nave already conquered the heights of the state-with the chief of the KGB as head of a mafia group." -Former KGB Maj. Gen. Oleg Kalugin.2 Introduction As the United States and Russia launch a Great Crusade against organized crime, questions emerge not only about the nature of joint cooperation, but about the nature of organized crime itself. In addition to narcotics trafficking, financial fraud and racketecring, Russian organized crime poses an even greater danger: the theft and t:rafficking of weapons of mass destruction. To date, most of the discussion of organized crime based in Russia and other former Soviet republics has emphasized the need to combat conven- tional-style gangsters and high-tech terrorists. These forms of criminals are a pressing danger in and of themselves, but the problem is far more profound. Organized crime-and the rarnpant corruption that helps it flourish-presents a threat not only to the security of reforms in Russia, but to the United States as well. The need for cooperation is real. The question is, Who is there in Russia that the United States can find as an effective partner? "Superpower of Crime" One of the greatest mistakes the West can make in working with former Soviet republics to fight organized crime is to fall into the trap of mirror- imaging.
    [Show full text]
  • Treisman Silovarchs 9 10 06
    Putin’s Silovarchs Daniel Treisman October 2006, Forthcoming in Orbis, Winter 2007 In the late 1990s, many Russians believed their government had been captured by a small group of business magnates known as “the oligarchs”. The most flamboyant, Boris Berezovsky, claimed in 1996 that seven bankers controlled fifty percent of the Russian economy. Having acquired massive oil and metals enterprises in rigged privatizations, these tycoons exploited Yeltsin’s ill-health to meddle in politics and lobby their interests. Two served briefly in government. Another, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, summed up the conventional wisdom of the time in a 1997 interview: “Politics is the most lucrative field of business in Russia. And it will be that way forever.”1 A decade later, most of the original oligarchs have been tripping over each other in their haste to leave the political stage, jettisoning properties as they go. From exile in London, Berezovsky announced in February he was liquidating his last Russian assets. A 1 Quoted in Andrei Piontkovsky, “Modern-Day Rasputin,” The Moscow Times, 12 November, 1997. fellow media magnate, Vladimir Gusinsky, long ago surrendered his television station to the state-controlled gas company Gazprom and now divides his time between Israel and the US. Khodorkovsky is in a Siberian jail, serving an eight-year sentence for fraud and tax evasion. Roman Abramovich, Berezovsky’s former partner, spends much of his time in London, where he bought the Chelsea soccer club in 2003. Rather than exile him to Siberia, the Kremlin merely insists he serve as governor of the depressed Arctic outpost of Chukotka—a sign Russia’s leaders have a sense of humor, albeit of a dark kind.
    [Show full text]
  • The Russian Default and the Contagion to Brazil
    A Service of Leibniz-Informationszentrum econstor Wirtschaft Leibniz Information Centre Make Your Publications Visible. zbw for Economics Baig, Taimur; Goldfajn, Ilan Working Paper The Russian default and the contagion to Brazil Texto para discussão, No. 420 Provided in Cooperation with: Departamento de Economia, Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro Suggested Citation: Baig, Taimur; Goldfajn, Ilan (2000) : The Russian default and the contagion to Brazil, Texto para discussão, No. 420, Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro (PUC-Rio), Departamento de Economia, Rio de Janeiro This Version is available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/186664 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. personal and scholarly purposes. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle You are not to copy documents for public or commercial Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, If the documents have been made available under an Open gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der
    [Show full text]