DOCSLIB.ORG

RUSSIA August 2013 an ASSESSMENT by the EBRD

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
RUSSIA August 2013 an ASSESSMENT by the EBRD COMMERCIAL LAWS OF RUSSIA August 2013 AN ASSESSMENT BY THE EBRD Office of the General Counsel CONTENTS 1. OVERALL ASSESSMENT ..................................................................................................................................... 1 2. THE LEGAL SYSTEM AND INVESTMENT CLIMATE .................................................................................. 3 2.1 CONSTITUTION AND COURTS ...................................................................................................... 3 2.2 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LEGAL TRANSITION AND ECONOMIC PROGRESS...................................... 4 2.3 RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN THE INVESTMENT CLIMATE ............................................................... 5 2.4 FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ...................................................................................................... 6 3. EVALUATION OF SELECTED COMMERCIAL LAWS .................................................................................. 7 3.1 CAPITAL MARKETS, INCLUDING DERIVATIVES.............................................................................. 7 3.2 CONCESSIONS ......................................................................................................................... 10 3.3 CORPORATE GOVERNANCE ...................................................................................................... 14 3.4 ELECTRICITY AND GAS REGULATION ........................................................................................ 18 3.5 ENERGY EFFICIENCY / RENEWABLE ENERGY ............................................................................ 22 3.6 INSOLVENCY ........................................................................................................................... 26 3.7 JUDICIAL CAPACITY AND CONTRACT ENFORCEMENT ................................................................. 30 3.8 PUBLIC PROCUREMENT ........................................................................................................... 32 3.9 SECURED TRANSACTIONS ......................................................................................................... 35 3.10 TELECOMMUNICATIONS / ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS ....................................................... 38 Basis of Assessment: This document draws on legal assessment work conducted by the Bank (see www.ebrd.com/law) and was last updated during the preparation of the 2012 EBRD Strategy for Russia, reflecting the situation at that time. The assessment is also grounded on the experience of the Office of the General Counsel in working on legal reform and EBRD investment activities in Russia and does not constitute legal advice. For further information please contact [email protected] . 1. Overall Assessment Recent years have been marked by Russia’s intensified efforts to upgrade its legislative framework in line with international standards and best practices. Despite the progress achieved, certain gaps and uncertainties still exist, causing concerns amongst both domestic and foreign investors. In Russia the current regulatory and legal framework governing the local debt capital markets is by a mega regulator (following a merger of the Bank of Russia with the Federal Service for Financial Markets in 2013). Extensive laws and regulations have been enacted to provide this framework, including laws and regulations governing specific entities and areas. In addition the law introducing bondholders meetings was adopted and shall enter into force in 2015, which will strengthen investors’ confidence by providing for their ability to meet and introduce voting rights. The Russian corporate governance framework has recently improved but further progress is necessary, especially in ensuring that legal provisions are well understood and implemented. In the most recent assessment by the EBRD of the Russian corporate governance legislation, certain shortcomings have been identified, in particular, in the regulation on the responsibilities of the board, as well as the rights of shareholders and disclosure and transparency. Russia has an extensive commercial law insolvency framework, which may enable the reorganisation or liquidation of a debtor’s business. However, some scope for improvement exists, and Russia is in the process of considering significant changes to its Bankruptcy Law to facilitate reorganisation and cross-border cooperation, amongst other matters. An improvement in judicial efficiency has long been on the government’s reform agenda. The EBRD 2010-2011 assessment of court judgments in commercial matters revealed that decisions of the Russian Arbitrazh courts were of generally good quality and were overall highly predictable. At the same time, efficient implementation of the court decisions and judicial independence are still areas of significant concern. The secured transactions regulation contains a number of modern features but is inadequate for the demands of the market. The inefficiency of pledge as a tool for risk management and the incompatibility of the Russian law on pledge (security) with market realities and the needs of market players remain a serious barrier to further development of the market, growth in consumer lending and implementation of modern risk management tools. It is a factor resulting in higher banking risk and a dramatic reduction of the Russian financial market’s global competitiveness. The Bank has been cooperating with the Russian authorities to improve secured transactions regulation in a number of areas. According to the recent EBRD assessment of PPP/concessions laws, Russian laws have been ranked in “high compliance” for their extensiveness and “medium compliance” for their effectiveness. The dimension of the definitions and scope of the law has been identified as the main strength of the country’s concessions legislation, with the PPP legal framework and the project agreement dimensions, measuring how extensive, specific and integrated the PPP legal framework is and to what extent the laws regulate the contents of the agreement entered into the PPP project parties, being on the weaker side. Furthermore, the policy and institutional frameworks have been considered as weaker aspects of the implementation framework. In the energy (electricity and gas) sector, Russia’s efforts in the last decade to reform its electricity market offer a useful model for its neighbours. The wholesale market can be regarded as competitive and the reform is now smoothly moving towards a full liberalisation of the non- 2 household market. The situation is sharply different in the gas market, in which the state-controlled Gazprom has a legal monopoly on gas exports. Huge investment is needed in the exploration and production sector to allow Gazprom to meet expected domestic demand and export contractual obligations and to compensate the declining production of ageing fields. In the renewable energy and energy efficiency sectors, a much greater resolve and focus, as well as a quicker timeline for implementation, will be required in order for any significant improvements in efficiency or use of renewable energy sources to be realised. There is potential for improvement in both sectors, but it is unlikely that significant improvement will take place in the renewable energy sector in the near future. This is due largely to the lack of a unified and focused government policy regarding the promotion of RES and no legal or regulatory system in place to provide government support for RES. In the EBRD 2010 Public Procurement assessment the Russian legal and regulatory framework achieved medium compliance with international standards. However, in practice it does not ensure transparency of public procurement decisions or value for money objectives. A general conclusion is that the development of local public procurement capacity is progressing; however substantial gaps in the national legislation and institutional framework were identified. Thus, public procurement policies in the Russian Federation need revision and contracting entities could benefit from the development and implementation of eProcurement procedures available to all contracting entities and suitable for all public contracts. In the telecommunications sector, at a technical and business level, it is understood that the presence of a legal, regulatory and institutional framework for telecoms which is reflective of proven best practice will do much to make the overall environment for the sector attractive for investment, promote broader competitiveness across the economy and aid social development. Russia has some way to go to harmonise with such practices. Reforms are understood to be on- going at a technical level, generally improving the environment for operations. However, plans to adopt more far reaching and strategic restructuring of the sector, particularly on the institutional side, which would be necessary to adopt best practice, have yet to become apparent. 2. The Legal System and Investment Climate 2.1 Constitution and courts The Constitution of the Russian Federation was adopted by the National Referendum in 1993. According to the Constitution, Russia is a democratic, federal republic consisting of 83 subjects of the federation (ethnically based republics, regions, territories, autonomous regions and districts, and the federal cities of Moscow and St Petersburg). State power in Russia is exercised on the basis of its division into the exclusive powers of the federal government, powers jointly exercisable by the federal
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Judicial Law Reform
    CHAPTER VI· JUDICIAL LAW REFORM A. JUDGES AS LAW REFORMERS Most members of the judiciary hastily deny any implication that they reform the law. According to Lord Simonds, "heterodoxy, or as some might say, heresy is not the more attractive because it is dignified by the name of reform" and law reform "is the task not ofthe courts oflaw but ofPar­ liament".) Similarly, O'Higgins, C.l. says in the Norris case that Judges may, and do, share with other citizens a concern and interest in desirable changes and reform in our laws; but, under the Constitution, they have no func­ tion in achieving such by judicial decision....[T]he sole and exclusive power of altering the law of Ireland is, by the Constitution [Article 15.2.1], vested in the Oireachtas. The courts declare what the law is -- it is for the Oireachtas to make changes ifit so thinks proper.2 Similar views are expressed by Viscount Dilhome in Cassell & Co. Ltd. v Broome,3 by Lord ) ScrutlOns Ltd. v. Midland Silicones Ltd. [1962] AC 446 at 467/8 2 Norris v A.G. [1984] IR 36 at 53. See also Costello l. in Anorney General v Paperlink [1984] ll..RM 373 at 388-9 and Henchy J. in Siney v Dublin Corporation [1980] IR 400 at 420-1. 3 [1972) AC 1027 at 1107: "As I understand the judicial functions ofthis House, although they involve applying well established principles to new situations, they do not involve adjusting the common law to what are thought to be the social nonns of the time.
    [Show full text]
  • USAID Legal Empowerment of the Poor
    LEGAL EMPOWERMENT OF THE POOR: FROM CONCEPTS TO ASSESSMENT MARCH 2007 This publicationLAND AND was BUSINESS produced FORMALIZATION for review FOR by LEGAL the United EMPOWE StatesRMENT Agency OF THE POOR: for STRATEGIC OVERVIEW PAPER 1 International Development. It was prepared by ARD, Inc. Legal Empowerment of the Poor: From Concepts to Assessment. Paper by John W. Bruce (Team Leader), Omar Garcia-Bolivar, Tim Hanstad, Michael Roth, Robin Nielsen, Anna Knox, and Jon Schmidt Prepared for the United States Agency for International Development, Contract Number EPP-0- 00-05-00015-00, UN High Commission – Legal Empowerment of the Poor, under Global - Man- agement, Organizational and Business Improvement Services (MOBIS). Implemented by: ARD, Inc. 159 Bank Street, Suite 300 Burlington, VT 05401 Cover Photo: Courtesy of USAID. At a village bank in Djiguinoune, Senegal, women line up with account booklets and monthly savings that help secure fresh loans to fuel their small businesses. LEGAL EMPOWERMENT OF THE POOR FROM CONCEPTS TO ASSESSMENT MARCH 2007 DISCLAIMER The authors’ views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government. CONTENTS ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS..................................................................................... iii 1.0 DEFINING LEGAL EMPOWERMENT OF THE POOR .....................................................1 2.0 SUBSTANTIVE DIMENSIONS OF LEGAL EMPOWERMENT .........................................5
    [Show full text]
  • Results of the Board of Directors Meeting on December 23, 2020
    Results of the Board of Directors Meeting on December 23, 2020 PJSC RusHydro (ticker symbol: MOEX, LSE: HYDR; OTCQX: RSHYY) announces that the Company's Board of Directors held a meeting in absentia on December 23, 2020. Resolutions passed on Items of the agenda: Item 1: On Approval of the Report on Implementation of the RusHydro Annual Integrated Purchasing Program for 9 Months of 2020. Adopted Resolution: The report on implementation of the PJSC RusHydro Annual Integrated Purchasing Program for 9 months of 2020 (Schedule No. 1 to the Minutes) be approved. Item 2: On Approval of the RusHydro Annual Integrated Purchasing Program for 2021. Adopted Resolution: The RusHydro Annual integrated Purchasing Program for 2021 (Schedule No. 2 to the Minutes) be approved. Item 3: On Approval of the Company Register of the Non-Core Assets, updated, and the Action Plan for the Non-Core Assets Sale. Adopted Resolution: The following be approved: Register of the Non-Core Assets of RusHydro, in the new revision (Schedule No. 3 to the Minutes); Action Plan for the RusHydro Non-Core Assets Sale for 2020 (Q4) – 2021 (Schedule No. 4 to the Minutes). Item 4: On Review of the Report on Compliance with the RusHydro Information Policy. Adopted Resolution: The Report on Compliance with the RusHydro Information Policy be taken into consideration (Schedule No. 5 to the Minutes). Item 5: On Authorizing to Concurrently Hold Positions in management bodies of other organizations. Adopted Resolution: Viktor Viktorovich Khmarin acting as the RusHydro sole executive body be authorized to hold positions in management bodies of other companies as well as other paid positions in other organizations, as follows: ‒ All-Russia Association of Employers “Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs”, member of the Management Board; ‒ Global Sustainable Energy Partnership, member of the Board of Directors; ‒ Global Energy Association, member of the Supervisory Board; ‒ PJSC Inter RAO, member of the Strategy and Investments Committee under the Board of Directors.
    [Show full text]
  • QUARTERLY REPORT Public Joint-Stock Company Federal
    QUARTERLY REPORT Public Joint-Stock Company Federal Hydrogeneration Company RusHydro Issuer code: 55038-E for Q2 2018 Address of the issuer: 43/1 Dubrovinskogo St., Krasnoyarsk, Krasnoyarsk Krai 660017 The information contained herein is subject to disclosure pursuant to the securities legislation of the Russian Federation ___________________ N. G. Shulginov Chairman of the Management Board – General Director Date: August 14, 2018 Deputy Director of the Accounting and Tax Department – Deputy _________________ K. V. Permyakov Chief Accountant Date: August 14, 2018 Contact Person: Anna Aleksandrovna Shamne, Chief Expert of the Equity and Information Disclosure Directorate of the Corporate Governance and Property Management Department Telephone: +7 800 333 8000 Fax: +7 495 225 3737 Email: [email protected] The address of the internet site(s) where the information contained herein is to be disclosed: http://www.e-disclosure.ru/portal/company.aspx?id=8580, www.rushydro.ru Table of Contents I. Information on Bank Accounts, the Auditor (Audit Organization), Appraiser, and Financial Adviser of the Issuer and on Persons Who Signed the Quarterly Report ....................................................................................... 6 1.1. Information on the Issuer's Bank Accounts ...................................................................................................... 6 1.2. Information on the Issuer's Auditor (Audit Organization) ............................................................................... 6 1.3. Information
    [Show full text]
  • United Nations Reform and Supporting the Rule of Law in Post-Conflict Societies
    United Nations Reform and Supporting the Rule of Law in Post-Conflict Societies David Tolbert* with Andrew Solomon** I. INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW The reform of the United Nations ("U.N.") is a priority both for the or- ganization itself and for its member states. In recent years, a multitude of reports exploring the future path of the organization and its role in a trou- bled world have been published.' While all of these documents stress the importance of reforming the U.N., questions remain as to how reforms will be implemented and what impact they will have. One area that is repeatedly mentioned both in terms of U.N. reform and the future role of the organization is in building the "rule of law" in devel- oping countries in general and post-conflict societies in particular. This Ar- ticle discusses what is meant by the "rule of law" and which aspects of the rule of law are relevant to the U.N.'s current and future work. This Article also explores how the organization can use its resources and expertise, in coordination with other actors, to help build the rule of law in societies dev- astated by armed conflict. While post-conflict societies differ from each other in significant respects, they all encounter common problems, including addressing crimes committed * Deputy Prosecutor, International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia [hereinafter ICTY]. Executive Director, American Bar Association Central European and Eurasian Law Initiative [hereinafter ABA-CEELI], 2000-2003. Deputy Registrar, Chef de Cabinet to the President and Senior Legal Adviser, ICTY, 1996-2000, and Chief, General Legal Division, United Nations Relief and Works Agency, 1993- 1996.
    [Show full text]
  • US Sanctions on Russia
    U.S. Sanctions on Russia Updated January 17, 2020 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R45415 SUMMARY R45415 U.S. Sanctions on Russia January 17, 2020 Sanctions are a central element of U.S. policy to counter and deter malign Russian behavior. The United States has imposed sanctions on Russia mainly in response to Russia’s 2014 invasion of Cory Welt, Coordinator Ukraine, to reverse and deter further Russian aggression in Ukraine, and to deter Russian Specialist in European aggression against other countries. The United States also has imposed sanctions on Russia in Affairs response to (and to deter) election interference and other malicious cyber-enabled activities, human rights abuses, the use of a chemical weapon, weapons proliferation, illicit trade with North Korea, and support to Syria and Venezuela. Most Members of Congress support a robust Kristin Archick Specialist in European use of sanctions amid concerns about Russia’s international behavior and geostrategic intentions. Affairs Sanctions related to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine are based mainly on four executive orders (EOs) that President Obama issued in 2014. That year, Congress also passed and President Rebecca M. Nelson Obama signed into law two acts establishing sanctions in response to Russia’s invasion of Specialist in International Ukraine: the Support for the Sovereignty, Integrity, Democracy, and Economic Stability of Trade and Finance Ukraine Act of 2014 (SSIDES; P.L. 113-95/H.R. 4152) and the Ukraine Freedom Support Act of 2014 (UFSA; P.L. 113-272/H.R. 5859). Dianne E. Rennack Specialist in Foreign Policy In 2017, Congress passed and President Trump signed into law the Countering Russian Influence Legislation in Europe and Eurasia Act of 2017 (CRIEEA; P.L.
    [Show full text]
  • Against Constitutional Theory
    University of Chicago Law School Chicago Unbound Journal Articles Faculty Scholarship 1998 Against Constitutional Theory Richard A. Posner Follow this and additional works at: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/journal_articles Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Richard A. Posner, "Against Constitutional Theory," 73 New York University Law Review 1 (1998). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Chicago Unbound. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal Articles by an authorized administrator of Chicago Unbound. For more information, please contact [email protected]. NEW YORK UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW VOLUME_ 73 APRIL 1998 NurwER 1 AGAINST CONSTITUTIONAL THEORY RIcHARD A. POSNER* In this Madison Lecture, Chief Judge Posner advocates a pragmaticapproach to constitutionaldecisionmaking, criticizingconstitutional theorists who conceal their normative goals in vague and unworkable principles of interpretation. After dis- cussingspecific constitutionaltheories as well as the legal academy's increasingreli- ance on theory in genera Posner demonstrates the ineffectuality of constitutional theory, using the Supreme Court's decisions in United States v. Virginia and Romer v. Evans as examples. He argues not that these cases were necessarily wrongly decided, but that the opinions lack the empiricalsupport diat is crucial to sound constitutionaladjudication. Posnerurges law professors to focus theirschol- arship on forms of inquiry that will actually prove usefid to judges and concludes by asking that judges themselves recognize and acknowledge the limitationsof their empiricalknowledge INTRODUCrION Constitutional theory, as I shall use the term, is the effort to de- velop a generally accepted theory to guide the interpretation of the Constitution of the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • Dictatorship Or Reform? the Rule of Law in Russia
    Dictatorship or Reform? The Rule of Law in Russia Mary McAuley, Alena Ledeneva and Hugh Barnes Preface by Stephen Twigg June 2006 First published in 2006 by The Foreign Policy Centre 49 Chalton Street London NW1 1HY UNITED KINGDOM Email: [email protected] © Foreign Policy Centre 2006 All rights reserved ISBN-13: 978-1-905833-00-9 ISBN-10: 1-905833-00-8 ii About the Authors Mary McAuley is the author of “Soviet Politics, 1917-1991” (1992) and “Russia’s Politics of Uncertainty” (1997). A former University Lecturer in Politics at Oxford, and then head of the Ford Foundation’s office in Moscow, she is a leading expert on Russian politics and society. Alena Ledeneva is Reader in Russian Politics and Society at the School of Slavonic and East European Studies, University College London. She is the author of “Russia’s Economy of Favours” (1998), and co-editor of “Bribery and Blat in Russia” (2000) and “Economic Crime in Russia” (2000). Her new book, “How Russia Really Works” is forthcoming. Stephen Twigg is the Director of the Foreign Policy Centre. After being General Secretary of the Fabian Society from 1996 to 1997, he was elected as a Member of Parliament for Enfield Southgate in 1997, which he represented until 2005. He was Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the House of Commons, the Rt Hon. Robin Cook MP, from 2001 to 2002 and then a junior minister in the Department for Education and Skills between 2002 and 2005, reaching the post of Minister of State in 2004. Hugh Barnes is the Director of the Russia programme at the Foreign Policy Centre, and the author of “Special Effects” (1994) and “Gannibal: The Moor of Petersburg” (2005).
    [Show full text]
  • An Overview of Boards of Directors at Russia's Largest
    An Overview of Boards of Directors at Russia’s Largest Public Companies Andrei Rakitin Milena Barsukova Arina Mazunova Translated from Russian August 2020 Key Results According to information disclosed by 109 of Russia’s largest public companies: • “Classic” board compositions of 11, nine, and seven seats prevail • The total number of persons on Boards of the companies under study is not as low as it might seem: 89% of all Directors were elected to only one such Board • Female Directors account for 12% and are more often elected to the audit, nomination, and remuneration committees than to the strategy committee • Among Directors, there are more “humanitarians” than “techies”, while the share of “techies” among chairs is greater than across the whole sample • The average age for Directors is 53, 56 for Chairmen, and 58 for Independent Directors • Generation X is the most visible on Boards, and Generation Y Directors will likely quickly increase their presence if the development of digital technologies continues • The share of Independent Directors barely reaches 30%, and there is an obvious lack of independence on key committees such as audit • Senior Independent Directors were elected at 17% of the companies, while 89% of Chairs are not independent • The average total remuneration paid to the Board of Directors is RUR 69 million, with the difference between the maximum and minimum being 18 times • Twenty-four percent of companies disclosed information on individual payments made to their Directors. According to this, the average total remuneration is approximately RUR 9 million per annum for a Director, RUR 17 million for a Chair, and RUR 11 million for an Independent Director The comparison of 2020 findings with results of a similar study published in 2012 paints an interesting dynamic picture.
    [Show full text]
  • Compromising Liberty: a Structural Critique of the Sentencing Guidelines
    University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform Volume 38 2005 Compromising Liberty: A Structural Critique of the Sentencing Guidelines Jackie Gardina Vermont Law School Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjlr Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, Courts Commons, and the Criminal Law Commons Recommended Citation Jackie Gardina, Compromising Liberty: A Structural Critique of the Sentencing Guidelines, 38 U. MICH. J. L. REFORM 345 (2005). Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjlr/vol38/iss2/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform by an authorized editor of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. COMPROMISING LIBERTY: A STRUCTURAL CRITIQUE OF THE SENTENCING GUIDELINES Jackie Gardina* This Article contends that the federal sentencing guidelines-whether mandatory or discretionary-violatethe constitutionalseparation of powers by impermissibly inter- fering with a criminal jury's constitutional duty to act as a check against government overreaching. This Article posits that the inclusion of the criminaljury in Article III of the Constitution was intended as an inseparableelement of the con- stitutional system of checks and balances. This Article also submits a proposalfor restoring the constitutionalbalance through the creation of a "guidelinejury system" within the current guideline structure. The implementation of a guideline jury sys- tem would fill the constitutional void created by the current sentencing regime without destroying its underlying benefits.
    [Show full text]
  • INTER RAO Share Placement Price – 0.0535 RUB
    Additional share issue Fundamentals Basic results of Private placement : INTER RAO share placement price – 0.0535 RUB Number of shares issued – 13,800,000,000,000 common shares Total number of shares placed with the participants of private placement – 6,822,972,629,771 shares. A total of 49.4% of newly issued shares were placed Number of shares placed with Inter RAO Capital – 2,917,890,939,501 (including shares for deal with Norilsk Nickel, stock option program and future deals) Final volume of Inter RAO’s authorized capital after private placement - 9,716,000,000,000 ordinary shares (increase by a factor of 3.36) Value of the share capital of the Company - 272.997 billion RUB* Total value of assets acquired by Inter RAO within the private placement: • Shares of utility companies - 283.2 bn RUB** • Cash – 81.8 bn RUB Share of government and state-owned companies in the authorized capital of Inter RAO amounts to 60%; Registration of additional share placement report by Federal Service for Financial Markets is planned for June 2011 Newly issued shares should start trading in June 2011 and merge into main symbol in October 2011 (MICEX) * Par value of 1 share - 0.02809767 RUB ** Value of assets based on independent appraisers. It does not include assets that might be received by INTER RAO’ s subsidiaries (closed subscription participants) after May, 17 2 Ownership structure Equity structure before Equity structure to May 17, 2011 Target equity structure after deals placement Minority finalization shareholders Federal Property Federal Property
    [Show full text]
  • The Politics of Criminal Law Reform
    The author(s) shown below used Federal funds provided by the U.S. Department of Justice and prepared the following final report: Document Title: The Politics of Criminal Law Reform: A Comparative Analysis of Lower Court Decision- Making Author: Lydia Brashear Tiede Document No.: 223283 Date Received: July 2008 Award Number: 2007-IJ-CX-0015 This report has not been published by the U.S. Department of Justice. To provide better customer service, NCJRS has made this Federally- funded grant final report available electronically in addition to traditional paper copies. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO The Politics of Criminal Law Reform: A Comparative Analysis of Lower Court Decision-Making A Dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the Requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in Political Science by Lydia Brashear Tiede Committee in charge: Professor Mathew McCubbins, Chair Professor Gary Cox Professor Stephan Haggard Professor Daniel Rodriguez Professor Joel Watson 2008 Copyright Lydia Brashear Tiede, 2008 All rights reserved. The Dissertation of Lydia Brashear Tiede is approved, and it is acceptable in quality and form for publication on microfilm: ________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ Chair University of California, San Diego 2008 iii DEDICATION To David, For believing in me. Without you, this would not have been possible. To Natalie, For making me stop to smell the roses. iv EPIGRAPH Science is a very human form of knowledge. We are always at the brink of the known, we always feel forward for what is to be hoped.
    [Show full text]