Talking law and economics at ETH Zurich

ETH Center for Law & Economics
Talking law and economics at ETH Zurich Podcast

This podcast is brought to you by the ETH Zurich Center for Law & Economics. We discuss current topic in intellectual property law, the law of emerging technologies, experimental law & economics, law & tech, and machine learning.

  1. 16 SEPT

    How to Legitimate the Prosecution of Politicians – Prof. Ian Ayres (Yale University)

    In 1883, the US Supreme Court declared that no one is above the law, emphasizing that all government officials must obey it. This principle, widely accepted in contemporary legal systems, asserts that politicians, like everyone else, should not be immune from prosecution. Unlike for everybody else, though, the decision to prosecute a politician, may be influenced by partisan politics. In this episode of the CLE Vlog & Podcast Series, Prof. Ian Ayres (Yale Law School) shares insights of the paper “How to Legitimate the Prosecution of Politicians” with Alessandro Tacconelli (ETH Zurich). In their study, Prof. Ayres and co-author Prof. Saikrishna Prakash propose the creation of a Prosecutor Jury—a mechanism designed to ensure politicians’ accountability while preventing politically motivated prosecutions. According to their proposal, when prosecutorial decisions raise partisanship concerns, a super-majority of a politically balanced panel of former U.S. attorneys shall agree on indictment. They recommend the application of this framework to decide whether to prosecute presidential candidates, members of Congress, candidates for federal offices, and federal judges. Paper References: Ian Ayres - Yale University Saikrishna Prakash - University of Virginia How to Legitimate the Prosecution of Politicians https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4544804 Audio Credits for Trailer: AllttA by AllttA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZawLOcbQZ2w

    16 min
  2. 21 APR

    Did the Global South Have Their Say on EU Supply Chain Regulation? – Prof. Kevin Davis (NYU)

    In this episode of the CLE vlog & podcast series, Prof. Kevin Davis (New York University) discusses his study "Did the Global South Have Their Say on EU Supply Chain Regulation?" with Luca Baltensperger (ETH Zurich). Prof. Davis' study (joint with Roy Germano and Lauren E. May from NYU) uses data from the EU’s ‘Have Your Say’ platform to examine how actors from the Global South responded to the European Commission’s formal consultation process on the proposed Corporate Sustainability and Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD). Actors from the Global South who participated in the consultation overwhelmingly supported the proposed due diligence framework. The CSDDD is supposed to establish a corporate due diligence standard on sustainability issues, such as environmental concerns, climate change, and human rights, for businesses operating in the EU. However, the findings of Prof. Davis' study call into question the strength of the EU’s commitment to including affected actors from the Global South in regulatory processes. They are consistent with the hypotheses that actors from the South have limited capabilities to participate in formal consultation processes or believe that they lack the power to influence outcomes through those processes. In this vlog episode, Prof. Davis talks about the background of the study, the findings, and its implications. Paper References: Kevin Davis – New York University Roy Germano – New York University Lauren E. May – New York University Did the Global South Have Their Say on EU Supply Chain Regulation? NYU Law and Economics Research Paper No. 24-13 https://ssrn.com/abstract=4735442 Audio Credits for Trailer: AllttA by AllttA https://youtu.be/ZawLOcbQZ2w

    13 min
  3. 20 MAR

    The Court Speaks, But Who Listens? Automated Compliance Review of the GDPR – Prof. Amit Zac (University of Amsterdam)

    In this episode of the CLE Vlog & Podcast series, Amit Zac (University of Amsterdam) and Filippo Lancieri (ETH Zurich) discuss Prof. Zac’s study "The Court Speaks, But Who Listens? Automated Compliance Review of the GDPR", which is an empirical analysis of the mobile applications’ response to the famous European Court of Justice ’Schrems II’ decision in the EU. In July 2020, the European Court of Justice invalidated the EU-US Privacy Shield with immediate effect. As a result, many personal data transfers from the European Union to the United States became illegal overnight. Prof. Zac and his co-authors present a unique dataset allowing them not only to observe what firms say about their behavior in privacy policies, but also how firms actually behave. Using machine-learning tools, they analyze the privacy policies of over 7,500 apps on the Spanish Google Play Store and find limited compliance with the Schrems II decision. In this vlog episode, Prof. Zac discusses his study with Dr. Lancieri (ETH Zurich). Paper References: Amit Zac – University of Amsterdam Pablo Wey – ETH Zurich Stefan Bechtold – ETH Zurich David Rodriguez – Polytechnic University of Madrid Jose M. Del Alamo – Polytechnic University of Madrid The Court Speaks, But Who Listens? Automated Compliance Review of the GDPR https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4709913 Audio Credits for Trailer: AllttA by AllttA https://youtu.be/ZawLOcbQZ2w

    15 min
  4. 11/08/2023

    Common Law vs. Civil Law – Prof. Holger Spamann (Harvard)

    For a long time, scholars have been classifying most legal systems around the world as falling within one of two inherently different categories: common or civil law systems. While the former (common law), rooted in England and practiced also in the US, involves precedent or deference to previously published judicial opinion; the latter (civil law), practiced in continental Europe and elsewhere in the world, does not – or so many still think. In this episode of the CLE vlog series, Prof. Holger Spamann (Harvard Law School) examines the myths and the reality of common and civil law with Alessandro Tacconelli (ETH Zurich). After a brief explanation of the alleged differences between the two systems and the history of such distinction, Prof. Spamann explains the findings of some of his work on the topic. In his paper ‘Judges in the Lab,’ he and his co-authors recruited 299 real judges from seven major jurisdictions to judge an international criminal appeals case and to determine the appropriate prison sentence, to show that: (i) document use and written reasons did not differ between common and civil law judges, and (ii) ‘precedent effect’ was barely detectable. Similarly, in his paper ‘The Reasons Highest Courts Give,’ Prof. Spamann and co-authors quantitatively analysed 80 representative opinions of English and German apex courts in the late 19th century and early 21st century, to find that, even in 1880s, opinions of English and German courts differed in degree rather than kind and that, by the 2000s, the Germans cited precedent as frequently as the English. Paper References: Judges in the Lab: No Precedent Effects, No Common/Civil Law Differences Holger Spamann, Lars Klöhn, Christophe Jamin, Vikramaditya Khanna, John Zhuang Liu, Pavan Mamidi, Alexander Morell, Ivan Reidel Journal of Legal Analysis, Volume 13, Issue 1, 2021, Pages 110–126 https://doi.org/10.1093/jla/laaa008 The Reasons Highest Courts Give: England vs. Germany, 1880-1889 vs. 2007-2016 Jasper Kunstreich, Markus Lieberknecht, Heinrich Nemeczek, Holger Spamann, Stefan Vogenauer Working Paper Audio Credits for Trailer: AllttA by AllttA https://youtu.be/ZawLOcbQZ2w

    18 min

About

This podcast is brought to you by the ETH Zurich Center for Law & Economics. We discuss current topic in intellectual property law, the law of emerging technologies, experimental law & economics, law & tech, and machine learning.

To listen to explicit episodes, sign in.

Stay up to date with this show

Sign in or sign up to follow shows, save episodes and get the latest updates.

Select a country or region

Africa, Middle East, and India

Asia Pacific

Europe

Latin America and the Caribbean

The United States and Canada