The Regulation of Cross-Border Clearing and Settlement in the European Union from a Legitimacy Perspective

被引:0
作者
Pablo Iglesias-Rodríguez
机构
[1] VU University Amsterdam,Faculty of Law
[2] European University Institute,Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies
来源
European Business Organization Law Review | 2012年 / 13卷
关键词
clearing and settlement; code of conduct; input legitimacy; output legitimacy; central counterparties; central securities depositories; European Market Infrastructure Regulation; European Securities and Markets Authority;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Post-trading activities such as clearing and settlement (C&S) constitute a central element in the integration of European financial markets. However, unlike other areas of financial services, C&S has received little legislative and regulatory attention and, as a result, important barriers to the cross-border provision of C&S services persist in the European Union. In order to remove some of these barriers, the financial industry created, under the auspices of the European Commission, the European Code of Conduct for Clearing and Settlement, a self-regulatory instrument aimed at achieving a smoother provision of cross-border C&S services. This paper uses the concepts of input/output legitimacy to analyse the Code’s representative nature and effectiveness. It shows that, first, the Code has not received input from all the relevant constituencies potentially affected by C&S, and second, that there are serious threats to future compliance with the Code related to the competitive pressures of European financial markets. The paper also identifies the proposals to regulate C&S facilities at EU level as well as the new European supervision authorities in the financial field as elements which may highly contribute to the input/output legitimacy of cross-border C&S rules in the EU.
引用
收藏
页码:441 / 474
页数:33
相关论文
共 12 条
[1]  
Berman S(1999)Bank on Democracy: Why Central Banks Need Public Oversight Foreign Affairs 78 2-6
[2]  
McNamara K(2009)The Foundations of Securities Law European Business Law Review 20 141-undefined
[3]  
Siems M(2005)Contract Standards and the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID): An Assessment of the Lamfalussy Regulatory Architecture European Review of Contract Law 1 19-undefined
[4]  
Ferrarini G(2010)The Legitimacy of Private Transnational Governance: Experts and the Transnational Market for Force Socio-Economic Review 8 157-undefined
[5]  
Cutler A C(2010)Input and Output Legitimacy: Synergy or Trade-Off? Empirical Evidence from an EU Survey Journal of European Public Policy 17 449-undefined
[6]  
Lindgren K O(2004)Competition and Integration among Stock Exchanges: The Dilemma of Conflicting Regulatory Objectives and Strategies Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 24 69-undefined
[7]  
Persson T(2011)After the Crisis: The Regulation of Hedge Funds and Private Equity in the EU European Business Organization Law Review 12 379-undefined
[8]  
Bagheri M(2009)Towards a New European Financial Supervision Architecture Columbia Journal of European Law Online 16 1-undefined
[9]  
Nakajima C(2011)The European Securities and Market Authority and Institutional Design for the EU Financial Markets — A Tale of Two Competences: Part (1) Rule-Making’, and idem ‘Part (2) Rules in Action European Business Organization Law Review 12 41-undefined
[10]  
Ferran E(undefined)undefined undefined undefined undefined-undefined