Editorial

Citation

Kirkbride, P.J. (2010), "Editorial", International Journal of Law and Management, Vol. 52 No. 6. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijlma.2010.01052faa.001

Editorial

Article Type: Editorial From: International Journal of Law and Management, Volume 52, Issue 6.

With a degree of sadness, and sometime relief, this is our final formal editorial as we pass the stewardship of this journal over to Professors Chris Gale and Clive Smallman, and we wish them every success in growing with the journal in the future. We have enjoyed our time with the journal and will, hopefully, remain involved in supporting the journal in the future, albeit in a reduced role and supporting our friends, Chris and Clive.

As we reflect on the many opinions and contributions submitted to and published during our period as editors, and consider recent developments in law and regulation, two themes stand out. First, the limits of regulation and the fallibilities of human decision making. For example, we have published many papers on aspects of corporate governance, corporate social responsibility (CSR) and sustainability, financial market controls and employment law. In all aspects, the design of the law, however academically and theoretically well grounded and framed, ultimately depended upon and often failed in its application or became flawed through the uncertainties and inconsistencies of those acting as regulators or the regulated. The most recent announcement of the US Senate agreeing to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, 2010, illustrates this point. This legislation is a culmination of a near two-year effort launched after the Wall Street crisis of 2008 thrust the USA into recession and is viewed as making the most comprehensive changes to the US Government's oversight of banks since the Great Depression. Central to the new regulatory regime introduced by Dodd-Frank is a bunch of new programmes, councils and bureaus in the existing financial regulatory structure. These include a financial stability oversight council, a consumer finance protection bureau, a federal insurance office, and expanded roles of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the Office of the Comptroller of the currency. But the claim is that these new regulatory and oversight programmes, change nothing. Why? Because this legislation, like many, relies on the abilities and behaviours of the regulators, old and new, to deliver the reform and carry out the goals of the legislation. It is once again the human dimension, of talent and behaviours and standards, that will cause the reform to succeed or fail. This human dimension remains central to our understanding of regulatory challenge and the individual responsibility for corporate behaviour and environmental actions. Many of the works that we have enjoyed the privilege to read and publish provide good debate and analysis of the theory and the application but often fail to face the challenge of the relationship between the rational commercial man and the fallibilities of human decision making and ambitions. This is a focus of analysis that we would encourage for the future.

Second, the nature of this journal is to promote an understanding of the global reach and connectivity of business regulation. The recent Dodd-Frank development also illustrates this international connectivity. For example, back in March 2010, when discussing what financial reform needs to accomplish, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said, “the top three things to get done are capital, capital and capital”. But the Dodd-Frank contains no capital requirements. Why? Banks do not operate in one country only and the global nature of the financial system needs to be recognised in the design of regulations. The decision was taken to defer any hard capital requirements from the Dodd-Frank legislation pending the discussions of the international banking community and its recommendations, from those discussions, to the G20 economic summit in November: any domestic reform needs to be consistent with the global commercial community and its needs. Increasingly a supra-national approach to business regulation is both needed and developing. One only needs to look at the history of the European Community to confirm this. It is our hope that the journal will retain the distinctiveness of seeking to provide a contextual analysis of law through a consideration of the international connectivity of trade and its actors. We wish the journal well in the future!

Professor James Kirkbride