TILJ Symposium 2012: The Euro Crisis
First Greece — then Ireland, Italy, Spain and Portugal. The European common currency has come under pressure from large national debts and the effects of the global financial crisis, ultimately requiring a rescue package close to a trillion Euros. The Euro Crisis has profound implications for law and policy in the European Union and raises numerous questions of fundamental importance. Should the Treaty on the European Union be amended to provide a clearer basis for financial rescue measures, and if so, how should such amendments be designed? Should the European Union be able to interfere in the economic and fiscal policy of individual member states if such interference is necessary to preserve the stability of the Euro? Does the Euro Crisis call for a redefinition on the role of the European Central Bank?
TILJ in cooperation with the Center for European Studies at the University of Texas will attempt to answer some of these pressing questions with its Symposium on the Euro Crisis. The Symposium will feature a number of legal and economic scholars and will focus on both the legal and practical implications the current Euro Crisis has on the European Union and the world.
A full, printable schedule is available here.
Symposium Panel Schedule and Participants
- Panel 1: Euro Crisis and Financial Markets, 9:15-11:00am
- Gerard Hertig, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich
- Stavros Gadinis, UC Berkeley School of Law
- Tobias Troeger, Goethe Universität Frankfurt am Main
- Panel 2: Euro Crisis and Legal Responses, 11:15am-1:00pm
- Christian Kersting, Heinrich Hein Universität Düsseldorf
- Jean-Paul Keppenne, European Commission
- Jens Dammann, The University of Texas School of Law
- Panel 3: Euro Crisis and EU Constitutional Law, 2:15-4:00pm
- Joerg Fedtke, Tulane University Law School
- Victor Ferreres Comella, Pompeu Fabra University
- Philomila Tsoukala, Georgetown University Law Center
For more information, please contact the Symposium Editor.
2011 Symposium — The 2009 Air and Missile Warfare Manual: A Critical Analysis
February 10-11, 2011 at The University of Texas School of Law Featured Keynote Address by Ambassador Henry A. Crumpton
Additional videos from the symposium are available on our video page.
- Professor Kenneth Anderson
- Professor Claude Bruderlein
- Professor Robert Chesney
- Professor Geoffrey Corn
- Major General Charles J. Dunlap Jr.
- Professor Amos Guiora
- Professor Derek Jinks
- Professor Michael Lewis
- Professor Mary Ellen O’Connell
- Professor Jordan Paust
2010 Symposium: International Insolvency Symposium: The Priority Dilemma
May 11, 2010 at the University of Texas
The Problem: The present financial crisis has accelerated the filing of multinational insolvencies from frequent to commonplace, dragging with them a host of unresolved difficulties of cooperation, fairness, and efficiency. Perhaps the greatest difficulty is the existence of widely different treatment of creditors from one country to the next, a problem often discussed under the heading of “priority” or “preference.” Today these terms must be understood as comprehending not only order of payment but other variations in treatment as well, including the fact that in some systems a particular category of creditor is subject to the control of the insolvency court or agency through imposition of a moratorium or stay, while another sort of creditor left free to enforce its rights. In a neighboring country, both kinds of creditors may be equally free of control or equally subject to it.
When a multinational corporation is subject to an insolvency proceeding in more than one jurisdiction, each court concerned must decide what system of priority to apply as to specific assets and creditors found in the various countries involved. Because these systems vary greatly from country to country, a court may be required to choose between its own domestic system of priorities and that of another jurisdiction. Such a choice may have great consequences for the litigants and for progress toward a system of international coordination.
Just such a situation was presented in the English case, McGrath v. Riddell,  UKHL 21;  1 W.L.R. 852. The case is often called the “HIH” case. There the liquidators for an Australian insurance company sought to distribute in their proceeding the proceeds of valuable assets located in England. The Australian rules would prefer certain types of creditors in such a distribution, while applicable English law would distribute to the relevant classes of creditors pro rata, with no preference. The House of Lords directed that the English funds should be given to the Australians for distribution. The result was unanimous but the reasons given divided the court sharply, illustrating the problem which this symposium addresses.
For more information, please visit the 2010 Symposium page.