Building FinTech Ecosystems: Regulatory Sandboxes, Innovation Hubs and Beyond

in Washington University Journal of Law and Policy (in press), 61

Around the world, regulators and policymakers are working to support the development of financial technology (FinTech) ecosystems. As one example, over 50 jurisdictions have now established or announced ... [more ▼]

Around the world, regulators and policymakers are working to support the development of financial technology (FinTech) ecosystems. As one example, over 50 jurisdictions have now established or announced “financial regulatory sandboxes”. Others have announced or established “innovation hubs”, sometimes incorporating a regulatory sandbox as one element. This article argues that innovation hubs provide all the benefits that the policy discussion associates with regulatory sandboxes, while avoiding most downsides of regulatory sandboxes, and that many benefits typically attributed to sandboxes are the result of inconsistent terminology, and actually accrue from the work of innovation hubs. The paper presents, as the first contribution of its kind, data on regulatory sandboxes and innovation hubs and argues that the data so far available on sandboxes does not justify the statement that regulatory sandboxes are the most effective approach to building FinTech ecosystems. Given that regulatory sandboxes require significant financial contributions, sometimes new legislation, and intense regulatory risk management, and that sandboxes do not work as well on a stand-alone basis (i.e. without an innovation hub), while innovation hubs alone can provide more significant benefits in supporting the development of a FinTech ecosystem, regulators should focus their resources on developing effective innovation hubs, including in appropriate cases a sandbox as one possible element. [less ▲]

Article 47 of the Charter in the Opinion procedure

in European Papers (in press)

This paper affirms that external relations are outside the scope of Article 47 of the Charter. This does not however mean that the principle of judicial protection and the right of access to an ... [more ▼]

This paper affirms that external relations are outside the scope of Article 47 of the Charter. This does not however mean that the principle of judicial protection and the right of access to an independent tribunal have only an internal EU law dimension. In Opinion 1/17, The Court of Justice could assess the CETA’s compatibility with the right of access to an independent tribunal without having recourse to Article 47 of the Charter, on the ground either of the principle of autonomy or of the compatibility with the substantive provisions of the common commercial policy. This paper argues that while judicial protection as part of the autonomy claim could meet some conceptual limits, promoting judicial protection as part of the common commercial policy could reinforce the perception that the Union is a credible and influential actor in international trade and in international procedural law. [less ▲]