To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
The advancement of technology has significantly altered the characteristics of remote work in general, and cross-border remote work in particular presenting complex regulatory challenges. These challenges, with their linkage to a large set of work arrangements and locations, involve among other matters coordinating the relationship between labor law and social security legislation. An increasing number of remote workers are now able to provide services across borders, to markets and countries where they or their employers have no physical connection. As there are more employment regulations to choose from, this increases the possibility for the employer to exploit lower labor standards in other countries and avoid responsibilities towards their workers. Analysis of the literature and jurisprudence in different cases shows that new interpretations of the place of work are brought forward with the view to better protect cross-border remote workers, both in Private International Law and in Labor Law, considering the increasingly virtual nature of the workplace. However, the principle of territoriality remains a strong argument in the hands of higher courts to limit evolution in that direction.
The Rejoinder offers a first response to the reviews of The Redress of Law, published in this issue of ELO, and further pursues certain lines of theoretical inquiry in engagement with the reviewers’ suggestions and objections.
This article places the current legal framework governing posted work within the debate on ‘Europeanisation’ in order to assess to what extent the Posted Workers Directive may be seen as a successful tool to ‘Europeanise’ national labour law systems as assessed against its dual objectives of promoting the transnational provision of services while also guaranteeing respect for the rights of workers. In doing so, the article contextualises and analyses the Posted Workers Directive which allows for the identification of remaining gaps in protection. The article concludes with an assessment of the European Commission’s most recent proposal to amend the Directive.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.