The strengths of the paper
The paper has a very contemporary perspective to the concerned topic and while debating the rules versus principles theory the authors have presented very relevant examples from different parts of the globe. This not only makes it easier to understand but also makes one agree with the point supported by the authors. These examples quoted act as substantial evidences of the point presented by the authors. For instance at a point where the authors are explaining the need of consistency, very aptly comparative examples have been quoted from the EU, Germany and Japan. The examples make the author observe more clearly that the various philosophies of consistency are interlinked in a way that it can only be attained in companies in the companies agree to internally make these standards consistent.
Upon research on similar topic it was found that many literature findings have concluded that one set of accounting standards cannot be applicable on firms that function in diverse monetary, political and social environment. Even compliance with the most easy to observe disclosure necessities becomes difficult when expected to be implemented on a global level. (Bradshaw & Miller, 2007)
There has been an in-depth analysis if two absolutely distinct political regimes, the U.S. and Germany while trying to understand the practical application of consistency. While comparing the authors have stated and proved that the although there is a lack of constitutional provisions for all the possible issues that may arise, by and large the principles of Germany are by and large , without gaps.
纸的优势，
该文件有一个非常现代的角度来关注的话题，而辩论的规则与原则的理论，作者提出了非常相关的例子来自全球不同地区的。这不仅使得它更容易理解，但也同意的点支持作者。这些例子作为佐证的作者提出。例如，在一个点，作者解释一致性的需要，被引用的例子很恰当地比较来自欧盟，德国和日本。这些例子让笔者更清楚的观察的一致性，各种各样的哲学是相通的一种方式，它只能达到公司的公司内部使这些标准相一致。
类似的话题经研究发现，许多文献的研究结果得出的结论是不能适用的功能在不同的货币，政治和社会环境对企业会计准则的一组。即使符合最容易观察到披露的必需品变得困难时，预计将在全球范围内实施。 （布拉德肖和米勒，2007年）
如果两个完全不同的政治体制，美国和德国一直在深入分析，试图了解在实际应用中的一致性。比较说明和证明，虽然目前还缺乏可能出现的所有可能发生的问题，大的原则，德国的宪法规定，无间隙。
