Collecting the diverse perspectives of scholars, labor organizers, and human-rights advocates, Accountability across Borders is the first edited collection that connects studies of immigrant integration in host countries to accounts of transnational migrant advocacy efforts, including case studies from the United States, Canada, and Mexico. Covering the role of federal, state, and local governments in both countries of origin and destinations, as well as nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), these essays range from reflections on labor solidarity among members of the United Food and Commercial Workers in Toronto to explorations of indigenous students from the Maya diaspora living in San Francisco. Case studies in Mexico also discuss the enforcement of the citizenship rights of Mexican American children and the struggle to affirm the human rights of Central American migrants in transit. As policies regarding immigration, citizenship, and enforcement are reaching a flashpoint in North America, this volume provides key insights into the new dynamics of migrant civil society as well as the scope and limitations of directives from governmental agencies.
The United States introduced the earned income tax credit (EITC) in 1975, where it remains the most significant earnings-based refundable credit in the Internal Revenue Code. While the United States was the first country to use its domestic revenue system to deliver and administer social welfare benefits to lower-income individuals or families, a number of other countries, including New Zealand and Canada, have experimented with or incorporated similar credits into their tax systems. In this work, Michelle Lyon Drumbl, drawing on her extensive advocacy experience representing low-income taxpayers in EITC audits, analyzes the effectiveness of the EITC in the United States and offers suggestions for how it can be improved. This timely book should be read by anyone interested in how the EITC can be reimagined to better serve the working poor and, more generally, whether the tax system can promote social justice.
Emergency Powers of International Organizations explores emergency politics of international organizations (IOs). It studies cases in which, based on justifications of exceptional necessity, IOs expand their authority, increase executive discretion, and interfere with the rights of their rule-addressees. This ''IO exceptionalism'' is observable in crisis responses of a diverse set of institutions including the United Nations Security Council, the European Union, and the World Health Organization. Through six in-depth case studies, the book analyzes the institutional dynamics unfolding in the wake of the assumption of emergency powers by IOs. Sometimes, the exceptional competencies become normalized in the IOs' authority structures (the ''ratchet effect"). In other cases, IO emergency powers provoke a backlash that eventually reverses or contains the expansions of authority (the "rollback effect"). To explain these variable outcomes, this book draws on sociological institutionalism to develop a proportionality theory of IO emergency powers. It contends that ratchets and rollbacks are a function of actors' ability to justify or contest emergency powers as (dis)proportionate. The claim that the distribution of rhetorical power is decisive for the institutional outcome is tested against alternative rational institutionalist explanations that focus on institutional design and the distribution of institutional power among states. The proportionality theory holds across the cases studied in this book and clearly outcompetes the alternative accounts. Against the background of the empirical analysis, the book moreover provides a critical normative reflection on the (anti) constitutional effects of IO exceptionalism and highlights a potential connection between authoritarian traits in global governance and the system's current legitimacy crisis.
The sharing economy challenges contemporary property law. Does the rise of access render our conception of property obsolete? What are the normative and theoretical implications of choosing casual short-term use of property over stable use? What are the relational and social complications of blurring the line between personal and commercial use of property? The book develops a novel conceptualization of property in the age of the sharing economy. It argues that the sharing economy pushes for a mobile and flexible vision of engaging with possessions and, as a result, with other people. Property's role as a source of permanence and a facilitator of stable, long-term relationships is gradually decreasing in importance. The book offers a broad theoretical and normative framework for understanding the changing landscape of property, provides an institutional analysis of the phenomenon, discusses the social, communal, and relational implications of these changes, and offers guidelines for law reform.
As a central part of the regulation of contemporary economies, intellectual property (IP) is central to all aspects of our lives. It matters for the works we create, the brands we identify and the medicines we consume. But if IP is power, what kind of power is it, and what does it do? Building on the work of Michel Foucault, Gordon Hull examines different ways of understanding power in copyright, trademark and patent policy: as law, as promotion of public welfare, and as promotion of neoliberal privatization. He argues that intellectual property policy is moving toward neoliberalism, even as that move is broadly contested in everything from resistance movements to Supreme Court decisions. This work should be read by anyone interested in understanding why the struggle to conceptualize IP matters.
Christopher Heath is a judge at the Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office and former researcher of the Max Planck Institute in Munich. Anselm Kamperman Sanders is Professor of Intellectual Property Law and Director of the IPKM Master's Programme at Maastricht University, the Netherlands. About this book: Intellectual Property and International Dispute Resolution, the first in-depth treatment of the interface between intellectual property rights and international dispute resolution. The book highlights the different mechanisms of international dispute settlement, having particular regard to cases involving intellectual property law. Investor dispute tribunals, as provided for in many bilateral and multilateral trade agreements, are suspected of intransparency, because proceedings are not public, of unequal treatment, because they give foreign investors a right of action where domestic investors would have none, and of undermining democracy, because they allow democratically enacted laws to be challenged with no possibility of appeal. What's in this book: In this important book, a number of prominent legal scholars and practitioners examine the extent to which challenges against domestic legislation based on an alleged direct or indirect expropriation of intellectual property rights may be justified. The contributions cover such aspects as: history and current practice of international dispute resolution; direct application of international agreements by national courts; comparison of investor dispute settlement tribunals with other fora such as the WTO or domestic courts for determining compliance with international intellectual property standards; what can be considered 'investment' and 'expropriation' in the field of intellectual property; legislative freedom to operate when limiting intellectual property rights, particularly in the field of health and safety; and how societal interests could influence future legislation in the field of intellectual property law. One major focus of the book are the challenges against tobacco plain packaging legislation before domestic and international courts and tribunals and their outcome. How this book will help you: The book's detailed analysis of the nature of investor dispute tribunals and how they may conflict with public interests - and its exploration of possible alternatives - is sure to be of great interest to internationally operating companies, policymakers, practitioners and scholars in both international trade law and intellectual property law.
In recent years, the number of conflicts related to the misuse of street art and graffiti has been on the rise around the world. Some cases involve claims of misappropriation related to corporate advertising campaigns, while others entail the destruction or 'surgical' removal of street art from the walls on which they were created. In this work, Enrico Bonadio brings together a group of experts to provide the first comprehensive analysis of issues related to copyright in street art and graffiti. Chapter authors shed light not only on the legal tools available in thirteen key jurisdictions for street and graffiti artists to object to unauthorized exploitations and unwanted treatments of their works, but also offer policy and sociological insights designed to spur further debate on whether and to what extent the street art and graffiti subcultures can benefit from copyright and moral rights protection.
This book examines how the judicialization of politics, and the politicization of courts, affect representative democracy, rule of law, and separation of powers. This volume critically assesses the phenomena of judicialization of politics and politicization of the judiciary. It explores the rising impact of courts on key constitutional principles, such as democracy and separation of powers, which is paralleled by increasing criticism of this influence from both liberal and illiberal perspectives. The book also addresses the challenges to rule of law as a principle, preconditioned on independent and powerful courts, which are triggered by both democratic backsliding and the mushrooming of populist constitutionalism and illiberal constitutional regimes. Presenting a wide range of case studies, the book will be a valuable resource for students and academics in constitutional law and political science seeking to understand the increasingly complex relationships between the judiciary, executive and legislature.
From 1953 to 1969, the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren brought about many of the proudest achievements of American constitutional law. The Warren declared racial segregation and laws forbidding interracial marriage to be unconstitutional; it expanded the right of citizens tocriticize public officials; it held school prayer unconstitutional; and it ruled that people accused of a crime must be given a lawyer even if they can't afford one. Yet, despite those and other achievements, conservative critics have fiercely accused the justices of the Warren Court of abusingtheir authority by supposedly imposing their own opinions on the nation.As the eminent legal scholars Geoffrey R. Stone and David A. Strauss demonstrate in Democracy and Equality, the Warren Court's approach to the Constitution was consistent with the most basic values of our Constitution and with the most fundamental responsibilities of our judiciary. Stone and Straussdescribe the Warren Court's extraordinary achievements by reviewing its jurisprudence across a range of issues addressing our nation's commitment to the values of democracy and equality. In each chapter, they tell the story of a critical decision, exploring the historical and legal context of eachcase, the Court's reasoning, and how the justices of the Warren Court fulfilled the Court's most important responsibilities.This powerfully argued evaluation of the Warren Court's legacy, in commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the end of the Warren Court, both celebrates and defends the Warren Court's achievements against almost sixty-five years of unrelenting and unwarranted attacks by conservatives. Itdemonstrates not only why the Warren Court's approach to constitutional interpretation was correct and admirable, but also why the approach of the Warren Court was far superior to that of the increasingly conservative justices who have dominated the Supreme Court over the past half-century.
The Electoral College that governs America has been with us since 1804, when Thomas Jefferson's supporters redesigned it for his re-election. The Jeffersonians were motivated by the principle of majority rule. Gone were the days when a president would be elected by acclamation, as George Washington had been. Instead, given the emergence of intense two-party competition, the Jeffersonians wanted to make sure that the Electoral College awarded the presidency to the candidate of the majority, rather than minority, party. They also envisioned that a candidate would win by amassing a majority of Electoral College votes secured from states where the candidate's party was in the majority. For most of American history, this system has worked as intended, producing presidents who won Electoral College victories derived from state-based majorities. In the last quarter-century, however, there have been three significant aberrations from the Jeffersonian design: 1992, 2000, and 2016. In each of these years, the Electoral College victory depended on states where the winner received only a minority of votes. In this authoritative history of the American Electoral College system, Edward Foley analyzes the consequences of the unparalleled departure from the Jeffersonians' original intent-and delineates what we can do about it. He explains how states, by simply changing their Electoral College procedures, could restore the original Jeffersonian commitment to majority rule. There are various ways to do this, all of which comply with the Constitution. If only a few states had done so before 2016, the outcome might have been different. Doing so before future elections can prevent another victory that, contrary to the original Jeffersonian intent, a majority of voters did not want.
United States Supreme Court justices make decisions that have a profound impact on American society. Empirical legal scholars have portrayed justices as either single-minded or strategic seekers of policy, and there is little room in these theories for things like law, reputation, or personality. This book offers a fresh perspective that will jar Supreme Court scholarship out of complacency. It argues that justices' personalities influence their behavior, which in turn influences legal development and the United States Constitution. This impressive group of authors exhaustively examine every part of the Court's decision-making process, and focus on the trait of conscientiousness and how it influences justices over nine different empirical contexts, from agenda setting to writing the Court's opinions. The Conscientious Justice is an important and comprehensive account of judging that restructures existing approaches to analyzing the High Court.
Competition law damages actions are often characterized by the uncertainty of the causal connection between the infringement and the harm. The damage consists in a pure economic loss flowing from an anticompetitive conduct. In such cases, the complexity of the markets structures, combined with the interdependence of individuals' assets, fuel this causal uncertainty. In this work, Claudio Lombardi elucidates the concept of causation in competition law damages actions and outlines its practical implications in competition litigation through the comparative analysis of the relevant statutory and case law, primarily in the European Union. This book should be read by practitioners, scholars, and graduate students with experience in competition law, as well as those interested in analyzing economic torts and causation in general.
VU Libraries ResearchGuides is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. You may republish or adapt this guide for educational purposes, as long as proper credit is given. Our recommended credit includes the statement: Written by, or adapted from, Vanderbilt University Libraries (current as of .....). If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.