5450 research outputs found
Sort by
Protecting Cultural Property From Climate Destruction: A Case Study of Greece
Full text linkClimate change poses an escalating threat to Greece’s cultural heritage, with ancient sites such as the Acropolis of Athens and the Palace of Knossos at risk from rising sea levels, wildfires, and pollution. Greece’s legal system includes protections for cultural property and aligns with international treaties, yet lacks sufficient integration between cultural heritage laws and environmental safeguards, leaving vital sites vulnerable. This Note contends that Greece must reinforce domestic law to bridge this gap and protect cultural assets from climate-induced harm. Addressing this deficiency through legal reforms and economic incentives could prevent irreversible damage to Greece’s cultural identity and fulfill its international obligations. The Greek case further illustrates how aligning cultural heritage and environmental protections within domestic frameworks is essential for any country seeking to safeguard its cultural legacy in an era of global climate change
Agency Deference After Loper: Expertise as a Casualty of a War Against the “Administrative State”
Full text linkChevron deference has been a foundational principle for administrative law for decades. Chevron provided a two-step analysis for determining whether an agency would be given deference in its decision-making. This deferential test finds its legitimacy on the grounds of agency expertise and accountability. However, when the Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari in Loper Bright Enterprise v. Raimondo, it positioned itself to potentially overrule or severely limit Chevron. An overruling of Chevron would place judicial deference to administrative agency decisions in peril by allowing courts to substitute their own views over the informed opinions of agency experts. This article discusses the potential consequences of Loper’s impending decision
Unintended Consequences: The New Test for Interlocutory Mandatory Injunctions
Full text linkInterlocutory mandatory injunctions can be an important remedy during the pendency of a trial. With its decision in R. v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp, the Supreme Court of Canada revised its test for an interlocutory mandatory injunction, holding that it should require a higher threshold and be therefore harder to obtain than an interlocutory prohibitive injunction. This higher threshold requires that the applicant demonstrate a strong prima facie case that it will succeed at trial based on law and evidence. This change adds uncertainty to the process, ultimately complicating and adding costs to litigation
Post-Genocide Peace and Economic Prosperity: The Potential Impact of Foreign Direct Investment in Bosnia and Herzegovina
Full text linkBosnia and Herzegovina’s political climate and economic conditions have been slow to grow following the end of the genocide. The Dayton Peace Accord, which facilitated the end of the genocide, was useful to stop the gunfire, but it did establish effective rule of law to ensure that Bosnia could thrive independently in the future. Thus, the lack of political and economic reform in Bosnia stifles foreign direct investment (FDI). This note argues that if the Government reforms its court system, entity structure, and economic policies, FDI will increase. By creating a reciprocal relationship, FDI may create lasting prosperity in the country because the Government will have an incentive to maintain these reforms to preserve lasting investment
Unleashing Corporate Entrepreneurship
Full text linkNoncompetition agreements (noncompetes), which prohibit employees from launching or working at competitive companies for certain periods, have become increasingly prevalent in the workplace. Employers claim they need noncompetes to protect their trade secrets and other legitimate business interests, but most workers do not have access to trade secrets—and when they do, such secrets can be better protected through confidentiality and intellectual property agreements. In practice, many companies appear to use noncompetes as an employee retention tool, but this is not a legitimate purpose for a noncompete. In addition, noncompetes have a disproportionately negative impact on women, people of color, and low-wage workers and are challenging to impose on the modern, remote workforce. Negative media attention concerning the proliferation and abuse of noncompetes has recently led numerous states to pass legislation limiting their use. In addition, the Federal Trade Commission recently issued a noncompete ban that, if upheld, would create a sweeping change in workplace law, but it is subject to judicial challenge. However, in the flurry of activity, policymakers have not sufficiently considered the employee retention motive underlying many employers’ noncompetes. Noncompetes are built on a corporate culture where employee exit is presumed—and feared. This article suggests a different approach: creating a culture that decreases employees’ incentives to exit while increasing their incentives to remain, thereby reducing the need for noncompetes. The article makes two main claims. First, it argues that the government should ban noncompetes, other than for highly compensated employees, because noncompetes are increasingly unenforceable, have adverse effects, and are often used for illegitimate reasons. Second, it argues that companies should encourage intrapreneurship—i.e., entrepreneurship within a company—rather than noncompetes, which discourage entrepreneurship. This counterintuitive approach is grounded in organizational behavior and sociological theories about the modern workplace, in which millennials are now the largest generation. Intrapreneurship fosters innovation and employee retention in a more effective and less harmful manner than noncompetes, which have become incongruent with the modern workforce
NIL: How Third-Party Businesses Exploit Collegiate Student-Athletes with Impunity
Full text linkWhile there are numerous state NIL (name, image, and likeness) laws protecting student-athletes from economic exploitation, there is no federal law which offers universal protection, nationwide, to student-athletes. State NIL laws offer some protections for student-athletes from exploitation by colleges, universities, and boosters, but there is no protection for student-athletes who sign NIL deals with for-profit third-party businesses. These NIL deals, between the student-athlete and third-party businesses, make up the majority of NIL agreements. Section 6 of the proposed College Athlete Economic Freedom Act (“CAEFA”), titled “Enforcement Provisions,” aims to codify federal protection for student-athletes against colleges, universities, and boosters, yet leaves student-athletes unprotected from for-profit, third-party businesses. Student-athletes, primed to fall victim to deceptive business practices by these companies by signing away their present and future NIL rights, are without recourse while third-party businesses operate with impunity. Section 6 of CAEFA should apply to third-party businesses as well as colleges, universities, and boosters because student-athletes should have universal protection against exploitation and control over their NIL rights
GROWING RICH OFF THE FRUITS OF PRIVATE INCARCERATION
Full text linkMass incarceration is a uniquely American phenomenon. With roots in chattel slavery, modern mass incarceration truly exploded in the latter half of the 20th Century. As Reagan-era politicians advocated for fiscal conservatism on the one hand and heavy-handed responses to crime on the other, private prison pioneers saw an opportunity to derive profit from society’s most vulnerable. Today, private prisons house as much as half of some states’ total prison population, and private prison corporations have demonstrated an insatiable desire to expand their reach. This Note explores the unique social vulnerability of privately incarcerated people through a statutory and judicial lens. It highlights the unique burdens placed on private prisoners that put them at greater risk of personal harm and civil rights violations than their publicly incarcerated counterparts. This Note attempts to incentivize corporate officers of private prisons to maintain safer prisons by imputing to them criminal liability for their subordinates’ crimes. It does so by advocating for the prosecution of unscrupulous corporate officers via the responsible corporate officer doctrine in the 9th Circuit, which has been particularly receptive to expansions of that doctrine