11929 research outputs found
Sort by
A New Administrative Law Approach to Social Rights? Learnings from Environmental Litigation in Colombia
Full text linkSocial rights are at present profusely recognized in international and domestic law. Latin American countries are frontrunners in the field, as virtually all constitutions in the region acknowledge social rights, often in ambitious manners. In many countries, courts have been active and creative in adjudicating social rights cases.
The increasing importance of social rights has led to copious debates in comparative law, which have initially focused on the convenience of constitutionalizing them, and on assessing their nature and core characteristics. With relevant exceptions, more current debates—largely revolving around the decisions of high courts from a handful of jurisdictions—have focused on advancing models of constitutionally appropriate judicial intervention in social rights’ cases. Literature has generally identified forms of judicial review that either prioritize defining some core content of social rights, or focus instead on procedures, assessing if the ways in which administrations act to fulfil social rights are reasonable. Prominent literature has called the latter approach “an administrative law model” of social rights.
This Article identifies a new administrative law approach to social rights, focused on the reform of administrative institutions. It claims that a frequently missing piece in social rights’ literature and jurisprudence is the assessment of the administrative institutions tasked with implementing rights, and the transformations needed in those institutions.
The Article analyses in detail the intervention of the State Council of Colombia in the Bogotá River case to illustrate how a court can trigger relevant institutional innovations in administrations, which can in turn enhance the realization of social rights. In the case, the Council did so by not relying mainly on the interpretation and definition of the content of rights in the abstract, nor on a traditional procedural assessment of administrative action. Instead, it focused on understanding and enhancing the administrative machinery responsible for implementing existing normative protections.
While relevant norms and policy instruments had been put in place throughout the decades to protect the environment, the Bogotá River still became one of the most polluted in the planet. The case made evident institutional problems—such as lack of coordination and volatility in rules and staff—that acted as barriers to the enforcement of environmental protections. To shift the state of institutional inertia that had led to the “environmental catastrophe” of the river, the State Council triggered promising institutional innovations with three key outcomes: it enhanced coordination among public authorities, increased meaningful participation and transparency in administrative bodies, and placed attention on monitoring activities to assess administrative action.
In doing so, the State council modeled a form of judicial intervention that, at least under the circumstances discussed in this Article, can help modernize responsible public administrations and better position them to discharge their social rights’ commitments without replacing their judgment with sweeping judicial orders
Documentary History of the Broadcast Treaty in the SCCR (Global Version)
Full text linkThe objective of this study is to systematically map all meetings of the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) and the General Assemblies (GA) of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) to extract, compile, and organize all relevant statements made Member States regarding the proposed Broadcasting Treaty.
The analysis was based on publicly available data from the WIPO website, particularly the official pages dedicated to each SCCR and GA meeting. Our primary focus was on statements recorded in the official Report document of each session. When available, we also examined supplementary documents, such as the Summary by the Chair or Conclusions . When analyzing the GAs, we focused on the “Report” and “Report on the SCCR” documents. Links to documents containing relevant information on the Broadcast Treaty were also included at the beginning of each section. To maintain the specificity of this study and avoid overlap with a separate historical research on Limitations and Exceptions, we primarily extracted statements from the section titled Protection of the Rights of Broadcasting Organizations. Unless explicitly stated otherwise, all statements included in this document are direct quotations from official WIPO records
Introductory Remarks
Full text linkThe year 1925 proved to be eventful for the United States and for the world. The Scopes Monkey Trial placed evolution in the spotlight. The New Yorker published its first issue. The Grand Ole Opry´ premiered on the radio as the WSM Barn Dance. And fascism threatened Europe as Benito Mussolini dissolved the Italian Parliament and declared himself Il Duce, the dictator of Italy, while Adolf Hitler published the first volume of Mein Kampf, written from prison. On a lighter note, Washington, D.C., saw the first National Spelling Bee, won by Frank Neuhauser, an eleven-year-old from Kentucky who correctly spelled ³gladiolus´ to win $500 in gold pieces. The inauguration of our thirtieth President, Calvin Coolidge, occurred that year.
The year 1925 was also when the 69th U.S. Congress enacted the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), designed to place arbitration agreements on an equal footing with other contracts and allow for their enforcement within the full reach of the U.S. Constitution\u27s Commerce Clause. Exactly 100 years ago, the FAA established a strong federal policy in favor of arbitration that lasts to this day, creating a framework for the enforcement of arbitration agreements. Courts subsequently have interpreted the FAA broadly to apply to a wide range of contracts that contain arbitration clauses and evidence a transaction involving interstate commerce.
In 2025, we are living with pretty much the same statute. It has been amended by Congress only once, in March 2022, to prohibit employers from requiring employees to arbitrate sexual harassment and sexual assault claims
A Uniform, National Body of Law to Govern the Enforcement of Arbitration Agreements
Full text linkThe heart of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) is section 2, which contains a federal mandate that arbitration agreements are valid, irrevocable, and enforceable; the FAA\u27s remaining provisions help carry out this mandate
Towards the FAA\u27s Next Century: Clarifying Disclosure Requirements in Arbitration
Full text linkIn the summer of 2024, all eyes were on Paris. Thousands of athletes from over 200 countries competed in over 300 sports. The Olympics is nationalism at its healthiest: cheering for one\u27s own nation, while recognizing the fundamentally transnational human values of pluralism, diversity, and aspiration
The Problem of Unreasoned Reasoned Awards and the Judicial Failure to Remedy It: Statutory and Rule Solutions
Full text linkAmerican arbitrators have long been choosing between two common forms of awards: reasoned awards and standard awards with no reasons enumerated. Yet neither arbitration rules nor statutes define reasoned award. This lack of guidance has gotten arbitration in trouble and threatens its ability to satisfy users\u27 needs
No-Hire Rulings Forget Competition
Full text linkTwo recent and noted antitrust rulings on the legality of no-hire (or “no-poach”) agreements paid lip service to preserving and promoting competition for employees but in the end failed to apply competition as a standard. Instead—and this is seen only deep in the weeds of the decisions themselves, on careful reading—judges demanded that no-hire agreements be held illegal only when they constitute abuse of market power, more or less. These decisions impliedly distinguish horizontal agreements not to compete for employees from horizontal agreements not to compete for customers, or on price. The opinions tend to “require careful economic analysis” of complex questions (one of them said) in every case—something courts are ill-equipped to do. A rule focused more on competition would not only better promote competition for labor but also prevent market power abuse and give providers of labor the same rights as consumers and other sellers. Most courts have conceded that no-hire clauses are prima facie illegal. They should be no more protected than price-fixing agreements.
This Article first explains the disjunct between competition as a legal standard, on one hand, and market power abuse regulation, on the other, and introduces the no-hire clause fact pattern. It then delves deeply into the standards, required proof, and rhetoric of (1) United States v. Patel (D. Conn. Apr. 28, 2023), which acquitted defendants from a Department of Justice indictment under Sherman Act § 1, and (2) Deslandes v. McDonald’s USA, LLC (7th Cir. Aug. 25, 2023), which (a) reversed a dismissal of a civil complaint that the McDonald’s franchise agreement no-hire clause violated the Sherman Act but (b) suggested several ways that the district court on remand could dismiss it again. Both Patel and Deslandes hesitate to apply a standard of competition to no-hire fact patterns. In Patel, that refusal was fatal to the indictment, and in Deslandes it may yet kill the complaint. More should be required of horizontal competitors who agree to cease competing for labor. They should show that more actual competition resulted from their agreement, or be held liable
Legislative Reforms to End Lawfare by State and Local Prosecutors
Full text linkWASHINGTON, D.C. - The House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government will hold a hearing on Tuesday, March 4, 2025, at 2:00 p.m. ET. The hearing, Legislative Reforms to End Lawfare by State and Local Prosecutors, will examine the use of lawfare tactics by the Biden-Harris Administration to weaponize the rule of law against political opponents. It will further highlight legislative reforms to end politically motivated state and local prosecutions
Out of Sight, Out of Mind? Administering Federal Programs in America’s Territories
No full textIt is already tomorrow in Hagåtña, Guam, fourteen time zones from Washington, D.C. When the federal government’s work week starts in the nation’s capital on Monday, it is almost Tuesday in Guam. Territorial governments may especially feel this temporal disconnect when executive agencies administer federal programs in the U.S. territories. Throughout its history, the United States has maintained numerous territories and possessions, but today, five remain: Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, and Guam. Additionally, there are three Freely Associated States (FAS): the Republic of Palau, the Federated States of Micronesia, and the Republic of the Marshall Islands
The Feminicide Epidemic in Brazil: An Analysis Considering the Convention of Belém Do Pará and the Rome Statute
Full text linkGender-based violence against women is an issue little discussed both in academia and in various sectors of society. Men in positions of power block any attempts by women to be observed in places of influence and visibility, reflecting a patriarchal society that sees women as inferior, fragile beings incapable of exercising functions that requires intelligence, strength, and rationality