bepress Legal Repository
Not a member yet
645042 research outputs found
Sort by
Getting to Green: International Financing for Green Energy Infrastructure in Developing Countries
No full textOne of the symposium panels discussed financing clean energy projects. One panelist in particular expressed concern about how to build developing countries’ institutional capacity to utilize international financing for green energy. Global institutions like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) provide loans to developing countries conditioned on the countries privatizing and deregulating their energy sectors—otherwise known as austerity. While austerity measures may make sense in developed countries, this Comment argues that developing countries often lack the infrastructure needed to effectively utilize international financing precisely because the loans are conditioned on austerity. The World Bank and the IMF should therefore change the conditions of their loans from privatization to public-sector investment in infrastructure. Amending the conditions for green energy loans would make privatization more feasible in the future and promote the transition to green energy in developing countries
Repealing Single-Family Zoning Is Not Enough: A Proposal for Removing Existing Parallel Private Covenants for Violating Public Policy
No full textThe United States is currently suffering a pervasive and unsettling shortage of housing and increased housing unaffordability. Rents are at an all-time high, which has a disproportionate impact on people of color and people earning lower incomes as they are more likely to rent rather than owns their homes. Moreover, people solidly in the middle class are finding it increasingly difficult to purchase residences within their budgets.Critics have identified “single-family zoning”—allowing only one single-family home per lot--as a major cause of housing supply and affordability problems. In response, a handful of states and cities have recently passed legislation that voids or limits this zoning by allowing small-scale multifamily units. Proponents claim that the increased density will help address shortages, lack of affordability, and racial and social exclusion.Properties under single-family zoning may also be subject to private covenants that limit density of land use with substantive restrictions similar to those imposed by zoning. Thus, unless existing private anti-density restrictions are also removed or limited, they will still bar multi-family development even though zoning has been relaxed.After analyzing Takings arguments against voiding existing single-family covenants, this article suggests and explores a different approach. Existing single-family covenants can be voided under a longstanding doctrine that bars enforcement of covenants violating public policy. The article explores how and why the doctrine remains viable and provides the public policy basis for application to single-family covenants. It also argues that a voided covenant is not “property” requiring Fifth Amendment compensation. Thus, these covenants can be removed by government, most likely by legislation, without draining the public purse
17th Transatlantic Intellectual Property Summer Academy: TRIPS at Age 30: A Major Success Story
No full textSept. 3-6, 2023 Event Description
For one week each year, Case Western Reserve University School of Law organizes or takes part in the Transatlantic Intellectual Property Summer Academy jointly with other schools and universities. Faculty includes highly-regarded academics from top-ranked law schools around the world, including Bocconi University.
The course features leading IP scholars and researchers from multiple countries in Europe and North America. The number of participants is limited to 50. Attendees must meet one of the following: have a graduate degree in law, economics or engineering; have an undergraduate degree in law (subject to a selection procedure); be a current American JD or graduate student; or be a young researcher or professional working in TTOs.
The program costs $900. Participants are responsible for booking their own travel, accommodation and meals.
Students enrolled in Universities of origin of the Transatlantic Academy\u27s Lecturers can obtain, upon admission, a 20% discount on fees.
The September 2024 Transatlantic Intellectual Property Summer Academy topic focuses on the WTO TRIPS Agreement as a success story: for the last three decades, the TRIPS Agreement was often vilipended. Though the agreement is not at all exempt from major criticism for its undetailed provisions related to public health, and its loose provisions on IP and technology transfer, the overall benefits of the agreement are now better acknowledged for most national economies in developed economies (including the US and Europe), but also in emerging and developing economies, many businesses circles and in society. The program will shed light on the TRIPS success, that permits the advancement of further IP Treaties at WIPO and the development for the last 30 years of modern IP legislation in most countries of the world.
A participatory and interactive teaching approach is used for all lessons, including business examples and studies, practical exercises, and direct contact opportunities with IP operators and companies. Free tutor assistance is also available.
An optional daily recreational program is available in advance to participants and includes invitations to cultural and social activities at free or limited costs.
Entry requirements are indicated below.
Attendance certificates are granted at the completion of the program.
Click here for the event agenda. Event Location
CWRU Tinkham Veale University Center, Senior Classroom, 11038 Bellflower Road, Cleveland, OH 4410
A Critical Race Theory Analysis of Critical Race Theory Bans
No full textA majority of state legislatures have introduced bills prohibiting public schools from teaching certain divisive concepts attributed to critical race theory (CRT), with at least fifteen states successfully enacting them. This Article applies a critical race theory analysis to these critical race theory bans, finding that the bans embody white privilege and especially its companion, white fragility.
After providing a primer on critical race theory, Part I explains how the state bans profoundly misunderstand critical race theory, which focuses on how systems and institutions reproduce racial inequality. These bans, however, assume that racism is individual, intentional, and rare, and that radial harm is caused by discussions of race rather than systemic racism. At the same time, to the extent the laws forbid suggesting that systemic racism is widespread or that the United States is not a meritocracy, these bans may prevent students from learning core CRT concepts.
Part II then examines these bans through a critical race theory lens. It first demonstrates how the laws\u27 ignorance of critical race theory and of the role race plays in the United States reflects white privilege. It next explains how the bans embody white fragility-those defensive behaviors white people may exhibit when their radial advantages are pointed out-in the way they overreact to imagined threats, focus on white people\u27s wellbeing, frame white people as the true victims of race relations in the United States, and finally assert false equivalencies.
Ultimately, critical race theory bans reinscribe racial inequalities. By chilling classroom discussions about the creation and maintenance of racial hierarchies, these bans leave unaddressed all the structural issues that critical race theory aims to uncover. It is a perfect vicious circle
\u3ci\u3eCoin Center v. Yellen\u3c/i\u3e Prompts Reconsideration of the Vast Deference Afforded to the Department of the Treasury
No full textThis Comment examines the legal implications of the sanctions issued by the Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Asset Control against Tornado Cash, an application that enables user privacy protection in transactions on the Ethereum blockchain. With the rapid expansion of the digital asset revolution, policymakers remained puzzled as to how to best establish a regulatory scheme that protects consumers without chilling innovation and investment in the digital asset market. The Office of Foreign Assets Control’s issuance of sanctions against Tornado Cash was an attempt to regulate an extremely volatile and unpredictable market. These sanctions prohibited all licit activity on the application, and as a result, developers and digital asset advocates filed suit against the Treasury Department. This Comment analyzes the claims raised in Van Loon v. Dep’t of Treasury and Coin Center v. Dep’t of Treasury, and it considers flaws in their respective district court decisions
