The Catholic University of America Columbus School of Law
Not a member yet
5983 research outputs found
Sort by
Dulles Mansion - Columbus School of Law (undated)
No full texthttps://scholarship.law.edu/historical_photos/1005/thumbnail.jp
Keynote Address
No full textPrior to the start of the panels, Representative Chris Cox, one of the authors of Section 230, provided keynote remarks. Cox is an attorney and politician who served as chair of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, a 17-year Republican member of the United States House of Representatives, and a member of the White House staff in the Reagan Administration. Following his tenure at the SEC, he joined Bingham McCutchen LLP as a partner in the firm\u27s Corporate, M&A and Securities practice, and also served as president of Bingham Consulting LLC. In 2014, Cox became a partner with Morgan Lewis and president of Morgan Lewis Consulting LLC, and in 2020 he retired, becoming of counsel at the law firm. He currently serves on the boards of several organizations. After lightly noting the particular timeliness of the symposium as People Magazine just announced Section 230 as the “Sexiest Law of the Millenium,” Cox used his time to set the scene for the day’s discussions. Cox began by sharing the origin story of Section 230, giving historical context for why it was needed and what it was originally intended to do. He then took a step back to give his broader opinion on the questions posed by the symposium\u27s two panels
Business Accountability for Human Rights: Addressing Human Rights Issues in Global Supply Chains Conference
No full textOn April 7, 2022, The Catholic University of America Columbus School of Law (Catholic Law) — in collaboration with Paul Hastings LLP — hosted government officials, business people, lawyers, scholars, and representatives of faith traditions to explore human rights issues in global supply chains. The conference, Business Accountability For Human Rights: Addressing Human Rights Issues in Global Supply Chains, was coordinated by Professor Sarah H. Duggin, Director of the Compliance, Investigations, and Corporate Responsibility Program (CICR), as well as Tara Giunta \u2786 and Renata Parras of Paul Hastings LLP.
The day-long conference (with both in-person and virtual guests) was the culmination of a series of webinars that began in the fall of 2020 with a program on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on workers in global supply chains. Subsequent webinars focused on a variety of topics including business initiatives to address human rights issues, the corporate responsibility of small businesses, faith perspectives on business and human rights, and visions for how the public and private sectors can work together to end labor exploitation. Building on the foundation of the previous programming, the conference was designed to strengthen the collective efforts to disrupt human rights abuses in global supply chains through speakers, panels, and paper presentations
Out of this World: 3D Printing and Space Law Regulation
Get PDF3D printing will be a valuable asset in the exploration and human expansion into space. This comment examines the current international treaties and U.S. domestic laws that may affect and impose requirements on 3D printing manufacturers seeking to print in space. These treaties are self-executing and therefore leave it up to Congress to take action to keep the U.S. in compliance with international space law. Congress can do this by granting agencies like the FCC and FAA authority to regulate. In order to utilize 3D printing technology in space and reap the benefits it has to offer, the U.S. should not regulate it just because it can. Regulating 3D printing too strictly could hinder the goal of human presence in space
The Role of Rival Litigation in Wilmarth\u27s New Glass-Steagall
Get PDFThe role of private enforcement of public law is an uneven one among financial regulators. Private litigation has played an important role in the enforcement of the federal securities laws since the Supreme Court recognized an implied private cause of action for violations of the anti-fraud provisions. In contrast, courts have been unwilling to establish an implied private right of action under the federal banking laws. Private litigation, however, played a significant role in the enforcement of the Glass-Steagall Act, the New-Deal-era restrictions that separated the financial industry into its three traditional roles: commercial banking, investment banking, and insurance underwriting. That private litigation—what I am calling “rival litigation”—targeted bank regulators with claims that they were allowing banks to engage in activities that were ultra vires. Those suits, brought by the securities and insurance industries slowed the unravelling of Glass-Steagall. The regulatory regime that replaced Glass-Steagall has not produced similar rival litigation challenging agency action. In this tribute to Professor Art Wilmarth, I examine the issue of constitutional and statutory standing in the Glass-Steagall era litigation and highlight the standing features of Wilmarth’s new Glass-Steagall proposal. Not only is standing critical to Wilmarth’s new Glass-Steagall proposal, but standing is a key, often underappreciated, design feature of any financial regulatory regime. I examine standing under the existing regime and discuss how changes in the industry and differences in statutory drafting have weakened the private enforcement benefits that derive from rivalry between and among interest groups
Paving a New (Hua)Wei: A Comparative Analysis of International Approaches to Securing Information and Communication Technology Supply Chains
Get PDFRecent amendments to Chinese Intelligence Laws codify affirmative obligations upon domestic companies and citizens alike, namely, that they must assist and support the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in its intelligence gathering efforts. Coupling these laws with the international prevalence of Huawei, a Chinese telecommunications company comprising two-thirds of 5G equipment outside China, CCP compromised 5G equipment is an unassailable reality. This article explores five intelligence allied nations and how each has respectively addressed the risk posed by Huawei. It argues each nation’s policies are deducible to three primary approaches, categorically including: (1) promulgation of law explicitly excluding Huawei 5G equipment; (2) promulgation of law generically improving supply chain risks without any explicit exclusion of Huawei 5G equipment; and (3) no promulgation nor undertaken efforts to address 5G supply chain risks. Various external and domestic factors, including political climates, economic dependencies, and intragovernmental agreement, heavily influence a nation’s supply chain risk mitigation efforts. Irrespective of a nation’s approach to supply chain risk mitigation, this paper deduces that government action, in and of itself, is insufficient to effectively combat Huawei; it is either incapable of regulating private industries’ purchases or, if it is capable, regulatory measures are bogged down by arduous and lengthy procedures such that swift reaction to pervasive security threats is an impracticable option. Thus, the private industry must play a role
The Application of the Right to be Forgotten in the Machine Learning Context: From the Perspective of European Laws
Get PDFThe right to be forgotten has been evolving for decades along with the progress of different statutes and cases and, finally, independently enacted by the General Data Protection Regulation, making it widely applied across Europe. However, the related provisions in the regulation fail to enable machine learning systems to realistically forget the personal information which is stored and processed therein.
This failure is not only because existing European rules do not stipulate standard codes of conduct and corresponding responsibilities for the parties involved, but they also cannot accommodate themselves to the new environment of machine learning, where specific information can hardly be removed from the entire cyberspace. There is also evidence in the technical, legal, and social spheres to elaborate on the mismatch between the rules of the right to be forgotten and the novel machinery background based on the above reasons.
To mitigate these issues, this article will draw lessons from the cyberspace regulation theories and expound on their insights into realizing the right and the strategies they offered to reframe a new legal scheme of the right. This innovative framework entails a combination of technological, legal, and possibly social measures taken by online intermediaries which make critical decisions on the personal data given the so-called stewardship responsibilities. Therefore, the application of the right to be forgotten in the machinery landscape will plausibly be more effective
