13203 research outputs found
Sort by
Rivals in Arms: Sino-U.S. Cooperation, Problems, and Solutions and Their Impact on the International UAV Industry
Get PDFResearch and development into drone technology has exploded in the United States in the recent decades. From the operation of killer drones in the military to agricultural survey drones in farms, the proliferation of drone technology is well on its way to radically altering the American future. However, there remains numerous laws, policies, and regulations that place stifling restrictions on drone development and operations in America. Halfway across the world, China has also begun to experience the drone revolution, but with its relatively laxer laws regarding both commercial and public drone operations and manufacturing, it seems poised to surpass the United States in not only drone R&D, but drone export as well. In recent years, China has expanded to become a prolific developer and no-questions-asked exporter of UAVs selling to a plethora of nations ranging from Saudi Arabia to Pakistan and Nigeria.\u27 Domestically, China has relied firmly on indigenous production and R&D since the 1980s to expand its UAV technologies, expanding its UAV industry to include a variety of defense firms as well as academic research groups.2 However, China\u27s drone program is not without its own issues and setbacks, forcing the Civil Aviation Administration of China (CAAC) to issue new drone regulations to be implemented on a trial basis. This paper will analyze and compare the two comprehensive UAV regulations-the stricter FAA regulations and the newer UAV regulations promulgated by the CAAC and explore the differences between the two regulatory policies (both commercial and military), their benefits and drawbacks, and attempt to present solutions as to how the CAAC and the FAA can help build an initial framework for other nations to follow
Licenses and the Property/Contract Interface
Get PDFINTRODUCTION
I. THE ROLE OF FORMAL CATEGORIES
II. THE COMPOUND-PAUCITAL LICENSE
A. IDIOSYNCRASY AND INFORMATION ASYMMETRIES
B. REGULATING LICENSES
1. THE NOTICE STRATEGY
2. THE PROTECTION STRATEGY
III. RESTRAINTS ON ALIENATION AND USE
A. HARMS CAUSED BY RESTRAINTS ON ALIENATION AND USE
1. INCREASED INFORMATION COSTS
2.WASTE
B. LIMITING HARM WITH PROTECTIVE STANDARDIZATION
1. THE LICENSE V. SALE DISTINCTION IN PRACTICE
2.WHAT IS A DIGITAL SALE?
3. FAVORING SALES WITHOUT LOSING FLEXIBILITY
C. DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN IN REM AND IN PERSONAM LICENSE TERMS
IV. LICENSE REVOCATION
A. TIMING REVOCATION
B. BENEFITS AND CONCERNS
1.MANAGING SHARED RESOURCES VS. UPSET RELIANCE INTERESTS
2. DESTABILIZING PERSONHOOD
CONCLUSIO
Understanding the Complicated Landscape of Civil War Monuments
Get PDFThis essay examines the controversy regarding confederate monuments and attempts to contextualize this debate within the current preservation framework. While much attention has been paid to this topic over the past year, particularly with regard to “public” monuments, such discussion has generally failed to recognize the varied and complicated property law layers involved—which can fundamentally change the legal requirements for modification or removal. We propose a spectrum or framework for assessing these resources ranging from public to private, and we explore the messy space in-between these poles where most monuments actually fall. By highlighting these categories, we provide an initial introduction of a typology for evaluating confederate monuments, serving as a foundation for an exploration into the nature of property law and monument protection
African-American Perspectives on Common Struggles: Benefits for African Americans Comparing their Struggle with Dalit Liberation Efforts
No full textProfessor Brown\u27s contribution to this volume is the chapter titled, African-American Perspectives on Common Struggles: Benefits for African-Americans Comparing their Struggle with Dalit Liberation Efforts.https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/facbooks/1244/thumbnail.jp
Congressional Officials and the Fiduciary Duty of Loyalty : Lessons from Corporate Law
No full textProfessor Nagy\u27s contribution is Congressional Officials and the Fiduciary Duty of Loyalty : Lessons from Corporate Law.https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/facbooks/1247/thumbnail.jp
Shifting Between Public and Private: The Reconfiguration of Global Environmental Regulation
Get PDFOver the past two centuries, public environmental regulation (PER) has been progressively supplemented by private transnational regulation (PTR), creating a hybrid environmental governance regime. A fivecategory typology is developed to describe the ways in which international and national PER interact with private forms of environmental regulation. We then analyze the policy considerations that are relevant to the design of such hybrid regimes and various forms of interaction. Next, we describe two case studies that demonstrate the diversity of interactions between PER and PTR in a single regime. The case of sustainability reporting illustrates how public law builds on the expertise developed by private organizations as gradually more reporting obligations are incorporated into public law. The case of sustainable forest management regulation is somewhat more mixed, reflecting a tendency for increased state intervention, which led to partial suppression of PTR
The Lower Federal Courts: Judging in a Time of Trump
Get PDFTo be sure, I offer only preliminary thoughts in this Essay. The Trump presidency is young. There are multiple challenges to multiple executive decisions and orders in courts across the country. A full treatment would take the reader into the robust literature on judicial decision making about context and pragmatism, with historical comparisons to other epochs where the challenges were comparable, even to empirical analyses of judging at different periods of time. I start with judging in “ordinary” times, the period during which I served. I then describe the challenges of judging in a time of Trump, and I conclude by illuminating the implications of those challenges perhaps for judicial education, law schools, and advocacy.
The Future of the U.S. Constitution: A Symposium. April 14-15, 2017, Bloomington, Indiana. Sponsored by Indiana University Maurer School of Law, Indiana Law Journal & the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy
State Responses to Federal Tax Reform: Charitable Tax Credits
Get PDFThis paper summarizes the current federal income tax treatment of charitable contributions where the gift entitles the donor to a state tax credit. Such credits are very common and are used by the states to encourage private donations to a wide range of activities, including natural resource preservation through conservation easements, private school tuition scholarship programs, financial aid for college-bound children from low-income households, shelters for victims of domestic violence, and numerous other state-supported programs. Under these programs, taxpayers receive tax credits for donations to governments, government-created funds, and nonprofits. A central federal income tax question raised by these donations is whether the donor must reduce the amount of the charitable contribution deduction claimed on her federal income tax return by the value of state tax benefits generated by the gift. Under current law, expressed through both court opinions and rulings from the Internal Revenue Service, the amount of the donor’s charitable contribution deduction is not reduced by the value of state tax benefits. The effect of this Full Deduction Rule is that a taxpayer can reduce her state tax liability by making a charitable contribution that is deductible on her federal income tax return. In a tax system where both charitable contributions and state/local taxes are deductible, the ability to reduce state tax liabilities via charitable contributions confers no particular federal tax advantage. However, in a tax system where charitable contributions are deductible but state/local taxes are not, it may be possible for states to provide their residents a means of preserving the effects of a state/local tax deduction, at least in part, by granting a charitable tax credit for federally deductible gifts, including gifts to the state or one of its political subdivisions. In light of recent federal legislation further limiting the deductibility of state and local taxes, states may expand their use of charitable tax credits in this manner, focusing new attention on the legal underpinnings of the Full Deduction Rule. The Full Deduction Rule has been applied to credits that completely offset the pre-tax cost of the contribution. In most cases, however, the state credits offset less than 100% of the cost. We believe that, at least in this latter and more typical set of cases, the Full Deduction Rule represents a correct and long-standing trans-substantive principle of federal tax law. According to judicial and administrative pronouncements issued over several decades, nonrefundable state tax credits are treated as a reduction or potential reduction of the credit recipient’s state tax liability rather than as a receipt of money, property, contribution to capital, or other item of gross income. The Full Deduction Rule is also supported by a host of policy considerations, including federal respect for state initiatives and allocation of tax liabilities, and near-insuperable administrative burdens posed by alternative rules. It is possible to devise alternatives to the Full Deduction Rule that would require donors to reduce the amount of their charitable contribution deductions by some or all of the federal, state, or local tax benefits generated by making a gift. Whether those alternatives could be accomplished administratively or would require legislation depends on the details of any such proposal. We believe that Congress is best situated to balance the many competing interests that changes to current law would necessarily implicate. We also caution Congress that a legislative override of the Full Deduction Rule would raise significant administrability concerns and would implicate important federalism values. Congress should tread carefully if it seeks to alter the Full Deduction Rule by statute
Whistleblowing Speech and the First Amendment
Get PDFAlexander Meiklejohn, the iconic First Amendment scholar who expounded the democratic self-government theory of the freedom of speech, posited that for demo-cratic self-government to function, the voters themselves must possess the infor-mation necessary to hold the government accountable. Yet, the information neces-sary for the citizenry to render wise electoral verdicts not uncommonly belongs to the government itself, and government officials often prove highly reluctant to share information that reflects badly on them and their work. The lack of critically im-portant information about the government’s performance makes it difficult, if not impossible, for voters to hold government accountable on Election Day. To date, the federal courts have failed to recognize the crucial role that government employees often play in providing voters with the information necessary to make wise electoral decisions. The Connick/Pickering doctrine conveys only modest protection on gov-ernment employees who engage in whistleblowing speech. Moreover, this doctrine fails to take into account directly the value and importance of whistleblowing speech to voters. This Article calls for the recognition of a new subcategory of government employee speech, whistleblowing speech, and proposes more rigorous First Amendment protection for such speech. Simply put, contemporary First Amendment theory and practice fails to provide sufficient protection to government employees who engage in whistleblowing speech that calls the body politic’s attention to wrong-doing, corruption, and malfeasance within government agencies. If we want govern-ment employees to speak, rather than remain silent, stronger constitutional medicine than Connick/Pickering will be required