27127 research outputs found
Sort by
Where Is China Now on Pillar 2?
No full textChina has been relatively quiet about pillar 2 of the G20/OECD base erosion and profit-shifting 2.0 project. In a recent Tax Notes article, Xiaoli Ortega wrote:
Will China join the global tax reform club? If so, when? Although the Chinese government has made repeated positive statements about the importance of the global minimum tax reform, it has not clarified when it would modify its domestic tax laws to incorporate the pillar 2 rules. However, this does not mean that China is not preparing itself for the reform. Recall that on August 1, 2022, the State Taxation Administration issued a governmental announcement, indicating the beginning of the effectiveness of some tax treaties related to China under the BEPS framework. This announcement reveals that China has been passively dragged into the minimum tax reform project
The Mismatched Goals of Bankruptcy and Mass Tort Litigation
Get PDFBy the end of this Term, SCOTUS must decide what to do about the mammoth Purdue Pharma bankruptcy settlement. If allowed to go forward, the $10 billion deal will not only resolve claims against the company, it will shield the Sackler family—the company’s former owners—from any further liability for their role in the opioid crisis. The deal has generated a great deal of discussion, much of it focused on the legality and wisdom of that third-party release. The authors of Against Bankruptcy take a broader view, asking a set of critical questions about the proper role of bankruptcy in the resolution of mass torts. “What’s to be gained and what’s to be lost by the turn to bankruptcy?
Grágás and the Legal Culture of Commonwealth Iceland
No full textThe subject of this chapter is Grágás, the compilation of the laws of Iceland in the Commonwealth period. The chapter begins by outlining the court structure of Iceland and the fundamentals of legal procedure, briefly discussing the importance of law to the conversion narrative in Íslendingabók and its account of the first decision to put Iceland’s laws into writing. It describes the distinctive concepts and customs which underlie the legal system of medieval Iceland, looking at the role of the búi (neighbour) in legal procedure, and explaining the key concepts of helgi (the right of inviolability), grið (domicile, or household attachment), vígt (the right to kill or to avenge a wrong with impunity), and the problem of dealing with ómagar (dependants). The chapter argues that the laws and sagas are often mutually informing and demonstrates how fundamental an understanding of law is to the interpretation of the Íslendingasögur. It gives numerous examples of how the laws can be used to help elucidate the sagas, and uses the sagas to reveal the importance of law and legal knowledge in medieval Icelandic society
FRAND Arbitration Will Destroy FRAND
Get PDFStandard essential patent-licensing disputes have been raising the costs of business in the telecommunications industry for over a decade. As technology and interconnectivity extend beyond mobile phones into the Internet of Things (“IoT”), the number of these disputes will only increase. While many academics, policymakers, and stakeholders support arbitration to resolve these disputes, this article warns of the potential long-term consequences of doing so on a large scale.
Standard Setting Organizations usually require the owners of patented technology included in industry standards to commit to licensing on Fair, Reasonable, and Non-discriminatory (“FRAND”) terms to avoid potential abuse of their market power. Standards are global and patents are national, however; disputes between owners and implementers over FRAND rates have led to complicated jurisdictional problems. Some national courts have even set global FRAND licensing rates, leading to cross-border anti-suit, and even anti-anti-suit, injunctions.
International commercial arbitration of FRAND disputes may appear to be an efficient solution to the jurisdictional dilemma, but it would also reduce transparency, lead to increasingly inaccurate calculations of FRAND rates over time, cause information imbalances between the parties, create new conflict of laws problems, lead to underenforcement of national antitrust laws, and harm the integrity of the broader patent system. Without significant change from current international commercial arbitration norms and practice, widespread FRAND arbitration would nullify the very purpose for which the FRAND commitment was created—thus, FRAND arbitration will destroy FRAND
Antiracist Medicine in Colorblind Courts
Get PDFThis Article considers how health professionals’ efforts to combat racial health inequities interact with legal restrictions constraining their ability to consider race. In light of the Roberts Court’s recent invalidation of two university admissions programs, intensifying a “colorblind” judicial shift, the collision between antiracist medicine and colorblind law is a pressing concern. This Article anticipates the implications of this collision and explores how health professionals and systems can design programs that survive judicial examination.
In Part I, the Article examines the frameworks that will apply if antiracist medicine faces legal challenges. These include the Equal Protection Clause and federal statutes like Title VI and Section 1981. Part II systematically outlines three reasons why medicine might consider race—the enhancement of individual and population health through beneficent consideration, the mitigation of racial health disparities via egalitarian consideration, and the redress of historical injustices through reparative consideration. Additionally, it identifies five central contexts in which race has been considered: professional training, the professional-patient encounter, allocation of scarce resources, public health, and clinical research.
Part III delves into the critical question of how medicine should respond to courts’ colorblind turn. Because policies classifying patients or professionals by race will be subjected to strict scrutiny, their viability becomes a challenge. In contrast, policies aimed at antiracist goals while avoiding race-based classification will normally pass muster. It also discusses recent legislative, regulatory, and litigation developments questioning the legitimacy of antiracist medical objectives. Understanding the evolving legal landscape is crucial for medicine to effectively address racial health inequities, and this Article seeks to provide precisely that understanding
Garland v. VanDerStok: Brief of Major Cities Chiefs Association; Police Executive Research Forum; and Current and Former National Security Officials, Law Enforcement Officers, and Prosecutors as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioners
Get PDFAmici are the Major Cities Chiefs Association, the Police Executive Research Forum, and numerous current and former national security officials, law enforcement officers, and prosecutors.
The Major Cities Chiefs Association (MCCA) is a professional organization of police executives representing the largest cities in the United States and Canada. The mission of MCCA is to provide a forum for police executives from large population centers to address the challenges and issues of policing, to influence national and international policy that affects police services, to enhance the development of current and future police leaders, and to encourage and sponsor research that advances this mission.
The Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) is a police research and policy organization which helps to improve the delivery of police services through the exercise of strong national leadership; public debate of political and criminal justice issues; and research and policy development. Since its founding in 1976, PERF has identified best practices on fundamental issues such as reducing police use of force; developing community policing and problem-oriented policing; using technologies to deliver police services to the community; and evaluating crime reduction strategies.
Amici also include former federal national security officials and current and former state and federal law enforcement officials and prosecutors who have significant experience protecting our communities from gun violence by international terrorists, drug cartels, domestic violent extremists, and other malign actors. Amici represent a broad cross section of the national security and law enforcement community, including former career and politically appointed federal officials across Republican and Democratic administrations, from the National Security Council staff, Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Central Intelligence Agency, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of Defense, and Department of State, as well as current and former state law enforcement officers and prosecutors. A complete list of amici is included in the Appendix.
As experienced counterterrorism officials, prosecutors, law enforcement officers, and professional organizations representing police, amici understand that unfettered access to firearms poses a grave national security and public safety threat to the nation. Regulations requiring pre-sale background checks, serial numbers, and record-keeping are crucial to preventing malign actors from readily obtaining the lethal firearms they use to commit acts of terror and other violent crimes. Dangerous weapons easily and inexpensively assembled from kits — known as “ghost guns” because they have no serial numbers — have proliferated throughout the country, where malign actors actively seek to acquire them. Ghost guns severely hamper law enforcement’s effort to combat violent crime, terrorism, domestic extremism, and firearms trafficking, to the detriment of both public safety and national security. Amici have a strong interest in the regulation of ghost guns to prevent them from falling into the hands of those who aim to harm the United States and its citizens
Stakeholder Fairness and Corporate Social Impact: The Behavioral Economic Structure of Corporate Law
Get PDFThis study aims to bridge the gap between stakeholder capitalism—manifesting today in the evolving corporate social impact paradigm—and the historical shareholder primacy of corporate law. The emerging view of corporate purpose, particularly stakeholder capitalism, is closely related to the notion of fairness. This article demonstrates—by looking mainly at Israeli corporate law—that certain foundational concepts of behavioral economics better describe and justify the recent prominence of stakeholderism and the rejuvenated discourse of corporate social impact and purpose than does neoclassical economic theory. It concludes that the “fairness principle” provides a strong rationale for assimilating stakeholder expectations into the DNA of modern corporations by reframing corporate law
Keep the Driver in Driverless Cars: Let\u27s Take a Few Cues from the Aviation Industry
Get PDFAs a law professor who studies mobility, I spend many waking hours thinking about fully automated vehicles, those cars that drive themselves without any need for a human operator. As a true believer in this technology, I think the widespread deployment of these vehicles will get more people home safely, give commuters their time back, and reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in our environment. However, lately, I worry whether this will ever happen. A recent Pew study showed that only 26% of the U.S. public believes that self-driving cars are a good thing for society, which is an all-time low. To the public, the deployment of automated vehicle technology seems rushed, inconvenient, and dangerous. The more I hear from people outside of the mobility industry, the more it feels like the industry is focused on creating a solution in search of a problem.
Yet a problem exists. Nearly 40,000 people will die on the road this year in the U.S. alone, with human error as a causal factor in the majority of those crashes. We will spend hundreds of billions of dollars repairing the damage to people and property caused by vehicular collisions. People will waste weeks of their lives in unnecessary traffic. Knowing this, I wonder why there is a disconnect between society’s desire to address this problem and its receptiveness to the solution of automated driving technology. Developing the technology is hard, but why does getting people to believe in the promise of the technology seem just as hard? In pondering this question, I turned to a mobility industry that incorporates a high degree of automation, yet still enjoys the public trust: aviation, the safest mode of transportation in existence