The Ethics of Implementation: Institutional Remedies and the Lawyer's Role

The issue addressed in this article is whether and to what extent a lawyer has an ethical responsibility to pursue implementation of the remedy in institutional reform litigation. Institutional reform litigation refers to cases in which an individual or class of individuals sues a large organization in order to vindicate constitutional or statutory rights. The types of cases with which this article is concerned are the "public law" type, such as school desegregation, prisoners' rights and patients' rights cases, although included under the rubric of institutional reform can be, inter alia, antitrust, reapportionment and bankruptcy cases. The implementation stage of institutional reform litigation arises after an individual or class of individuals prevails at the liability stage, or pursuant to a settlement, and a court orders the defendant organization to change in order to vindicate the plaintiffs' rights. At that point, the defendant organization, whether it be a prison, mental hospital or school district, usually has the burden of implementing the order. One conclusion drawn is that the ethical duty of the lawyer must always be consistent with the lawyer's "special responsibility for the quality of justice."

Market and Welfare Effects of Mandatory Country-Of-Origin Labeling in the Specialty Crops Sector

Public Law 107-171 of the U.S. Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 required country-of-origin labeling (COOL) for beef, lamb, pork, fish, perishable agricultural commodities (fresh and frozen fruits and vegetables) and peanuts. While a goal of this law was to benefit domestic consumers by allowing them to make informed consumption decisions, the effects of COOL on the interest groups involved have been the subject of a heated on-going debate.

Sicurezza dei prodotti alimentari e la responsabilità civile nell'Unione europea e negli Stati Uniti: tecniche a confronto

Le profonde trasformazioni che hanno interessato l’industria alimentare, unitamente alle accresciute capacità delle scienze mediche ed epidemiologiche di individuare nessi causali tra il consumo di determinate sostanze e l’insorgere di patologie, hanno imposto al legislatore di intervenire nella materia della c.d. sicurezza alimentare mettendo in atto sistemi articolati e complessi tesi a tutelare la salute dei consociati. Quest’ultimo obiettivo viene perseguito, da un lato, mediante disposizioni di natura pubblicistica e di carattere preventivo e, dall’altro lato, dallo strumento della responsabilità civile. Le due prospettive di tutela della salute delle persone costituiscono parti distinte ma al tempo stesso fortemente integrate in una logica unitaria. Questa prospettiva emerge chiaramente nel sistema statunitense: in quel ordinamento la disciplina pubblicistica della sicurezza degli alimenti – definita dalla Food and Drug Administration – costituisce un punto di riferimento imprescindibile anche quando si tratta di stabilire se un prodotto alimentare è difettoso e se, di conseguenza, il produttore è chiamato a risarcire i danni che scaturiscono dal suo utilizzo. L’efficace sinergia che si instaura tra la dimensione pubblicistica del c.d. Public Enforcement e quella risarcitoria (Private Enforcement) viene ulteriormente valorizzata dalla presenza di efficaci strumenti di tutela collettiva tra i quali la class action assume una importanza fondamentale. Proprio muovendo dall’analisi del sistema statunitense, l’indagine si appunta in un primo momento sull’individuazione delle lacune e delle criticità che caratterizzano il sistema nazionale e, più in generale quello comunitario. In un secondo momento l’attenzione si focalizza sull’individuazione di soluzioni interpretative e de iure condendo che, anche ispirandosi agli strumenti di tutela propri del diritto statunitense, contribuiscano a rendere maggiormente efficace la sinergia tra regole preventive sulla sicurezza alimentare e regole risarcitorie in materia di responsabilità del produttore.

Iva e Pubblica Autorità: coerenza del sistema e dimensioni nazionali

Il sistema comune europeo dell’imposta sul valore aggiunto privilegia caratteri e finalità economiche nel definire chi siano gli operatori economici soggetti all’IVA. Una disciplina particolare è, tuttavia, prevista per i soggetti di diritto pubblico che, oltre alla principale attività istituzionale, esercitano un’attività di carattere economico. Ai sensi dell’articolo 13 della Direttiva del 28 novembre 2006, 2006/112/CE, gli Stati, le Regioni, le Province, i Comuni e gli altri enti di diritto pubblico, in relazione alle attività ed operazioni che essi effettuano in quanto pubbliche autorità, non sono considerati soggetti passivi IVA anche se in relazione ad esse percepiscono diritti, canoni, contributi o retribuzioni. La vigente disciplina europea delle attività economiche esercitate dagli enti pubblici, oltre che inadeguata al contesto economico attuale, rischia di diventare un fattore che influenza negativamente l’efficacia del modello impositivo dell’IVA e l’agire degli enti pubblici. La tesi propone un modello alternativo che prevede l’inversione dell’impostazione attuale della Direttiva IVA al fine di considerare, di regola, soggetti passivi IVA gli organismi pubblici che svolgono - ancorché nella veste di pubblica autorità - attività oggettivamente economiche.

Open Data and Earth Observations The Case of Opening Up Access to and Use of Earth Observation Data Through the Global Earth Observation System of Systems

Earth observations (EO) represent a growing and valuable resource for many scientific, research and practical applications carried out by users around the world. Access to EO data for some applications or activities, like climate change research or emergency response activities, becomes indispensable for their success. However, often EO data or products made of them are (or are claimed to be) subject to intellectual property law protection and are licensed under specific conditions regarding access and use. Restrictive conditions on data use can be prohibitive for further work with the data. Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS) is an initiative led by the Group on Earth Observations (GEO) with the aim to provide coordinated, comprehensive, and sustained EO and information for making informed decisions in various areas beneficial to societies, their functioning and development. It seeks to share data with users world-wide with the fewest possible restrictions on their use by implementing GEOSS Data Sharing Principles adopted by GEO. The Principles proclaim full and open exchange of data shared within GEOSS, while recognising relevant international instruments and national policies and legislation through which restrictions on the use of data may be imposed.The paper focuses on the issue of the legal interoperability of data that are shared with varying restrictions on use with the aim to explore the options of making data interoperable. The main question it addresses is whether the public domain or its equivalents represent the best mechanism to ensure legal interoperability of data. To this end, the paper analyses legal protection regimes and their norms applicable to EO data. Based on the findings, it highlights the existing public law statutory, regulatory, and policy approaches, as well as private law instruments, such as waivers, licenses and contracts, that may be used to place the datasets in the public domain, or otherwise make them publicly available for use and re-use without restrictions. It uses GEOSS and the particular characteristics of it as a system to identify the ways to reconcile the vast possibilities it provides through sharing of data from various sources and jurisdictions on the one hand, and the restrictions on the use of the shared resources on the other. On a more general level the paper seeks to draw attention to the obstacles and potential regulatory solutions for sharing factual or research data for the purposes that go beyond research and education.

Book Review: Regulating Code : Good Governance and Better Regulation in the Information Age

Digital technologies have profoundly changed not only the ways we create, distribute, access, use and re-use information but also many of the governance structures we had in place. Overall, "older" institutions at all governance levels have grappled and often failed to master the multi-faceted and multi-directional issues of the Internet. Regulatory entrepreneurs have yet to discover and fully mobilize the potential of digital technologies as an influential factor impacting upon the regulability of the environment and as a potential regulatory tool in themselves. At the same time, we have seen a deterioration of some public spaces and lower prioritization of public objectives, when strong private commercial interests are at play, such as most tellingly in the field of copyright. Less tangibly, private ordering has taken hold and captured through contracts spaces, previously regulated by public law. Code embedded in technology often replaces law. Non-state action has in general proliferated and put serious pressure upon conventional state-centered, command-and-control models. Under the conditions of this "messy" governance, the provision of key public goods, such as freedom of information, has been made difficult or is indeed jeopardized.The grand question is how can we navigate this complex multi-actor, multi-issue space and secure the attainment of fundamental public interest objectives. This is also the question that Ian Brown and Chris Marsden seek to answer with their book, Regulating Code, as recently published under the "Information Revolution and Global Politics" series of MIT Press. This book review critically assesses the bold effort by Brown and Marsden.

Foreign Direct Investment in Agriculture: Land Grab or Food Security Improvement?

“Large-scale acquisition of land by foreign investors” is the correct term for a process where the verdict of guilt is often quicker than the examination. But is there something really new about land grab except in its extent? In comparison with colonial and post-colonial plantation operations, should foreign investors today behave differently? We generally accept coffee and banana exports as pro-growth and pro-development, just as for cars, beef and insurance. What then is wrong with an investment contract allowing the holder to buy a farm and to export wheat to Saudi Arabia, or soybeans and maize as cattle feed to Korea, or to plant and process sugar cane and palm oil into ethanol for Europe and China? Assuming their land acquisition was legal, should foreigners respect more than investment contracts and national legislation? And why would they not take advantage of the legal protection offered by international investment law and treaties, not to speak of concessional finance, infrastructure and technical cooperation by a development bank, or the tax holidays offered by the host state? Remember Milton Friedman’s often-quoted quip: “The business of business is business!” And why would the governments signing those contracts not know whether and which foreign investment projects are best for their country, and how to attract them? This chapter tries to show that land grab, where it occurs, is not only yet another symptom of regulatory failures at the national level and a lack of corporate social responsibility by certain private actors. National governance is clearly the most important factor. Nonetheless, I submit that there is an international dimension involving investor home states in various capacities. The implication is that land grab is not solely a question whether a particular investment contract is legal or not. This chapter deals with legal issues which seem to have largely escaped the attention of both human rights lawyers and, especially, of investment lawyers. I address this fragmentation between different legal disciplines, rules, and policies, by asking two basic questions: (i) Do governments and parliaments in investor home countries have any responsibility in respect of the behaviour of their investors abroad? (ii) What should they and international regulators do, if anything?

Na 1 Nachlass Max Horkheimer, 600 - Korrespondenzen u.a. mit Friedrich Pollock (p. VI 42, 211-386)

Briefwechsel zwischen Max Horkheimer, Frederick Pollock und Karl August und Olga Wittfogel; 2 Briefe zwischen Edith B. Bernett und Max Horkheimer, April 1940; 2 Briefe zwischen Max Horkheimer und Philip Vaudrin, Juli 1939; 3 Briefe an David H. Stevens von Max Horkheimer, 26.03.1938; 1 Brief von A. Radcliffe an Frederick Pollock, 18.11.1937; 3 Briefe an Max Horkheimer von der Columbia University Faculty of Political Science (New York), November 1937; 2 Briefe von der Columbia University Department of History (New York) an Max Horkheimer, November 1937; 1 Brief an Max Horkheimer von Sharon Beard, 27.11.1937; 1 Brief von Ruth Benedict an Max Horkheimer, 19.11.1937; 1 Brief an Max Horkheimer von Franz Boas, 19.11.1937; 1 Brief von R. E. Chaddock an Max Horkheimer, 21.11.1937; 1 Brief an Max Horkheimer von Ch'ao-ting Chi, 19.11.1937; 1 Brief von J. M. Clark an Max Horkheimer, 22.11.1937; 1 Brief an Dr. Wertheimer von Morris R. Cohen, 29.11.1937; 1 Brief von Alfred E. Cohn an Max Horkheimer, 26.11.1937; 1 Brief an Max Horkheimer von John J. Coss, 22.11.1937; 1 Brief von George S. Counts an Max Horkheimer, 24.11.1937; 1 Brief an Max Horkheimer von A. P. Evans, 22.11.1937; 3 Briefe von Gertrude Stewart an Max Horkheimer, 20. - 24.11.1937; 1 Brief an Max Horkheimer von L. C. Goodrich, 22.11.1937; 1 Brief von John W. Innes an Max Horkheimer, 20.11.1937; 1 Brief an Max Horkheimer von Philip C. Jessup, 24.11.1937; 1 Brief von John A. Krout an Max Horkheimer, 23.11.1937; 1 Brief an Max Horkheimer von Bruno Lasker, 20.11.1937; 1 Brief von Samuel McCune Lindsay an Max Horkheimer, 24.11.1937; 1 Brief an Max Horkheimer von K. N. Llewellyn, 26.11.1937; 1 Brief von R. S. Lynd an Max Horkheimer, [November 1937]; 1 Brief an Max Horkheimer von R. M. MacIver, 19.11.1937; 1 Brief von Julian W. Mack an Max Horkheimer, 24.11.1937; 1 Brief an Max Horkheimer von Arthur Maxmahon, 20.11.1937; 1 Brief von Jerome Michael an Max Horkheimer, 26.11.1937; 1 Brief an Max Horkheimer von Wesley C. Mitchell, 22.11.1937; 1 Brief von der Columbia University School of Business (New York) an Max Horkheimer, 22.11.1937; 2 Briefe zwischen Max Horkheimer und der John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation (New York), November 1937; 2 Briefe von der Columbia University Department of Psychology (New York) an Max Horkheimer, November 1937; 1 Brief an Max Horkheimer von Goodwin Watson, 23.11.1937; 1 Brief von Otto Nathan an Max Horkheimer, 26.11.937; 1 Brief an Max Horkheimer von John K. Norton, 23.11.1937; 1 Brief von der Columbia University Department of Chinese (New York) an Max Horkheimer, 23.11.1937; 1 Brief an Max Horkheimer von Gerold Tanquary Robinson, 19.11.1937; 1 Brief von der Columbia University Department of Public Law and Government (New York) an Max Horkheimer, 22.11.1937; 1 Brief an Max Horkheimer von R. C. Sailer, 20.11.1937; 1 Brief von Herbert W. Schneider an Max Horkheimer, 22.11.1937; 1 Brief an Max Horkheimer von R. L. Schuyler, 20.11.1937; 1 Brief von Pauline Steorns an Max Horkheimer, 22.11.1937; 1 Brief an Max Horkheimer von Frank Tannenbaum, 19.11.1937; 1 Brief von Alfred Vagés an Max Horkheimer, 26.11.1937;

PROJECTION OF HEALTH DEMAND IN TERMS OF HOSPITAL ADMISSIONS FOR SELECTED DIAGNOSES IN HEALTH SYSTEMS AGENCY SERVICE AREAS

The National Health Planning and Resources Development Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-641) requires that health systems agencies (HSAs) plan for their health service areas by the use of existing data to the maximum extent practicable. Health planning is based on the identificaton of health needs; however, HSAs are, at present, identifying health needs in their service areas in some approximate terms. This lack of specificity has greatly reduced the effectiveness of health planning. The intent of this study is, therefore, to explore the feasibility of predicting community levels of hospitalized morbidity by diagnosis by the use of existing data so as to allow health planners to plan for the services associated with specific diagnoses.^ The specific objectives of this study are (a) to obtain by means of multiple regression analysis a prediction equation for hospital admission by diagnosis, i.e., select the variables that are related to demand for hospital admissions; (b) to examine how pertinent the variables selected are; and (c) to see if each equation obtained predicts well for health service areas.^ The existing data on hospital admissions by diagnosis are those collected from the National Hospital Discharge Surveys, and are available in a form aggregated to the nine census divisions. When the equations established with such data are applied to local health service areas for prediction, the application is subject to the criticism of the theory of ecological fallacy. Since HSAs have to rely on the availability of existing data, it is imperative to examine whether or not the theory of ecological fallacy holds true in this case.^ The results of the study show that the equations established are highly significant and the independent variables in the equations explain the variation in the demand for hospital admission well. The predictability of these equations is good when they are applied to areas at the same ecological level but become poor, predominantly due to ecological fallacy, when they are applied to health service areas.^ It is concluded that HSAs can not predict hospital admissions by diagnosis without primary data collection as discouraged by Public Law 93-641. ^

1.6 Lloyd Hogsett, University of Missouri Legal Counsel

By March, 1936, the University of Missouri formally rejected Gaines because Missouri law would not permit a person of African descent to enter a white school. Within three weeks, the NAACP petitioned the court asking the University of Missouri to open its doors to Gaines on the grounds that it was the only public law school in Missouri.

Resolução de conflitos envolvendo a administração pública por mecanismos consensuais

A presente dissertação investiga a possibilidade jurídica e as limitações da utilização de meios consensuais para resolução de conflitos que tenham a Administração Pública como parte. Mais especificamente, a dissertação tratará da escolha entre valer-se de meios consensuais para a solução do conflito ou de relegá-lo a um meio adjudicatório, especialmente o processo judicial. No primeiro capítulo, o trabalho situa a adoção dos meios consensuais pela Administração Pública no contexto de desenvolvimento das ADRs no Brasil, com influência da experiência norte-americana. No segundo, trata de revisitar alguns dogmas do Direito Administrativo que possam configurar óbices à adoção dos meios consensuais, como a legalidade estrita e a supremacia do interesse público, bem como situar novamente o tema no contexto de expansão da atuação administrativa consensual. O terceiro capítulo apresenta conceitos importantes para compreender a questão como: interesse público e indisponibilidade; meios adjudicatórios de solução de conflitos; meios consensuais de solução de conflitos (negociação, mediação e conciliação). No quarto capítulo, serão abordadas as limitações que o regime de direito público impõe à adoção de meios consensuais pela Administração Pública. O quinto capítulo traz um contraponto aos meios consensuais, relatando algumas críticas e riscos de sua adoção. Por fim, o sexto capítulo relata pesquisa empírica realizada na Procuradoria-Geral do Município de São Paulo com a finalidade de revelar experiências e óbices práticos à adoção de meios consensuais.

U.S. immigration policy and the national interest : the final report and recommendations of the Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy with supplemental views by commissioners.

"Submitted to the Congress and the President of the United States pursuant to Public Law 95-412."

Latin America and the Trade act of 1974.

Includes summary of the Trade act of 1974 (Public law 93-618).

Economic policy and the outlook for the economy /

"March 1981"--Cover.

Requirements for environmental monitoring assessment, and controls for nonnuclear energy demonstration projects.

Issued May 1978.