Suchergebnisse

(System Details) Master and use copy. Digital master created according to Benchmark for Faithful Digital Reproductions of Monographs and Serials, Version 1. Digital Library Federation, December 2002.

The federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) supersedes state laws as they relate to employer-based health care plans. Thus, cases brought under ERISA are heard in federal courts.

As Western corporations continue to expand internationally in search of natural resources and greater economies of scale, they increasingly find themselves operating amidst the political unrest and social conflict that afflicts many developing nations. In such contexts, multinational enterprises often turn a blind eye to human rights abuses, and in the worst cases, become active participants. As a result, many have called for a global system of corporate governance. This Note focuses on the OECD's framework for influencing corporate behavior internationally: the "OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises." After explaining the mechanics of the Guidelines, this Note provides a critical analysis of the United States' implementation by comparing U.S. methods with those of two other adherent states—the Netherlands and France. Ultimately, the Note concludes that U.S. practices leave much room for improvement and offers suggestions for a more robust imple-mentation of the Guidelines.

This Article considers the interplay between new auditing standards governing audits of internal control over financial reporting and pre-existing legal standards governing auditor liability for audit failure. The interplay produces skewed liability incentives that, if unadjusted, threaten to impair the objective of this new control-audit regime. The regime's objective is, in part, to provide an early warning to financial statement users when current financial statements are reliable but control weaknesses indicate material risk of a company's future inability to produce reliable financial statements. To be meaningful, auditor disclosure of material weaknesses and potential effects is necessary. While liability rules under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 will reinforce auditor incentives to provide this disclosure, liability rules under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 will discourage auditors from providing disclosure because doing so likely makes them primary actors subject to liability rather than secondary actors not subject to liability. To address this skewed interplay between new auditing standards and pre-existing legal liability rules, the Article suggests developing a safe harbor system to protect from Section 10(b) liability auditor disclosure of forward-looking information necessary to give the early warning system meaning. The Article gives a comprehensive account of new auditing standards, noting interpretive questions, and showing a system entirely dependent on extensive auditor disclosure. It then explains how the new system expressly nullifies existing case law under Section 11 by substantially expanding required auditor disclosure of internal control conclusions and how it probably nullifies existing case law under Section 10(b), including the Supreme Court's landmark 1994 case, Central Bank, that generally insulated auditors from Section 10(b) liability. These effects, remarkable on their own, pose limits on the early warning system's promise and the Article suggests using safe harbors to overcome them. The Article also offers broader but brief criticism of current preoccupation with control effectiveness as the key to reliable financial reporting evident in auditing's otherwise appealing new early warning system.

Despite several persistent controversies regarding how international law applies to cyber operations during an armed conflict, general understanding of the law in this domain is maturing. Reasoning by analogy to non-cyber application and interpretation of international law underlies much of the progress. Yet, although preexisting normative structures and legal terminology enable legal advisors and scholars to usefully draw upon previously acquired experience and understanding, there are obstacles to definitive analogizing that result from fundamental differences between cyber and kinetic operations. The number of imperfect analogies that underlie some of the normative uncertainty in the field underscores this point. One key difference between kinetic and cyber operations is that most of the latter result in no injury to persons or physical damage to objects. Moreover, even when those consequences manifest because of a cyber operation, the harm caused was not the direct product of the cyber capability that was employed. Rather, it is the follow-on result of data communications between two systems. These and other technical realities of cyber operations must be considered carefully when conducting legal reasoning by analogy. Building on such differences, this article examines three terms drawn from classic international humanitarian law (IHL) – weapons, means, and methods of warfare – in the context of cyber operations. The article begins by identifying those IHL and neutrality rules that the use of the terms implicates, namely the weapon review obligation, the requirement to choose among available means and methods of attack to minimize civilian harm, and the prohibition on transportation of weapons across neutral territory. It then assesses the prevailing understandings of weapons, means, and methods of warfare in an effort to tease loose the sine qua non characteristics that define the terms. This analysis leads to the conclusion that cyber capabilities cannot logically be categorized as weapons or means of cyber warfare. However, they may qualify as a method of warfare in certain contexts. Finally, the findings are applied to the attendant legal requirements and prohibitions in order to evaluate their effect of those rules.

The Secretary General of the United Nations has identified the crime of smuggling of persons by sea as one of the seven major threats to maritime security. Various factors - including economic deprivation, war, and violations of human rights - have all contributed to a dramatic increase in human smuggling. The dangerous journeys, often across the high seas, have forced irregular migrants to seek the assistance of smugglers to reach their destinations. Today, the international community faces serious problems raised by the smuggling of thousands of persons such as human tragedies, threats to the safety of navigation, and major economic burdens on recipient States. Regrettably, there are no provisions in the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which deal directly with this threat. Notwithstanding this lacuna, there are certain rules in the Convention that are relevant and indeed may contribute to combatting this crime. This article will examine to what extent, if at all, does the high seas regime in the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, provide a legal basis for com batting the smuggling of persons by sea. ; peer-reviewed

Turn the clock back for a moment to August 1973. In the midst of the burgeoning Watergate scandal, the nation discovered that Vice President Spiro T. Agnew was being investigated for allegedly accepting bribes from contractors, and for committing tax fraud while Governor of Maryland and Vice President. The investigation, by attorneys in the United States Attorneys Office in Maryland, ultimately gathered sufficient evidence to present to a grand jury. To avoid the spectre of likely indictment and prosecution, Agnew elected to resign his office and plead nolo contendere.[1]But suppose Agnew had decided not to go quietly.[2] Instead of resigning and pleading, imagine he decided to go to Congress, to challenge the House to impeach him and, if it did, the Senate to convict him. Although this possibility may seem far-fetched now, Agnew did at one point appear headed in that direction.[3] Suppose the House had charged Agnew with committing impeachable crimes that, if proven, justified his removal. As the House considered impeaching President Nixon, the Senate would have faced a trial to determine whether Agnew, the person first in line to succeed Nixon, must be removed.

This Article tackles a leading problem confronting norms theorists and regulators: how can the law induce changes in behavior when the material costs to the individual outweigh the benefits and there is no close-knit community to impose sanctions for failure to change? Because private individuals and households are now surprisingly large contributors to environmental problems ranging from toxic pollution to climate change, environmental policy makers face compelling examples of these negative-payoff, loose-knit group situations. This Article suggests that internalized personal norms, rather than social norms, are the most important initial target of opportunity for influencing this kind of behavior. Drawing on the social psychological literature, the Article develops a theory of environmental norm activation that identifies the changes in beliefs necessary to activate personal norms. The Article goes on to suggest the contours of an innovative regulatory reform that will enable the norm activation process to occur. It urges the adaptation of an existing reporting scheme, originally developed for industrial polluters, to require publication of an annual profile of toxic releases by individuals and households. The dissemination of this information will address negative-payoff, loose-knit group situations by activating norms that affect behavior directly, and it will generate civic support for government investments that make behavior change less expensive and more convenient for individuals to adopt. The Article concludes by identifying the implications of its theory and methodology for a wide range of regulatory areas in which individuals are sources of social risks.

Political thinkers have long worried that freedom might be selfundermining, tending to erode the liberal rights and democratic politics that form its foundations. The argument has ancient and modern versions, versions of the political left and of the right. No doubt the only adequate answer is the sum of the answers to many particular questions: whether and when popular elections undermine liberal rights, how free markets enhance or undermine democracy, and so forth. In this article, I address an emerging problem in a central area of contemporary freedom: reproductive autonomy. I ask whether reproductive autonomy can undermine the political conditions that sustain it: a political and legal culture committed to individual rights and the stability of the political order across generations. The possibility that reproductive freedom might be self-undermining arises from two demographic crises. In Europe and Northeast Asia, fertility rates – the number of children the average woman will bear in her lifetime – have fallen well below the level needed to replace the existing population. Meanwhile, in the largest and more important developing countries, India and China, young men outnumber young women by scores of millions, and the gap between the sexes is growing.

In 2006 the law of war experienced two major shock waves. The first was the decision of the Supreme Court in Hamdan, which represented the first major defeat of the President's plan, based on an executive order of November 2001, to use military tribunals against suspected international terrorists. The majority of the Court held the procedures used in the military tribunal against Hamdan violated common article three of the Geneva Conventions. A plurality offour, with the opinion written by Justice Stevens, based their decision as well on afar-reaching interpretation of the substantive law of war. They held that conspiracy to commit terrorist acts did not fall under the customary international law of war. Congress responded by enacting the Military Commissions Act of 2006. The President signed the bill on October 17. The interpretation of Hamdan and the precedents on which it is based will shape future litigation about the constitutionality of the various provisions of this legislation.

AbstractThe issue of regulation regarding Banking in Indonesia is everything related to legislation. Therefore, it can be concluded that Sharia Banking Law is anything related to legislation governing Islamic banking activities. Islamic Banking Law at the same time experienced very intensive and creative interactions with the Islamic religion. In the general sense of Islamic banking, Islamic banking or Islamic banking is carried out by applying Islamic law (sharia) into the banking sector or even other modern commercial activities. This study approached the literature study by reviewing the literature related to the problem.Keyword: Banking Law, Indonesian Insurance, Islamic LawAbstrakMasalah pengaturan tentang Perbankan di Indonesia merupakan segala sesuatu yang terkait dengan peraturan perundang-undangan. Karenanya, dapat disimpulkan bahwa Hukum Perbankan Syariah adalah segala sesuatu yang terkait dengan peraturan perundang-undangan yang mengatur kegiatan perbankan syariah. Hukum Perbankan Syariah pada saat yang bersamaan mengalami interaksi yang sangat intensif dan kreatif dengan agama Islam. Di dalam pengertian umum dari perbankan syariah melakukan kegiatan perbankan syariah atau Bank Islam dengan menerapkan hukum Islam (syariah) ke dalam sektor perbankan atau bahkan kegiatan komersial modern lainnya. Penelitian ini melakukan pendekatan studi pustaka dengan melakukan review terhadap literatur terkait permasalahan.Keyword: Hukum Perbankan, Perasuransian Indonesia, Hukum Islam

What if research could demonstrate how a more collaborative or transformational approach to church leadership had a positive impact on the overall effectiveness of the church? Would pastors adjust their leadership style, and would seminaries expand their pastoral training curriculum? Research continues to affirm the importance of leadership in the health and effectiveness of organizations from multiple contexts. Everything from schools to politics shows the need for leadership. Yet, little quantitative research has been done to see the impact of leadership within the church arena. Is it possible that leadership style correlates to the effectiveness of corporate America but has little correlation within the church? Should seminaries continue to focus on training pastors for exegetically-correct sermons and leave void the need to nurture and guide people to meaningful relationships within the community? Should pastors continue to lead parishioners from an authoritative position that their seminary-trained expertise might dictate, or should pastors collaborate with lay leaders to jointly develop a church atmosphere that reflects shared values developed through a collaborative approach?

The article argues that the Constitutional Court might scrutinize legislation without being accused to infringe upon legislative discretion, if legislative acts might include a motivation to state reasons such as the one provided by administrative acts. Against this backdrop, the constitutional judges might scrutinize the legislative act on an"internal" basis, such as the one characterizing abuse of power in administrative law. ; Nel contributo si tende ad evidenziare come la Corte costituzionale potrebbe esercitare il controllo di costituzionalità delle leggi al riparo da accuse di interferenza nell'ambito della discrezionalità politica del Legislatore ove si ipotizzasse una sorta di motivazione della legge. A partire dalla motivazione, il giudice costituzionale, potrebbe in sostanza esercitare un sindacato interno, sul modello del sindacato dell'eccesso di potere nel processo amministrativo.

This paper will study the universality of natural law that Thomas Aquinas explains in Sententia Libri EthicorumV. In the 5th book of the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle tells the difference between natural law and positive law in the context of politic law. This reference point raises the question about the naturalness of the justice rules within the political society. Especially when it comes to the variability inherent in practical matters. Thomas, by contrast, appeals the first principles recognized by practical intellect in order to support the universality of natural law. The comparison among the Aristotelian and Thomistic position on the universality of the natural law, would reflect doctrinal overcomings, continuities or ruptures between different authors that examine, however, a common topic. ; El presente trabajo estudiará el carácter universal que Tomás de Aquino asigna a lo justo natural en Sententia Libri Ethicorum V. Aristóteles, en Ética Nicomáquea V, tematiza lo justo natural dentro de la esfera de lo justo político. Esto plantea el problema acerca del criterio de naturalidad que comprenden las normas de justicia en el marco de la comunidad política; máxime cuando se trata de la variabilidad inherente a los asuntos prácticos. Tomás de Aquino, por su parte, apela a los primeros principios concebidos por el intelecto práctico para fundamentar la universalidad de lo justo natural. La compulsa entre ambas posiciones permitiría reflejar superaciones, continuidades o rupturas doctrinales entre diversos autores que tematizan, no obstante, un mismo asunto.

Sixty years after the end of World War II much of the artwork looted or forcibly sold during the war has yet to be returned to its rightful owners. One of the primary problems encountered by individuals pursuing claims is that it is difficult to locate the necessary documentation on provenance. Organizations with information on a piece's history, museums in particular, often have a disincentive to share information that could assist in an heir's claim. A mandatory reporting requirement, for government and museum officials with unique access to information on provenance, would counterbalance that reluctance, and address the most basic stumbling block survivors and heirs encounter in building legal claims for recovery. While this obligation would work best if implemented in a binding international agreement, negotiating binding international agreements in this arena has proven difficult. The United States has been a leader in this field and is uniquely positioned to model a policy of mandatory reporting. The United States government should act unilaterally to transform the moral responsibility of government bodies and museum officials into an enforceable legal duty.