Suchergebnisse

Focus on laws relating to conduct of belligerents during Iraq's military occupation of Kuwait and the subsequent Persian Gulf conflict.

Much of the literature on the Charter has focused on the manner in which the courts have interpreted the document. This essay examines the Charter from another perspective-its impact on the policy process within government. Drawing on a series of papers prepared by senior government officials at both the federal and provincial levels, the authors argue that the Charter has permanently changed the way in which governments formulate and implement public policy in Canada. Virtually all policy proposals making their way to the Cabinet table must be examined to ensure that they conform to the requirements of the Charter. This has forced governments to put in place new procedures and structures to undertake this review. It has also changed the balance of power within government, significantly enhancing the role and authority of the Attorney General. The authors describe these important structural changes and assess the degree to which they make a difference to policy outcomes.

In November 1990, Congress passed the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act ("NAGPRA"). NAGPRA provides for the protection and disposition of Native American cultural items discovered on federal or tribal lands after NAGPRA's effective date. NAGPRA also addresses disposition of those objects currently held or controlled by federal agencies and museums. NAGPRA represents Congress' attempt to resolve years of debate between tribes, archaeologists, and museums. Like any legislative pronouncement, however, Congress left key issues to agencies and courts to resolve. This article focuses upon one such area, namely, Fifth Amendment takings questions that may arise when tribes or individual Native Americans demand the return of cultural items from persons discovering them on lands owned in unrestricted fee simple on Indian reservations . The first section of the article describes the statutory scheme. The second section delineates the different classes of cultural items and legal principles pertaining to ownership. The third section explores issues related to Fifth Amendment takings. The article concludes with recommendations for both the Department of Interior to consider in forthcoming rulemaking and for Congress to consider in future legislative pronouncements affecting the return of Native American cultural items.

The "constitutional principle of separation of powers" could be understood to mean any one of several different things. It could mean, as the formalists argue, that each branch has exclusive power to perform a single designated function, unless the Constitution expressly permits an exception. Or it could mean, as the functionalists believe, that courts should strive to maintain a diffusion of power among the branches. Conceivably, it could mean nothing -- the constitutional principle of separation of powers could just be a shorthand reference for the sum of all specific clauses that govern relations among the branches, but add nothing to what these clauses individually require. Each of these interpretations would have serious drawbacks. The exclusive functions construction would be too rigid, the diffusion of power understanding too flexible, and neither comports with the full range of Supreme Court decisions defining the structural Constitution. The conclusion that the principle adds nothing to the specific clauses would be more consistent with the pattern of outcomes reached by the Supreme Court, but would be an open invitation to create a Fourth Branch of government that would permit massive evasions of those clauses in the future. A better strategy would be to interpret the principle as incorporating a minimal requirement that there be only three branches, with every federal office accountable to one of the constitutional branches. Such an understanding would provide substantial continuity with the past: it would be consistent with the text of the Constitution and with Madison's explanation of the mechanism for preserving the constitutional structure, and would not contradict any of the Supreme Court's judgments in major separation-of-power cases. For the future, it would prevent Congress from circumventing the specific clauses of the Constitution that limit the power of the branches, and would preserve the dynamic tension among the branches that has worked well for over 200 years in maintaining "the liberty and security of the governed."

Defence date: 22 June 1990 ; Examining board: M.A. Françon, Président de l'IRPI Henri Desbois ; M.G. Koumantos, Président de l'ALAI, professeur à l'Université d'Athènes ; M.M. Fabiani, professeur à l'Université de Rome ; M.B. de Witte, professeur à l'Université de Maastricht ; M.U. Jessurun D'Oliveira, professeur à l'IUE ; First made available online: 23 September 2015

The recent political debate concerning the influence of corruption on the "new economic order" in the People's Republic of China is unique not only for its detailed and public manifestations, but also because it works around the acceptance of some degree of corporate private ownership of the means of production within China. The concern for corruption in Chinese government and commerce is not, of itself, novel.We prefer in this paper briefly to focus on the economic and political environment from within which this concern has been generated, to comment on the significance for the Government of the PRC in associating the pall of corruption with the undermining of more capitalist economic reform, and then to examine how the legal definitions and controls on corruption have been transformed to complement a new political agenda. Associated with this, it has been necessary to advance some rather tentative predictions concerning the development of new anti-corruption initiatives in the PRC, their justifications, and pressures on the economic transition which is said to be corruption generative.Speculation about the future face of economic corruption in China is of limited value when one is interested in questions of regulation and control. As the definition, indication and interpretation of corruption is a political process which may pay little regard to realistic indicators, so too the creation of control initiatives may not be dependent on predictions of actual developments in graft. We have endeavoured to show that recent regulatory programmes in the PRC themselves indicate much about the commercial contradictions that underly the new economic order, as well as evidencing the socio-legal dilemmas inherent in anti-corruption official discourse.

From the perspective of the antitakeover forces, greenmailers are the worst example of exploitive, opportunistic players in the market for corporate control, threatening an acquisition that has no efficiency justification (and may impose significant costs) simply to garner short-term gains. Prohibiting the payment eliminates the incentive to engage in such exploitive activity in the first place. The unique overlap of interests means that both sides can agree on one aspect of takeover reform: greenmail should be prohibited. My purpose here is not to debate that conclusion but to comment on the more prosaic yet nonetheless pressing problem of how to implement a prohibition on greenmail. Some states already have adopted legislative prohibitions, and the takeover legislation now pending in Congress also would prohibit the practice. Additionally, a significant number of corporations have not waited for legislative action, instead adopting charter amendments that prohibit the individual corporation from paying greenmail. The problem is that the efforts to date to prohibit greenmail are seriously underinclusive because they misunderstand the problem. Indeed, I will make the stronger claim that, rather than prohibiting greenmail, existing and proposed prohibitions in fact serve to legalize greenmail by creating a safe harbor within which it safely can be paid.

This Comment begins by providing a brief outline of the procedures regulating the use of televised testimony. Next, against the larger backdrop of the history of the right to confrontation, Part III addresses the treatment of televised testimony as hearsay. This section presents a recent Maryland decision as an illustration of the undesirable analogy of televised testimony to hearsay that leads to a more difficult admission standard. Part III concludes with the argument that televised testimony is the functional equivalent of in-court testimony, and thus, a hearsay analysis is inappropriate. Part IV of this Comment presents a recent Supreme Court decision directly addressing the value of face-to-face confrontation. This landmark decision now provides courts with the proper admissibility standard for a procedure in which actual face-to-face confrontation is lacking. Finally, Part V presents an appeal to the Washington legislature urging the adoption of a statute authorizing the use of televised testimony and incorporating the guidelines suggested in this Comment.

The Diné (Navajos) inhabit a vast land of beauty and grace. It is a sprawling territory, bounded by sacred mountains and great rivers. The Navajo Reservation, first delineated in the 1868 treaty, has nearly quadrupled in size since then through some twenty-five additions. Today, the Diné land base is some 25,000 square miles (sixteen million acres roughly), encompassing a large portion of northeastern Arizona, a part of northwester New Mexico, and some 1,900 square miles in southeastern Utah. This tremendous stretch of land, the largest Indian reservation in the county, is slightly larger than the state of West Virginia. Navajo Tribal Government is the subject of this manual. Government institutions and processes may come into power overnight, but to understand them completely an historical review must be done. Therefore, a good part of this study is devoted to examining historical development that shaped Navajo government into its present form. ; https://scholarship.richmond.edu/bookshelf/1335/thumbnail.jpg

The states' inability to collect taxes on out-of-state mail-order sales constitutes a major fiscal problem. The federal government's Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations estimates that states are losing as much as 1.5 billion dollars each year in unpaid out-of-state mail-order purchase taxes.' In addition to raising revenue, the compensating use tax serves two purposes: (1) The use tax helps local sellers to compete with retail dealers in other states who are subject to a lesser tax burden;and (2) the use tax avoids the likelihood of draining the taxing state's revenue by removing buyers' incentive or temptation to go bargain hunting by mail orders or through other means to escape payment of the tax on in-state sales. The legislatures of states with sales taxes could not plug these economic leaks by extending the reach of the sales tax. One reason was the idea that a state could not, consistently with the due process clause, tax extraterritorial sales. Prior to the Supreme Court's 1940 decision in McGoldrick v. Berwind-White Coal Mining Co.,it was assumed that an interstate sale was immune from state or local taxation.' Later, McLeod v. J.E. Dilworth Co. placed severe constitutional constraints on a destination state's ability to tax a sale consummated in another state. These restrictions on the states' taxing power enabled residents of states with sales taxes to make their purchases either tax free or at a lower tax rate beyond the territorial limits of the taxing jurisdiction. Purchasers either could travel beyond the borders of their state, use the telephone,mail orders, or buy from solicitors.

Many speeches have been made about the new 1980 Constitutional reform in Belgium. It is much less radical than suggested.

This article first demonstrates that courts historically did not trust penal interest statements in general, and that courts were extremely suspicious of any statements by a third party that implicated the defendant. Since Washington adopted Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(3) verbatim, this article then analyzes the legislative history of the rule. The article concludes that the legislative history favored exclusion of inculpatory statements but that Congress failed to codify the exclusion because of unrelated problems. Finally, the article discusses the confrontation clause problems that arise when inculpatory statements are allowed into evidence. This article argues that the Parris holding should be narrowed, in a case now pending in the court of appeals, to exclude inculpatory statements altogether. The authors urge a rule of exclusion notwithstanding the supreme court's rejection of this claim as having little merit.