Suchergebnisse

War — Effects of Outbreak of — On Enemy Property — The Law of Belgium — Property of Enemy Nationals Resident on Belgian Territory — Rights of Heirs Not Resident on Belgian Territory.

In Google v. Equustek, the Supreme Court of Canada ordered Google to delist all websites used by Datalink, a company that stole trade secrets from Equustek, a Canada-based information technology company. Google had agreed to do so in part, but with respect to searches that originated from google.ca only, the default browser for those in Canada. Equustek however, argued the takedowns needed to be global in order to be effective. It thus sought an injunction ordering Google to delist the allegedly infringing websites from all of Google's search engines—whether accessed from google.ca, google.com, or any other entry point. Google objected. The Canadian Supreme Court, along with the two lower Canadian courts that considered the issue, sided with Equustek (para. 54). The ruling sets up a potential showdown between Canadian and U.S. law and raises critically important questions about the appropriate geographic and substantive scope of takedown orders, the future of free speech online, and the role of intermediaries such as Google in preventing economic and other harms.

This article analyzes a series of litigations that began with the Aguinda v.
Texaco Inc. case as a site of production of new legal subjectivities for
indigenous communities in the region of the Ecuadorian Amazon polluted by
oil extraction activities. They engage in the transnational and local legal
structures, contribute to and generate legal and scientific knowledge and
expertise, and articulate multiple legal subjectivities that position them not only
as homogenous plaintiffs in a highly publicized lawsuit, but also as legal actors
in complex relation to each other, and to the state. Through such engagements
with this legal process, indigenous actors are recrafting their collective
representations in ways that challenge the 'ecoprimitive' stereotypes of
indigeneity, historically associated with the 'paradox of primitivism.'

101Relationship of international law and municipal law — Act of State and justiciability — United States act of State doctrine — Rationale — Definition of act of State — Purpose of doctrine to prevent court adjudicating upon validity of foreign act of State — Action for defamation — Massacre at refugee camps in Lebanon — Magazine making allegations against former Minister of Defence in Government of Israel — Whether adjudication of claim barred by act of State doctrine — Relations between Israel and the United States — Relationship between act of State and political question doctrines — The law of the United States

Sovereign immunity — Foreign State-owned corporation — Restrictive theory of sovereign immunity — Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act 1976 — Act a codification of the 'Tate Letter' — National airline — Passenger injured in foreign State while awaiting return flight to United States — Whether claim arising in connection with a commercial activity carried on in the United States — The law of the United States

State territory — Parts of state territory — Boundaries — Water boundaries — United States — State of Louisiana — Determination of seaward boundary for purpose of validating oil lease — Convention on Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone 1958 — The law of the United States

Jurisdiction — Extra-territorial — Whether Canadian courts having jurisdiction to grant injunction — Interlocutory injunction — Third party — Interlocutory injunction enjoining third party to underlying dispute — British Columbia company suing former distributor for selling, via Internet, a product that allegedly infringed upon its intellectual property — British Columbia courts issuing interlocutory injunction — Google ordered to de-index globally websites of company selling allegedly infringing product — Whether non-parties to dispute immune from injunction — Whether injunction necessary and effective in preventing irreparable harm to British Columbia company — Whether British Columbia courts possessing jurisdiction to grant injunction with extraterritorial reach — Comity — Whether global injunction violating international comity — Whether injunction just and equitableComity — Whether Canadian courts having jurisdiction to grant global injunction — Whether offending sensibilities of any other nation — Whether territorial scope necessary for effective remedy — Whether denial of injunction equitable — Whether global injunction violating international comity — The law of Canada