In this timely and readable volume, law professor Aaron Schwabach explores the three traditional categories of intellectual property?copyright, patent, and trademark. He traces their historical development from medieval times to the present and observes how intellectual property law has responded to successive waves of technological change. Intellectual Property examines all sides of current controversies and crises in this fast-changing field, particularly those resulting from the digital information revolution. Because ideas are not constrained by national borders, the author focuses on intellectual property, including trade secrets, as an international phenomenon, emphasizing the experiences and contributions of a wide variety of countries and cultures. An essential resource for students and researchers?and anyone else who needs to know how to use and/or protect intellectual property.
In the United Kingdom, and to a lesser extent the United States, an inter vivos gift, once given, cannot be reclaimed by the giver's heirs. In civil law countries the situation is quite different: Not only spouses, but issue and in some cases even ascendants, are entitled to a forced share of a decedent's estate--and these forced shares are assessed against a notional "estate" that includes the testator's inter vivos gifts. If the total of these forced shares exceeds the amount actually available in the decedent's estate at death, the recipients of the gifts, or their successors, may be forced to make up the missing amount. Clawbacks of this nature might have remained relatively insignificant, but last year the European Union undertook, indirectly, to expand their reach dramatically. The EU proposal, in theory, addresses only conflict of law rules; in practice, if adopted, it will threaten not only existing trusts and charitable gifts in the US and UK, but may also reduce future philanthropic giving. The UK, to date, has opted out of the proposal, and the US is not directly affected; given the large number of US and UK citizens with assets in continental Europe, however, and vice versa, it remains a concern. The recent European Union proposal to bring about a more uniform body of law governing choice-of-law and related issues in international inheritance cases is perhaps, a necessary response to the increasingly international nature of the EU's (and the world's) inhabitants and their assets. As written, though, it is rather heavily tilted toward the civil law values of continental Europe and threatens to collide jarringly with common law traditions, in particular the Anglo-American fondness for trusts and charitable giving. This article provides a look at these different traditions, and then examines the relevant inheritance law provisions of EU member states, the UK, and the US before looking at the proposal itself.
Beginning on January 31, 2000, at least 100,000 cubic meters of highly polluted water escaped from a tailings dam at the Aurul gold mine in Baia Mare, Romania. The water flowed into the Somes, Tisza, and Danube Rivers, causing enormous environmental damage. Most of the damage occurred in Hungary, downstream from Baia Mare. Hungarian politicians called the spill "the first, most serious environment[al] catastrophe in the 21st century," and "the worst ecological disaster in central Europe since Chernobyl in 1986." More striking than the resemblance to the Chernobyl disaster, though, was the resemblance to another 1986 environmental catastrophe: the Sandoz warehouse fire at Schweizerhalle, near Basel, Switzerland, which released over 10,000 cubic meters of highly contaminated water into the Rhine.4 In each of these instances, an international environmental legal regime ostensibly protected the affected river system. However, international law failed to prevent or reduce the impact of the accident in each case. Fourteen years after the Sandoz spill, Europe's river systems remain unacceptably vulnerable to catastrophic chemical accidents. This article explores the growth of the environmental regime of one such system, the Danube basin, and the weaknesses revealed by the Baia Mare accident.
This Article addresses the report by the Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) concerning war crimes allegedly committed by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) during the conduct of its war with Yugoslavia. International law regarding the conduct of war, or jus in bello, governs what are popularly thought of as "war crimes." This body of law is currently in flux; while the OTP is not in any sense a rule-making body, its actions may give some guidance as to the direction that the development of this body of law will follow.The OTP considered NATO attacks on twenty-one targets in Yugoslavia as possible violations of existing jus in bello norms. The OTP categorized the issues raised by the accusations under the headings of environmental damage, use of depleted uranium projectiles, use of cluster bombs, and improper target selection. The first and last categories have the potential for the greatest impact on the formation of normative expectations regarding the conduct of war. The fourth problem can also be divided into two major subcategories: problems of discrimination and problems of proportionality. In each instance, the OTP found that NATO's actions did not violate existing norms, although in one instance the panel found itself divided. These outcomes were correct. The reasoning underlying the outcomes, though, is troubling. The rules of law it states and applies would exonerate not only NATO, but also the perpetrators of far more deliberate and destructive acts. The OTP seems to ignore the development of the jus in bello during the past decade, and perhaps during the past three decades. While the OTP is to be applauded for its decisions, its report nonetheless contains troubling assumptions about current normative expectations relating to the conduct of war.¶
