Suchergebnisse

Abstract
This article investigates what risks to the public interest may arise in Internet policy development facilitated by Canada's communications regulator, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC). It finds that different risks exist in four distinct phases of CRTC policy formation. Although these threats are wide-ranging, they often relate to the strategic behaviors of well-resourced groups that advocate for policy positions that are adjacent or contrary to the public interest, a regulatory process in some ways unsuited for robust civil society participation, and the resource constraints of public interest groups that regularly participate in this process.

Abstract
This article investigates what risks to the public interest may arise in Internet policy development facilitated by Canada's communications regulator, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC). It finds that different risks exist in four distinct phases of CRTC policy formation. Although these threats are wide-ranging, they often relate to the strategic behaviors of well-resourced groups that advocate for policy positions that are adjacent or contrary to the public interest, a regulatory process in some ways unsuited for robust civil society participation, and the resource constraints of public interest groups that regularly participate in this process.

Abstract:This essay examines the origins of physician-patient privilege in the United States. It concentrates an 1828 New York law that protected medical confidentiality in the courtroom—the first statutory guarantee of physician-patient privilege—as well as the rapid spread of privilege statutes throughout the nineteenth century. Using the published notes of the authors of New York's influential statute alongside other primary sources, I argue that these early statutes are best explained as the result of nineteenth-century efforts to codify American law. The medical profession took little note of physician-patient privilege until much later, indicating that privilege emerged not as a protection of doctors' professional status, nor as a means of protecting patients in the courtroom, but rather as an inadvertent offshoot of attempts to streamline and simply judicial proceedings. It is perhaps because of these unsystematic origins that physician-patient privilege still remains such an unevenly applied rule in American courtrooms.

AbstractConstitutional pluralism is a theory for the post-sovereign European state. This only makes sense historically, emerging out of postwar European reconstruction through the repression of popular sovereignty and restraining of democracy, including through the project of European integration. It became unsettled at Maastricht and evolved from a series of irritants into a full-blown crisis in the recent decade, with sovereignty claims returning both from the bottom-up and the top-down, to the extent that we can legitimately ask whether we are now moving 'beyond the post-sovereign state'? Constitutional pluralist literature fails to capture this in that evades material issues of democracy and political economy.