The Public Law of Restitution

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Greg Weeks
Keyword(s):  
Public Law ◽  
The Public

User Property, User Rights, and User Privileges

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pascale Chapdelaine
Keyword(s):  
Public Law ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
Future Application ◽  
Private Law ◽  
The Public ◽  
Freedom Of Contract ◽  
Competing Interests ◽  
Regulatory Changes ◽  
Law And Policy ◽  
User Property

This chapter proposes two principles that should inform the development of copyright law and policy and of user rights. The first calls for more cohesion between copyright law, private law, and public law, and for less exceptionalism in copyright law. The second requires that the balance in copyright law be adjusted for its future application as a mediation tool between the competing interests of copyright holders, users, intermediaries, and the public. Instituting positive obligations for copyright holders in relation to users and steering freedom of contract toward the objectives of copyright law are necessary regulatory changes to rectify ongoing imbalances. The principle of technological neutrality should guide the judiciary in its application of copyright’s objective of promoting a balance in copyright law. The proposed guiding principles lead to the creation of a taxonomy and hierarchy of copyright user rights that take into account the myriad ways users experience copyright works.

Fiduciary Principles and Public Offices

2019 ◽  
pp. 302-322
Author(s):  
Ethan J. Leib ◽  
Stephen R. Galoob
Keyword(s):  
Administrative Law ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Public Institutions ◽  
Policy Implications ◽  
Public Officials ◽  
Public Office ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
Normative Structure ◽  
The Public ◽  
Positive Law

This chapter examines how fiduciary principles apply to public offices, focusing on what it means for officeholders to comport themselves to their respective public roles appropriately. Public law institutions can operate in accordance with fiduciary norms even when they are enforced differently from the remedial mechanisms available in private fiduciary law. In the public sector, fiduciary norms are difficult to enforce directly and the fiduciary norms of public office do not overlap completely with the positive law governing public officials. Nevertheless, core fiduciary principles are at the heart of public officeholding, and public officers need to fulfill their fiduciary role obligations. This chapter first considers three areas of U.S. public law whose fiduciary character reinforces the tenet that public office is a public trust: the U.S. Constitution’s “Emoluments Clauses,” administrative law, and the law of judging. It then explores the fiduciary character of public law by looking at the deeper normative structure of public officeholding, placing emphasis on how public officeholders are constrained by the principles of loyalty, care, deliberation, conscientiousness, and robustness. It also compares the policy implications of the fiduciary view of officeholding with those of Dennis Thompson’s view before concluding with an explanation of how the application of fiduciary principles might differ between public and private law settings and how public institutions might be designed or reformed in light of fiduciary norms.

Private and Public Law

2020 ◽  
pp. 574-592
Author(s):  
Thomas W. Merrill
Keyword(s):  
Law And Economics ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Private Law ◽  
General Criterion ◽  
The Public ◽  
Private Ordering ◽  
Public Rights ◽  
Private And Public ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Derivatives Of

This chapter explores the relationship between private and public law. In civil law countries, the public-private distinction serves as an organizing principle of the entire legal system. In common law jurisdictions, the distinction is at best an implicit design principle and is used primarily as an informal device for categorizing different fields of law. Even if not explicitly recognized as an organizing principle, however, it is plausible that private and public law perform distinct functions. Private law supplies the tools that make private ordering possible—the discretionary decisions that individuals make in structuring their lives. Public law is concerned with providing public goods—broadly defined—that cannot be adequately supplied by private ordering. In the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, various schools of thought derived from utilitarianism have assimilated both private and public rights to the same general criterion of aggregate welfare analysis. This has left judges with no clear conception of the distinction between private and public law. Another problematic feature of modern legal thought is a curious inversion in which scholars who focus on fields of private law have turned increasingly to law and economics, one of the derivatives of utilitarianism, whereas scholars who concern themselves with public law are increasingly drawn to new versions of natural rights thinking, in the form of universal human rights.

The Public Form of Law: Kant on the Second-Personal Constitution of Freedom

2016 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 101-126 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ariel Zylberman
Keyword(s):  
Public Law ◽  
The Other ◽  
The Public ◽  
Relational Norm ◽  
The Relationship

AbstractThe two standard interpretations of Kant’s view of the relationship between external freedom and public law make one of the terms a means for the production of the other: either public law is justified as a means to external freedom, or external freedom is justified as a means for producing a system of public law. This article defends an alternative, constitutive interpretation: public law is justified because it is partly constitutive of external freedom. The constitutive view requires conceiving of external freedom in a novel, second-personal way, that is, as an irreducibly relational norm.

Recht auf Vergessen und piercing the corporate veil zugleich Anmerkungen zur Google-Entscheidung des EuGH, Rs. C-131/12 Google Spain SL und Google Inc.

2014 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Schmidt-Kessel ◽  
Carmen Langhanke ◽  
Isabel Gläser ◽  
Hannah Kathrin Herden
Keyword(s):  
Search Engine ◽  
Data Protection ◽  
Public Law ◽  
General Concept ◽  
Economic Interests ◽  
The Public ◽  
Personal Involvement ◽  
Legal Writing ◽  
Piercing The Corporate Veil ◽  
Data Protection Law

AbstractWith its decision in the Google-case, the Court has put essential ground rules of EU data protection law in concrete terms. It has thereby deviated in several ways from leading opinions in legal writing which may partly be due to the fact that these are not free of personal involvement. More importantly though seems the conclusion that this decision underlines in many respects that theoretical patterns of EU private law are different from those of the traditional national law - and this divergence also holds true for major parts of the public law and, of course, data protection law. The Court has interpreted the responsibility with regard to data protection law and also the criteria in Art. 4 of the Directive very broadly, which has not met with general approval before. The ECJ strictly orientated itself by the general concept that even the search engine operator requires a permit for the processing of data. This in mind, it has given the fundamental right of data protection an important role in its considering in contrast to the user’s interest in respect of use of the service and the economic interests of the operator

From Public Law to Public Policy, or the "Public" in "Public Law"

PS ◽  
1972 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 410 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Shapiro
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
Public Law ◽  
The Public

scholarly journals Scientific Concepts of a Deputy’s Mandate: Apology and Criticism

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
pp. 41-44
Author(s):  
Natalya T. Leonenko ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Scientific Concepts ◽  
Government Structure ◽  
The Public ◽  
Legal Nature ◽  
Historical Comparative ◽  
Representative System

The article studies the genesis of the deputy’s mandate institution. The relevancy of this subject is determined by the imperfection of the legal regulation of the institution under study; absence of clarity in its implementation; modernization of public law relations. The public government structure and the general democracy system largely depend on which type of mandate will be preferred in the Russian representative system. The purpose of the article is the research of the legal nature of the institution of mandate of a deputy of representative public government authorities and various aspects of this problem using formal legal, historical, comparative legal and logical methods.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document