Subscribe by RSS

The UN’s Failed Response to 9/11

Kent Roach
Thursday, September 15, 2011

A decade ago, the world rightly stood in solidarity with the United States in the face of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.  The story of how the Bush Administration squandered that solidarity through Guantanamo, torture and the invasion Iraq is well known. Less well known is how the United Nations also lost its opportunity to unite world in principled counter-terrorism.

The 9/11 attacks provided the U.N. with an unparalleled opportunity to forge international agreement on a definition of terrorism. Whatever previous disagreements there were about freedom fighting and state terrorism, it was clear that the 9/11 attacks constituted terrorism. The killing of innocent people not engaged in hostilities in an armed conflict was terrorism; it did not matter whether they were in the planes, the World Trade Centre or the Pentagon.

On September 28, 2001, the Security Council demanded that all states enact tough counter-terrorism measures under its mandatory powers to enforce international peace and security. The Security Council offered no guidance on the definition of terrorism. It failed to so, even though a 1999 Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism Financing previously included a restrained but principled definition:  the intentional killing or injuring of those not engaged in armed conflict in order to intimidate a population or compel governments to act.

US Legislation That Seeks to Ban Sharia Law

Anver Emon
Tuesday, September 6, 2011

Dear colleagues

For those interested in an analysis of US legislation that seeks to ban Sharia, I'd like to invite you to review a recent essay I wrote for The Immanent Frame. The essay can be found at the following link:

http://blogs.ssrc.org/tif/2011/09/06/banning-shari‘a/

I welcome your comments.

Sincerely,

Anver M. Emon

 

‘Bonus’ Zoning and the Development Approval Game

Ed Morgan
Monday, August 29, 2011

This commentary was first published in The Lawyers Weekly on August 26, 2011.

What does a property owner do to build a high density condo/retail development on its parcel in Brampton, Ontario - the heartland of suburban sprawl - or to build a low density subdivision on its green field in Markham, Ontario - the capital of 'new urbanist' design? It does what few applicants for a state-issued license would ever think of doing: it makes a deal.

As those in the field well know, deal-making is authorized under section 37 of the Planning Act. What Canadians lightly dub "bonuses", and Americans more darkly label "exactions", have become an integral part of the development approval game. For owners and communities, the game is one of materially high stakes; and for constitutional theorists, the struggle between an individual's rights and the collectivity's needs are as high as the normative stakes can get.

As a starting point, the courts have ensured that no personal gain can be bargained for by officials in a conflict position. Moreover, the Ontario Municipal Board has expressed the view that section 37 bargains must be "commensurate with the additional density or development rights" achieved in the application, and that city officials keep in mind that "the public should receive some tangible benefit." Beyond that, however, just about any deal goes.

Toronto: The First Decade

Ariel Katz
Monday, August 29, 2011

Cross-posted on Prof. Ariel Katz's blog.  

Ten years ago I landed in Toronto with my wife and an 11 months old son. I left my job as a staff lawyer at the Israeli Antitrust Authority and arrived to Toronto to become a student again at UofT’s Faculty of Law. A couple of days later I had a meeting with Prof. Brian Langille: now my colleague, then the Associate Dean, Graduate Student. The meeting was part of a routine procedure for all incoming graduate students, but nonetheless, it was a sign for a great start.  Not that I had never had meetings with professors in my earlier studies, but never had the head of the program initiated them upon my arrival, so I had a feeling that this was going to be a different experience.

And it was. I met Brian, we talked about my background and what I was planning to study during my SJD studies, discussed potential supervisors, and at least three times he mentioned how excited he and the Faculty were that I was coming and would be part of the program.

The Right Way to Pick Supreme Court Judges

Jacob Ziegel
Monday, August 22, 2011

This commentary by Prof. Emeritus Jacob Ziegel was first published in the National Post on August 19, 2011.

Ian Binnie and Louise Charron announced their intention to retire from the Supreme Court of Canada at the end of August more than three months ago. Yet it was only on Aug. 5 that the Minister of Justice announced the appointment procedure the federal government intended to follow in appointing their successors on the Court.

A starved media fell on the announcement enthusiastically, but failed to ask some relevant questions. Will the proposed selection procedure result in the choice of the best-qualified candidates and, if the answer is no, what would be a better procedure? What role does the Supreme Court of Canada play in Canada’s constitution and what qualities should we look for in appointments to the Supreme Court?

There’s much reason to doubt that the federal government has chosen the procedure best calculated to lead to the appointment of the best qualified candidates. Stripped of all the rhetoric, it seems safe to anticipate that the successful candidates will be those whose assumed legal and constitutional philosophies appeals most to Prime Minister Harper and who meet his criteria of judges “who apply the law and don’t make it.”

Two Myths About Corporate Political Speech

Ian Lee
Wednesday, August 3, 2011

This opinion piece was first published in the Spring/Summer 2011 issue of Nexus magazine.

In the debate about whether political donations and advertising by corporations should be permitted in a democracy, there are two unhelpful but tenacious myths.

One of them is that “there is no such thing as too much speech,” to quote U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. The other myth is that corporate political involvement is inherently illegitimate, because corporations are merely “artificial persons,” creatures of the state. The first myth is advanced by the supporters of corporate political speech, while the second is put forward by its opponents. Neither is helpful.

If individuals had unlimited time and attention spans, there would indeed be no such thing as too much information. But in the real world, people’s time and attention are scarce resources, and the relative size of the communication budgets devoted to rival arguments can therefore be expected to have an impact on their reception by citizens. That’s just Advertising 101. So there’s a real question whether especially well-financed messages need to be regulated, so that other messages can be heard too.

Who Can Regulate Canadian Securities?

Jacob Ziegel
Monday, July 25, 2011

This commentary by Prof. Jacob Ziegel was first published in the National Post on July 15, 2011.

On April 12 and 13, the Supreme Court of Canada held a two-day hearing on a Reference from the federal government asking the Court to determine the constitutional validity of the proposed Securities Act published by the federal government in May, 2010. The question all the parties to the hearing must now be asking themselves is how the Court is likely to respond to the Reference.

The need for federal securities legislation has been discussed for at least 30 years, yet successive Liberal and Conservative governments refused to bite the bullet. The Harper administration showed greater mettle and became convinced that a national securities regulator was essential for Canada in light of the financial crisis that gripped North America, and much of the rest of the world, in 2007 and 2008. It was also the solution recommended by three federal task forces that were established between 2003 and 2009.

The Law is Too Important to Leave to Politicians

Jacob Ziegel
Friday, May 27, 2011

This commentary by Prof. Emeritus Jacob Ziegel was first published in the National Post on May 26, 2011.

Earlier this month, Justices Ian Binnie and Louise Charron, both from Ontario, announced their intention to retire from the Supreme Court of Canada at the end of the current session of the court. How their successors will be chosen is an as-yet unanswered question. Will Prime Minister Stephen Harper be able to resist the temptation to appoint replacements that will reflect his philosophy as to the role of the judiciary, or will he opt for a more credible and democratic system that has the approval of the country at large?

That Harper should have this unfettered discretion is itself very troubling and again draws attention to a serious lacuna in Canada's constitutional structure. In fact, among countries with a written constitution, Canada is probably alone in failing to provide how the members of its highest court are to be selected. The Supreme Court of Canada Act (which is not entrenched in the Canadian constitution) only mandates a court of nine judges, three of whom must be appointed from Ontario and three from Quebec. Nothing is said about the method of their selection.

The First Sale Doctrine - What Antitrust Law Can (and Cannot) Teach

Ariel Katz
Thursday, May 19, 2011

I have posted a new paper on SSRN.  The paper is based on a presentation that I gave at the Exhaustion and First Sale in IP Conference held at Santa Clara Law School last November.  Here’s the abstract:

The first sale doctrine (or exhaustion) limits the exclusive rights that survive the initial authorized sale of an item protected by such rights.  The first sale doctrine has always been under pressure by owners of intellectual property rights, and courts have never been able to precisely outline its contours, or fully articulate its rationale. Recently, and somewhat counter-intuitively, insights borrowed from modern antitrust law and economics are invoked to provide a seemingly robust theoretical foundation for undermining exhaustion rules or narrowing their scope, and thereby strengthen IP owners’ control over downstream distribution and use of the goods they produce.

Faculty Blog
Subscribe by RSS