European Court of Justice ruling on vaccine liability and its implications for the United States

This article will first examine why the right to be forgotten should be recognized as a universal right by drawing upon natural law theories. Using the recent decision by the European Court of Justice as a starting point, it will then explore whether this right can be recognized in the United States and Canada. Often held to be similar in terms of cultures and values, the two neighbors in fact have very different free speech and privacy traditions. This article will conduct a comparative study of the u.s. and Canada to explain why this right can be accommodated by their laws and traditions from a theoretical perspective. Finally, it will adopt the framework of judicial globalization to explore why and to what extent the right to be forgotten will be recognized in these two jurisdictions.

Download Full-text

Judges and Policy Making Authority in the United States and the European Union

ICL Journal ◽

10.1515/icl-2014-0203 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 8 (2) ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Antonios E. Kouroutakis

Keyword(s):

Supreme Court ◽

Legal System ◽

The United States ◽

Legal Order ◽

European Court Of Justice ◽

Judicial Activism ◽

Court Of Justice ◽

European Court ◽

The Us ◽

Us Supreme Court

AbstractInstitutions such as the US Supreme Court and the European Court of Justice in due time have developed a status of supremacy through judicial activism. The main target of the article is to identify the judicial activism exercised by these Courts and to reason its need in the legal order. In the first part the US Supreme Court and the European Court of Justice are placed in the overall polity that they belong to and the development of their status and their characteristics are analyzed. The major concern of the first part is to examine how those declared their supremacy and focus on major cases and their reasoning.In the second part the extent of the judicial supremacy in each legal order is discussed and its effects in the decision making process are examined. The assumption that judicial activism is acceptable only if it expresses consensus in the legal order is tested and it is argued that up to an extent, Judicial Activism does not distort the political agenda when it expresses the consensus of the legal system. Finally, it is argued that when such activism exceeds the boundaries of the consensus, the other actors in the legal system would eventually react and would limit such activism.

Download Full-text

Droit des Comtnunautés Européennes. Under the direction of W. J. Ganshof van der Meersch, Procureur général at the Cour de Cassation and Professor at the Faculty of Law of Brussels. Secretary of the Editorial Board: Michael Waelbroeck, Professor at the Faculty of Law of Brussels, Director of Legal Research at the Institute of European Studies of Brussels, in collaboration with Liliane Plouvier and Georges Vandersleben of the Institute of European Studies. [Brussels: Ferdinand Larcier. 1969. cxi (list of contributors; preface; abbreviations; tables of Community legislation, international Acts and Conventions, and national legislation; chronological tables of decisions of the European Court of Justice, of the Permanent Court of International Justice, of the International Court of Justice and of Belgian, French, Italian, Luxembourg, Netherlands, United States and Swiss courts; list of authors cited; index of subject-matter; detailed table of contents) and 1193 (double columns) pp. F.B.3,200.]

International and Comparative Law Quarterly ◽

10.1093/iclqaj/19.1.169 ◽

1970 ◽

Vol 19 (1) ◽

pp. 169-170

Author(s):

Norman S. Marsh

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

International Justice ◽

European Court Of Justice ◽

European Studies ◽

Legal Research ◽

International Court Of Justice ◽

Court Of Justice ◽

European Court ◽

International Court

Download Full-text

"A switch in time" per la Comunitŕ Europea? La dottrina Lochner e la rimodulazione dei diriti economici e sociali in Europa

GIORNALE DI DIRITTO DEL LAVORO E DI RELAZIONI INDUSTRIALI ◽

10.3280/gdl2009-122004 ◽

2009 ◽

pp. 305-336

Author(s):

Ian H. Eliasoph

Keyword(s):

European Union ◽

State Level ◽

The United States ◽

European Court Of Justice ◽

Social Rights ◽

Economic Rights ◽

Court Of Justice ◽

European Court ◽

The Us ◽

Substantial Effort

- This essay undertakes a comparative analysis of debates related to the legacies of the Lochner era in the US with contemporary debates in Europe. It demonstrates that in the 1980s and early 1990s the governance of the EC began to assume characteristics reminiscent of Lochner era governance. In particular, concerns arose that the ECJ was undermining state-level social regimes via an activist jurisprudence that tended towards negative integration by favoring Community-wide economic rights over state-level social protections. Over the last fifteen years there has been a substantial effort to recalibrate this approach. However, in contrast to the demise of Lochnerism in the US, the EC and its Member States have reacted by vesting the ECJ with broader authority to determine policy. The Article concludes that the Lochner era serves as a paradigmatic anti-model that the ECJ can only ignore at its extreme peril.Key words: Lochnerism; Supreme Court of the United States; European Union; European Court of Justice; Social rights; Economic rights.Parole chiave: Dottrina Lochner; Corte Suprema degli Stati Uniti; Unione Europea; Corte di Giustiza europea; Diritti sociali; Diritti economici.

Download Full-text