scholarly journals The Contribution of EU Law to the Regulation of Online Speech

2021 ◽  
pp. 167
Author(s):  
Luc von Danwitz
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Online Content ◽  
Global Effect ◽  
Internet Regulation ◽  
European Court ◽  
Significant Attention

Internet regulation in the European Union (EU) is receiving significant attention and criticism in the United States. The European Court of Justice’s (ECJ) judgment in the case Glawischnig-Piesczek v. Facebook Ireland, in which the ECJ found a take-down order against Facebook for defamatory content with global effect permissible under EU law, was closely scrutinized in the United States. These transsystemic debates are valuable but need to be conducted with a thorough understanding of the relevant legal framework and its internal logic. This note aims to provide the context to properly assess the role the ECJ and EU law play in the regulation of online speech. The note argues that the alleged shortcomings of the Glawischnig- Piesczek case are actually the result of a convincing interpretation of the applicable EU law while respecting the prerogatives of the member states in the areas of speech regulation, jurisdiction, and comity. Most of the issues that commentators wanted the ECJ to decide were beyond its reach in this case. The paper argues that EU law’s contribution in the field of online speech regulation should be regarded as a realization of the dangers of illegal online content, resulting in an effective protection of the interests harmed. This implies the rejection of a “whack-a-mole” approach towards illegal online content in favor of more effective ways to protect against the harm caused by illegal online speech. At the same time, the case highlights the necessity to establish a workable theory of jurisdiction and comity in the digital age.

Genetically Modified Organisms

2019 ◽  
pp. 508-530
Author(s):  
Anne Saab
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Risk Assessment ◽  
European Union ◽  
Genetically Modified Organisms ◽  
Genetically Modified ◽  
The United States ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Gm Foods ◽  
Product Regulation

This chapter examines comparative approaches to risk assessment and regulation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). It first provides a brief background on the emergence, increased use, and controversy surrounding GMOs as well as the important legal questions and complexities they raise before discussing the legal approaches used to assess and regulate risks associated with GM foods, labelling of GM foods, and the application of intellectual property rights (IPRs) to GMOs. In particular, it considers risk assessment in the United States and in the European Union, focusing on the precautionary approach versus the permissive approach. It also compares process regulation and product regulation for regulating the risks posed by GMOs in the United States and the European Union, along with risk assessment and regulation in Brazil, China, and Costa Rica. Finally, it analyses the legal framework for IPRs as they apply to GMOs and comparative approaches to patenting GMOs.

Safe Country Provisions in Canada and in the European Union: A Critical Assessment

1997 ◽  
Vol 31 (3) ◽  
pp. 569-590 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nazaré Albuquerque Abell
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
Geneva Convention ◽  
The United States ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Critical Assessment ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Refugee Status ◽  
Legal Constraints

This article analyzes the international legal framework that surrounds the issue of safe third country (STC) in the European Union and in Canada. The argument put forward is that Canada is not immune to the developments in the European Union and that Canada's immigration policies towards refugees have changed accordingly. My position is that the Canadian model respects the legal constraints which govern the acceptability of mechanisms to apportion responsibility to examine a claim to refugee status, in particular the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. By testing the international legal viability of both the European and the Canadian system of safe third country against Articles 31 and 33 of the Geneva Convention and Executive Committee Conclusion No. 58 and Conclusion No. 15, and by addressing the draft Memorandum of Understanding between Canada and the United States and comparing it with some of the readmission agreements between the European Union and some third states, the article concludes that the Canadian STC model is preferable to that in Europe from both a legal and a humane point of view.

Human Rights and the Taxation of Menstrual Hygiene Products in an Unequal World

2019 ◽  
pp. 449-468
Author(s):  
Bridget J. Crawford ◽  
Carla Spivack
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Gender Discrimination ◽  
The United States ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Menstrual Hygiene ◽  
Gender Biases ◽  
European Court ◽  
Disparate Treatment

This chapter explores the gender biases embedded in facially neutral tax laws, focusing specifically on so-called “tampon taxes,” levies exacted on menstrual hygiene products. In most of the states in the United States, menstrual hygiene products are subject to sales tax. Meanwhile, in much of the European Union, these products are treated as luxuries and are subject to the highest rate of VAT. The various human rights affected by tampon taxes include the rights to be free from discrimination, to health, to education, to work, and to dignity. The chapter then considers potential venues and strategies for legal challenges in the European Union, the United States, and elsewhere. Strikingly, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) precedents cited concerning gender discrimination all involve suits brought by men complaining of disparate treatment—much as some of the earliest cases recognizing gender discrimination in the United States were brought by men.

scholarly journals Peek-A-Boo, It's a Case Law System! Comparing the European Court of Justice and the United States Supreme Court from a Network Perspective

2017 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 647-686 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mattias Derlén ◽  
Johan Lindholm
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
United States Supreme Court ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Law System ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Moment

From the moment of its inception the European Union (EU) has included a court that was entrusted to give coherence and integrity to the interpretation and application of the Union's primary and secondary law. That the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) was to play an important role in settling disputes was clear. But few anticipated how instrumental the Court would become in the development of EU law.

Rien que des mots: Counteracting homophobic speech in European and U.S. law

2021 ◽  
pp. 135822912110434
Author(s):  
Natalie Alkiviadou ◽  
Uladzislau Belavusau
Keyword(s):  
Hate Speech ◽  
United States Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Comparative Perspective ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Direct Discrimination

Adopting a comparative perspective, this article examines legal means and practices of challenging homophobic speech in European and U.S. law. This exercise revolves around the study of major cases concerning homophobic speech from the law of the European Court of Human Rights and broader legal framework within the Council of Europe (the CoE), the Court of Justice of the European Union (EU) as well as the United States Supreme Court (along with a broader scrutiny of U.S. law in comparative perspective with European (CoE and EU law) in recent years. The article concludes that the concepts of (1) hate speech (in constitutional, administrative and criminal settings) (2) direct discrimination and (3) harassment (in labour and anti-discrimination law) will be central in the strategic litigation of LGBT organizations seeking to redress the climate of homophobia via various legal avenues in both Europe and the U.S. While in the settings of European law, all three concepts – depending on the context – can benefit victims of homophobia in their judicial redress, U.S. law offers coherent protection in its employment law framework, even though this remains in need of further strengthening.

scholarly journals ‘Baby, it’s cold outside ...’ – A Comparative and Economic Analysis of Freeze-outs of Minority Shareholders

2018 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 148-196
Author(s):  
Tom Vos
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
Law And Economics ◽  
The United States ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Minority Shareholders ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
Free Rider Problem ◽  
A Company

Because minority shareholders can be a nuisance for a company, a majority shareholder may want to freeze them out. In general, the approach in the United States towards freeze-outs is more flexible than in the European Union. Law and economics scholarship suggests that a flexible regime for freeze-outs may be beneficial for society, as it addresses a free rider problem and a holdout problem in the market for corporate control. However, these insights are rarely integrated into European legal scholarship. This article endeavours to determine what constitutes an efficient legal framework on freeze-outs through a comparative law and economics approach. First, the legal regime on freeze-outs in the United States is compared with the regime of the Takeover Directive in the European Union and with Dutch law. Then, these legal systems are evaluated on their efficiency. Finally, some suggestions of reform are made for the European Union.

Russian Federation and the United States of America: geostrategic directions to manage the Ukrainian crisis

2019 ◽  
pp. 123
Author(s):  
Attarid Awadh Abdulhameed
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
National Security ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
The United States ◽  
The European Union ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Ukrainian Crisis ◽  
Zero Sum

Ukrainia Remains of huge importance to Russian Strategy because of its Strategic importance. For being a privileged Postion in new Eurasia, without its existence there would be no logical resons for eastward Expansion by European Powers.  As well as in Connection with the progress of Ukrainian is no less important for the USA (VSD, NDI, CIA, or pentagon) and the European Union with all organs, and this is announced by John Kerry. There has always ben Russian Fear and Fear of any move by NATO or USA in the area that it poses a threat to  Russians national Security and its independent role and in funence  on its forces especially the Navy Forces. There for, the Crisis manyement was not Zero sum game, there are gains and offset losses, but Russia does not accept this and want a Zero Sun game because the USA. And European exteance is a Foot hold in Regin Which Russian sees as a threat to its national security and want to monopolize control in the strategic Qirim.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document