Affirmative Action in the United States and Positive Action in the European Union in the Context of Comparative Law

2015 ◽  
pp. 526-554
Author(s):  
Anna-Maria Konsta
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
Affirmative Action ◽  
Comparative Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Substantive Equality ◽  
Positive Action ◽  
Formal Equality

The concept of “formal” equality is an expression of the Aristotelian principle that “de?? t??? ?s??? ?s?? e??a?” (“treats like cases as like”). However, formal equality may not be sufficient to provide “equality in practice” or “substantive equality.” The implementation of substantive equality often requires the adoption of compensatory policies or measures designed to correct the effects of discrimination suffered by various population groups in the past or present. Such compensatory measures are known as affirmative or positive action. The term “affirmative action” had its beginnings in the 1960s in the USA, as a response to the racial segregation rooted in the country's history and still prevalent in that decade. In the European Union, the concept of positive action appeared in the 1970s, and was initially associated with promoting gender equality, and subsequently with “substantive” equality of men and women in the workplace. In this chapter the legislative framework and the case law of the Supreme Court is examined in respect to affirmative action in the United States followed by the corresponding European Union legislation and the case law of the ECJ, attempting, finally, to give a comparative review of the law of affirmative action. This study should help us, through the spectrum of Comparative Law, to better understand not only the concept of social rights but also the different values and different perceptions of the law prevailing in different legal cultures.

Affirmative Action in the United States and Positive Action in the European Union in the Context of Comparative Law

2013 ◽  
pp. 230-257
Author(s):  
Anna-Maria Konsta
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
Affirmative Action ◽  
Comparative Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Substantive Equality ◽  
Positive Action ◽  
Formal Equality

The concept of “formal” equality is an expression of the Aristotelian principle that “treats like cases as like”. However, formal equality may not be sufficient to provide “equality in practice” or “substantive equality.” The implementation of substantive equality often requires the adoption of compensatory policies or measures designed to correct the effects of discrimination suffered by various population groups in the past or present. Such compensatory measures are known as affirmative or positive action. The term “affirmative action” had its beginnings in the 1960s in the USA, as a response to the racial segregation rooted in the country’s history and still prevalent in that decade. In the European Union, the concept of positive action appeared in the 1970s, and was initially associated with promoting gender equality, and subsequently with “substantive” equality of men and women in the workplace. In this chapter the legislative framework and the case law of the Supreme Court is examined in respect to affirmative action in the United States followed by the corresponding European Union legislation and the case law of the ECJ, attempting, finally, to give a comparative review of the law of affirmative action. This study should help us, through the spectrum of Comparative Law, to better understand not only the concept of social rights but also the different values and different perceptions of the law prevailing in different legal cultures.

Trade Commitments and Data Flows: The National Security Wildcard

2019 ◽  
Vol 18 (S1) ◽  
pp. S49-S62
Author(s):  
NORMAN ZHANG
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
National Security ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Acceptable Standard ◽  
Data Flows ◽  
The Eu

AbstractThis paper poses a hypothetical WTO challenge to the Passenger Name Records (PNR) Transfer Agreements the European Union has signed with the United States (as well as Australia and Canada). The focus will be on a possible citation of GATS Article XIV National Security Exception by the EU, and the viability of such a defense. Because of the absence of case law, this paper will also attempt to synthesize an acceptable standard for assessing GATS National Security Exception citations.

The Evolution of the Liability of Credit Rating Agencies in the United States and in the European Union: Regulation after the Crisis

2018 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 339-402
Author(s):  
Chiara Picciau
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
Credit Rating ◽  
Burden Of Proof ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Credit Rating Agencies ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Rating Agencies ◽  
Arbitrage Opportunities

Credit rating agencies have assessed the creditworthiness of issuers and debt instruments for over a century. Nevertheless, in the United States and in the European Union a first regulation of rating services was passed only at the beginning of the twenty-first century, respectively in 2006 and 2009. Statutory liability rules were later adopted in the United States with the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010 and in the European Union with Regulation (EU) no 462/2013. Despite some similarities between the American and European existing discipline, significant differences still exist and pave the way for regulatory arbitrage opportunities in the ratings market. The reasons for divergence are clearly historically based and derive, in part, from the different traditions of the two legal systems. Accordingly, this article compares the evolution of the US regulatory framework and case law on the liability of rating organizations towards investors with the uniform rules adopted by the European Union since 2009, absent a comparable case law at the European level. It is argued that, in both systems, while it is easier to establish liability in case of intent, burden of proof rules generally place a significant, if not insurmountable, obstacle to damage compensation for investors.

Partial Price-Fixing and Semi-Collusion

2021 ◽  
pp. 0003603X2110454
Author(s):  
Chris Noonan
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
Consumer Welfare ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Body ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Distinctive Features ◽  
Starting Price

Many cartels do not directly fix the price of products. Instead, the participants may agree on a starting price for negotiations or the price of a component of the overall price. Antitrust investigations reveal that cartel agreements are also often very imperfectly implemented. Antitrust law in the United States and the European Union has typically taken a robust approach to these practices even where economic analysis might be unable to show that such practices always or almost always harm consumer welfare. The decision of the New Zealand Supreme Court in Lodge Real Estate Ltd. v. Commerce Commission offers a New Zealand perspective on the concept of a price-fixing agreement and imperfect collusion. The Court, this article argues, reached the correct decision in Lodge. The decision, however, evidences a pragmatic judgment, rather than the confident deployment of economic learning or foreign case law within the statutory framework of the Commerce Act 1986. The language of sections 30 and 30A of the Act was borrowed from an Australian statute, which in turn had attempted to capture the state of United States price-fixing law in the 1970s. A more formalistic and pre-Chicago approach to antitrust is evident in the language, much of which was inspired by United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co. The case also highlights some of the distinctive features of the competition law in New Zealand. The reluctance to develop to guide in the application of the general provisions of the Commerce Act and requiring a demonstration of an effect on price on the facts may mark a departure from the body of pricing case law in the United States and the European Union and risks undermining the per se prohibition of cartel conduct in the Commerce Act. Without the same depth and breadth of cartel case law, the adoption of a more flexible approach to anticompetitive agreements evident in some decisions in the United States and the European Union could have different effects in a smaller jurisdiction.

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.

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE CURRENT FRENCH FOREIGN POLICY ACTIVITY

2019 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 74-79
Author(s):  
Nargiza Sodikova ◽  
◽  
◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
International Security ◽  
The United States ◽  
Foreign Affairs ◽  
Modern Time ◽  
The European Union ◽  
National Interests ◽  
French Foreign Policy

Important aspects of French foreign policy and national interests in the modern time,France's position in international security and the specifics of foreign affairs with the United States and the European Union are revealed in this article

Ocena antykryzysowej polityki gospodarczej Stanów Zjednoczonych i wybranych państw członkowskich Unii Europejskiej w latach 2005–2014

2016 ◽  
pp. 26-46
Author(s):  
Marcin Jan Flotyński
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
Financial Markets ◽  
Global Economy ◽  
Global Financial Crisis ◽  
The United States ◽  
The European Union ◽  
High Volatility ◽  
The Global Financial Crisis ◽  
Domestic Products

The global financial crisis in 2007–2009 began a period of high volatility on the financial markets. Specifically, it caused an increased amplitude of fluctuations of the level of gross domestic products, the level of investment and consumption and exchange rates in particular countries. To address the adverse market circumstances, governments and central banks took actions in order to bolster the weakening global economy. The aim of this article is to present the anti-crisis actions in the United States and selected member states of the European Union, including Poland, and an assessment of their efficiency. The analysis conducted indicates that generally the actions taken in the United States in response to the crisis were faster and more adequate to the existing circumstances than in the European Union.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document