Comparing the Comparable: 2006 Military Commissions v. the ICTY

Both the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslaviaand the US Military Commissions were set up to respond to extraordinaryjudicial challenges. But while the Yugoslav Tribunal has soughtto uphold internationally-recognized standards of human rights,the 2006 Military Commissions have amputated many of these rightsand created serious procedural impediments for defendants. Inso doing, the drafters of the 2006 Act have ignored a long andrespectable American legal tradition prevailing from Nurembergto the ICTY.     

The Military Commissions Act's Inconsistency with the Geneva Conventions: An Overview

The Military Commissions Act codifies a wide range of provisionsthat are inconsistent with binding international humanitarianlaw standards. In spite of the Act's title, these inconsistenciesgo well beyond the rules and procedures governing the trailof terrorist suspects before military commissions. In additionto violating fundamental fair trial guarantees defined in internationalhumanitarian law, the Act misapplies the Geneva Conventionsby adopting a ‘one size fits all’ approach to thecharacterization of all counter-terrorist operations, providesfor an overly broad definition of unlawful combatant statusthat effectively deprives terror suspects of applicable lawof war protections, repudiates longstanding ‘elementaryconsiderations of humanity’ contained in common Article3 and entrenches a detention regime that does not comport withthe terms of the Geneva Conventions. These departures from internationalhumanitarian law are reinforced by provisions of the Act thatpurport to insulate US government personnel and their agentsfrom contrary interpretation and judicial scrutiny. The Actis thus best described as a series of breaches rather than developmentsof international humanitarian law, and as such, signals a starkdeparture from the US's historical commitment to the laws ofwar.     

On the Crimes Subject to Prosecution in Military Commissions

The Military Commissions Act 2006 seems to have a much broaderapplication than the 2003 Military Commission Instruction Number2, or MCI2. None of the 28 specific crimes listed in 950v(b)of the 2006 Act mentions a nexus with armed conflict. This Actraises a number of questions. In particular three issues arerelevant: (i) Congress intended to act under its constitutionalpower ‘to define offenses against the law of nations.’In so far as some of these offences are not violations of thelaw of nations, they fall outside the field of legislative competence;(ii) the Military Commissions are given excessive discretionin the field of sentencing. There are no terms of imprisonmentprovided. In many cases the death penalty is allowed. Otherwisethe Commissions may impose any sentence they wish. This degreeof discretion arguably violates the Eighth Amendment against‘cruel and unusual punishment’; (iii) there mightbe a violation of the principle of equal protection: is it constitutionalto impose a special regime on suspects simply because they are‘aliens’?     

The United Kingdom Identity Cards Act 2006 Civil or Criminal?

After much controversy and debate, the United Kingdom Parliamentpassed the Identity Cards Act in March 2006. The new nationalidentity registration scheme established under the legislationwill be in operation in 2 years. Initially the scheme will notbe generally compulsory, though the intention is eventuallyto make it mandatory. The Act uses a mix of civil penalty andoffence provisions as part of its enforcement regime. This articleconsiders the approach of the legislation, particularly thepractical implications of authentication and verification ofidentity under the scheme and the potential impact on the effectivenessof the enforcement regime, having regard to the right againstself-incrimination under the Human Rights Act 1988 (UK) andArticle 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rightsand Fundamental Freedoms 1950, and the common law privilegeagainst self-incrimination.     

2006年联邦资金问责与透明法

2006年9月26日,经布什总统签署,美国国会通过的《联邦资金问责与透明法案》变成一部法律。该法是为了加大对联邦财政开支的监督力度而制定的。该法要求"管理和预算局"(OMB)建立一个在线数据库,以便公众查询,这个数据库得包含基于拨款、贷款与合同获得联邦资金的组织机构的有关信息。这项立法的推动者认为,这个新的数据库有助于节约开支、抑制浪费,因为如果公众能够查到有多少联邦资金拨给了哪个组织,以及出于什么目的,那么政府官员拨付专项资金行为会更加谨慎,以避免被指浪费开支。这项立法的支持者还认为,这个新的数据库有助于公民更好地了解政府资金分配,从而使公众更多地参与到联邦开支优先顺序的讨论中来。     

美国《商标淡化修正法案》述评

美国的《商标淡化修正法案》明言采"淡化之虞"标准,从而推翻了此前VSecret案的判决。同时该法正式确认了"污损"与"模糊"两种淡化类型,严格了"驰名"要件,并扩展了其保护范围。尽管与之前规定相比有进步,问题却依然存在。鉴于其核心概念依旧莫测难明,淡化理论之前景尚未可知,这就使得美国法院负有责任(同时也享有权力)以界定"淡化"。除非能发展出更为精确、与现行规则更为和谐的基础理论,否则,法官们仍可能以其一贯的狐疑态度对待新法,而这曾经导致了旧法之核心部分失去了其应有效力。     

Fleeting fame under the Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006

Legal context: When Congress enacted the Federal Trademark Dilution Act in1996, it intended to create a uniform federal cause of actionfor trade mark dilution. Unfortunately, the statutory languageselected by Congress created certain ambiguities, includinghow famous a trade mark had to be to merit dilution protectionunder the statute. Confusion developed as to whether a markmerely needed renown in a limited geographic area or industry—aconcept that became known as ‘niche fame’—orwhether it needed national renown to qualify as a ‘famousmark’. Key points: In 2006, Congress enacted the Trademark Dilution Revision Actand therein provided a concrete definition for a famous markthat ostensibly removed the ability to qualify for dilutionrelief where the mark was famous only within a particular niche.It was uncertain how courts that had previously favoured theniche fame theory would apply Congress's new definition. However,a district court in the Ninth Circuit, one of the strongestproponents of niche fame, recently held that niche fame is nolonger a viable theory under the Lanham Act or California statelaw as a result of the 2006 amendment. Practical significance: This decision portends that courts will fall in line with Congress'samendment and will deny dilution relief under federal law toparties whose marks are famous only in a particular geographicarea or industry. Additionally, the decision provides some guidanceand predictability as to how states may interpret the viabilityof niche fame under their respective dilution statutes in lightof Congress's 2006 amendment.     

Section 994 of the Companies Act 2006 and the Primacy of Contract

The Court of Appeal's decision in Fulham Football Club (1987) Ltd v Richards & Anor is both of interest and significance. By embracing the idea of the parties’ ability to ‘contract out’ of their statutory right to petition the court for relief under section 994 of the Companies Act 2006 (the so‐called ‘unfair prejudice’ remedy), their Lordships have not only contrived to stunt the future development of unfair prejudice as a minority shareholder remedy but, and more importantly for the purposes of this case note, their decision has reasserted and extended the contractual analogy in modern UK company law.     

Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006: the implications for employers in educational settings

Vetting those who work with children and vulnerable adults is an emotive topic and one which can prove a challenging area for employers. The legitimate interest that parents, carers and employers have in screening those charged with the care of others can be in direct conflict with the most fundamental principles of economic freedom and employees’ human rights. The desire to balance these conflicting objectives is at the heart of the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006, which introduces what is being heralded as the most inclusive and comprehensive vetting and barring system to date. The changes dramatically widen the scope of workers who are subject to vetting and barring processes, covering employees, volunteers and contractors in the education, care and health industries, and affecting some 11.3 million people in the UK. This new scheme is of particular relevance and importance to schools and other educational institutions, who will be directly affected by the changes. This article will examine the practical employment implications of the new regime and the new obligations that the Vetting and Barring Scheme creates for both employers and employees.     

军事法与军事伦理关系初探

军事伦理和军事法作为上层建筑的成分,都是对军事行为加以规范、控制,并通过规范、控制军事行为来调整军事社会关系。虽然二者之间存在诸多区别,但并非各自属于相互排斥的独立系统,而是客观地存在着一种相互依存、互相渗透的关系。军事法对军事伦理道德起着保护的作用,并促进其发展;军事伦理规范对军事法律制度则是一种重要的补充力量,对军事法的实施起着辅助的作用,对培养和影响军事主体对其现行军事法律制度采取什么态度有着重要的意义。     

The Anguilla Foundation Act

This contribution contains an encompassing summary of the legalfeatures of the long-awaited Anguilla Foundation Act which isexpected to be passed in Spring 2007.     

The Global Magnitsky Act

This article discusses the U.S. Global Magnitsky Act, which was passed in 2016 and which provides a mechanism for the U.S. government to sanction foreign individuals and entities that are involved in human rights abuses and large scale corruption. It also discusses the opportunities that the Act provides for civil society organizations to influence the designation process and the additional due diligence measures that businesses should take in order to ensure compliance with the Act.     

立法制度的新进展与新问题──由《中华人民共和国立法法》谈起

本文认为,全面规范国家立法制度的《立法法》是一部意义特别重要的宪法性法律,因此它理应成为全国各级各类立法的“样板式”的高质量的法律;以此作为基点,本文从理论和实践的结合上,评说了新出台的《立法法》的成功与缺失。