Sovereignty and its Presuppositions: Before 9/11 and After

Is the modern states system in terminal decline? Are we witnessing a great transformation in that regard? Are the events of 9/11 indicative of that? Or is state sovereignty evolving, yet again, in response to scientific, technological, economic and social changes – as it has done throughout the post-medieval era of its existence? That latter line of argument is put forward in this essay.     

Innovations and intellectual property: the case of genomic patenting.

In an effort to balance static and dynamic efficiency in the production and use of knowledge, societies institute intellectual property policies. In the United States, the patent system is a well-established mechanism to provide inventors with time-limited protection of new technologies in exchange for disclosure of information about their inventions. Emerging biotechnology, specifically the filing of patents on gene sequences, raises serious questions about whether the patent system is appropriately weighing societal costs and benefits in its grants of intellectual property protection. Gene sequences represent a hybrid case between discrete inventions and more general pieces of information that are useful for many, potentially very different, purposes. This information content in genes makes it possible for a patent on a gene to cover a wide range of possible technological applications and, as a result, be of unknown breadth when issued. This analysis explores the potential effect of these characteristics on future innovation in biotechnology. Copyright 2003 by the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management.     

Foreign trading screens in the United States

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. Key points

• Remote trading screens allow investors to trade onexchanges located in other jurisdictions. The Securities andExchange Commission (‘SEC’) has generally prohibitedthe placement of foreign trading screens in the United Statesunless the associated exchange complies with US regulatory requirements.While the SEC defends its position as an essential investorprotection, European officials complain that SEC requirementsconstitute an unfair barrier to trade.
• This article arguesthat technological advances have largely mooted this contro-versy.Current requirements do not protect US investors as much asthe SEC claims nor do they inhibit competition as much as theSEC's critics assert.
• To the extent that alternative tradingmechanisms already give US investors de facto access to unregulatedforeign exchanges, the SEC may well choose to revisit its positionon foreign trading screens, particularly as US and Europeanfinancial markets become more integrated and disclosure requirementson both sides of . . . [Full Text of this Article]