Banks and the Communities They Serve: Time to Legislate?

In March 2007 HM Treasury published its latest thoughts on Financial Inclusion (HM Treasury Financial inclusion: The way forward, 2007), highlighting that after 10 years of activity in this area there is still growing evidence that the market is not meeting everyone’s needs, with significant numbers of people not able to access basic financial services such as credit. This continues alongside media stories of further bank branch closures in some areas, branches for high income earners only in others and the continuing controversy surrounding charges. This article will, with reference to the UK government’s financial inclusion agenda assess whether the time has come to implement legislation mandating that UK credit institutions have regard to customers needs when making decisions that could affect those most at risk from restricted access to financial services. These needs can include both access to affordable credit and access to financial services, such as bank accounts. The paper will use as a comparator the much talked about United States Community Reinvestment Act, enacted in 1977 and since amended, hailed (Barr New York University Law Review 80:513, 2005) and criticised (Macey and Miller Virginia Law Review 78:291, 1993) in equal measures, designed to ensure that depository institutions meet the credit needs of the communities they serve, particularly low and moderate income areas. Although not designed to tackle the perceived problems identified by the UK government, would enactment of similar legislation do more to achieve these aims that the activities undertaken so far. The article proposes that one way in which to improve the fight against financial exclusion is to improve the disclosure requirements of financial institutions, forcing them, where necessary, to provide data on lending patterns in disadvantaged areas.

Turkey's foreign policy options: Europe,the USA or Central Asia?

Accession to the European Union (EU) constitutes one of Turkey's primary foreign policy objectives. However, to establish whether the country would benefit from becoming part of an integrated Europe, its foreign policy alternatives to EU membership must also be examined. The first part of this article analyses Turkey's changing relations with Europe. Against this backdrop, the article then moves to assess Turkey's partnership with the USA and the potential of maintaining a close relationship independent from Europe. The role of Russia, Turkey's old neighbours and relations with the Turkic states, as well as the potential for attaining a leading role among them, are also considered. The argument is that Turkey may exploit its geostrategic position to pursue its core foreign policy interests and even assume an important regional role. However, Ankara ought to concentrate on what has long been its priority – full Turkish membership of the EU.     

行政诉权--公务员权利的救济

公务员是国家行政管理活动的具体执行者。在传统理论中,其从属于行政机关,相应权利受到侵犯时也不享有司法救济的权利。这违背了法治的理念和原则。所以赋予公务员以行政诉权是人权保障的需要,也是依法治国的必然要求。     

《传染病防治法》的重要性和现实意义

传染病的防治工作是保障包括广大职工群众在内的全民身体健康和生命安全的大事。目前我国传染病流行状况给人民群众的生命安全造成严重威胁,其防治工作面临重大挑战。新修订的《传染病防治法》对于有效防治传染病,保障人民生命安全,构建和谐社会具有重要的现实意义。     

论美国关税法的演变

自 1789年第 1部关税法颁布以来,贸易保护主义一直是贯穿于美国关税及贸易法案中的主线。从1828年的可憎关税法至 1930年的斯慕特—霍利关税法,美国顽固地推行高关税政策。即使南北战争前的一段低关税时期,也只具有相对的意义。1934年的互惠贸易协定法使关税不再通过立法的形式表现出来,而是由总统与他国的贸易谈判来确立。但国会在贸易上的立法权直接决定了总统在谈判中的关税底线。从这个意义上讲,贸易法取代了关税法。在第二次世界大战结束后,虽然美国大力倡导自由多边贸易政策,但互惠贸易协定法的局限性使之黯然失色。     

Cyber insurance – What coverage in case of an alleged act of War? Questions raised by the Mondelez v. Zurich case

In October 2018, snack company Mondelez International, Inc. (Mondelez) filed an action against Zurich American Insurance Company (Zurich), requesting indemnification for more than USD $100,000,000 in losses caused by the NotPetya cyber virus. Zurich refuses to cover these damages alleging one of the insurance policy's exclusions for damage resulting from a hostile or warlike action by a government, as the NotPetya attack is said to have been sponsored by Russia. This case is noteworthy for multiple reasons: not only is it the first significant legal dispute in the insurance field concerning the recovery of costs resulting from a cyber attack, but it is also the first time that an insurance company is invoking the war exclusion to decline coverage for an allegedly state-sponsored cyber hack.This article analyzes the key issues of this important case, including attribution of a cyber attack to a State and interpretation of an insurance policy's war exclusion in a cyber context, and the likelihood of success of Mondelez's arguments. It also explores the strengths and limits of general principles of contract and public international law when applied to new technologies and cyber incidents. Finally, it discusses the potential impacts of the Mondelez case on the contents and limits of future traditional and cyber-specific insurance policies.     

Keeping the Family Together: Why New York Must Amend Evidence Rules to Protect a Parent's Right to be a Parent

In New York, hearsay statements made by children may be admissible in a child protective proceeding. Under Article 10 of the Family Court Act, an out‐of‐court statement only requires corroboration to support the statement's reliability. The Family Court has the choice to determine what evidence will be sufficient for corroboration. In comparison to other statutes from different states, New York's statute is very broad. This Note proposes amending the current evidence statute under Article 10 of the Family Court Act to strengthen the standard for admitting hearsay statements in child protective proceedings.     

Insurance Fraud and the Role of the Civil Law

Two UK Supreme Court decisions have considered insurance fraud. The first, Versloot Dredging BV v HDI‐Gerling Industries Versicherung (The DC Merwestone), concerned the use of a fraudulent device being harnessed to support a legitimate claim which, in the view of the majority, was an area of insurance law in need of re‐evaluation. The second, Haywood v Zurich Insurance Co, concerned the use of fraud to increase the settlement paid by the insurer and whether an insurer, which suspects fraud but has nevertheless chosen to settle a claim, is entitled to set aside the settlement under the tort of deceit where it subsequently discovers proof that it was in fact fraudulent. This case note examines not only the legal implications of the decisions and their likely impact on industry practice, it also focuses on the broader issue of the proper province of the civil law and whether general deterrence can be justified as a proper objective where the criminal law is deficient in punishing fraud because of its higher standard of proof.     

Who's Your Daddy?: The Marital Presumption of Legitimacy in the Modern World and its Application to Same‐Sex Couples

Recently, the definition of marriage has been significantly altered. No longer do we find ourselves exclusively in the midst of “traditional marriage” between one man and one woman. Instead, everywhere we experience different kinds of marriages and diverse, nontraditional families. The United States has finally caught up to many advanced democracies in universally recognizing same‐sex marriage through the Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell v. Hodges. However, the next question remains unanswered: what about families of same‐sex couples? This Note explores the nature of same‐sex couples, their families, and in particular, their children. It addresses the issue of the marital presumption of legitimacy and encourages its application to all legally recognized married couples regardless of sexual orientation and biology. Even though prior to Obergefell some states were unwilling to apply the presumption, since the implementation of marriage equality, the next logical step would be to utilize the presumption to ensure that all parents, regardless of gender, are recognized and families are preserved.     

Public Policy and Political Dynamics of Heritage Conservation in the United States

Policy making and advocacy efforts throughout the legislative history of heritage conservation display the gaps in heritage conservation in the United States. To represent the political dynamics at the federal level in both intangible and tangible cultural heritage policy discussions, this article will examine cases of legislative processes: the policy discussions to amend the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) in 1997 and 2005 and the reauthorization of the American Folklife Center (AFC). The study will focus on the subgovernment framework in heritage policy to demonstrate institutionalization of policy discussion and review the intergovernmentalism and decentralization in heritage conservation.