Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Series

United States

2013

Comparative and Foreign Law

Scholarly Works

Articles 1 - 2 of 2

Full-Text Articles in Law

Book Review: "Die Gemeinfreiheit: Begriff, Funktion, Dogmatik (The Public Domain: Concept, Function, Dogmatics)" By Alexander Peukert, Marketa Trimble Apr 2013

Book Review: "Die Gemeinfreiheit: Begriff, Funktion, Dogmatik (The Public Domain: Concept, Function, Dogmatics)" By Alexander Peukert, Marketa Trimble

Scholarly Works

The reviewer considers a recent book by Alexander Peukert, the professor of civil and commercial law who specializes in international intellectual property law at Goethe University in Frankfurt am Main, Germany. Peukert has devoted the book to defining the limits of the public domain – the realm of intellectual activity in which works are free for anyone to use because the works are not protected by intellectual property rights, are protected but the protection has expired, are subject to an exception to the rights under the law, or are unprotected because the owner of the rights chooses not to enforce …


Deference Or Abdication: A Comparison Of The Supreme Courts Of Israel And The United States In Cases Involving Real Or Perceived Threats To National Security, Eileen Kaufman Jan 2013

Deference Or Abdication: A Comparison Of The Supreme Courts Of Israel And The United States In Cases Involving Real Or Perceived Threats To National Security, Eileen Kaufman

Scholarly Works

The Supreme Courts of Israel and the United States treat cases involving national security radically differently, or so it appears on the surface. The fact that the two courts make very different use of justiciability doctrines dramatically affects their willingness to decide “war on terrorism” cases that challenge aspects of national security programs as violative of individual rights. On the surface, the approaches of the two courts thus appear to be radically different, and indeed they are, at least with respect to their willingness to hear and decide cases in “real time” and in terms of their willingness to embrace …