Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Law
Threats Escalate: Corporate Information Technology Governance Under Fire, Lawrence J. Trautman
Threats Escalate: Corporate Information Technology Governance Under Fire, Lawrence J. Trautman
Lawrence J. Trautman Sr.
In a previous publication The Board’s Responsibility for Information Technology Governance, (with Kara Altenbaumer-Price) we examined: The IT Governance Institute’s Executive Summary and Framework for Control Objectives for Information and Related Technology 4.1 (COBIT®); reviewed the Weill and Ross Corporate and Key Asset Governance Framework; and observed “that in a survey of audit executives and board members, 58 percent believed that their corporate employees had little to no understanding of how to assess risk.” We further described the new SEC rules on risk management; Congressional action on cyber security; legal basis for director’s duties and responsibilities relative to IT governance; …
Regulation Not Prohibition: The Comparative Case Against The Insurable Interest Doctrine, Sharo Michael Atmeh
Regulation Not Prohibition: The Comparative Case Against The Insurable Interest Doctrine, Sharo Michael Atmeh
Sharo M Atmeh
American law requires an insurable interest—a pecuniary or affective stake in the subject of an insurance policy—as a predi-cate to properly obtaining insurance. In theory, the rule prevents both wagering on individual lives and moral hazard. In practice, the doctrine is avoided by complex insurance transaction structuring to effectuate both origination and transfers of insurance by individuals without an insurable interest. This paper argues that it is time to ab-andon the insurable interest doctrine. As both the English and Aus-tralian experiences indicate, elimination of the insurable interest doctrine will have little detrimental pecuniary effect on the insurance industry, while freeing …
The Debate, David M. Smolin, Elizabeth Bartholet
The Debate, David M. Smolin, Elizabeth Bartholet
David M. Smolin
This chapter is taken from a forthcoming book on Intercountry Adoption, edited by Judith L. Gibbons and Karen Smith Robati and forthcoming in June of 2012. The chapter constitutes a debate between Professor Elizabeth Bartholet and Professor David Smolin. Each independently was given three questions to answer, and then one opportunity to respond to the other's answers to those three questions, all with strict space limitations. The debate illustrates some of the starkly different perspectives regarding the law, policies, and facts relevant to intercountry adoption.
Preventive Detention In The Law Of Armed Conflict: Throwing Away The Key?, Diane Webber
Preventive Detention In The Law Of Armed Conflict: Throwing Away The Key?, Diane Webber
Diane Webber
More than ten years after 9/11, the “clear legal framework for handling alleged terrorists” promised by President Obama in 2009 is still undeveloped and “the country continues to hold suspects indefinitely, with no congressionally approved mechanism for regular judicial review.” Should terrorists be treated as criminals, involving traditional criminal law methods of detection, interrogation, arrest and trial? Or should they be treated as though they were involved in an armed conflict, which would involve detention and trial in accordance with a completely different set of rules and procedures? Neither model is a perfect fit to deal with twenty-first century terrorism. …