The Case for Federalizing Rules of Civil Jurisdiction in the European Community

The European Community is an incipient federal structure, even if its scope of operation is limited in subject matter and its creation derives from a network of treaties rather than [from] a formal constitution. A federal structure at once protects, even nurtures, pluralism and coordinates the constituent units in the interest of a union. Federal legislation promotes the interests of the larger unit; a limitation of powers in the constitutive document preserves the integrity of the members. In the American federation, the United States Supreme Court defines the balance between the reach of state and federal law. The balance, moreover, shifts over time as new or different concerns call for accommodation. In so doing, the Court not only deals with direct attacks on state or federal legislation or with problems of interpretation (or gap filling) raised by new or different concerns, but also performs a creative function. In the fashion of a common law court, it develops the law either by creating federal common law or by declining to do so, in the latter case thus preserving or extending the applicability of state law. Even when it does develop federal common law, the Court may derive the new federal rule from state law rather than fashioning one anew

The American Covenant Marriage in the Conflict of Laws

Three states have adopted covenant marriage legislation, with similar bills pending in others. They seek a greater commitment of the spouses-to-be and mkake divorce more difficult. At the same time, other forms of partnerships are proposed in other states. To what extent can covenant-marriage legislate assure that it will be given in other states (interstate) or internationally? The suggested answer is: the divorcing U.S. forum applies its own law (covenant-law or non-covenant law), some foreign systems will apply the parties\u27 home law (thus recognizing restrictions when a U.S. sister state would not)

Atomic Energy - Patents - Patent Aspects of Domestic Law, Euratom, and the International Atomic Energy Agency

With the growing importance of atomic energy, conventional legal concepts must be adapted and remodeled to fit new situations. In the area of patent law, the traditional notion that the inventor\u27s reward should be a legal monopoly in the invention, in the form of a patent, has to be reconciled with the need for wide dissemination of technical information. The need for secrecy, for government control over weapons, and for cooperation with other countries affects the atomic patent system. These factors are reflected in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and in the agreements establishing two international organizations concerned with atomic energy: the European Atomic Energy Community (EURATOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency. It is the purpose of this comment to sketch some of these patent provisions

International Law - Treaties - Inclusion of Purely Domestic Matters in Reservations

In consenting to the ratification of the treaty between the United States and Canada concerning uses of the waters of the Niagara River, the Senate attached a reservation which stated that no project for redevelopment of the United States\u27 share of such waters shall be undertaken until it be specifically authorized by Act of Congress. On the basis of this reservation, the Federal Power Commission denied the application of the Power Authority of the State of New York for a license under the Federal Power Act covering the new flow of water made available under the treaty. On appeal to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, held, order set aside and remanded. The subject covered by the reservation was purely domestic in nature and thus not proper for inclusion in a reservation. Not being a reservation, it was not part of the treaty and did not remove the new flow of water from the jurisdiction of the Federal Power Commission. Power Authority of the State of New York v. Federal Power Commission, (D.C. Cir. 1957) 247 F. (2d) 538, revd. for mootness sub nom. American Public Power Assn. v. Power Authority of the State of New York, (U.S. 1957) 78 S. Ct. 142

The Community Court and Supremacy of Community Law: A Progress Report

The dedication of an annual issue of the Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, to the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Communities is an appropriate tribute to the significant contribution of the Community Court to the integration of the European Communities. The Court of Justice is perhaps the most remarkable and successful of the common institutions (Council, Commission, Parliament, and Court), which the process of European integration has produced thus far. The Communities--Common Market, Coal and Steel Community, and Euratom--have been beset by numerous political and economic problems; integration beyond the original Treaties, and sometimes within the original framework, has often been difficult and slow. Within its federal role, however, the Court has been uniquely successful in exercising the dual purpose of insuring the legality of Community law-making and of integrating the national judicial systems in the area of Community law. Much literature has been devoted to the various aspects of the Court\u27s jurisdiction and its extensive case law; therefore this introduction will focus only on the increasingly complex relationship between the Community Court and the national courts and on the successful accommodation of the two legal systems to one another. Although national courts initially resisted the role of the Community Court as the final arbiter in questions concerning the validity and interpretation of Community law, the growing use of the referral procedure under article 177 of the Treaty of Rome (discussed in Part I infra) indicates increasing coordination between the Community legal system and each national system. Accommodation has also been achieved with respect to the important constitutional problem of the authority of Community law over national law: national courts increasingly accept the Community Court\u27s view of supremacy (see Part II infra). In one area, however, the process of accommodation by national courts to the Community legal system is reversed: national constitutional law guarantees certain basic rights to national citizens. These guarantees may be touched upon by Community law or legislation and the question arises (see Part III infra) to what extent national constitutional guarantees must yield to the Community\u27s claim of supremacy for its law, or conversely, to what extent the Community, in this instance, must be mindful, even yield, to national concerns. The increasing volume of Community law has naturally multiplied the legal relationships of private parties (both individuals and companies) that are governed or affected by Community law. The Community Treaties contain substantive law, much of which the Court has declared to be directly applicable in national law, as well as the conferral of power on Community institutions to make law. In the latter instance, the institutions make law that is itself directly applicable in the Member States, or they impose binding obligations on Member States to enact laws to achieve a specified effect. In cases when the Community institutions act, review of the legality of these acts may be obtained by Member States or by individual plaintiffs. The Court\u27s case law, however, has severely restricted the access of private plaintiffs to the Court through the elaboration of very stringent requirements on standing. Except in cases in which the Community administration has acted directly with respect to a private plaintiff--for instance, by imposing a penalty under the antitrust laws --the private party will usually be unable to satisfy the standing requirement. Thus, questions about the effect of directly applicable Treaty law, of secondary Community law resulting from Community law-making, or of national law enacted in response to a Community mandate often, indeed increasingly frequently, will arise in national courts

Serial Investors and Early Stage Finance

This study examines the early stage investment activity of UK serial investors, individuals who have made at least three private investments. Two distinct groups emerged; one which invested on their own all the time ( solo serial investors ) and the other which invested with others almost exclusively ( syndicate serial investors ). Both groups had invested in a variety of industrial sectors, a majority of which were in sectors where no one in the investor group had previous direct experience. Concept familiarity appeared to be a necessary, albeit insufficient, prerequisite to the decision to invest. For a majority of the investments reviewed for both groups, the investor(s) backed individuals personally known to them, to another syndicate member, and/or to the deal referrer. When the linkage to performance is explored, both solo and syndicate serial investors are well advised to back entrepreneurs known to a least one member of the investor group