“It’s Just Not Right”: The Ethics of Insider Trading

The Supreme Court doctrine defining insider trading and a competing theory called the misappropriation theory are criticized, focusing on the case of United States vs Chestman. A counter-argument is presented

A Realpolitik Defense of Social Rights

Social rights are controversial in theory, but many constitutions feature long lists of social rights anyway. But how can poor states ever hope to realize these rights? This article examines the practical bargaining over social rights that occurs when countries go broke and international financial institutions step in to direct internal fiscal affairs. Constitutional Courts can give their own governments leverage in bargaining with the IMF by making strong decisions defending social rights just at those moments. Because of the IMF\u27s commitment to the rule of law, it is hard for the IMF to insist as part of the conditionality of its loans that governments overtly disobey rulings of their countries\u27 high courts. Looking at Hungary (where the Constitutional Court made such a decision and the government used it to negotiate better terms with the IMF) and Russia (where the Constitutional Court made such a decision and the Russian government ignored it), the article addresses when this tactic might work and how strong court decisions can help governments protect their own populations in times of economic disaster

Other People\u27s PATRIOT Acts: Europe\u27s Response to September 11

After September 11, many countries changed their laws to make it easier to fight terrorism. They did so in part because the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 1373 under its Chapter VII powers. The resolution required all Members of the United Nations to criminalize terrorism, to prevent their territory from being used to plan or promote terrorism, to crack down on terrorism financing, to tighten up immigration and asylum procedures and to share information about terrorists and terrorist threats with other states. This article examines what happened to the Security Council mandate when it got to Europe by first tracing the framework that the European Union developed to respond to the Security Council mandate and then by exploring the very different legal reactions of the UK and Germany within this common framework. Britain enacted and encouraged extreme measures to meet the terrorist threat while Germany complied with the Security Council within the framework of its established constitutional norms