The Center for Internet and Society at Stanford Law School is a leader in the study of the law and policy around the Internet and other emerging technologies.
Is water a "product" subject to the World Trade Organization (WTO)’s General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT)? I argue that it is not, because the established, widespread, and consistent assertion by states of public ownership over their water resources through both municipal and international law (the "public-ownership consensus") precludes any reading of GATT that would fundamentally alter the unique status of those resources.
An effective climate regime must be global rather than merely international and must recognize the significant involvement of actors other than states. This Article first examines the role of statism in the existing international climate regime and challenges several assumptions that underlie the demand for the global South’s "meaningful participation" in that regime. It then demonstrates how the global South is already participating in a global climate regime through the activities of private economic actors from around the world.
As a contribution to the debate over market-based environmental regulation, this article examines the reaction of stakeholders to cap-and-trade programs proposed and/or implemented in the United States, the European Union, and the Netherlands for industrial emissions of certain pollutants. Those pollutants include nitrogen oxides (NOX), sulfur dioxide (SO2), mercury (Hg), and greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2).
Amicus brief filed in the Third Circuit on behalf of Brave New Films urging affirmance of the district court’s finding of fair use and rejection of plaintiff’s DMCA claims.
Paper presented at TPRC 2010. October 3, 2010.
Why a non-discrimination rule banning only discrimination that harms competition or harms users is bad, and why we need a non-discrimination rule that bans application-specific discrimination, but allows application-agnostic discrimination
We filed an amicus brief in the Fourth Circuit in support of the Baltimore Ravens and the NFL urging the Fourth Circuit to grant rehearing or rehearing en banc, after a divided panel ruled that the Raven’s incidental use of a copyrighted logo in historical game films was not a fair use.
Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals holding that the URAA does not violate our clients' First Amendment rights.