Suchergebnisse

In 1994, China enacted a comprehensive State Compensation Law ("SCL"). The SCL provides individuals and legal entities with the right to compensation in a limited number of situations in which they are harmed by illegal government acts. The purpose of the law is twofold: (1) to guarantee the rights of individuals and legal entities to obtain compensation and (2) to encourage state officials to exercise their powers lawfully. In theory, the SCL provides an important check on the conduct of procurators and other government officials. China's procurators serve dual roles as criminal prosecutors and as supervisors of the legal process. As supervisors of the legal process, procurators are largely responsible for policing themselves and preventing procuratorial misconduct. There are few external controls on procurators, and the controls that exist are weak and seldom applied in practice. This Comment examines the issue of whether the SCL will provide an adequate citizen-based check on procuratorial power. It argues that while the SCL should be considered a positive step towards promoting greater official accountability and protecting individual rights in China, limitations on the scope of the law, flaws in the procedures for state compensation, the limited liability of individual procurators for compensation expenses, and official resistance to the SCL's implementation severely limit the utility of the law as a remedy for procuratorial and other official misconduct.

Compensation and benefits professionals bear responsibility for maintaining effective wage and benefit programs that comply with a complex tangle of federal and state labor laws. In their latest legislative sessions, most states passed new compensation-related legislation, and many made significant modifications. This article summarizes new legislation on compensation provisions, including laws that increased minimum wage rates in Delaware, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Rhode Island and Vermont. It also reviews laws that changed tip provisions, overtime requirements, minimum wage exemptions and prevailing wage rates. In addition, it covers changes in state statutes on employment discrimination based on genetic testing and sexual orientation and new laws regulating electronic surveillance in the workplace. Other state law changes in requirements for jury duty pay, family leave and drug and alcohol testing are also summarized. Several states passed legislation that protects employers who provide information on former employees to other employers who are screening job applicants. These new laws are described along with new provisions protecting whistleblowers and some significant changes in child labor laws. Compensation professionals should carefully review the legislative changes for all of the states in which their companies employ workers to ensure compliance at the state law level.

"This book explores the performance of compensation law in addressing the needs of the injured. Compensation procedure can be dangerous to your health and often fails to compensate without aggravation/ creating other problems. This book takes a refreshing and insightful approach to the law of compensation, considering from an interdisciplinary perspective the actual effect of compensation law on people seeking compensation. Tort law, workers' compensation, medical law, industrial injury law and other schemes are examined and unintended consequences for injured people are considered. These include ongoing physical and mental illness, failure to rehabilitate, the impact on social security entitlements, medical care as well as the impact on those who serve - the lawyers, administrators, medical practitioners etc. All are explored in this timely and fascinating book. Contributors include lawyers, psychologists, and medical practitioners from multiple jurisdictions including Australia, Netherlands, Canada, Italy and the UK"--

Abstract
Is there an exception to the principle of full reparation in international investment arbitration for cases in which full compensation is crippling for the responsible State or its peoples? The routine presentation and consideration of billion-dollar-plus investment arbitration claims in the first half of 2021 suggests that this subject has not been invented in order to enable it to be written about but is one of considerable importance for the field of international investment law and its actors. The frame of reference in a discussion about compensation in investment law is provided by the law of State responsibility, strongly shaped by the 2001 International Law Commission's Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (2001 ILC Articles on State Responsibility), which treat crippling compensation as permissible as a matter of content of responsibility. The argument for the permissibility of crippling compensation explicitly assumed the rarity of such claims; safeguards in primary, secondary, and tertiary rules for the few cases when they did arise; and the enlightened self-interest of States as repeat-playing actors in not making them—and perhaps implicitly scepticism about compound interest and Discount Cash Flow valuation. None of these assumptions holds true in modern investor State arbitration. Nevertheless, the predominant reaction to crippling compensation claims has been silence by tribunals and respondent States, suggestive in legal terms of endorsement of their permissibility in line with the 2001 ILC Articles on State Responsibility. There is some scope for addressing crippling compensation within the 2001 ILC Articles on State Responsibility, both indirectly (challenging the meaningfulness of the question in the first place or considering crippling compensation as part of the general discussion of the content of responsibility) and directly, under the rubrics of circumstances precluding wrongfulness and enforcement. The case can also be made for moving beyond the 2001 ILC Articles on State Responsibility, by emphasising the difference between implementation of responsibility in inter-State and investor–State legal relations or even directly arguing for a change of the applicable customary rule.

458Claims — Nationality of claims — Global claims settlement — Austria-Italy Property Compensation Treaty, 1971 — Global payment to Austria — Austrian legislation implementing Treaty imposing stricter requirements regarding nationality of claimants than those contained in the Treaty — Requirement that original claimant or successor in title possess Austrian nationality at date of Treaty — Whether constitutional — Constitutional principle of equality of treatmentRelationship of international law and municipal law — Treaties — Implementing legislation — Whether implementing legislation may be more restrictive than TreatyTreaties — Effect of municipal legislation — Implementing legislation imposing requirements not contained in Treaty — The law of Austria

Abstract
—International investment law and EU State aid law have clashed on multiple occasions, most famously in the Micula case but also in disputes over subsidies in the renewable energy sector. In the view of the European Commission, investors should not be able to use investment arbitration to obtain compensation for the withdrawal of unlawful State aid, as this would jeopardize the effectiveness of EU State aid law. For this reason, the Commission has intervened in numerous investment arbitrations, arguing that investors cannot have legitimate expectations in respect of State aid that was granted in violation of EU law, and that any compensation awarded by a tribunal in such circumstances would also constitute State aid. This article argues that while EU State aid law should inform an assessment of the investor's legitimate expectations, tribunals need to conduct a comprehensive evaluation that also considers other relevant factors, such as the respondent State's representations and the foreseeability of the State aid qualification. If a tribunal determines that an investor was entitled to legitimate expectations despite EU State aid law, any compensation awarded by the tribunal should be accepted as damages that fall outside the scope of EU State aid law. In this way, a conflict between the two fields of law, which only encourages investors to seek enforcement outside the European Union, can be avoided.