Meeting With China

What's on the agenda?

Space Junk Getting Worse

Space Junk. . . . the old rocket clunkers, metal scraps, and dilapidated satellites littering the final frontier. It's an illustration of a tragedy of the commons on a massive scale, and there seemingly has been little done to remedy it. An MSNBC article written last week notes how the problem is getting worse:

The already untidy mass of orbital debris that litters low Earth orbit nearly got nastier last month. A head-on collision was averted between a spent upper stage from a Chinese rocket and the European Space Agency's huge Envisat Earth remote-sensing spacecraft. Space junk tracking information supplied by the U.S. military, as well as confirming German radar data, showed that the two space objects would speed by each other at a nail-biting distance of roughly 160 feet (50 meters).

This problem is quite substantial because such items flying around the earth's orbit act as virtual bullets that can penetrate satellites and spacecraft, potentially causing considerable and costly damage. While the science is fascinating, at BBL we are (as always) interested in the legal issues presented by this problem.

There are two related issues that I have been involved in researching recently. First, the problem seems to be partially attributed to a lack of effective regulation on a global basis. It is true that agencies such as NASA have implemented certain guidelines to deal with the issue, and the U.N. has also attempted to solve the problem--i.e., United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space. But space debris nonetheless seems to continue causing problems. The image in this post alone illustrates just how pervasively such "junk" permeates earth's orbit.

I want to pose a question regarding further regulations' potential effectiveness. The problem of space junk, I think, can be partly attributed to the fact that governments, in essence, are the entities that need to be regulated. Thus, are self-imposed guidelines, for example, largely ineffective in an area such as space regulation because of the biases countries may have toward the domestic advancement of space exploration? International dispute resolution bodies--such as the World Trade Organization--have shown success in adjudicating disputes between member-bodies over alleged anticompetitive trade actions. But can similar schemes be implemented to deal with the space debris problem?

Iran and Privacy

Just when you think the Iranian government couldn't get any more benevolent, it seems like it thinks its citizens prefer government-run e-mail instead of g-mail. And it isn't affording a choice in the matter.

US to EU: Eat My Carbon

For all of you international law fans, there is an interesting case out of Europe today. By way of background, the EU-ETS is Europe's cap and trade scheme for carbon emissions. Starting in 2012, airlines will be required to purchase carbon permits for all flights into or out of E.U. member states. From Aviation Week:

Three U.S. airlines and the Air Transport Association filed suit in a U.K. court Dec. 16 seeking to block implementation of Europe’s greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme (ETS).

The suit was filed by ATA, Continental, American and United against the U.K. Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change. It is the first legal action brought by U.S airlines in a European court to halt the inclusion of international aviation in the ETS.

U.S. airlines sue in a U.K. court over E.U. law. Procedural issues aside, the key legal question is whether the E.U can require an E.U. bound foreign aircraft to offset its carbon emissions even if most of its flight took place outside the E.U. (Think an American Airlines flight from Los Angeles to London).

If the E.U. loses this case, they may be forced to remove airline emissions from the ETS (cheaper flights for euro-fans, bad news for Tuvalu). Imagine if European based carriers were subject to an additional tax on their extra-EU flights while foreign carriers could avoid the levy. The foreign airlines would have an instant price advantage and would likely take over large chunks of the market. For that reason alone, I have a feeling the E.U. law will trump the U.S. airlines in the U.K. court-making that European dream vacation just a little more expensive.

Through the Looking Glass

I am a huge history buff. In particular, I love to see where two particular cultures or countries diverged and then examine whether the reason for that divergence was justified. In 1791, the United States ratified the Bill of Rights which included a nifty provision prohibiting the establishment of a state religion by the federal government. Our former masters, the English, opted not to enact such a prohibition. Maybe they should have.

My Dad Makes More Money Than Your Dad

Probably not true (Social Security doesn't make for a lavish salary), but it would be easy to find out that kind of information in Norway. From Yahoo (via AP):

It's the moment nosy Norwegian neighbors have been waiting for — the release of official records showing the annual income and overall wealth of nearly every taxpayer in the Scandinavian country.

In a move that would be unthinkable elsewhere, tax authorities in Norway have issued the skatteliste," or "tax list," for 2008 to the media under a law designed to uphold the country's tradition of transparency.

Berlusconi Immunity Law Tossed

From the Guardian:

Italy was cast back into political turmoil tonight when the country's constitutional court threw out a law passed by Silvio Berlusconi's government that gave him immunity from prosecution for as long as he remained prime minister. . . . The majority decision represented a severe blow for Berlusconi, who was already struggling to contain the damage from a lurid sex and drugs scandal in which he is accused of using the services of prostitutes.

The court held the immunity law to be unconstitutional under both Articles 3 and 138 of the Italian Constitution. Article 3 states in relevant part that "[a]ll citizens have equal social status and are equal before the law, without regard to their sex, race, language, religion, political opinions, and personal or social conditions"; Article 138 deals principally with procedures for constitutional amendment. Despite the court's latter brief statement on the basis of its holding, "[t]he detailed reasoning behind the judges' decision will not be released for several weeks."

Berlusconi did not have very positive words for the court, noting that "[t]his system, and above all the way in which the members of the court are chosen, risks upsetting over time the correct balance between the powers of the state." His frustration is less than surprising, however, as it has consistently been his contention that he is the political target of "left-wing" judges.

This case sort of reminds me of another famous (albeit, quite older) case dealing with the political friction between the executive and judiciary.

------

UPDATE: Berlusconi to defend himself on TV, in courtrooms. AP.

Praising Pirates

Peter Leeson, an economics professor at the University of Chicago and George Mason University, wrote this article on NPR concurrent with the volume of work he has completed in the past year on pirate contributions to principles of governance, liberty and equality. He notes:

Pirates are getting a bad rep. Every month we hear more news of the Somali pirates' depredations, most recently involving an attack on an American crew. To be sure, these pirates deserve our condemnation. They're thugs and the world would be better without them. But we shouldn't let our condemnation of modern pirates spill over, unchecked, onto their more colorful, and socially contributory, early 18th-century forefathers.

Professor Leeson illuminates the structural characteristics of 18th century pirate regimes and the fascinating principles of self-governance embodied in their political philosophies, such as the "constitutions [they] established . . . [to govern] their roguish commonwealths," their embrace of "racial tolerance well before their legitimate counterparts," and their development of an early system of "social insurance . . . [enabling crews to compensate] maimed pirate[s]."

In these and many other ways, "[p]irates . . . implemented" essential tenants of liberty within system of self-governance "more than half a century before [James] Madison put pen to paper."

On a personal note, I strongly urge everyone to check out this page along with Professor Leeson's other work. He taught my capstone economics course when I was an undergrad, and his insights and views on economics and law were very thoughtful. I hope that you will find them interesting.

For the entire article, click here.

Was Our Nation Founded On Democracy?

Jeff, our ever-present provocateur, made the following statement in the comments section of my InTrade post:

"The simple fact of the matter is that this country was founded on the principle of democracy...If you want to live in a big brother society where the people at the top decide everything, then move to Venuezula or Iran. Here, the people get to decide..."

Not only is that utterly false-- it is also hilariously ironic. Both Venezuela and Iran utilize democracy. For all their faults, both nations follow the democratic pattern advocated by Jeff. And, the end result for both nations has been tyranny.

The following are just some of the evidence CONTRARY TO the proposition that our country was founded on democracy or that democracy was it's central purpose:

Bicameralism
Federalism
Length of term limits
Term-limits (for the President)
Requirements for A1 & A2
Life-time tenure for A3 Judges
Electoral College
The Entire Bill of Rights (1-10)
Article 5 (Amendment Process)
Reconstruction Amendments (13-15)

Liberty (which should NEVER be considered synonymous with democracy) was this nation's "central purpose" or "foundational idea." The Framers believed in natural rights and wanted to create a national bulwark to thwart the tyranny of the majority where necessary.

[Ed. Note: The picture is from StateNet, a site I found while looking for a picture of a ballot box with a gun barrel sticking out of it.]