The Roundtable
Welcome to the Roundtable, a forum for incisive commentary and analysis
on cases and developments in law and the legal system.
on cases and developments in law and the legal system.
 By James Freirich
James Freirich is a guest writer for The Roundtable and a sophomore majoring in Finance at Boston College’s Carroll School of Management. In recent weeks, the World Trade Organization (WTO) delivered a critical ruling on the Boeing-Airbus trade dispute - a dispute which bore its inception in 2004 [1]. Since the 1970 establishment of Airbus, the 2nd largest aircraft manufacturer in the world, Boeing, the world’s leading aircraft manufacturer, has faced steep competition and a challenge to its market share of the “Large Civil Aircraft” (LCA) industry [2] [3] [4]. Moreover, as the competition between these two aircraft manufacturing titans have intensified throughout the past few decades, so have their bilateral utilization of subsidies within the LCA market. Subsequently, as the United States (US) became increasingly concerned with the level of subsidies granted to Airbus by the European Communities (EC) over the decades following 1970, a bilateral Agreement on Trade in Large Civil Aircraft (TLCA) was created in July of 1992 to ensure fair trade by implementing quantitative restrictions on subsidies utilized within the LCA market [5] [6]. On October 6th, 2004 on behalf of Boeing, the US filed a trade complaint against the EC “alleging that the EC violated international trade agreements, primarily by giving launch aid to Airbus” [7]. During that same day, and on behalf of Airbus, the EC filed a trade complaint of their own against the US “alleging that Boeing received prohibited government subsidies in the form of tax breaks and preferential government contracts” [8]. (Kienstra, 571) By filing trade disputes against one another, the US and EC in turn withdrew from the TLCA.
0 Comments
 By Georgia Ray
Georgia Ray is a rising sophomore at the University of Pennsylvania studying Cognitive Science with a minor in American Public Policy. In a small town in Texas, something out of the ordinary happened. A motorist held another man at gunpoint, waiting for the police to arrive, after witnessing him beating a woman in a nearby car. This civilian momentarily took on the role of a police officer, and by performing a citizen’s arrest he made real change in the life of the victimized woman [1]. That said, the concept of citizen’s arrest is rarely understood and is often treated as no more than a hyperbolic plan of action. The concept of citizen’s arrest originated in medieval Britain when police departments were understaffed and relied on citizens to help keep the peace [2]. Not only were citizens allowed to make arrests, but some citizens would even take it upon themselves to do detective work in their communities. This reliance on the general population continued even past the establishment of America where tiny towns with small police forces needed citizens to be involved in regulating their neighborhoods and friends. However, as cities grew, police departments received more funds, hired more staff, and were allocated more resources. Suddenly, a veil of anonymity settled on the population and with it, this type of neighborly accountability became almost obsolete. |
|
|
