DOCSLIB.ORG

NIPLECC Report: the National Intellectual Property Law

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
NIPLECC Report: the National Intellectual Property Law NIPLECC REPORT THE NATIONAL INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW ENFORCEMENT COORDINATION COUNCIL 2001-2002 SUBMITTED TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS UN I T E D ST A T E S DE P A R T M E N T O F J U S T I C E UN I T E D ST A T E S PA T E N T A N D TR A D EM A R K OFFIC E UN I T E D ST A T E S DE P A R T M E N T O F ST A T E OFFIC E O F T H E UN I T E D ST A T E S TR A D E REP RES E N T A T I V E UN I T E D ST A T E S CU S T O M S SE R V I C E UN I T E D ST A T E S DE P A R T M E N T O F COM M ERC E UN I T E D ST A T E S CO P YRIG H T OFFIC E NATIONAL INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW ENFORCEMENT COORDINATING COUNCIL Second Report to Congress Table of Contents Introduction......................................................................................................................1 Executive Summary.........................................................................................................2 Individual Agency Reports...............................................................................................3 A. U.S. Department of Justice, Criminal Division .........................................................3 B. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.........................................................................14 C. U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Economic, Business and Agricultural Affairs...........................................................................23 D. Office of the United States Trade Representative .................................................25 E. U.S. Customs Service ...........................................................................................27 F. U.S. Department of Commerce–Intellectual Trade Administration ........................32 G. U.S. Copyright Office.............................................................................................36 Federal Register Notice–Industry Responses ......................................................... Tab A International AntiCounterfeiting Coalition................................................................. Tab B International Trademark Association ....................................................................... Tab C (with appended INTA Year 2000 Submission) International Intellectual Property Alliance............................................................... Tab D Interagency Database of IP Training ....................................................................... Tab E Introduction Pursuant to 15 USC 1128(e), The National Intellectual Property Law Enforcement Coordination Council shall report annually on its coordination activities to the President, and to the Committees on Appropriations and on the Judiciary of the Senate and House of Representatives. This report is the second annual report issued by the Council, reporting on its coordinating activities. Included in this report is a compendium of agency activities relating to domestic and international intellectual property rights enforcement efforts and the mission of the National Intellectual Property Law Enforcement Coordination Council. Submitted October 2002 2 Executive Summary The National Intellectual Property Law Enforcement Coordination Council was created under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act 2000, which defined its membership, set forth duties of the Council and provided for the submission of an annual report. Pursuant to 15 USC 1128(b), the mandate of the Council is to “coordinate domestic and international intellectual property law enforcement among federal and foreign entities”. The Council consists of the following members: Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office; Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division; Under Secretary of State for Economic and Agricultural Affairs; Ambassador, Deputy United States Trade Representative; Commissioner of Customs; and the Under Secretary of Commerce for International Trade. The United States Patent and Trademark Office and the Department of Justice serve as co-chairs. Pursuant to 15 USC 1128(c), the Council “shall consult with the Register of Copyrights on law enforcement matters relating to copyright and related rights matters”. Subsequent to the issuance of the first annual report, the Council met in December 2001 and in June 2002. The Council’s mission includes: law enforcement liaison, training coordination, industry and other outreach and increasing public awareness. In addition to providing a forum in which agencies coordinate activities involving intellectual property law enforcement, the Council has determined that efforts should focus on a campaign of public awareness, at home and internationally, addressing the importance of protecting intellectual property rights. On August 5, 2002, a request for comments was published in the Federal Register seeking public comment as to how the Council may be effective in coordinating a public awareness campaign. In the months ahead, the Council will seek to serve as a coordinator of agency member public awareness efforts. This report exhibits the commitment of the Council member agencies to domestic and international intellectual property rights enforcement. 3 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE The Department of Justice is responsible for the investigation and prosecution of criminal cases involving the piracy of copyrighted works, trademark counterfeiting and theft of trade secrets.a The primary responsibility for federal enforcement of intellectual property laws rests with the 94 U.S. Attorney’s Offices with the support and coordination of the Department of Justice’s Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section (CCIPS), working with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Customs Service and other federal law enforcement agencies. The Department of Justice has made the enforcement of the intellectual property laws a high priority, and has committed substantial new resources to training specialized prosecutors and developing aggressive prosecution strategies to deal with the growing threat of piracy and high-tech crime. 1. Ensuring Adequate Prosecutorial Resources and Training The Department of Justice is utilizing a multi-pronged approach to prosecuting intellectual property crimes, combining the resources and experience of the Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section in Washington, DC, the Computer and Telecommunication Coordinator network of specialized prosecutors in the U.S. Attorneys Offices, and the newly formed Computer Hacking and Intellectual Property units in districts where high-tech and intellectual crimes are a particular area of concern. During the past 18 months the Attorney General has taken steps to significantly strengthen the ability of United States Attorneys Offices to enforce the federal IP laws by creating highly-specialized Computer Hacking and Intellectual Property (“CHIP”) Units in 12 U.S. Attorneys Offices across the nation; 1. Alexandria (Eastern District of Virginia) 2. Atlanta (Northern District of Georgia) 3. Boston (District of Massachusetts) 4. Brooklyn (Eastern District of New York) 5. Chicago (Northern District of Illinois) 6. Dallas (Northern District of Texas) 7. Kansas City (Western District of Missouri) 8. Los Angeles (Central District of California) aFederal Laws protecting intellectual property include: Title 18 U.S.C. §§ 2318 (trafficking in counterfeit labels); 2319 (criminal copyright infringement); 2319A (unauthorized recording of live musical performances); and 2320 (trafficking in counterfeit goods or services);Title 17 U.S.C. §§1201, 1204 (circumvention of copyright protection measures ); Title 18 U.S.C. §§ 1831 (economic espionage); 1832 (theft of trade secrets). 4 9. Manhattan (Southern District of New York) 10. Miami (Southern District of Florida) 11. San Diego (Southern District of California) 12. Seattle (Western District of Washington) These units, as well as the previously existing unit in San Francisco, California (in the Northern District of California), are composed of highly trained prosecutors and staff dedicated solely to prosecuting high-tech crimes, including intellectual property offenses. Each CHIP Unit is comprised of between four and six prosecutors and dedicated support staff. The continuing development of the CHIP Units will ensure that the Department of Justice will maintain a ready supply of the most highly trained and dedicated high-tech and intellectual property prosecutors. In addition to the newly formed CHIP Units, the Criminal Division’s Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section works closely with the over 160 Assistant U.S. Attorneys who make up the existing Computer and Telecommunication Coordinator (“CTC”) network. These prosecutors are specifically trained to address the range of novel and complex legal issues related to high-tech and intellectual property crime. Each of the 94 U.S. Attorneys Offices has at least one prosecutor who is part of the CTC network. As part of the week-long CTC conference sponsored each year by CCIPS and the Executive Office of the United States Attorneys, the CTC prosecutors receive training specific to IPR enforcement and developing issues in the field. In addition to becoming specialist in prosecuting high-tech and intellectual property crimes, CTC’s serve a vital role as a resource to other Assistant United States Attorneys in their respective offices. Since its inception in 1994, the CTC program has built a unparalleled network of high-tech prosecutors across
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Transnational Legal Responses to Illegal Trade in Human Beings
    Transnational Legal Responses to Illegal Trade in Human Beings Mohamed Y. Mattar SAIS Review, Volume 33, Number 1, Winter-Spring 2013, pp. 137-159 (Article) Published by The Johns Hopkins University Press DOI: 10.1353/sais.2013.0013 For additional information about this article http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/sais/summary/v033/33.1.mattar.html Access provided by Johns Hopkins University (11 Jul 2013 13:57 GMT) TRANSNATIONAL LEGAL RESPONSESSAIS TO IReviewLLEGAL vol. T XXXIIIRADE IN no. H 1UMAN (Winter–Spring BEINGS 2013)137 Transnational Legal Responses to Illegal Trade in Human Beings Mohamed Y. Mattar Human trafficking, whether for the purpose of sexual exploitation or forced labor or services, is a transnational crime that requires transnational responses. There are a variety of forms of cooperation that are imperative in combating the transnational crime of trafficking. This article will explore the complexity of human trafficking, examine international legal stan- dards of combatting human trafficking, and compare various methods of cooperation. This article will conclude by presenting a set of recommendations for the purpose of incorporating a transnational legal response in any comprehensive strategy to combat human trafficking. Introduction uman trafficking, whether for the purpose of sexual exploitation or Hforced labor or services, is a transnational crime1 that requires trans- national responses, including what this paper will refer to as the three EX’s: exchange of information among countries of origin, transit, and destination;
    [Show full text]
  • Translation, Codification, and Transplantation of Foreign Laws in Taiwan
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by UW Law Digital Commons (University of Washington) Washington International Law Journal Volume 25 Number 2 4-1-2016 Translation, Codification, and rT ansplantation of Foreign Laws in Taiwan Tay-sheng Wang Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/wilj Part of the Comparative and Foreign Law Commons Recommended Citation Tay-sheng Wang, Translation, Codification, and rT ansplantation of Foreign Laws in Taiwan, 25 Wash. L. Rev. 307 (2016). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/wilj/vol25/iss2/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews and Journals at UW Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington International Law Journal by an authorized editor of UW Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Compilation © 2016 Washington International Law Journal Association TRANSLATION, CODIFICATION, AND TRANSPLANTATION OF FOREIGN LAWS IN TAIWAN Tay-sheng Wang† Abstract: Taiwan is an excellent example for rethinking the significance of translation and codification of law in the process of transplantation of modern law in East Asian countries. Regardless of its strangeness to the general public, the translation of Western laws was always codified in Meiji Japan for the purpose of “receiving” modern law. Those Westernized Japanese legal codes also took effect in Taiwan during the later period of Japanese colonial rule, although Japanese colonialists initially applied Taiwanese customary law, created by Western legal terminology, to the Taiwanese to decrease their resistance to the new regime.
    [Show full text]
  • Civil Mediation in Taiwan: Legal Culture and the Process of Legal Modernization
    Civil Mediation in Taiwan: Legal Culture and the Process of Legal Modernization Yun-Hsien Diana Lin* The process of legal modernization in Taiwan began in 1895, when the Japanese colonial government first imposed westernized modern law on Taiwan. Before 1895, the code of imperial Ch’ing—deeply influenced by the Confucian legal culture which emphasized social harmony and was opposed to lawsuits—had been the state law for more than two centuries. A second major transition started in the 1920s, during which Taiwanese people gradually became accustomed to accessing modern courts for their civil disputes, and the number of civil lawsuits eventually surpassed that of cases under mediation. The positive attitude toward civil litigation continued after the Nationalist government retreated to Taiwan in 1949. As a historical coincidence, the Nationalists also applied German- and Japanese-style legal codes in Taiwan, including double tracks of town mediation and family court mediation. Besides addressing this “law- versus-custom” dichotomy, the following article concerns itself mainly with the continuing and ever-evolving process of dialectic and mutual resistance between the different legal orders. * Yun-Hsien Diana Lin is an Associate Professor at the Institute of Law for Science and Technology, National Tsing Hua University, Taiwan. The author received her J.S.D. and LL.M. degrees from the University of California, Berkeley, and a B.A. from National Taiwan University. This research was supported by the governmental grants of National Science Council, R.O.C. (No. 98-2410-H-007-041). An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 2010 Inaugural East Asian Law and Society Conference at Hong Kong University and the 2009 World Congress of Philosophy of Law and Social Philosophy in Beijing, China.
    [Show full text]
  • The Pennsylvania State University the Graduate School College of Communications the POLITICAL ECONOMY of the DIGITAL DIVIDE in T
    The Pennsylvania State University The Graduate School College of Communications THE POLITICAL ECONOMY OF THE DIGITAL DIVIDE IN TAIWAN A Thesis in Mass Communications by Chen-Ling Hung © 2004 Chen-Ling Hung Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy May 2004 The thesis of Chen-Ling Hung was reviewed and approved* by the following: Ronald V. Bettig Associate Professor of Communications Thesis Advisor Chair of Committee Dennis Davis Professor of Communications Richard Taylor Professor of Communications Chris Benner Assistant Professor of Geography John Nichols Professor of Communications Associate Dean for Research and Graduate Programs in Mass Communications *Signatures are on file in the Graduate School iii ABSTRACT This study utilizes a political-economic perspective to analyze the digital divide. This approach corrects the ideological bias of neo-liberal research on the digital divide and its insufficiency of theoretical foundation and provides a framework for political- economic scholars to systematically explore this issue. Political-economic theory is useful for examining the digital divide for it provides a holistic analysis of existing relationships among wealth, power and knowledge. This theory provides a critical perspective on the operation of capitalism, arguing that the nature and development of capitalism is signified by the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a few people who dominate policymaking and the distribution of resources, including new technology and information, thus strengthening existing disparities. The study employs four entry points including history, ownership, access and policy to analyze the digital divide from a global perspective while focusing on the case of Taiwan.
    [Show full text]
  • Special 301 and Taiwan: a Case Study of Protecting United States Intellectual Property in Foreign Countries Y
    Northwestern Journal of International Law & Business Volume 15 Issue 1 Fall Fall 1994 Special 301 and Taiwan: A Case Study of Protecting United States Intellectual Property in Foreign Countries Y. Kurt Chang Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/njilb Part of the Intellectual Property Commons Recommended Citation Y. Kurt Chang, Special 301 and Taiwan: A Case Study of Protecting United States Intellectual Property in Foreign Countries, 15 Nw. J. Int'l L. & Bus. 206 (1994-1995) This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Northwestern Journal of International Law & Business by an authorized administrator of Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. Special 301 and Taiwan: A Case Study of Protecting United States Intellectual Property in Foreign Countries Y. Kurt Chang On April 30, 1993, the United States Trade Representative (USTR) placed Taiwan on the "priority watch list" of countries that failed to protect United States intellectual property rights.' Although countries on the priority watch list are not as egregious in violating United States intellectual property rights as those identified as "prior- ity foreign countries," Taiwan was targeted for an immediate action plan, requiring it to take specific actions before July 31, 1993, or else risk being the subject of a trade sanction.2 Under the intense pressure from the United States, the ruling party of Taiwan rammed through
    [Show full text]
  • Research Study on the Agreement Between Hong Kong and the Mainland Concerning Surrender of Fugitive Offenders
    RP05/00-01 Research Study on the Agreement between Hong Kong and the Mainland concerning Surrender of Fugitive Offenders March 2001 Prepared by Mr CHAU Pak-kwan Mr Stephen LAM Research and Library Services Division and Legal Service Division Legislative Council Secretariat 5th Floor, Citibank Tower, 3 Garden Road, Central, Hong Kong Telephone : (852) 2869 7735 Facsimile : (852) 2525 0990 Website : http://www.legco.gov.hk E-mail : [email protected] C O N T E N T S page Executive Summary Introduction 1 Background 1 Scope of Study 1 Chapter 1 -Principles and Approaches in Extradition Treaties Signed 2 by China with Foreign Countries Legal Basis of China’s Extradition System 2 China’s Domestic Legal Norms 2 International Legal Norms 3 Basic Principles and Contents of Sino-Foreign Bilateral Extradition 8 Treaties Basic Principles 8 Basic Contents 9 Extraditable Offences 10 Circumstances under which extradition should be refused 12 Circumstances under which extradition may be refused 14 Principle of Non-extradition for Political Offences 15 Principle of Non-extradition for Death Penalty 21 Chapter 2 -Arrangements for the Surrender of Fugitive Offenders 24 between Hong Kong and Foreign Countries Fugitive Offenders Ordinance 24 Surrender of Fugitive Offenders 24 Persons Liable to be Surrendered 25 Relevant Offences 26 General Restrictions on Surrender 26 Procedural Safeguards 26 Treatment of Persons Surrendered from Prescribed Place 27 Transit 28 Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters 28 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Legislative Council Secretariat welcomes the re-publication, in part or in whole, of this research report, and also its translation in other languages. Materials may be reproduced freely for non- commercial purposes, provided acknowledgement is made to the Research and Library Services Division of the Legislative Council Secretariat as the source and one copy of the reproduction is sent to the Legislative Council Library.
    [Show full text]
  • In the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division
    Case: 1:93-cv-07452 Document #: 1883 Filed: 01/14/09 Page 1 of 39 PageID #:<pageID> 93-7452.088 January 14, 2009 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION IN RE FACTOR VIII OR IX ) MDL 986 CONCENTRATE BLOOD PRODUCTS ) 93 C 7452 LIABILITY LITIGATION ) ) ) This document relates to: ) Chang, et al. v. Bayer Corp., et al., ) 04 C 4869 ) Peng, et al. v. Bayer Corp., et al., ) 04 C 4868 ) Ho, et al. v. Bayer Corp., et al., ) 06 C 7012 ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER (Ruling on Taiwan Forum Non Conveniens Motion) This multidistrict litigation consists of claims against the defendant pharmaceutical companies by citizens of various foreign countries who suffer from hemophilia. The plaintiffs allege that they contracted the HIV and/or Hepatitis C (HCV) viruses from using contaminated blood products manufactured by one or more of the defendants. The products were derived by the defendants from the plasma of paid blood donors and processed by the defendants into blood-clotting “factor concentrates” which could be infused by hemophiliacs. Plaintiffs allege that the viral contamination of the concentrates resulted from a number of negligent acts and omissions of the defendants in the collection and processing of the blood plasma. A further allegation is that after the defendants Case: 1:93-cv-07452 Document #: 1883 Filed: 01/14/09 Page 2 of 39 PageID #:<pageID> - 2 - discovered the contamination, they withdrew the defective concentrates from distribution in the United States but continued to distribute them in foreign countries for use by unsuspecting foreign citizens, causing them to contract the HIV and/or HCV viruses.
    [Show full text]
  • THE APPLICATION of INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW to UNRECOGNISED ENTITIES: the CASE of TAIWAN Pei-Lun Tsai, LLM Thesis Submitt
    THE APPLICATION OF INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW TO UNRECOGNISED ENTITIES: THE CASE OF TAIWAN Pei-Lun Tsai, LLM Thesis submitted to the University of Nottingham for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy February 2015 ABSTRACT Traditionally, only States are considered as duty-bearers under international human rights law. Fundamental human rights guarantees have been conceived as standards of legal protection for individuals against the abuse of States. However, with the emergence of various non-State actors, States are no longer the only entities who may interfere with the enjoyment of human rights. The obligations of certain categories non- State actors under international human rights law have been much studied, but the application of international human rights law to “unrecognised entities”, who fulfil the traditional criteria of statehood and have achieved de facto independence but are not generally recognised as States by the international community, have received relatively limited scholarly attention. This thesis aims to fill this gap and examine whether existing rules of international human rights law, especially those concerning non- State actors, provide any basis for such application. Special emphasis will be placed on the Republic of China (ROC, Taiwan) as an example of an unrecognised entity. From the birth of the United Nations, the ROC government participated in human rights-related work within the organisation. Yet, after the adoption of General Assembly Resolution 2758, which recognised the representatives of the government of the People’s Republic of China as the lawful representatives of China, the ROC’s signatures and ratifications of international treaties are no longer recognised, and Taiwan’s recent attempts to ratify/accede to international human rights treaties have been unsuccessful.
    [Show full text]
  • NEW YORK INTERNATIONAL LAW REVIEW Winter 2003 Vol
    NEW YORK INTERNATIONAL LAW REVIEW Winter 2003 Vol. 16, No. 1 Articles Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide in the Democratic World: A Legal Overview Raphael Cohen-Almagor ...................................................................................1 Comparison of the Dispute Settlement Procedures of the World Trade Organization for Trade Disputes and the Inter-American System for Human Rights Violations Susan H. Shin...................................................................................................43 The Modern Concept of Sovereignty, Statehood and Recognition: A Case Study of Taiwan Eric Ting-Lun Huang.......................................................................................97 Recent Decisions Edelman v. Taittinger.....................................................................................189 28 U.S.C. § 1782(a) allows interested persons to obtain a subpoena from a district court to aid discovery in for- eign litigation, compelling the deposition of a foreign national who is “found” in the district in which the court sits, although he lives and works abroad. Aguinda v. Texaco, Inc...................................................................................197 The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court’s dismissal of Ecuadorian and Peruvian plaintiffs' environmental contamination suit against a United States corporation then headquar- tered in New York for forum non conveniens, but modified its ruling to extend additional time to plaintiffs
    [Show full text]
  • Copyright, Competition and Development
    Copyright, Competition and Development Report by the Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property and Competition Law, Munich December 2013 Preliminary note: The preparation of this Report has been mandated by the World Intellectual Property Organization to the Max Planck Institute and has been released in December 2013. Most of the information that is provided in the Report was collected in the second half of 2012 and has only partially been updated until summer 2013. This Report is authored by Professor Josef Drexl, Director of the Max Planck Institute. Many other scholars at the Institute took part in the research that led to this report. These include in particular Doreen Antony, Daria Kim and Moses Muchiri, as well as Dr Mor Bakhoum, Filipe Fischmann, Dr Kaya Köklü, Julia Molestina, Dr Sylvie Nérisson, Souheir Nadde‐Phlix, Dr Gintarė Surblytė and Dr Silke von Lewinski. The author will be happy to receive comments on the Report. These may relate to any corrections that are needed regarding the cases cited in the Report or additional cases that would be interesting and that have come up more recently. It is planned to publish the Report in a revised version in form of a book at a later stage. Comments can be sent to [email protected]. As regards agency and court decisions, the author would highly appreciate if these decisions were delivered in electronic form. Structure of this Document: Summary of the Report 2 Report 13 Annex: Questionnaire 277 1 Summary of the Report 1 Introduction (1) This text presents a summary of the Report of the Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property and Competition Law on “Copyright, Competition and Development”.
    [Show full text]
  • The Taiwan Relations Act After Ten Years
    OccAsioNAl PApERS/ REpRiNTS SERiEs 0 iN CoNTEMpORARY ' AsiAN STudiEs I a' NUMBER 4 - 1990 (99) fJ' THE TAIWAN RELATIONS ACT ,, AFTER TEN YEARS •• Lori Fisler Damrosch Scltool of LAw UNivERsiTy of 0 ... ~ MARylANd. q ' Occasional Papers/Reprint Series in Contemporary Asian Studies General Editor: Hungdah Chiu Executive Editor: Chih-Yu Wu Managing Editor: Chih-Yu Wu Editorial Advisory Board Professor Robert A. Scalapino, University of California at Berkeley Professor Gaston J. Sigur, George Washington University Professor Shao-chuan Leng, University of Virginia Professor James Hsiung, New York University Dr. Lih-wu Han, Political Science Association of the Republic of China Professor J. S. Prybyla, The Pennsylvania State University Professor Toshio Sawada, Sophia University, Japan Professor Gottfried-Karl Kindermann, Center for International Politics, University of Munich, Federal Republic of Germany Professor Choon-ho Park, International Legal Studies, Korea University, Republic of Korea All contributions (in English only) and communications should be sent to Professor Hungdah Chiu, University of Maryland School of Law, 500 West Baltimore Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21201 USA. All publications in this series reflect only the views of the authors. While the editor accepts responsibility for the selection of materials to be published, the individual author is responsible for statements of facts and expressions of opinion con­ tained therein. Subscription is US $18.00 for 6 issues (regardless of the price of individual issues) in the United States and $24.00 for Canada or overseas. Check should be addressed to OPRSCAS. Price for single copy of this issue: US $3.00. ISSN 0730-0107 ISBN 0-925153-10-9 Reprinted with the permission of Journal of Chinese Law, Vol.
    [Show full text]
  • A Comparative Study of Judicial Review Under Nationalist Chinese and American Constitutional Law
    OccAsioNAl PApERs/ REpRiNTS SERiEs 0 ~ iN CoNTEMpORARY AsiAN STudiEs NUMBER 4 -1980 (33) A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF JUDICIAL 0 REVIEW UNDER NATIONALIST -CHINESE I 0 AND AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 0 Jyh-pin Fa, with a Foreward by Stephen A. Saltzburg j ~ScltoolofLAw \,.)' () UNiVERSiTy · of MARylANd ~ Occasional Paper~/Reprints Series in Contemporary' Asian Studies ' General Editor: Hungdah Chiu 0 0 Acting Executive Editor: David Salem Managing Editor: Julia Fang 0 Editorial Advisory Board Professor Robert A. Scalapino, University of California at Berkeley . Professor Martin Wilbur, Columbia University Professor Gaston J. Sigur, George Washington University Professor Shao-chuan Leng, University of Virginia Professor Lawrence W. Beer, University of Cqlorado Professor James Hsiung, New York University Dr. Robert Heuser, Max-Planck-Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law at Heidelberg Dr. Lih-wu Han, Political Science Association of the Republic of China Professor K~ P. Misra, Jawaharlal Nehru University, India Professor J. S. Prybyla, The Pennsylvania State University Professor Toshio Sawada, Sophia University, Japan Published with the cooperation of the Maryland International• Law Society. All contributions (in English onlyl and communications should be sent to Professor Hungdah Chiu, University of Maryland School of Law. 500 West Baltimore Street. Baltimore, Maryland 21201 USA. All publications in this series reflect only the views of the authors. While the editor accepts responsibility for the selection of maferials to be published. the individual author is responsible for statements of facts and expressions of opinion contained therein. Subscription is US $10.00 for 8 issues (regardless of the price of individual issues! in the United States and Canada aPd $12.00 for overseas.
    [Show full text]