Explore the vast range of titles available.

Due to the deficiency of radio spectrum resources caused by the progress in technology, cognitive radio networks (CRNs) have made significant progress. CRNs have two types of users, namely, primary users (PUs) and secondary users (SUs). Considering that PUs have a higher priority and diversified data transmission requirements, this study divides PUs into two levels, namely, PU1s with a higher priority and PU2s with a lower priority. On the other hand, the occurrence of failures is inevitable in CRNs, which affects the data transmission of users. In this paper, combined with an adjustable PU packets transmission rate mechanism, a communication failure and repair mechanism with classified PUs based on the single-channel CRNs is proposed, and different preemption principles are set according to different system states. A queueing model is established and analyzed with a Markov chain, the performance index expressions that need targeted research are listed, numerical experiments are conducted, and the system performance change trends are obtained. The comparison experiment shows that the proposed communication failure and repair mechanism with classified PUs can improve the throughput of PU1 packets and reduce the blocking rate of PU1 packets compared with the conventional communication failure and repair mechanisms with unclassified PUs.

This article presents an empirical study of six grievance mechanisms in multi-stakeholder initiatives (MSIs). It argues that key characteristics of each grievance mechanism as well as the contexts in which they operate significantly affect human rights outcomes. However, even the most successful mechanisms only manage to produce remedies in particular types of cases and contexts. The research also finds that it is prohibitively difficult to determine whether ‘effective’ remedy has been achieved in individual cases. Furthermore, the key intervention by the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs), to prescribe a set of effectiveness criteria for designing or revising MSI grievance mechanisms, itself appears ineffective in stimulating better outcomes for rights-holders. Drawing on these findings, the article reflects on the future potential and limitations of MSI grievance mechanisms within broader struggles to ensure business respect for human rights.

A series of denialist state laws thwart efficacious public health emergency response efforts despite escalating impacts of the spread of the Delta variant during the COVID-19 pandemic.A series of denialist state laws thwart efficacious public health emergency response efforts despite escalating impacts of the spread of the Delta variant during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The term \"sanctuary\" has long expressed a sympathy for immigrants' rights and resistance to federal immigration enforcement. Recently, the word has become associated with another divisive political topic, as local governments have begun declaring themselves \"Second Amendment Sanctuaries\" in defiance of statewide gun-control measures they deem unconstitutional. This gun-rights resistance movement not only flips the political script on the nature of sanctuaries, but also presents important and challenging questions about local-state power sharing, the proper scope of \"subfederal commandeering,\" and the role of coordinate branches in constitutional decision-making. This Article provides the first scholarly treatment of Second Amendment Sanctuaries. In doing so, it explores both the unique facets of this new localism and the broader implications for sanctuary movements generally. Most early commentary dismisses Second Amendment Sanctuaries as purely symbolic and presumptively invalid pursuant to state preemption principles and the judicial supremacy model of constitutional interpretation. This Article challenges that narrative and articulates a theory of limited viability for Second Amendment Sanctuaries and other local intrastate resistance movements more broadly.The theory this Article presents proceeds in three parts, with each part presenting a novel approach to local-state governmental conflict that contributes to the existing literature. First, localities can resist broad state preemption in limited circumstances via the state's \"home rule\" provisions when local regulation of a particular issue is rooted in history and has normative policy appeal. Second, localities may passively resist statewide regulation through a form of \"subfederal anticommandeering\" analogous to the Tenth Amendment's anticommandeering principles protecting states from federal overreach, so long as the locality takes no affirmative steps to frustrate state enforcement. Third, local enforcement officers may defend their resistance on substantive constitutional grounds when the right at issue is not firmly settled by the judiciary. This \"first impression departmentalism\" reflects the belief that all coordinate branches of government should play a role in defining the contours of constitutional provisions when emerging doctrine remains in a state of flux. These three principles counsel in favor of the viability of at least some Second Amendment Sanctuaries as currently constructed, as well as possible future \"gun control sanctuaries\" resisting statewide firearm deregulation.

This article explores different approaches to assessing the effectiveness of non-state-based non-judicial grievance mechanisms (NSBGMs) in achieving access to remedy for rightsholders. It queries the approach that has been widely adopted as a result of the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs), which focuses on the procedural aspects of grievance mechanisms. Rather, it stresses the importance of analysing the outcomes of cases for rightsholders. This article tests this hypothesis by undertaking comprehensive empirical research into the complaint mechanism of the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO). RSPO is found to perform well when judged according to the UNGPs’ effectiveness criteria. However, it performs poorly when individual cases are assessed to ascertain the outcomes that are achieved for rightsholders. The article therefore argues for the importance of equivalent scrutiny of outcomes in relation to other NSBGMs and provides an approach and accompanying methodology that can be utilized for that purpose.

This article explores the availability of individual private rights of action under the Platform-to-Business Regulation. It is argued that Member States are required to provide for such remedies for the benefit of business users of online intermediation services and corporate website users. Individual rights of action are necessary, first, to ensure an adequate and effective level of overall enforcement and, second, to effectuate the implicit rights that must be inferred from the obligations the Regulation imposes on providers of online intermediation services and search engines. To make this case, we illustrate the practical relevance and deficiencies of individual rights of action using several German court cases; examine the key elements of the Regulation’s ‘visible’ enforcement architecture; apply the ECJ’s case lines on implicit individual rights and private rights of action as a non-specified enforcement tool; and provide an analysis of the potential added value and perceived weaknesses of individual rights of action as a mechanism to enforce the Regulation. Platform-to-business regulation 2019/1150, private enforcement, individual rights of action, online intermediation services, online search engines, amazon marketplace, platform economy, choice-of-court agreements, principle of effectiveness

This article analyses multistakeholder initiatives from a business and human rights perspective. Specifically, it examines the relationship between multi-stakeholders’ grievance mechanisms and human rights due diligence. Besides preventive due diligence measures, legislation should include corrective measures and access to remedy as stipulated by the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. To help solve social challenges in value chains, the article identifies how these collaborative arrangements could contribute to legislative approaches to make multistakeholder initiatives effective from the human-rights based point of view. The article highlights rights-holders’ role as a source of governance, consultation, and engagement regarding improving multistakeholder initiatives’ remediation practices. The article identifies, with reference to the EU’s sustainability due diligence legislation, how national regulators can leverage multistakeholder initiatives in regulation efforts. The state must resource institutional co-governance structures so that companies may carry out remedial functions to facilitate remediation in human rights due diligence processes.

Governments are increasingly introducing legislative measures imposing reporting requirements on corporations to address a range of human rights abuses including modern slavery. A new federal Modern Slavery Act (Federal Act) took effect in Australia on 1 January 2019, and a state-level modern slavery law was adopted in June 2018 in New South Wales (NSW). This follows similar laws enacted in the United Kingdom (UK) and California, with draft bills under consideration in other jurisdictions such as Canada, Hong Kong and the United States.

This article aims to navigate the reader through them. It employs textual, historical, structural, doctrinal and pragmatic modes of interpretation to accommodate-as much as possible-originalists and nonoriginalists alike. Although administrative preemption will likely be of more concern to originalists, the author hopes to make the case for why non-originalists should be concerned too: administrative preemption is incompatible with the written Constitution and the Court's legitimating theories of modern government. Non-originalists might thus be willing to revisit administrative preemption to avoid reopening the book on nondelegation and enumerated powers. Part I canvasses the Court's administrative preemption doctrine. Part II conceives of administrative preemption as a paradox using textual, historical, and structural modes of constitutional interpretation. Part III then lays the groundwork for a doctrinal assessment of administrative preemption, which may be more appealing to non-originalists. And, part IV advances a normative \"contingency principle\" that builds on this doctrinal assessment.

Judicial deference to executive statutory interpretation -- a doctrine now commonly associated with the Supreme Court's decision in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council -- is one of the central principles in modern American public law. Despite its significance, however, the doctrine's origins and development are poorly understood. The Court in Chevron claimed that the roots of judicial deference stem from statutory interpretation cases dating to the early nineteenth century. Others, by contrast, have sought to locate Chevron's doctrinal roots in judicial review's origins in the writ of mandamus. According to the standard narrative, courts in the pre-Chevron era followed a multifactor and ad hoc approach to issues of judicial deference; there was little theory that explained the body of cases; and the holdings and reasoning of the cases were often contradictory and difficult to rationalize. This Article challenges the standard account. It argues that the Supreme Court in Chevron, and scholarly commentators since, have misidentified nineteenth-century statutory interpretation cases applying canons of construction \"respecting\" contemporaneous and customary interpretation as cases deferring to executive interpretation as such. It further argues that, although the standard for obtaining a writ of mandamus was central to judicial review in the early Republic, statutory developments in the latter half of the nineteenth century (significantly, the enactment of general federal-question jurisdiction in 1875) ultimately mooted the relevance of that standard. Finally, it discusses the intellectual challenges to the traditional interpretive framework beginning in the early twentieth century; the Supreme Court's embrace of these intellectual challenges in the early 1940s; and Congress's attempt in the Administrative Procedure Act's (APA) standard-of-review provision to reject the Court's interpretive experimentation and corresponding deviation from the traditional canons. The Article thus seeks to establish -- contrary to the suggestion in Chevron and recent cases -- that there was no rule of statutory construction requiring judicial deference to executive interpretation qua executive interpretation in the early American Republic. And it contends that the governing statute of administrative law -- the APA -- was intended to codify the traditional interpretive approach and to reject the experimentation of the 1940s Court. Taken together, these conclusions cast doubt on much of the received wisdom on the doctrinal basis for the rule announced in Chevron. [web URL: http://www.yalelawjournal.org/article/the-origins-of-judicial-deference-to-executive-interpretation]