This Note proposes that a rebuttable presumption against intervention should be imposed against nondemocratic States. Unless a nondemocratic State can affirmatively demonstrate the intervention’s compliance with a State’s other international legal commitments, the intervention should be presumed unlawful.
Through multiple interviews with people working in Somalia on the national program for rehabilitating and reintegrating former terrorists, this Note maps out the current legal framework for handling terrorists and evaluates its effectiveness. It concludes that, while the current programs in Somalia are a positive step and likely to be more effective than traditional counter-terrorism models, there is still a need to ensure adequate safeguards for disengaging terrorists.
TTIP and the Investment Court System: A New (and Improved?) Paradigm for Investor-State AdjudicationBy: Robert W. Schwieder
This Note evaluates the ICS in light of the most cogent critiques lodged against ISDS, before considering three alternative modes of investment dispute resolution: a return to the pre-ISDS era, the adoption of a rule-of-law ratings mechanism, and a reformed and updated version of ISDS.
A change in the policy of barring refugees from jobs in the U.S. Federal Civil Service could mitigate challenges for the refugee population. The current policy is misguided from a humanitarian and economic perspective and potentially unconstitutional as it may be in conflict with U.S. obligations under the 1967 Protocol on the Status of Refugees.
Digital Destruction: Applying the Principle of Non-Intervention to Distributed Denial of Service Attacks Manifesting No Physical DamageBy: William Mattessich
The principle of non-intervention provides one avenue for applying current international law to DDoS attacks that are not immediately physically destructive. Under the principle of non-intervention, such attacks would be internationally unlawful if they amounted to coercion of the target state.
The CFIUS process typically occurs privately and opaquely, but Ralls Corporation brought a legal challenge in federal courts resulting from an unfavorable ruling. Though full resolution did not ultimately occur, the first and only CFIUS suit in history opened the door for future litigation and substantially strengthened investors’ rights.
In 2013, the Appeals Chamber of the ICTY sent shockwaves through international legal circles when it ruled that “neutral” support to armed groups engaged in combat activities could not give rise to criminal responsibility absent evidence that the support was “specifically directed” toward the group’s unlawful activities. This Article contributes to the debate over the foreign assistance cases by questioning two of its key premises: the pervasive assumption that the resolution of these cases can and should be determined by recourse to the kind of precedential analysis that has dominated judicial consideration of international aiding and abetting cases, and the assumption that the resolution of individual foreign assistance cases turns on the particular doctrinal choices that have divided judges and commentators.
International Dealmaking at the White House: Toward a Viable Test of Allowable Sole Executive AgreementsBy: Joshua Abbuhl
The Constitution’s Treaty Clause, which states that the President “shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur,” represents the only instance in which the Constitution describes a process by which the U.S. can conclude international agreements. This Note explores when the President may nevertheless lawfully enter “sole executive agreements” without the assent of a supermajority of the Senate.
The proposition of mining an asteroid for natural resources is quickly moving from the realm of science fiction into viable reality. Meanwhile, the legal status of an asteroid-mining venture remains doubtful. This Note gives the legal problems a firmer foundation in scientific experience, weighs the merits and shortcomings of the extant proposals, considers which empirical variables should shape any future legal approach to asteroid law, and addresses some of the more general challenges of making law prospectively.
Google’s World: The Impact of “Agnostic Cartographers” on the State-Dominated International Legal SystemBy: Ethan R. Merel
While Google’s cartographic platforms, Maps and Earth, are the most widely used mapping services in the world, their methodology for affixing borders and naming key features is completely unregulated and deviates from traditional mapping doctrine. This Note seeks to explore the legal implications of customized cartography.