By: 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.
By: Judy Wang
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.
By: Alexander K.A. Greenawalt
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.
By: 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.
By: Samuel Roth
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.
By: 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.
By: Julian M. Beach
The Microsoft v. Motorola cases in U.S. federal court and transformative developments in enforcement activity by the European Commission antitrust authorities have created a new dynamic intersection between competition and intellectual property law. This legal juncture focuses on a patent holder’s “reasonable and non-discriminatory,” or RAND, commitments to standard setting organizations.
By: Anton Chaevitch
This Note examines the history of the cy pres doctrine in U.S. and English law of charitable trusts. This doctrine is the main means by which a charitable trust can be altered if it has become illegal, impracticable, or impossible to maintain it in its original form. This Note finds that, while the doctrine was essentially identical in the United States and in England until well into the twentieth century, U.S. courts are now far more willing to alter charitable trusts than they were originally, while the approach of English courts has hardly changed.
By: Marco Y. Wong
This Note considers whether the U.S. Supreme Court’s current standard for regulating eyewitness identification evidence is satisfactory. Many years of research have shown that this type of evidence can be dangerous to our criminal justice system by contributing to mistaken convictions. Yet, because eyewitness evidence can be probative and is readily available, we tolerate its continued use so long as safeguards are in place to minimize risk of error.
By: Steven M. LoCascio
The Court of Justice of the European Union’s ruling in the 2014 Google Spain case has strengthened the “Right to Be Forgotten” considerably, as European citizens can now demand that search engines delete links to embarrassing information about them. This Note compares this process to the procedural safeguards found in defamation and privacy law in Western democracies, and argues that these safeguards are largely absent from the Google Spain review process.