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.
Transatlantic (F)RANDs and Converging Standards: Finding Balance Between Jurisdictions in International Standard SettingBy: 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.
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.
Convicting with Our Eyes Open: Regulation of Eyewitness Identification in the United States and England and WalesBy: 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.
Forcing Europe to Wear the Rose-Colored Google Glass: The “Right to Be Forgotten” and the Struggle to Manage Compliance Post Google SpainBy: 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.
The European Court of Justice’s final decision in Kadi II—Yassin Abdullah Kadi’s challenge in Europe to his designation as an international terrorist financier—has stimulated significant discussion on the relationship between European and international law. Less attention has been paid to the Kadi II’s correlate in U.S. courts, Kadi v. Geithner, decided in the D.C. Circuit. This Note considers the impact of Kadi’s legal challenges in the United States and Europe from the perspective of U.S. counterterrorism policy.
A norm prohibiting the complicity of one state in the internationally wrongful conduct of another state is a recognized part of customary international law, and the norm is also contained in many international treaties. This Note will explore the circumstances in which courts have upheld or declined jurisdiction over complicity claims, relying on recent international and domestic cases that arose in the context of the U.S. extraordinary rendition program.