Search

The article discusses the International Criminal Court's (ICC's) issuance of a judgement in the 2014 case Prosecutor v. Katanga which deals with international criminal laws, criminal defendant Germain Katanga, and crimes against humanity. According to the article, the court outlines policies to improve prosecutorial outcomes in cases involving sexual and gender-based crimes. War crime litigation and the Rome Statute are mentioned, along with the ICC's jurisdiction and sexual slavery laws.

The article focuses on legality of metadata collection in the U.S. under the U.S PATRIOT Act. Topics include the legal justification for the investigation of Americans' private telephone records, the data collection program implemented by the U.S. National Security Administration under U.S. President Barack Obama, and if such practices are a violation of privacy.

Provides information on the U.S. court case Mid-West Paper Products Co. versus Continental Group Inc. which deals with the challenge posed by the standing of purchasers from non-conspirators on price-fixing conspiracy. Allegations against Mid-West Paper; Argument raised by the plaintiffs against the defendant's conspiracy; Conclusion that the court reached for the case.

Argues that individuals should be able to invoke fifth amendment protection for both personal and organizational documents. Rationales invoked by the U.S. Supreme Court to support its distinction between personal and organizational documents; Emphasis on property rights; Ways in which the act of producing documents may fall within the category of testimonial evidence.

The article focuses on Congressional Oversight and Presidential Subpoenas between Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP. Topics include examines that the Court held that congressional subpoenas of the President's private papers implicate special separation of powers concerns that must be weighed in evaluating the subpoenas' validity.

The article focuses on reassessing the U.S. policies to secure nuclear arsenals worldwide. Accordingly, the paper considers the questions facing policymakers charged with designing a strategy to secure nuclear weapons and material worldwide from theft and use by terrorists. In tackling these questions, the paper proceeds in five parts such as the outlining of U.S. policy for preventing state behaviors that could facilitate nuclear terrorism, assessing the results of this policy, concluding that it has failed to produce adequate levels of fissile material security, exploring the reasons for this lack of progress, and the consideration of a range of potential options for creating stronger incentives for states to secure their nuclear stockpiles.

The article focuses on the federal administrative approach to redistricting reform in the U.S. Accordingly, the paper advocates the adoption of limited, selective federal oversight of congressional redistricting plans created by partisan legislatures, with an eye toward encouraging the use of independent redistricting commissions. Moreover, the paper also suggests the creation of a federal agency authorized to review partisan redistricting at the request of a substantial minority of a state's legislature, while providing a safe harbor for states that use independent agencies to redraw district lines.

Trademark scholars widely agree that our current system for evaluating what rights a trademark owner should have over others’ uses of their (or similar) marks is broken. Courts too readily find too many acts to be infringing even when they’re harmless or actually useful to consumers. Trademark practitioners, meanwhile, while often quite approving of broad interpretations of trademark law, widely recognize that our trademark registration system has significant practical problems. What we haven’t done is try to unite concerns over the expansion of trademark rights with concerns over the registration system and explain their relationship to each other. Registration offers some of the most challenging puzzles in trademark law. Consider: If the mark REDSKINS for a football team is disparaging and its trademark registration therefore invalid, can trademark law nonetheless protect the team against unauthorized uses of the term? This question became more than theoretical when a district court recently upheld the invalidation of the REDSKINS registrations, a ruling now on appeal and likely headed to the Supreme Court. Or suppose the PTO determines that, in the abstract, an applied-for trademark is likely to cause confusion with another previously registered mark. I f the applicant decides to use the mark anyway, without a registration, should the PTO’s determination bind a federal court asked to determine whether the new mark, as actually used, causes confusion with that previously registered mark? The Supreme Court just decided this issue in a way that generated large-scale uncertainty about the new relationship between registration and infringement liability. These questions, and a number of others, highlight the need for renewed attention to trademark registration as such. Registration provides opportunities to limit trademark’s current structurelessness. Specifically, registration works best in a system that doesn’t aim to search out and extirpate every possible instance of confusion, instead recognizing multiple reasons that we might avoid fact-intensive confusion inquiries and either ban or allow certain market behaviors. Moreover, maintaining the registration system requires the investment of substantial government and private resources, which is currently almost irrelevant at the enforcement stage. Applicants and the PTO spend much time and effort crafting the equivalent of an exquisitely detailed origami crane; rather than considering the details, courts then ask the equivalent of “is this paper folded? and move on. Not only is this a waste of resources, but it also leads courts to misunderstand the proper scope of a registration. There are a number of changes, ranging from small tweaks to sweeping statutory reforms and the rejection of the Supreme Court’s ahistorical conclusion that registration is a matter of factual accident rather than an important distinction between types of marks, that could improve the law to the benefit of trademark owners and nonowners alike. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses various freedom of speech regulations in America as of June 2014, focusing on the U.S. Supreme Court's rulings in the legal cases New York Times Co. v. Sullivan and New York Times Co. v. United States (Pentagon Papers) which deal with the First Amendment to the nation's Constitution and civil damages for alleged defamation. Prior restraints, democratic legitimacy, and freedom of expression rights in America are mentioned. U.S. government practices are also examined.

The article discusses state executive offices and appointments for state attorneys general in the U.S. as of January 2014, focusing on a push for the establishment of additional state unitary executive systems in which a single official presides over the entire executive branch. Executive nominations, legislative confirmations, and executive removal power are mentioned, along with the U.S. Constitution's Vesting Clause and the arguments set forth in the "Federalist Papers."

The article discusses the U.S. Supreme Court's (USSC's) ruling in the 2013 case Decker v. Northwest Environmental Defense Center (NEDC) which deals with the U.S. Clean Water Act (CWA) and judicial deference for an American government agency's interpretation of its own regulations in the aftermath of the USSC's judgment in the case Auer v. Robbins. According to the article, the NEDC filed a lawsuit under the CWA's citizen-suit provision against various logging and paper-product companies.

The article discusses the court case, Ibrahim Ali versus Michael B. Mukasey, in which the Seventh Circuit gave in to a statutory interpretation put forth by the Board of Immigration Appeals in the U.S. The court held that an immigration court could consider additional evidence beyond the charging papers and judgment of conviction. This decision countermanded conflicting Seventh Circuit precedents, elucidating that administrative discretion belongs to the agency rather than to the court.

The article focuses on the vision of Publius, a collective pseudonym for the authors of the publication "Federalist Papers" namely Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay. It discusses the way Publius defends a Constitution that focuses on the creation of power that the U.S. government lacked during the Articles of Confederation period, but taking into considerations the tyranny that it may bring. It is noted that a system containing "auxiliary precautions" against tyrannical usurpations is created. The vertical competition model and the guard dog model proposed by Publius are presented, as well as the features and implications of such models.

The article discusses the extraterritorial constitution and the interpretive relevance of international law in the U.S. Accordingly, the paper proceeds in three parts. The first part discusses the state of the law following United States versus Verdugo-Urquidez and the contemporary significance of the question of extraterritorial application of the Constitution. The second part situates the impracticable and anomalous standard in historical context, drawing on the nineteenth-century use of international law to identify powers inherent in sovereignty. The third part argues that in the context of the war on terrorism, it is sensible to look to international humanitarian law to guide the inquiry into when certain rights apply extraterritorially.

The article discusses the ministerial exemption for religious employers in the U.S. Accordingly, the paper proceeds in five parts. The first part describes the history of the ministerial exception. The second part provides details of the constitutional bases for the exception under both Religion Clauses, and argues that the expressive association right further justifies the ministerial exception even though the case law has not yet recognized this rationale. The third part evaluates the primary duties test used to trigger the ministerial exception. The fourth part encourages adoption of a deferential primary duties test to cure these constitutional defects. The last part responds to potential criticisms of a deferential primary duties test.

The article focuses on the issues of vaccine law in the U.S. Accordingly, the paper suggests that vaccine law should be distinguished between two kinds of necessity such as the medical necessity and practical necessity. Those vaccines classified as medically necessary would be those that are the only known viable defenses against diseases taking hold in a community. However, practically necessary vaccines are those to which there are alternatives, but which alternatives are, in practice, not used by a significant number of people.

The article discusses the internationalization of copyright in the U.S. Accordingly, the paper proceeds in three parts. The first part is the discussion of the details of the internationalization of copyright which provides examples of domestic legislation passed in response to international obligations and standards, and canvasses cases that have taken stock of this new globalized copyright. The second part turns to the handful of scholars who have responded to the new international side of copyright. The third part introduces a new method of judicial review that seeks to bridge the gaps and to respond to what may be the greatest danger of not substantively reviewing domestic law purporting to comply with international obligations.

The article explores the two important concepts such as morality and justice inspired by the statue in Cambridge Common in the U.S. In its vivid depiction of a wealthy individual who finds himself in a position to help a poor individual, the statue raises fundamental questions of morality and obligation toward others. In its reminder of the impoverishment of some groups relative to other groups in society, the statue also draws on deep conceptions of justice and inequality between classes. Moreover, the paper investigates how morality and justice affect the choice of legal professions, arguing that legal career choices should involve good faith efforts to serve both of these noble goals.

Analyzes the application of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the case Fisher v. United States for cases concerning the use of subpoena duces tecum and the rights of criminal defendants in the U.S. Background on the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court; Discussion on the concept of implicit authentication; Examination of the first amendment protection for personal paper.

The initial version of The Forms and Limits of Adjudication was circulated to the members of the Legal Philosophy Discussion Group at Harvard Law School in 1957. A revised and expanded version was prepared in 1959 for use in Mr. Fuller's course in Jurisprudence and for discussion at the Round Table on Jurisprudence at the 1959 meeting of the Association of American Law Schools. Further refinements resulted in a third version for classroom use in 1961 ; I have followed that version here. The editing has consisted principally of minor grammatical corrections and changes of punctuation; the addition of several paragraphs in Part VI, section 2 (see note 22) ; and the identification, where possible, of important references and sources, which are inserted in brackets. I am deeply grateful to Mrs. Marjorie Fuller, who made it possible for me to examine the library and private papers of her late husband. The complete essay has never before been published, but portions of it were included in two articles by Mr. Fuller: Adjudication and the Rule of Law, 54 PROC. AM. Soc'Y INT'L L. I (1960) and Collective Bargaining and the Arbitrator, 1963 Wis. L. REv. 3. Mr. Fuller also granted permission for the printing of a substantial part of the essay in AMERICAN COURT SYSTEMS: READINGS IN JUDICIAL PROCESS AND BEHAVIOR (S. Goldman & A. Sarat eds. i978). That Mr. Fuller never published the entire essay is due, I believe, to a plan he formulated in 1958 or 1959 to expand it into a book of the same title. By 1960 the projected volume had become The Principles of Social Order, an essay in eunomics--that is, in Mr... [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Focuses on the Constitutional Law in the United States. State Subsidies Favoring Local Business; Term of the U.S. Supreme Court on Death Penalty; Fifth Amendment Protection of Private Papers.

Presents information on several books on law and legislation. 'The Psychiatrist in the Courtroom: Selected Papers of Bernard L. Diamond,' edited by Jacques M. Quen; 'Child Witnesses: Fragile Voices in the American Legal System,' by Lucy S. McGough; 'From Newton's Sleep,' by Joseph Vining; 'Speaking of Race, Speaking of Sex,' by Henry Louis Gates Jr., Anthony P. Griffin, Donald C. Lively, Robert C. Post, William B. Rubenstein and Nadine Strossen.

In cities across the country, artists, protesters, and businesses are using light projections to turn any building’s facade into a billboard without the owner’s consent. Examples are legion: “Believe Women” on a New York City Best Buy; a scantily clad male model on the side of an apartment building; a nativity scene on the Los Angeles chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union. Two courts have considered claims by owners seeking to stop these projections under theories of trespass and nuisance. In each case, the court held that because light is intangible and the projections resulted in no economic harm to the property, the common law affords no relief. This Article argues that property law can and should authorize projection claims by private owners. It traces the history of property tort claims involving light, explaining how the law developed to emphasize economic and physical harm and identifying the forgotten strands of doctrine that nonetheless support liability for targeted projections. Projections are forms of appropriation: not only do they disrupt the owner’s use and control, but they also cause dignity and privacy harms by exploiting the owner’s realty toward unwanted ends. Protections for these noneconomic interests have long been parasitic on trespass and nuisance, but the light projections expose a gap between the two forms of action. This Article argues that, despite hurdles in both nuisance and First Amendment law, tort law can mend this gap by more flexibly defining harm to encompass activity without economic or physical consequences that would nonetheless be perceived as harmful by ordinary citizens, particularly if intentional and limited in independent utility. More generally, the projection cases teach broader lessons about the development of the property torts, the concept of appropriative harm, the relationship between privacy and property, and the nature of property itself. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]