American Law

The scale of the injustice inflicted upon the Chagossians by the UK is self-evident, but the legal route to redress opaque and fraught with difficulty, as highlighted by the House of Lords’ majority decision in R (Bancoult) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 2) [2008] UKHL 61; [2009] 1 AC 453. This disconnect is, nonetheless, inherent in the UK’s constitutional order. Constitutions outline the operation of governance orders, with constitutionalism injecting substantive principles into this picture, developing the relationship between the holders of power and those subject to its exercise. But not all constitutionalising projects are devoted to the same ends. The legal saga of the Chagossians throws into sharp relief the irreconcilability of the imperial constitutionalism which organised the relationship between the UK’s legal systems and those of the UK’s colonial territories in the nineteenth century and the principles which supposedly underpin the UK’s liberal democracy in the twenty-first. The latter developments encourage us to bridle at a system that excludes substantive protections for a colonised community against unchecked and oppressive exercises of executive power, even though the constitutional architecture of the British Empire was designed to achieve this very end. This article evaluates the Chagossians’ legal struggle in light of the hurdles that this legal order placed in their path, and the profound impact of their efforts to navigate these barriers to justice.

The last fifteen years have seen a proliferation of peace agreements. Some 50 percent of civil wars have terminated in peace agreements since 1990, more than in the previous two centuries combined, when only one in five resulted in negotiated settlement. Numerically, these settlements amount to over three hundred peace agreements in some forty jurisdictions. International standards have even begun to regulate peace agreements. United Nations guidelines, guidelines and recommendations of the secretary-general, and Security Council resolutions have all normatively addressed peace agreements: both the processes by which they are negotiated and their substance, particularly with relation to accountability for past human rights abuses.

This Article challenges the conventional wisdom that states are always free to choose whether to participate in multilateral regimes. International law often mandates multilateralism to ensure that state laws and practices are compatible with sovereign equality and joint stewardship. The Article maps mandatory multilateralism's domain, defines its requirements, and examines its application to three controversies: the South China Sea dispute, the United States’ withdrawal from the 2015 Paris Agreement, and Bolivia's case against Chile in the International Court of Justice.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact

THE END OF EMPIRE AND THE BIRTH OF NEOLIBERALISM (2018) (recalling that neoliberalism also relies on state regulation, including at the transnational governance level, but to restrict social redistribution with an economic constitutionalism that privileges investor rights).

This article examines the ongoing sovereignty dispute between the UK and Mauritius over the Chagos Islands, focusing on its historical, legal, and humanitarian aspects. It traces the islands' colonial detachment from Mauritius in 1965, the forced displacement of the Chagossian population to establish a US military base, and the resulting socio-economic hardships. Key legal milestones, including the 2019 ICJ advisory opinion declaring the UK's administration unlawful, are discussed alongside environmental and geopolitical issues, such as the establishment of a Marine Protected Area. The article highlights the Chagossians' persistent fight for justice and the broader implications for decolonization and international law.

1st ed., 1 (Mexico, 1999). The author stares that the total contents of NAFTA, from a judicial point of view, can be synthesized by saying that it procures uniformity or harmonization of the foreign trade policy of the three countries. The under lying idea is that free trade is an adequate means for the development of the nations. But neither the foreign trade policies nor the agreement itself are in reality free trade. Free trade is made up of international contracts chat rhe parries (persons or enterprises) enter into with the purpose of exchanging goods or services. The foreign trade policies and the free trade agreements, are co say, only che adequate scenographic for the true agents of free trade to act; these agents are the importers, exporters, manufacturers, the enterprises and entrepreneurs. NAFTA estab lishes conditions that supposedly should facilitate the entering into of international commercial contracts, such as exportations, importations, technology transfer contracts, licenses for use of trademarks and patents, goods transport contracts, and lending of services contracts. While this chapter was negotiated and elaborated in conformity with TRIPS," effective January 1, 1995,100 it is more precise.101 Articles 1714 to 1718 of the Agreement address the coercive application of trademark law, as indicated by their headings.102 The titles of the cited articles also feature brief commentaries on each of them in the following sections. This part of the chapter on intellectual property is important because treaties covering substantive protec tion of intellectual property rights would be unenforceable without an adequate legal frame work to remedy infringed rights.

Sri Lanka's civil war came to a bloody end in May 2009, with the defeat of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) by Sri Lanka's armed forces on a small strip of land in the island's northeast. The conflict, the product of long-standing tensions between Sri Lanka's majority Sinhalese and minority Tamils over the latter's rights and place in society, had begun in the mid-1980s and ebbed and flowed for some twenty-five years, leading to seventy to eighty thousand deaths on both sides. Government repression of Tamil aspirations was matched with ruthless LTTE tactics, including suicide bombings of civilian targets; and for many years the LTTE controlled large parts of northern and eastern Sri Lanka. 1 The war's last phase was characterized by a large intensification of violence from September 2008 through May 2009, as the government deployed an impressive military force against LTTE-controlled areas by land, sea, and air. In the process, its armed forces attacked civilians and hospitals, and denied food and medicines to the population; the LTTE, for its part, refused to let civilians under its control cross to the safety of government-held areas. As a result, thousands of civilians in the north were killed and injured, and hundreds of thousands displaced from their homes and eventually interned in government camps. Nearly the whole LTTE leadership was killed in the process. International organizations, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and foreign media had little access to the conflict zone. The government took credit internationally for its success in defeating a terrorist movement and won a huge majority in the next election. In such a scenario, is it possible to devise strategies to hold accountable those from both sides who committed abuses against civilians? This Current Development reviews the efforts by international actors to address accountability for the civilian deaths and injuries during the final stages of the conflict. It examines the reactions of the United Nations to the war; the work of the secretary-general's Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka; and the follow-up to that report culminating in the passage of a resolution on Sri Lanka in the Human Rights Council in March 2012. My goal is to highlight the key issues of international law that have arisen and the approach taken by the UN system. The Sri Lanka case shows that, despite an impressive set of legal norms in place to deal with atrocities such as those committed in this conflict, the infusion of politics and the limitations of unprepared institutions can seriously delay prospects for accountability.

Sri Lanka's civil war came to a bloody end in May 2009, with the defeat of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) by Sri Lanka's armed forces on a small strip of land in the island's northeast. The conflict, the product of long-standing tensions between Sri Lanka's majority Sinhalese and minority Tamils over the latter's rights and place in society, had begun in the mid-1980s and ebbed and flowed for some twenty-five years, leading to seventy to eighty thousand deaths on both sides. Government repression of Tamil aspirations was matched with ruthless LTTE tactics, including suicide bombings of civilian targets; and for many years the LTTE controlled large parts of northern and eastern Sri Lanka.

Over many years, decades even, little material progress was made on the Chagos case. It was when the discourse was elevated to the geopolitical level that the protagonists started to see eye to eye when the tête-à-tête started zeroing in towards the nexus of the issue. As the stakeholders reached a shared Mahanian view over Chagos and the Indian Ocean, the pathway towards a solution was set whereby each party gets what it is actually after.

Finding Donald Trump guilty formally has no impact on the electoral process; it will only be an argument raised by both sides in the campaign, according to American Studies Professor Michał Urbańczyk of the Adam Mickiewicz University's Faculty of Law and Administration in Poznań. A jury in a state court in Manhattan, New York, found former President Donald Trump guilty on 34 counts of falsifying business records in connection with concealing payment for porn actress Stormy Daniels' silence during the 2016 election campaign about their alleged sexual relationship. Prof. UAM Dr. Michał Urbańczyk of the Faculty of Law and Administration of the Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań stressed in an interview with PAP on Friday that Trump's finding of guilt "is indeed an absolutely new and unique situation". As he noted, "this is the first time a former President of the United States has been convicted, and it was convicted on criminal charges".

The present article is to examine the similarities and differences in the methods for regulating product liability issues within very differing countries, owing different legal culture and located in distant geographical areas, namely USA, Japan and Türkiye. These countries have a decisive economic influence on the world market that is growing with the effect of mass production worldwide. The USA was the cradle of product liability law, and now, it has spread to all countries. As a result of the global development and the national reception or adoption of existing legal solutions, a rich body of sources is available for a comparative analysis, which was the main research method used for preparing this work. This study analyses these above-mentioned adaptation processes. In addition, the analysis of these national regulations or legislative approaches may also provide insights into the future developments. The aim is to examine whether the additions made by the countries concerned to the law of another country can preserve the originality of their national law. Contrasting these product liability national regimes, this study scrutinizes how the chosen countries can maintain the originality of their national law during the adaptation of foreign legal solutions and phenomena.

This article provides a comprehensive reflection on the law and practice of adoption laws. The article aims to confirm the widespread rumor that it is difficult for foreigners to adopt a Tanzanian child. The article brings to the fore other salient features of the provisions of the Law of the Child Act, the Adoption of a Child Regulations, 2011 and the Foster Care Placement Regulation, 2012 and case laws previously unknown to many. The main conclusions drawn from the analysis point out that the popular belief is true: in practice, the overall framework governing the adoption of a child by foreigners and its underlying process is discouraging. The difficult part is the coordination of various stakeholders and the lengthy time allocated to reach the final goal. Additionally, the cumbersome legal procedure and the lack of legal knowledge of the officers entrusted with the process pose challenges.

Today, tax is one of the most important sources of government income, which plays an important role in providing public expenses. In addition, tax can be used by the government as the main tool of financial policies and ensuring social justice. On the other hand, in the process of tax recognition and collection, taxpayers are always There are influential factors in the tax system of the countries; therefore, respect of the taxpayers' rights by the relevant organization is one of the basic strategies and a condition for the success of the tax organization. The tax laws of Iran will help greatly. The main question is whether the legislators of Iran and the United States have recognized the rights of taxpayers? And what are the supposed rights for taxpayers in these countries? According to the available documents, the United States is the only country that has established modern and specialized laws in its tax law in relation to the rights of taxpayers, which is set as a suitable model for other countries. On the other hand, in Iran's tax laws, the rights of taxpayers have been dealt with in a general way, and there are scattered and inconsistent materials that can be examined. Therefore, the localization of the laws of other countries, especially the use of the tax laws of the United States, in Iran's tax laws, in order to protect the rights of taxpayers and As a result, it is suggested to improve the tax culture. The rights of taxpayers are mentioned in the tax authorities and tax dispute resolution bodies that constitute the country's tax system. In this article, only the rights of taxpayers are discussed by the tax administration.

(MAG), Colonel Meir Shamgar, appeared before a Knesset committee to discuss the Israel Defense Forces (IDF)'s duties in the areas under its control. Col. Shamgar had led the MAG Corps in the preparations in the event that a future war would find the army occupying beyond Israel's borders. 1 Col. Shamgar began his presentation 2 by stating: In terms of the legal background, our point of departure is that we have to respect both the fundamental pursuits of the State of Israel as its military forces begin to control an area that has been liberated by the IDF, and the rules of public international law that apply to the actions of any military in control of an area that was, until its entry, subject to the sovereignty of a foreign political entity.

The concept of sovereignty crystallized at a time when distances were large and self-sufficiency was the aspiration. Sovereignty coincided with notions of democracy, under the assumption of a perfect fit between the scope of sovereign authority and the affected stakeholders. This traditional view of sovereignty yields inefficient, inequitable and undemocratic consequences. This Article argues that in a densely populated and deeply integrated world, sovereignty should be conceptualized as a trusteeship not only toward a state's own citizens, but also toward humanity at large. Accordingly, sovereigns should be required to take into account other-regarding considerations when forming national policies that may have effects beyond their national jurisdiction, even absent specific treaty obligations. After grounding the trustee sovereignty concept on three distinct bases-the right to democratic participation, human rights, and the sovereign's power of exclusion-the Article identifies the minimal normative and procedural other-regarding obligations that arise from this concept and suggests that they are already embedded in several doctrines of international law that delimit the rights of sovereigns. The trustee sovereignty concept can explain the evolution of these doctrines and inspire the advent of new specific obligations.

Purpose: The ICC was established for the primary purpose of ensuring that the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole do not go unpunished and to contribute to the prevention of such crimes. Thus, this paper seeks to determine the possible deterrent effects of international crimes by the ICC through its investigations, prosecutions, sanctions and other activities. Methodology: The study adopted the doctrinal research method. Both primary and secondary sources like Statute, Case Law, textbooks, journals and internet are used. Finding: Finding reveals that the Court has not been effective in deterring and preventing international criminality due to lack of cooperation from States and lack of universal jurisdiction. Recommendation:  In order for the Court to effectively deter the commission of international crimes, there is need to alleviate the factors hindering the proper discharge of the Court’s functions like lack of cooperation from states, a stand...

We live in a world of legal pluralism, where a single act or actor is potentially regulated by multiple legal or quasi-legal regimes imposed by state, substate, transnational, supranational, and nonstate communities. Navigating these spheres of complex overlapping legal authority is inevitably confusing, and we cannot expect territorial borders to solve all the problems that arise because legal norms inevitably flow across such borders. At the same time, trying to create one universal set of legal rules is also often unsuccessful because the sheer variety of human communities and interests thwarts such efforts. Instead, we need an alternative jurisprudence, one that seeks to create or preserve spaces for productive interaction among multiple overlapping legal systems by developing procedural mechanisms, institutions, and practices that aim to manage, without eliminating, the legal pluralism we see around us. Such mechanisms, institutions, and practices can help mediate conflicts, and we may find that the added norms, viewpoints, and participants that are included actually produce better decision making, better adherence to those decisions by participants and non-participants alike, and ultimately better real-world outcomes. Global Legal Pluralism provides a broad synthesis across a variety of legal doctrines and academic disciplines and offers a novel conceptualization of law and globalization.

‌ ∴ Introduction ∴ ‌
The inception of artificial intelligence (AI) as a transformative force in modern society has presented novel challenges across various domains, particularly within the realm of intellectual property (IP) law. Traditionally, IP laws have been predicated on the notion that creativity and invention are inherently human attributes, thereby granting protection exclusively to works generated by human authors. However, the rapid evolution and sophistication of AI has alleviated the gap between human and machine-generated outputs, challenging the foundational principles upon which IP law is built. As AI systems increasingly demonstrate capabilities akin to human creativity, such as generating artworks, music, literature, and even innovative technological solutions, the question of ownership and protection of these AI-generated works becomes more pressing.
    Historically, the attribution of authorship in computer-generated outputs was straightforward; the person who legally utilized the computer system was considered the author. However, with AI's capacity to autonomously generate complex and creative works, this traditional approach to authorship is no longer adequate. AI’s role in the creation process varies from being a mere tool used by human creators to being an independent creator of works with minimal human intervention. As AI continues to develop and integrate into more aspects of society, the implications for IP law become increasingly complex and far-reaching.
    This paper seeks to explore these complexities and offer a comprehensive analysis of the ownership issues related to AI-generated works. The discussion delves into the theoretical underpinnings of IP law, the economic implications of AI innovations, and the potential need for legal reforms to address the challenges posed by non-human creators. By examining these issues, the article aims to provide clarity and propose solutions that balance the interests of creators, innovators, and society at large.
‌ ∴ Research Question ∴ ‌
The central research question guiding this study is: who owns the intellectual property rights to works generated by artificial intelligence? This question is further subdivided into several key inquiries:
    Can AI be recognized as the owner of the intellectual property it generates?
    If not, who should be considered the rightful owner of these AI-generated works—the developer, the user, or some other party?
    How do existing IP frameworks across different legal systems address or fail to address the issue of AI-generated works?
    What are the potential economic and commercial implications of the lack of clear ownership rights for AI-generated works?
    These questions are critical as they address the foundational elements of IP law and its application to emerging technologies. The resolution of these questions will have significant implications not only for legal theory but also for the practical aspects of innovation, investment, and the development of AI technologies.
‌ ∴ Research Hypothesis ∴ ‌
The research is grounded in the hypothesis that the ownership of AI-generated works should be legally recognized to promote innovation and economic growth. This hypothesis is based on the premise that recognizing ownership rights in AI-generated works is essential for several reasons:
    Incentivizing innovation: legal recognition of ownership rights is crucial for encouraging further investment in AI. Without such recognition, the risk of investing in AI may outweigh the potential rewards, leading to a slowdown in technological advancement.
    Economic Fairness: companies and individuals who invest significant resources into developing AI technologies should have their investments protected. If AI-generated works are not protected, these entities could face unfair competition from others who freely use their innovations without compensation.
    Legal Clarity: The current ambiguity in IP law regarding AI-generated works could lead to legal disputes and inconsistencies in court rulings. Establishing clear ownership rules will provide legal certainty and reduce the potential for litigation.
‌ ∴ Methodology & Framework, if Applicable ∴ ‌
This research adopts a comparative-doctrinal methodology to analyze the treatment of AI-generated works across different legal systems. The study is structured to explore both theoretical and practical dimensions of the issue, with a focus on how various jurisdictions are addressing—or failing to address—the ownership of AI-generated intellectual property.
    Comparative Analysis: The research begins with a comparative analysis of IP laws in several jurisdictions, including the United States, European Union, Japan, and others. By examining how different legal systems approach the question of AI-generated works, the study aims to identify commonalities, differences, and potential gaps in the current legal frameworks.
    Doctrinal Approach: The doctrinal approach involves a detailed examination of legal texts, case law, and statutes relevant to IP law and AI-generated works. This approach is essential for understanding how existing laws might be interpreted or adapted to address the new challenges posed by AI. The research critically analyzes legal doctrines such as authorship, originality, and creativity, assessing their applicability to AI-generated works.
    Economic and Investment Justifications: In addition to the legal analysis, the research also considers the economic and investment implications of recognizing or not recognizing ownership rights in AI-generated works. This aspect of the study involves an analysis of market trends, investment patterns in AI technologies, and the potential economic impact of different legal approaches to AI-generated works.
‌ ∴ Results & Discussion ∴ ‌
The analysis of AI-generated works under current intellectual property (IP) laws reveals a significant gap between the traditional legal frameworks and the challenges posed by emerging technologies. The results of this study indicate that existing IP laws are inadequate to address the complexities associated with works created by artificial intelligence, primarily because these laws are predicated on the notion of human authorship. The inability of traditional IP law to recognize non-human entities as creators or authors leads to significant ambiguity regarding the ownership and protection of AI-generated works.
    Ownership and Authorship of AI-Generated Works: One of the key findings of this paper is that the traditional concept of authorship, which ties the creation of a work to human ingenuity and effort, is becoming increasingly problematic in the context of AI-generated works. As AI systems become more autonomous in their creative processes, the distinction between human-created and machine-generated works blurs. This blurring raises the question of whether the law should adapt to recognize AI as a potential author or whether the law should continue to focus on the human elements in the creation process.
    It is shown that the British model, which grants ownership rights to the person who enables the operation of the AI, appears to be the most practical and effective approach. This model ensures that the entities investing in AI technology are rewarded for their contributions, thereby encouraging continued innovation and investment. By recognizing the programmer, user, or entity that initiates the AI’s creative process as the owner of the resulting work, the law can maintain the incentive structures that underpin IP law.
    However, this approach is challenging. One of the key concerns is determining the extent of human involvement necessary to claim ownership. In scenarios where the human contribution is minimal—such as merely pressing a button to initiate the AI’s creative process—there is debate over whether this should be sufficient to warrant full ownership rights. This issue becomes even more complex when considering AI systems that are capable of learning and evolving independently of human input, potentially leading to the creation of works without any direct human intervention.
    Economic and Legal Implications: The research also highlights the significant economic and legal implications of not adequately addressing the issue of AI-generated works. Without clear ownership rights, the economic incentives for investing in AI technologies could be undermined. Companies and individuals may be less willing to invest in AI research and development if the outputs of their investments are not protected under IP law. This could slow down technological progress and innovation, particularly in sectors where AI has the potential to drive significant advancements.
    Additionally, the lack of clear legal guidelines could lead to an increase in litigation as parties seek to assert ownership over AI-generated works. The study suggests that resolving disputes on a case-by-case basis, as seen in judicial practices like the "Nova Productions Ltd. v. Mazooma Games Ltd." case, may provide a temporary solution. However, relying on case-by-case adjudication is likely to result in inconsistent outcomes and could contribute to legal uncertainty, making it difficult for businesses to navigate the landscape of AI-generated works.
    Judicial and Legislative Approaches: The research finds that judicial approaches to AI-generated works have thus far been limited and inconsistent. Courts have generally been hesitant to extend IP protection to non-human creators, often defaulting to traditional interpretations of authorship and creativity. However, as AI becomes more prevalent, there is a growing recognition that legislative reform may be necessary to address these challenges systematically.
    One possible legislative approach is to create a new category of IP that specifically addresses AI-generated works. This new category could establish criteria for determin...

Since the early 1990s, the law and development paradigm of "violence against women" (VAW) has framed gender-based violence against girls and women, especially intimate partner violence, as a grave violation of women's fundamental human rights and a major public health problem demanding concerted state action. 1 Although women of all ages, social classes, races, religions, and ethnicities suffer gender-based violence, international law recognizes that VAW affecting indigenous women is compounded by historical and ongoing racial discrimination. 2 This essay signals the contributions of indigenous women and allied anthropologists in Latin America who draw on decolonial, intersectional, and locally-grounded feminist perspectives to consider the challenges of addressing gender-based VAW. Working in collaboration with different women's collectives and organizational processes, anthropologists have conceptualized and documented the specific, myriad forms of violence affecting indigenous women. In their efforts to understand the origins, nature, and effects of violence, and to envisage possible remedies, they privilege indigenous women's voices, standpoints, and demands for collective self-determination. In this way they have contributed to international legal debates on VAW by highlighting the shortcomings and limitations of universal constructs of women and gender violence.

On June 5, 2017, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) prohibited, inter alia, entry by nationals of Qatar and gave Qatari residents and visitors fourteen days to leave the country. The UAE alleged that its actions were a response to Qatar's failure to abide by its commitment to allow return of Gulf Cooperation Council diplomats to Doha, and its support of terrorism. In 2018, Qatar instituted proceedings against the UAE before the International Court of Justice (ICJ or the Court), alleging violations of the 1965 International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD or the Convention). The case raised difficult questions of treaty interpretation in a sensitive area of law and politics-the prohibition against racial discrimination. The Court's preliminary objections judgment addressed the distinction between discrimination based on nationality and on national origin, as well as whether the UAE measures represented de facto discrimination. Qatar made three main claims: first, that measures it described as the "expulsion order" and the "travel bans," by their express references to Qatari nationals, racially discriminated against Qataris on the basis of their current nationality; second, that the UAE imposed discriminatory measures on certain Qatari media corporations; and, third, that the UAE had engaged in indirect discrimination against persons of Qatari national origin by taking these measures. Qatar asserted that the Court had jurisdiction pursuant to Article 36, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Court and Article 22 of CERD. The ICJ first addressed its jurisdiction in its Order of July 23, 2018 indicating provisional measures. The Court concluded by a narrow 8-7 majority that the UAE measures were "capable of falling within the scope of CERD ratione materiae." At this point, the Court determined that it need not resolve the key interpretive question of whether "the expression 'national . . . origin' mentioned in Article 1, paragraph 1, of CERD, encompasses discrimination based on the 'present nationality' of the individual" (para. 27). However, Judges Tomka, Gaja, and Gevorgian appended a joint declaration emphasizing the difference between discrimination

1. This article focuses on the customary process as it operates with respect to generally applicable international rules. The process operates in a similar manner, but with a more restricted scope, with respect to rules of regional, or special, customary international law. For explanations of regional or special customary international law as it has, more or less, traditionally been understood, see Michael Akehurst, Custom as a

Collective action problems with public good characteristics such as climate change have important implications for international law. This note argues that behavioral insights from laboratory experiments, in which individuals engage in public goods games, can contribute to our understanding of how best to optimize the design of international legal regimes dealing with global public goods and common pool resources. Behavioral economics, to the extent it supplements or displaces rational-choice models in institutional design, may enable deeper and more sustained forms of international cooperation.

This article offers the first detailed history of the norm of treaty publication as it has evolved over the last century. Drawing on both public debates and archives of foreign ministries, it traces how, and why, secret treaties have persisted, even in liberal democracies. It challenges assumptions of ever-greater transparency over time, and complicates the associations made-by interwar reformers and international lawyers today-between the norm of treaty publication and ideals of legality in the international order. Concern about "secret diplomacy" in the wake of World War I found its clearest expression in opposition to "secret treaties." Left-leaning and internationalist groups believed that "publicity" of treaties 1 would advance the control of foreign policy by legislatures and citizens, and help construct a more peaceful international order, governed by law rather than power politics. Article 18 of the Covenant of the League of Nations gave expression to these ideals, by purporting to render the binding force of treaties entered into by any member of the League conditional on their registration by the League Secretariat. Registration in turn entailed publication to the world at large. 2 Article 18 was thus the first instantiation of a norm of treaty publication in international law (with "treaty" here understood in the general international law sense). 3 Admittedly, this norm was a relatively narrow one. It guaranteed only the

was a professor of Business Law at Harvard who publicly embraced his Jewish identity at a time when that was rare at American universities. Isaacs's academic work was organically bound to his multi-faceted activities in the American Jewish community. He endorsed a pluralist vision of America in which ethnic groups would retain their cultural identities while contributing to the American mosaic. Isaacs encouraged fuller observance of Jewish law and he also urged that Jewish law should adapt to changes in society. He believed that Zionism presented the opportunity to apply the principles of Jewish law to the industry and commerce of a modern state. Thus, he protested the classical Jewish Reform movement's rejection of the authority of Jewish law and Zionism. Isaacs's unique background and analysis of the history of Jewish law enabled him to craft a theory of legal development that suggested that legal systems advance in a cycle of successive periods of codification, literalistic interpretation, legal fictions, principle based interpretation, followed by legislation and re-codification. Isaacs believed that these modes of legal thinking also affected the substantive evolution of the law. Isaacs cultivated his cycle theory under the influences of Hegel, the Historical School of Jurisprudence, and the reaction against formalism in American law in the early twentieth century. However, he was also a defender of the authority of Jewish law and a possible motivation for his work was a desire to refute the arguments of biblical critics. Isaacs's attempt to forge a synthesis among Jewish law, Anglo-American law and society is a remarkable example of fruitful intellectual cross-fertilization. *

rriREATlES between nations on commercial matters belong to that part •*• of International Law which has withstood the gruelling test of political upheavals more successfully than any other part. Britain's treaty with Portugal, embodying terms of alliance as well as commerce, dates from 1373, and is still in force. Among purely commercial treaties still valid today several date back to the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Others have been revised, or replaced by new treaties. The term "Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation" became current in the nineteenth century, when countries wished to cover by treaty not only purely commercial and shipping matters, but also the rights of their nationals with regard to residence and business activity in the territory of other states. These comprehensive commercial treaties are distinguished in international law from more limited purely commercial treaties, such as trade agreements, which generally deal only with trade transactions, often merely a certain line of trade. There is no fixed rule, or even general practice, regarding the duration of Treaties of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation 1. Some of these have no time limit, others are terminable at any time, or after notice, or subject to revision upon notice. Since the beginning of this century, it has been general British practice to stipulate in commercial treaties for an express right of denunciation 2. The most recent British commercial treaty, with the Sultan of Muscat and Oman, has a duration of fifteen years, with a proviso that it will continue in force thereafter from year to year, unless a year's notice is given. A recent United States treaty,. with Italy, has a duration of ten years, with a similar proviso for continuation from year to year. Considering the variety of commercial interests to be covered by treaty, it is understandable that there is no hard and fast design for the contents of commercial treaties. However, as an American writer on the law of commercial treaties put it, "some basic provisions have come to be so regularly inserted in treaties of this kind that their absence from the term of a particular bilateral treaty might be cause for surprise" 3. One of the main questions to be determined by such a treaty is 1. Treaties of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation will be referred to hereafter, for the sake of brevity, as Commercial Treaties. 2. See, with regard to British treaty practice, Sir Arnold McNair. 'The Law of Treaties",

The global agricultural sector is under immense strain, and it faces a set of unparalleled challenges in the twenty-first century, worsened by the accelerating threats of climate change, biodiversity loss, soil degradation, and increasing concerns with regard to food security. Various countries have thereby sought to establish legal frameworks aimed at promoting sustainable agricultural practices, with particular emphasis on organic farming and agroecology. While both these approaches share the overarching objective of mitigating environmental damage while ensuring the long-term sustainability and productivity of food systems, they diverge significantly in terms of their scope and implementation.

This research proposal seeks to explore a fundamental issue: How do the legal frameworks for organic farming and agroecology in the United States, France, and Japan compare in terms of their scope, implementation, and effectiveness, in fostering sustainable agricultural systems?

The working hypothesis is that France’s legal framework is more effective at integrating agroecological principles into its agricultural policy, largely owing to its multi-tiered regulatory structure, and relatively more assertive enforcement mechanisms, as compared to the frameworks found in the United States and Japan. It is hypothesised that France offers stronger institutional support, and a more comprehensive range of financial incentives; and it also better facilitates stakeholder engagement in the policy-making process, ultimately leading to a more integrated and effective approach to sustainable agricultural practices.

The Brazilian-style impeachment originates largely from the foundations of the U.S. constitutionalist movement, which reconstructed this originally English institution, giving it, for the first time, political contours instead of the penal nature that accompanied it in its origins. It was on these new molds, provided by the Philadelphia Convention to the institution of impeachment, that Brazil built, in 1824, still under the mantle of imperialism, a similar model of accountability for holders of public office. This model primarily aimed to protect public order and the Constitution from the misuse of the power conferred by public offices, by removing officeholders from their duties.

This study seeks to explain how the mechanics of impeachment work in Brazil and in the United States, highlighting similarities and distinctions between these two different methods, based on an analysis of the opinion issued by then-Supreme Federal Court Justice Carlos Velloso in the judgment of Mandado de Segurança No. 21.623-9.

It is important to clarify that the case in question involved a mandamus filed by the then-President of the Republic, Fernando Collor de Mello, against the then-President of the Supreme Federal Court, Octavio Gallotti. Collor alleged that his right to a full defense had been violated by the respondent, who had supposedly “violated the petitioner’s clear and established legal right to due process of law and to the consequent full defense with the means and resources inherent to it” by denying evidence requested by the accused, setting a deadline for final arguments before the conclusion of the evidence production phase, and refusing the “claim of recusal and disqualification of several senators from acting as judges in his impeachment process.”

The most controversial aspect was the request for the disqualification of the senators, based on the argument that some had preemptively expressed judgments to the press, while others, being alternate senators summoned by the defendant to serve as ministers of state, had an interest in his conviction, as it would allow them to continue in their positions. The recusal of senators who participated in the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry that investigated the crimes of responsibility committed by the defendant was also requested. On the occasion, the full court acknowledged the request but ultimately denied the Mandado de Segurança on the merits.

The post-1945 legal order, whatever its deficiencies, has been associated with a certain stability in the relations among states. Under that legal order, constraints have limited territorial claims and the methods by which states pursue them. International law and its institutions do not provide support for the separation of Crimea from Ukraine or its annexation to Russia. Whether the international legal order will prove over time to operate as a constraint on the consolidation or durability of these acts remains to be tested.

How could it have befallen that this paragon was never tendered appointment to the Supreme Court of the United States?" asked Charles Wyzanski. C. Wyzanski, Learned Hand, in C. WYZANSKI, WHEREAS-A JUDGE'S PREMISES 79, 89 (1965). In his introduction to the Harvard Law Review's 1947 tribute to Hand, Felix Frankfurter wrote: "That Hand was never chosen must surely serve those, if any there be, who seek to be chosen and those who are there, as a temptation to reflection on the caprices of fortune." F. Frankfurter, Judge Learned Hand, 60 HARV. L. REV. 325, 329 (1947). In fact, it was so clear that Hand deserved the nod for the Supreme Court that many writing on him felt compelled to tell the story of his poor luck.

As a 'general principle', good faith forms part of the sources of international law. Still not widely examined in relation to rights and obligations, the aim here is to demonstrate the specific characteristics of the principle. In general, international law rules such as pacta sunt servanda, abuse of rights, estoppel and acquiescence and the negotiation of disputes are grounded, to some extent, in good faith. In treaty law, good faith has various manifestations from the time prior to signature through to interpretation. These are outlined here. The article argues that good faith acts to mediate the effects of States' rights in international law, in order to achieve acceptable results when competing interests exist. Fundamentally, good faith is a limitation of State sovereignty, albeit one that is necessary, as it protects other States and their trust and reliance in international law.