Subjects -> LAW (Total: 1528 journals)
    - CIVIL LAW (36 journals)
    - CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (51 journals)
    - CORPORATE LAW (89 journals)
    - CRIMINAL LAW (27 journals)
    - CRIMINOLOGY AND LAW ENFORCEMENT (153 journals)
    - FAMILY AND MATRIMONIAL LAW (23 journals)
    - INTERNATIONAL LAW (189 journals)
    - JUDICIAL SYSTEMS (22 journals)
    - LAW (929 journals)
    - LAW: GENERAL (9 journals)

INTERNATIONAL LAW (189 journals)                     

Showing 1 - 190 of 190 Journals sorted alphabetically
Acta Juridica Hungarica     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 6)
African Journal of International and Comparative Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 19)
African Yearbook of International Law Online : Annuaire Africain de droit international Online     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 10)
Afrilex     Open Access   (Followers: 6)
Agora International Journal of Juridical Sciences     Open Access   (Followers: 3)
AJIL Unbound     Open Access  
American Business Law Journal     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 25)
American Journal of International Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 64)
American University International Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 11)
Annuaire Français de Droit International     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 1)
Annual Review of Law and Social Science     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 14)
Annual Survey of International & Comparative Law     Open Access   (Followers: 15)
Antitrust Chronicle - Competition Policy International     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 6)
Anuario Colombiano de Derecho Internacional     Open Access  
Anuario de Derechos Humanos     Open Access  
Anuario Español de Derecho Internacional     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 1)
Anuario español de derecho internacional privado     Partially Free  
Anuario Iberoamericano de Derecho Internacional Penal     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Anuario Mexicano de Derecho Internacional     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Arbitration International     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 22)
ASA Bulletin     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 5)
Asia-Pacific Journal of Ocean Law and Policy     Hybrid Journal  
Asian International Arbitration Journal     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 4)
Asian Journal of Comparative Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 11)
Asian Journal of International Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 17)
Australasian Policing     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 6)
Australian International Law Journal     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 22)
Australian Journal of Asian Law     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 4)
Austrian Review of International and European Law Online     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 6)
Baltic Yearbook of International Law Online     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 4)
Belli Ac Pacis : Jurnal Hukum Internasional     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Berkeley Journal of International Law     Open Access   (Followers: 23)
Boletin Mexicano de Derecho Comparado     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
Boston College International & Comparative Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 13)
Brigham Young University International Law and Management Review     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
British Yearbook of International Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 35)
Brooklyn Journal of International Law     Open Access   (Followers: 5)
California Western International Law Journal     Open Access   (Followers: 5)
Canadian Yearbook of International Law / Annuaire canadien de droit international     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 3)
Cape Town Convention Journal     Open Access  
Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 5)
Chicago Journal of International Law     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 8)
Chinese Journal of Environmental Law     Hybrid Journal  
Chinese Journal of Global Governance     Open Access   (Followers: 3)
Chinese Journal of International Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 24)
Climate law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 5)
Columbia Journal of Transnational Law     Open Access   (Followers: 9)
Common Law World Review     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 18)
Commonwealth Law Bulletin     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 19)
Comparative and International Law Journal of Southern Africa     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 4)
Comparative Strategy     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 10)
Computer Law Review International     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 1)
Contemporary Security Policy     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 19)
Cornell International Law Journal     Open Access   (Followers: 5)
Corporate Governance An International Review     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 18)
Criterios     Open Access  
Denver Journal of International Law and Policy     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 5)
Deusto Journal of Human Rights     Open Access  
Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law     Open Access   (Followers: 17)
European Business Law Review     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 16)
European Company Law     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 12)
European Foreign Affairs Review     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 34)
European Journal for Security Research     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 1)
European Journal of International Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 235)
European Journal of Migration and Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 38)
European Labour Law Journal     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 17)
European Political Science     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 40)
European Property Law Journal     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 6)
Fordham International Law Journal     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 21)
Foreign Policy Bulletin     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 6)
Frontiers of Law in China     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 2)
Georgetown Journal of International Law     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 13)
Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law     Open Access   (Followers: 4)
Global Jurist     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 7)
Global Justice : Theory Practice Rhetoric     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Harvard International Law Journal     Free   (Followers: 51)
Houston Journal of International Law     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 5)
ICSID Review : Foreign Investment Law Journal     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 12)
Indian Journal of International Law     Hybrid Journal  
Inter: Revista de Direito Internacional e Direitos Humanos da UFRJ     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Intergenerational Justice Review     Open Access  
International & Comparative Law Quarterly     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 261)
International Area Studies Review     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 3)
International Commentary on Evidence     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 1)
International Community Law Review     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 11)
International Comparative Jurisprudence     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
International Human Rights Law Review     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 26)
International Journal for Court Administration     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
International Journal for the Semiotics of Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 6)
International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 4)
International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 26)
International Journal of Discrimination and the Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 8)
International Journal of Evidence and Proof     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 12)
International Journal of Information Privacy, Security and Integrity     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 27)
International Journal of Language & Law     Open Access   (Followers: 3)
International Journal of Law in Context     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 17)
International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 62)
International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 20)
International Journal of Nuclear Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 4)
International Journal of Political Economy     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 17)
International Journal of Private Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 10)
International Journal of Public Law and Policy     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 11)
International Journal of Refugee Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 39)
International Journal of Transitional Justice     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 14)
International Law: Revista Colombiana de Derecho Internacional     Open Access   (Followers: 3)
International Negotiation     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 15)
International Organizations Law Review     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 23)
International Planning Studies     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 7)
International Review of Law     Open Access   (Followers: 6)
International Review of the Red Cross     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 12)
International Security     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 79)
Israel Law Review     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 2)
Italian Yearbook of International Law Online     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 4)
Ius Gentium     Open Access   (Followers: 4)
Jerusalem Review of Legal Studies     Hybrid Journal  
Journal of Biosecurity Biosafety and Biodefense Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 3)
Journal of European Competition Law & Practice     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 22)
Journal of Genocide Research     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 14)
Journal of International Dispute Settlement     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 17)
Journal of International Economic Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 33)
Journal of International Humanitarian Legal Studies     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 8)
Journal of International Political Theory     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 18)
Journal of Law, Policy and Globalization     Open Access   (Followers: 18)
Journal of Liberty and International Affairs     Open Access   (Followers: 4)
Journal of Migration and Refugee Issues, The     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 34)
Journal of Private International Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 10)
Journal of the History of International Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 16)
Journal on the Use of Force and International Law     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 16)
Korean Journal of International and Comparative Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 2)
Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 21)
Legal Issues of Economic Integration     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 13)
Leiden Journal of International Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 37)
LEX     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
London Review of International Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 8)
Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 9)
Loyola University Chicago International Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 4)
Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 25)
Maryland Journal of International Law     Open Access   (Followers: 3)
Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law Online     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 10)
Melbourne Journal of International Law     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 17)
Michigan State International Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 6)
Netherlands International Law Review     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 20)
Netherlands Yearbook of International Law     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 15)
New Zealand Journal of Public and International Law     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 13)
New Zealand Yearbook of International Law, The     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 9)
Nordic Journal of International Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 17)
Northwestern Journal of International Human Rights     Open Access   (Followers: 5)
Northwestern Journal of International Law & Business     Open Access   (Followers: 5)
Notre Dame Journal of International & Comparative Law     Open Access   (Followers: 5)
Oromia Law Journal     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Pace International Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 8)
Palestine Yearbook of International Law Online     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 7)
Penn State Journal of Law & International Affairs     Open Access   (Followers: 4)
Polar Journal     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 5)
Public and Private International Law Bulletin     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
Recht der Werkelijkheid     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 2)
Review of European Community & International Environmental Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 7)
Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 7)
Revista de Derecho de la Unión Europea     Open Access   (Followers: 4)
Revista de Direito Brasileira     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Revista de la Secretaría del Tribunal Permanente de Revisión     Open Access  
Revista Tribuna Internacional     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Revista Videre     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
Revue québécoise de droit international / Quebec Journal of International Law / Revista quebequense de derecho internacional     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
Santa Clara Journal of International Law     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
South African Yearbook of International Law     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 2)
South Carolina Journal of International Law and Business     Open Access   (Followers: 4)
Stanford Journal of International Law     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 11)
Syracuse Journal of International Law and Commerce     Open Access   (Followers: 3)
TDM Transnational Dispute Management Journal     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 6)
Texas International Law Journal     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 5)
Tilburg Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 5)
Transnational Environmental Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 5)
Uniform Law Review     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 3)
University of Miami Inter-American Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Utrecht Journal of International and European Law     Open Access   (Followers: 17)
Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law     Free   (Followers: 5)
Virginia Journal of International Law     Free   (Followers: 4)
Washington University Global Studies Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 11)
Wisconsin International Law Journal     Free   (Followers: 4)
World Journal of VAT/GST Law     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 1)
World Trade and Arbitration Materials     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 7)
Yale Journal of International Law     Free   (Followers: 18)
Yearbook of International Environmental Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 12)
Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 8)
Yearbook of Polar Law Online     Hybrid Journal  
Zeitschrift für Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 12)
Zeitschrift für das Privatrecht der Europäischen Union - European Union Private Law Review / Revue de droit privé de l'Union européenne     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 1)
Zeitschrift für öffentliches Recht     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 17)
Zeitschrift für Zivilprozess International     Hybrid Journal  

           

Similar Journals
Journal Cover
Washington University Global Studies Law Review
Number of Followers: 11  

  This is an Open Access Journal Open Access journal
ISSN (Print) 1546-6981
Published by Washington University in St. Louis Homepage  [4 journals]
  • Beyond Minimalism and Usurpation: Designing Judicial Review to Control the
           Mis-enforcement of Socioeconomic Rights

    • Authors: Pedro Felipe De Oliveira Santos
      Abstract: Two opposing arguments–judicial restraint and judicial activism–have polarized the constitutional law debate on the judicial enforcement of socio-economic rights in developing countries. The former argues that judicial under-enforcement would be preferable to judicial over- enforcement of rights, so that courts should adopt weak remedies when implementing policies and legislation. The latter argues the contrary, prescribing strong review as an efficient mechanism of enforcement. Drawing on empirical research on the right to health care-related litigation in Brazil, this work presents evidence that constitutional law has fallen into a false dichotomy. Neither of these two arguments offers a complete account of the core of the case of the judicial implementation of socio-economic rights: the mis-enforcement of rights, a scenario in which the protection of a target group causes unintended distributive and aggregate effects that increase overall inequality. As the empirical findings demonstrate, under the Brazilian institutional arrangements, with characteristics shared by other developing countries, mis-enforcement may arise from both under- and over-enforcement of rights. For this reason, the level of review alone is an insufficient criterion to build a universal formula of judicial decision-making in socio-economic rights- related litigation. Besides, two overlooked structural factors may be the root of the mis-enforcement issue: a litigation system focused on individualized lawsuits, as well as a formalist rights-based legal reasoning adopted by courts, which disregards institutional arrangements and costs of compliance with rulings. In order to reorient the debate, this paper argues that judicial enforcement of socio-economic rights is legitimate as long as it commits to 1) enriching the political process, mainly by pushing issues back to political players with correct incentives of action and institutional adherence, and 2) fixing minor counter-majoritarian issues related to the distribution of limited public resources, mainly by guaranteeing basic needs to the most disadvantaged groups. Instead of adopting a universal formula of judicial review, this dual purpose requires courts dealing with socio-economic rights implementation to enhance their actual institutional capacities in order to build case-by-case remedies that 1) take into account issues more likely to arise in this kind of litigation, such as types of needs and recipients, and distributive and aggregate impacts of rulings; as well as 2) promote political engagement, institutional accountability, and democratic representativeness.
      PubDate: Sun, 20 Oct 2019 16:48:04 PDT
       
  • On the Judicialization of Health

    • Authors: Ana Santos Rutschman
      Abstract: The provision of health care has long been at the forefront of domestic and international debates, philosophical inquiries, and political agendas. A growing body of legal scholarship has added to the debate by examining the role of judicial review in the context of health-related litigation. What role, if any, should courts play in compelling the provision of health care or in furthering access to potentially life-saving medicines'This question intersects with multiple strands of the law. For instance, it has an institutional component that interrogates the function(s) of courts within systems of checks and balances. It ties into constitutional design choices, as the right to health is expressly recognized by some national constitutions while others are silent on the matter. And, perhaps more fundamentally, it invites us to revisit our notions of fairness and distributive justice in a world of soaring drug and health care costs.Judge Santos’ timely piece, Beyond Minimalism and Usurpation, richly interweaves constitutional law analysis and empirical data on health-related litigation in Brazil to ponder these issues. Brazil, it should be noted, is not only a country where the right to health is constitutionally protected, but also an epicenter of litigation surrounding socio-economic rights and one of the global leaders in the access to medicines movement.In the Article, Judge Santos proposes that we look beyond what he calls “the American models of judicial activism or minimalism” when reflecting on the role that courts play or should play in interpreting and adjudicating health-related claims. Moreover, Judge Santos suggests that the Brazilian experience in this field might yield lessons that are relevant for other countries in the developing world. In the first half of this response, I have chosen to highlight aspects of the Article that speak to these two prongs, as they carry a special resonance in today’s debates on the provision of health goods and services.But I believe that Judge Santos is too modest in assessing the implications of his work and in connecting some of the topics covered in Beyond Minimalism and Usurpation to phenomena taking place well beyond the developing world. The second half of the response thus turns to parallels between some of the arguments put forth in the Article and selected aspects of health-related litigation in the United States. More broadly, I argue that Judge Santos’ Article advances both scholarship and overall awareness of the phenomenon of judicialization of health, which both encompasses and transcends localized manifestations of judicial review of health-based claims.
      PubDate: Sun, 20 Oct 2019 16:48:00 PDT
       
  • Encouraging FRAND-ly Negotiations: A Comparison of the United States and
           European Approaches to Allowing Injuctive Relief In Cases Involving
           FRAND-Encumbered Standard-Essential Patents

    • Authors: Lizaveta Miadzvedskaya
      Abstract: This Note maintains that holders of fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory ("FRAND")-encumbered standard-essential patents ("SEPs") should continue to have access to injunctive relief in United States courts as well as exclusionary relief at the United States International Trade Commission (“USITC”) in limited circumstances; the Note argues these limited circumstances should include instances of egregious knowing or willful infringement and instances where an implementer refuses to take a license on FRAND terms. The Note also argues that United States courts and the USITC should develop a set of guidelines outlining the obligations of participants in licensing negotiations over FRAND-encumbered SEPs, such as the “safe harbor” guidelines developed by the European Union in the Huawei v. ZTE litigation. Such guidelines would encourage parties to engage in good-faith negotiations by reducing opportunistic behavior, facilitating innovation and participation in the standard-setting process, and promoting economic efficiency.Part II of this Note provides background on SSOs and FRAND commitments as well as patent infringement, injunctions, and special considerations involved in the licensing of FRAND-encumbered SEPs. Part III examines United States legal precedent concerning the grant of injunctions and exclusionary relief in disputes over SEPs subject to FRAND licensing commitments as well as two key decisions from the European Union addressing the issue. Part IV highlights some of the reasons why injunctions and exclusionary relief should remain available to holders of FRAND-encumbered SEPs and argues that the United States courts and agencies should develop guidelines outlining the obligations, and proper conduct expected of parties involved in licensing negotiations over FRAND-encumbered SEPs. Part V concludes the Note, underscoring the benefits of developing a clear and comprehensive framework for licensing negotiations of FRAND-encumbered SEPs and delineating the instances in which injunctive and exclusionary relief remains available to holders of FRAND-encumbered SEPs.
      PubDate: Sun, 20 Oct 2019 16:47:57 PDT
       
  • A Comparison of Public-Private Partnerships in Nigeria & South Africa

    • Authors: Rebecca Matey
      Abstract: This Note will examine the regulatory and legal frameworks governing public-private partnerships (PPPs) in Nigeria and South Africa. This Note will also compare the enforcement, transparency, and effectiveness of PPPs within these legal and regulatory frameworks. Lastly, this Note will discuss the social and cultural impact of PPPs within Nigeria and South Africa. In comparing global, national, and local frameworks, this Note will examine why South Africa has made great progress and what Nigeria can adopt from South Africa’s success. This Note will also discuss recommendations Nigeria’s infrastructure industries can implement to develop a full PPP regime that will benefit not only the industries themselves but also stakeholders and neighboring communities.The most vital recommendation is reform to Nigeria’s PPP framework. This Note suggests the implementation of a hybrid PPP framework to replace the current decentralized system. Further, this Note encourages serious consideration of marginalized tribal/ethnic groups and communities that will be affected by PPP projects. Lastly, this Note emphasizes the importance of consistency in PPP policies and programs in order to bring stability and legitimacy to the Nigerian PPP regime.
      PubDate: Sun, 20 Oct 2019 16:47:54 PDT
       
  • Beyond the Guild: Lawyer Organizations and Law Making

    • Authors: Leslie C. Levin et al.
      Abstract: This Article examines when and why lawyer organizations seek to influence law, either by promoting change or opposing it. The Article compares the activities of lawyer organizations in specific countries, noting at times how they work in conjunction with international or regional lawyer organizations. It seeks to identify the factors that enable the organizations to act and the conditions that may prevent them from acting, focusing not on outcomes, but on attempts to affect law. These efforts include, for example, proposing, drafting or responding to rules or legislation, lobbying, filing lawsuits or amicus briefs, and engaging in strikes or other public protest. Examining the full range of lawyers’ efforts, we also include “pre-law making” activities such as problem definition, agenda setting, and mobilization for change, as well as implementation activities focused on enforcement or resistance. Because of governmental impediments to action by lawyer organizations in some jurisdictions, we also consider informal efforts by lawyers to engage in collective actions.Part I of this Article describes organizational theories and theories of the legal profession that might explain why lawyer organizations attempt to influence law. In Part II, the Article provides an overview of lawyers and their organizations in seven countries with very different political and legal systems. As an initial study of this issue, the small number of countries provides an opportunity to explore the question in some depth. Part II briefly describes the history of lawyers and their associations in these countries, their relationship to the courts and the state, and their view of their role in society. Part III then examines some situations in which lawyer organizations acted to influence law and other situations in which they stayed silent. Using examples from the seven countries, this Part identifies four somewhat overlapping categories in which lawyer organizations attempted to affect the law. Part IV revisits the theoretical perspectives to suggest when lawyer organizations will act, and when they will not. The Article concludes by identifying questions for further research.
      PubDate: Sun, 20 Oct 2019 16:47:50 PDT
       
  • Legitimacy & Litigation: The Right to Health Care

    • Authors: Colleen M. Flood
      Abstract: Much ink has been spilt by scholars over how courts should adjudicate socioeconomic rights, frequently by scholars in countries that do not expressly include such rights in their constitution. Pedro Felipe de Oliveira Santos describes well the formalist approach that drives many jurists and scholars to argue for minimalism on the part of courts adjudicating socioeconomic rights. The separation of power(s) argument is that courts are not democratically elected–governments are–and so the latter should be responsible for the complex trade-offs involved in allocating public funds to social programs.
      PubDate: Sun, 20 Oct 2019 16:47:47 PDT
       
  • Social Rights, Judicial Remedies and the Poor

    • Authors: Octávio Luiz Motta Ferraz
      Abstract: The increasing legal recognition of rights to health, education, and housing, often referred collectively as “welfare rights,” “social and economic rights,” or simply “social rights” as I shall refer to them in this piece, has generated heated debates on several interrelated questions. Are these rights of the same nature as other human rights such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from torture, and fair trial, often collectively named “civil and political rights'” Should social rights be judicially enforced in exactly the same manner as civil and political rights' Who actually benefits when courts decide to enforce social rights assertively, the poor or the better-off'To repeat, these are interrelated questions. The nature of a right will influence the manner in which courts should enforce it or if they should enforce it at all. And the manner in which a court enforces a particular right, i.e., the type of remedy it chooses, may in turn have a significant bearing on who actually benefits from the right.To illustrate, those who believe that social rights are different in nature from civil and political rights tend to defend a less assertive role for courts when adjudicating them, or no role at all. This may in part be explained by a belief that, should courts use traditional rights protecting remedies, such as individualized injunctions, they might end up benefiting the “wrong” individuals, i.e., the better-off. On the other hand, those who believe that social rights and civil and political rights are identical in nature often, though not always, also believe that courts should therefore make no difference among them regarding enforcement.These debates are far from being purely academic, as they once were when social rights had been recognized in only a handful of constitutions and the United Nations International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (“ICESCR”) had been ratified by a dozen or so countries. With the increasing ratification of the ICESCR and other international law instruments that include social rights and the explosion in the number of national constitutions that include these rights, these debates have become more prominent and consequential. The debates left the constraints of academic circles and became the daily preoccupation of constitutional courts across the world, and, though less often, of international adjudicative bodies at the UN and regional human rights’ systems, such as those of Europe and Inter-America.My aim in this short commentary piece is not to describe and engage in detail with the several complex aspects of the important debates that flow from each of the questions above. Rather, I will focus on a specific aspect that has been the subject of renewed attention more recently: the issue of the distributive impact of judicial enforcement of social rights and its relationship with the type of remedy employed by courts when enforcing these rights.It has become increasingly clear in the experience of some countries that social rights’ judicial enforcement can often disproportionately benefit middle and upper classes rather than the poor. Some authors, such as David Landau and Pedro Felipe de Oliveira Santos have suggested that this is determined, in great part, by the type of remedies used by courts.If this is true, and assuming this is even a problem, the solution would logically lie at the remedial stage; that is, courts should adopt whatever remedies are most suited to achieve the desired result of benefiting the poor rather than the middle and upper classes. I want to suggest in this piece that the regressive effects of social rights litigation seem to me less related to the type of remedy than to the interpretation of social rights adopted by courts.
      PubDate: Sun, 20 Oct 2019 16:47:44 PDT
       
  • The State of Modern South Korean Animal Cruelty Law: An Overview with
           Comparison to Relevant United States and Swiss Law and the Future

    • Authors: Andrew Alberro
      Abstract: On April 21, 2012 a picture surfaced on the internet showing a beagle dog tied to the back of a Hyundai Equus. The dog was disemboweled, having died from being dragged behind the car at high speeds along a highway in Seoul, South Korea. Upon investigation, the owner claimed that the dog’s death was an accident, and police did not press charges due to insufficient evidence of intentional harm. Many South Koreans were outraged at the lack of repercussions for the car owner, and the event caused heated discussion on the effectivity of the Animal Cruelty Provision of the Animal Protection Act.The ‘Devil’s Equus’ incident, as it became known, would not be the first or last time this happened in South Korea. ‘Devil’s Equus 2’, ‘3’, and ‘Devil’s Truck’ are just a few more examples of similar incidents following the original, that all ended with similar results. Acts of animal cruelty including hoarding, physical abuse, and neglect often go unpunished in South Korea due to a combination of the vague language of the law and a lack of officials willing to enforce it. Numerous viral incidents of animal cruelty have caused wide outrage and criticism of the state of current animal protection law in South Korea and in particular its enforcement.South Korean animal cruelty laws have also faced criticism internationally. Puppy mills and the dog and cat meat trade in particular have caused South Korean animal cruelty law to incur intense global scrutiny. Recently, a United States-based international animal rights welfare organization, World Animal Protection, ranked South Korean animal cruelty protection law as an overall D on their A to G scale. The organization noted that while South Korea’s Animal Protection Act offers anti-cruelty protections and enforcement mechanisms in the form of fines and imprisonment, only some animals are classified as “protected” and there is a lack of strong deterrents.Incidents such as these make clear that while South Korea has made efforts to combat animal cruelty through its Animal Protection Act, there remains a need for enhanced protections and more effective enforcement.This note is primarily focused on an examination of South Korea’s Animal Protection Act and its limitations in preventing animal cruelty. To that end, the note will briefly discuss the history of South Korea, its legal system, and the development of the first animal cruelty law. For purposes of comparison, an overview of United States and Swiss animal protection legislation will be provided followed by a comparison of their enforcement tactics. Following the international comparisons, there will be an examination of the effect of South Korean media sources, animal activism and public opinion on its animal cruelty law. Finally, the note will discuss proposed changes and recommendations for stronger animal cruelty legislation and enforcement.
      PubDate: Sun, 20 Oct 2019 16:47:41 PDT
       
  • Why China had to “Ban” Cryptocurrency but the U.S. did not: A
           Comparative Analysis of Regulations on Crypto-Markets Between the U.S. and
           China

    • Authors: Rain Xie
      Abstract: The cryptocurrency market grew from a $1.5 billion market capitalization in early 2013 to over $795 billion in January 2018. Bitcoin, an exemplar cryptocurrency, gained value from $0.08 before 2010 to over $17,000 per bitcoin in December 2017. While cryptocurrencies have campaigned for revolutionizing financial transactions, the crypto-market is plagued by nefarious minds, fleecing investors in frauds and Ponzi schemes. This crypto-mania therefore presents numerous legal and regulatory challenges that demand prompt and efficient responses. Nevertheless, the decentralized, anonymous nature of cryptocurrencies magnifies these challenges and has constantly outpaced the law’s ability to respond. To understand the effects of different regulatory strategies, this Note compares regulatory landscapes on cryptocurrency between the U.S. and China.In a nutshell, while China explicitly banned any exchange or financing activities between fiat money and “coin substitution” in 2017, the U.S. has placed cryptocurrencies within its existing legal labyrinth. What explains the difference and what is its result' Rather than reducing the regulatory variances simply to differences in political ideologies, this Note attempts to explain the reasons behind the two countries’ drastically different regulatory approaches by understanding the regulators’ institutional capacities and objectives. This Note also identifies the interesting impacts of the two countries’ regulatory approach. Namely, China has attempted to substitute the crypto-market with state-led projects and even potential crypto-fiats, while the U.S. regulatory framework has maintained its consistency, but left some areas lawless while others potentially over- regulated.Part I of this Note introduces the background of cryptocurrency and its technological strengths and weaknesses. Part II surveys the existing regulatory landscapes of the U.S. and China. Part III explains the reasons why the two countries take drastically different approaches in regulating cryptocurrency. Part IV lists comparative strengths and weaknesses between the two regulatory frameworks. Part V concludes and cautiously makes policy recommendations.
      PubDate: Sun, 05 May 2019 14:54:30 PDT
       
  • A Statutory Solution to a Constitutional Problem

    • Authors: Kevin Grigsby
      Abstract: A fundamental right to education has long been recognized in constitutions around the world. In South Africa, the right to education is outlined in the founding provisions of the constitution which specifically acknowledge “the need to redress the results of past racially discriminatory laws and practices” as a reason for this right. The Supreme Court of the United States has analyzed the right to education in this country on various occasions, yet the Court has consistently avoided rendering a definitive decision articulating whether a positive right to education is guaranteed by the Constitution itself.Although in 1954 Brown v. Board of Education unequivocally established that “in the field of public education, the doctrine of ‘separate but equal’ has no place[,]” a uniform quality of education throughout the United States has proven to be far from reality. With the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 came the mandate that the Commissioner of Education “conduct a survey and make a report . . . concerning the lack of availability of equal educational opportunities for individuals by reason of race . . . .” The “Coleman Report,” as it came to be known, found that at the time, math and reading scores of the average black twelfth grade student ranked in the thirteenth percentile of scores. With more than eighty-seven percent of their twelfth grade peers testing higher than black students, the lack of equal educational opportunities was evident. Nearly a half-century later according to data from the 2013 National Assessment for Educational Progress, the gap remains present. In 2013, the average black student was at the twenty-second percentile in reading. This lack of progress in educational equality has unsurprisingly had wide-ranging effects. In 2009, the median family income in the United States was $38,409 for blacks, but $62,545 for whites.Lacking a constitutional guarantee to education, let alone the guarantee of a quality education, black and other minority families continue to face an uphill battle as a result of inequality in education. As ordered by the Brown Court, where the racial desegregation of public schools was concerned, states were required to act “with all deliberate speed.” Although the Brown Court deemed the principle of separate but equal to be unconstitutional as it applied to public education in 1954, more than three decades later, schools continued to operate under court-ordered desegregation plans while progressing with the mandated “deliberate speed.” Absent existing precedent to constitutionalize a fundamental right to education, statutory law could immediately begin to level the playing field for minority students and attempt to redress the results of the United States’ own discriminatory laws and practices of the past, specifically in the field of public education.
      PubDate: Sun, 05 May 2019 14:54:20 PDT
       
  • The Fork in the Road Revisited: An Attempt to Overcome the Clash Between
           Formalistic and Pragmatic Approaches

    • Authors: Markus A. Petsche
      Abstract: This article revisits one of the most controversial issues of international investment law, namely the question of the effect of fork-in- the-road (FITR) clauses contained in investment treaties. It provides a comprehensive and detailed examination of the relevant arbitral case law, highlighting the co-existence of two formalistic approaches (based respectively on the distinction between treaty and contract claims and the lis pendens-related triple-identity test) with the more pragmatic fundamental-basis test established by the ICSID tribunal in Pantechniki v. Albanania and subsequently endorsed in H&H v. Egypt. This contribution critically examines these two strands of case law, emphasizing both the interpretive flaws of formalistic approaches and the inherent vagueness and ambiguity of the fundamental-basis test. In an attempt to overcome the deadlock resulting from the clash between formalistic and pragmatic decisions, this article offers a functional analysis of FITR clauses, providing new insights and guidance to treaty drafters and interpreters.
      PubDate: Sun, 05 May 2019 14:54:11 PDT
       
  • The Ethics of Big Data in Genomics: The Instructive Icelandic Saga of the
           Incidentalome

    • Authors: Donna M. Gitter
      Abstract: DeCODE Genetics, Inc., a pioneering Icelandic biotech firm, recently introduced a free website that permits Icelanders to learn whether they carry mutations in the BRCA2 gene that are known to increase cancer risk, even if these citizens have never participated in genetic testing. Approximately five thousand Icelanders have elected thus far to receive their status. This site is made possible by the consanguinity of Icelandic citizens, who number fewer than 350,000, and their detailed genealogical records dating back centuries, a set of circumstances that presents a unique opportunity to study genetic mutations and the medical disorders associated with them. Using such information, deCODE has the ability to impute genetic information about individuals without any legal requirement to obtain their informed consent.This ability to impute individuals’ genotypes without having gathered bio-specimens or medical information directly from them calls into question researchers’ duty to inform individuals about their health risks, and the individuals’ right not to know (“RNTK”), defined as the idea that people ought to be able to control their receipt of genetic information about themselves. The emergence of unanticipated and yet highly significant genetic findings is referred to as the “incidentalome.” Commentators use the phrase “incidental findings” (“IFs”) to refer to medically important information that arises from research but is unrelated to the goals of that research.This article analyzes the return by researchers of genetic IFs to individuals whose genotypic data has been imputed, and who therefore have not indicated their consent to receive such information. While Iceland is at the forefront of this issue due to its small, homogeneous population, other nations increasingly encounter the same need to balance individual autonomy with responsibility for public health.Part II of this Article will consider the global rise of biobanks and the concomitant challenges posed to the right not to know. Part III considers how the incidentalome arises in Iceland, a country renowned for its genomic research, while Part IV examines the current debate in Iceland regarding the release of imputed genomic information to its citizens. International laws and norms regarding the RNTK are the subject of Part V. Part VI of this Article explores the legal and ethical arguments surrounding the three possible approaches considered in Iceland for the release of imputed BRCA2 genetic data: no return of the data; make it publicly known that the information is available and thus enable individuals to take the initiative to request that information for themselves; or contact the affected individuals directly to inform them that researchers possess information relevant to their health. Because similar legal and ethical questions arise when health care providers consider their duty to inform individuals exposed to HIV and AIDS, Part VII analyzes considerations surrounding the provision of this risk information. Finally, Part VIII of this Article proposes an approach for the future, emphasizing the need for a robust public service campaign that encourages individuals to access their imputed genetic data and, more broadly, for expanded governmental investment in and public access to genetic testing.
      PubDate: Sun, 05 May 2019 14:54:03 PDT
       
  • The Right to Migrate: A Human Rights Response to Immigration
           Restrictionism in Argentina

    • Authors: David C. Baluarte
      Abstract: Within days of President Donald Trump’s 2017 Executive Orders on border security and immigration enforcement, President Mauricio Macri of Argentina issued a Decree to address what he declared was an urgent problem of immigrant criminality. The timing of the two Presidents’ actions triggered concerns that U.S.-style restrictionist immigration regulation was spreading to South America, a continent that has taken progressive steps towards recognizing the human rights of migrants in recent years. Until Macri’s 2017 Decree, Argentina was considered a leader in this regard, with its 2004 immigration law that boldly codified a “right to migrate” and included robust substantive and procedural protections for immigrants. While the Decree marked the end of an era of progressive immigration policy in Argentina, the persistence of international human rights protections for migrants could provide the means to uphold key aspects of the right to migrate. This Article tracks jurisprudential developments under the 2004 law, and then demonstrates how the 2017 Decree undermined many of the advances achieved under the prior legislative framework. The Article also provides an overview of current litigation to defend the immigrant bill of rights and key procedural and judicial protections. The Article argues that the application of international human rights law on migration could fend off some of the more pernicious features of the 2017 Decree in Argentina. The Article concludes that the right to migrate in Argentina has been weakened, but that its essence will persist if the Argentine judiciary reinforces human rights protections for migrants.
      PubDate: Sun, 05 May 2019 14:53:53 PDT
       
  • Mailing Statement

    • PubDate: Sun, 05 May 2019 14:53:30 PDT
       
 
JournalTOCs
School of Mathematical and Computer Sciences
Heriot-Watt University
Edinburgh, EH14 4AS, UK
Email: journaltocs@hw.ac.uk
Tel: +00 44 (0)131 4513762
 


Your IP address: 3.215.182.81
 
Home (Search)
API
About JournalTOCs
News (blog, publications)
JournalTOCs on Twitter   JournalTOCs on Facebook

JournalTOCs © 2009-