| Publisher: U of Georgia
| ||||||
Similar Journals
|
Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law
Number of Followers: 3  Open Access journalISSN (Print) 0046-578X Published by U of Georgia  [2 journals]
|
- Campuses or Courtrooms' Government Involvement in U.S. and U.K.
University Sexual Misconduct Response
Authors: Courtney H. Robinson
PubDate: Thu, 29 Dec 2022 07:00:40 PST
- Freedom and Whisky: The Renewed Case for Scottish Independence in a
Post-Brexit Europe
Authors: Emily P. Johnson
PubDate: Thu, 29 Dec 2022 07:00:35 PST
- Do You Need Legs to Stand' Wild Rice Stands in Trial and An
Examination of the Use of Legal Personhood to Protect the Rights of Nature
in Court
Authors: Anna C. Scartz
PubDate: Thu, 29 Dec 2022 07:00:31 PST
- The Roots of Rights: Where Do Courts Find Constitutional Support for a
Woman’s Right to Choose or a Fetal Right to Life'
Authors: Kathleen M. McGean
PubDate: Thu, 29 Dec 2022 07:00:26 PST
- The Concept of “Investment” at the Dawn of the Digital Era
Authors: Dmitry A. Pentsov
Abstract: New methods of doing international business, which have appeared in the process of digital transformation of economic and social life, have not gone unnoticed by a number of States that use tax and administrative methods to regulate them. One possible way to protect the interests of operators of digital business models from such regulation could be bringing claims against these States on the basis of bilateral and multilateral treaties for the promotion and protection of investments. Among the mandatory conditions for the presentation of such claims is the presence in the territory of a host State of protected “investments” within the meaning of an applicable treaty. This Article analyzes the meaning of the term “investment” in the pre-digital age as well as the exact content of the territorial link requirement with the host State. It describes four typical business models of the digital economy: (i) digital reseller; (ii) digital marketplace operator; (iii) search engine operator; and (iv) social network operator. It then analyzes the possibility of recognizing each business model’s intangible assets as “investments” for the purposes of investment treaties. It also identifies the shortcomings of the existing concept of “investment,” which was formed before the advent of the digital economy for the effective protection of digital assets and forecasts possible directions of development of existing arbitration practice to eliminate these shortcomings. The Article also identifies the emerging regulatory role of this concept in the digital era.
PubDate: Thu, 29 Dec 2022 07:00:21 PST
- Conflict Resolution Procedures Within the Courtroom: Between the
Adversarial and Inquisitorial Traditions
Authors: Amos Gabrieli et al.
Abstract: Modern courts have evolved around two central legal traditions—the adversarial and the inquisitorial. The two traditions have historically reflected different approaches towards consent and authority or towards conflict resolution and strict application of the law. Yet with the blurring of boundaries between the two legal traditions, and alongside various reforms in adversarial and inquisitorial legal systems, new practices of judicial conflict resolution within the courtroom have developed. This Article will compare the two legal traditions and examine the assimilation of ideologies and procedures typical to conflict resolution processes into the work of judges, as they strive to end civil legal cases by ways other than traditional legal ruling (i.e., by settlement).This Article argues that the integration of inquisitorial-like judicial practices within an adversarial environment contributes to the evolution of proper conditions for rich judicial conflict resolution. This is as opposed to contexts in which inquisitorial systems internalize conflict-resolution procedures into the legal system, yet the shift in how judges perceive their role is less significant. Applying practices foreign to the courtroom—practices that focus on the broader interests of the parties—minimizes the original and clear separation that the founders of the alternative dispute resolution movement envisioned as they developed alternative conflict-resolution procedures intended to be completely separate from the legal world. The new sphere in which the adversarial judge practices, alongside rapid developments in dispute-resolution procedures, is a unique arena which enables dispute resolution under the auspices of authority. Consequently, and as litigants’ expectations of the legal process have changed accordingly, the center of gravity of the legal process has shifted from the evidentiary stage to the preliminary stages (such as pretrial and discovery). This process has inevitably led to changes in the roles of litigators, rules of procedures, relative burdens of proof, and the overall management of litigation. The development of this unique sphere bears great potential for the resolution of complicated legal conflicts and for the development of innovative hybrid models for law and mediation.
PubDate: Thu, 29 Dec 2022 07:00:16 PST
- Tortious Liability in China’s Motorsports Industry
Authors: Hui Jing et al.
Abstract: In 2020, the Chinese Civil Code came into effect. Article 1176 of the code offers a statutory defense for those participating in “a recreational or sports activity carrying certain risk” when they cause injury to other participants. However, the Chinese Civil Code does not specify how or to what extent Article 1176 may be relied upon as a statutory defense in assessing the tortious liability of the organizers of such recreational or sports activities. The courts in China have long sought to develop a principled approach to applying the voluntary assumption of risk defense to such organizers. This Article provides a case study to examine how Article 1176 operates in the context of motor racing activities, identifying sources of uncertainty surrounding the application of the law. By reviewing how Australian law analyses the duty and liability of event organizers, this Article also identifies the strengths of the Australian approach and how it may inform Chinese law with respect to addressing the problems associated with Article 1176.
PubDate: Thu, 29 Dec 2022 07:00:11 PST
- Attributing Criminal Responsibility for the Crime of Aggression
Authors: Nikola R. Hajdin
Abstract: To hold a person criminally responsible, the prosecution must prove that his conduct violated (without justification) a prohibitory norm of the criminal code and that he is culpable for such wrongdoing. In international criminal law, wrongfulness and culpability are assessed through the prisms of material (actus reus) and mental (mens rea) elements, respectively. Also called “objective attribution,” ascribing wrongfulness requires a causal link between individual conduct and criminal consequences. Attributing culpability, or “subjective attribution,” on the other hand, consists of establishing mental links between the perpetrator and the occurrence he has caused and the situation in which such an event took place. This Article sets out the normative foundation for the attribution of criminal responsibility for aggression based on the theory of actus reus that I proposed in my previous scholarship. Two findings are paramount. First, to incur wrongfulness, the perpetrator need not necessarily be accountable for an entire act of aggression. It suffices if the prosecution proves that he caused a single instance of the use of armed force that is part of broader hostilities which, taken as a whole, amount to the overarching state conduct element, i.e., an act of aggression that manifestly violates the Charter of the United Nations (U.N. Charter). Second, as a consequence of the first proposition, the individual is culpable if he is mindful of his state leadership position and intends the use of armed force against another state or is aware that such occurrence will result from his conduct, while being cognizant of the factual circumstances allowing for such action to constitute in and of itself or contribute to an overarching act of aggression that manifestly violates the U.N. Charter.
PubDate: Thu, 29 Dec 2022 07:00:03 PST
- Table of Contents, Masthead, and Dedication
Authors: Georgia Journal of International; Comparative Law
PubDate: Thu, 29 Dec 2022 06:59:58 PST
- Legal Rights for Rivers
Authors: Katie O'Bryan
PubDate: Tue, 14 Jun 2022 09:05:42 PDT
- "In Countless Ways and On an Unprecedented Scale": Reflections on the
Stockholm Declaration at 50
Authors: Rebecca Bratspies
PubDate: Tue, 14 Jun 2022 09:05:37 PDT
- CONFERENCE: THE 1972 STOCKHOLM DECLARATION AT FIFTY: REFLECTING ON A
HALF-CENTURY OF INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW / International
Environmental Law at Its Semicentennial: The Stockholm Legacy / Hosted by
the Dean Rusk International Law Center and the Georgia Journal of
International and Comparative Law on October 8, 2021 in Athens, Georgia
and online
Authors: Melissa J. Durkee
PubDate: Tue, 14 Jun 2022 09:05:32 PDT
- All Bets Are On! . . . Line: The Varied Regulatory Framework of an
Interconnected Online Sports Betting System
Authors: Meg Graham
PubDate: Tue, 14 Jun 2022 09:05:27 PDT
- Accidents on the High Seas and Flags of Convenience: Whether the BBNJ
Draft Treaty Will Address Insufficient Regulatory Compliance by Open
Registry States
Authors: Kaitlyn O'Hara
PubDate: Tue, 14 Jun 2022 09:05:21 PDT
- The United States and Its Obligations Under the Optional Protocol to the
Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Sale of Children, Child
Prostitution and Child Pornography to Combat Child Exploitation in the
Digital World
Authors: Audrey Cunningham
PubDate: Tue, 14 Jun 2022 09:05:16 PDT
- More than the Daily Catch: How Regulating the Fishing Industry Can Help
Keep Plastics from the Ocean
Authors: Katherine Payne
PubDate: Tue, 14 Jun 2022 09:05:11 PDT
- Upholding Disability Rights in the Americas: The Role of the
Inter-American Institutions
Authors: Ying Chen et al.
Abstract: This Article studies how the adjudicative institutions created by the Inter-American Convention on Human Rights (ACHR) have worked to uphold the rights of persons with disabilities. It argues that those institutions, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (the Commission or IACHR) and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (the Court or IACtHR), have begun to construct a regime of enforceable rights of persons with disabilities by applying international rules and interpretations to fill gaps in a relatively sparse Inter-American disability rights treaty framework. To buttress general principles of equality and non-discrimination with specific rights, the Commission and the Court have turned to the United Nations (UN), and occasionally other international sources of law, to aid in interpreting concepts and terms relating to disability rights. A watershed moment was the adoption of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) in 2008, which provided a detailed definition of disability rights that was (and remains) lacking in the Inter-American disability rights treaty, the 2001 Inter-American Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Persons with Disabilities (CIADDIS).Only a small fraction of the complaints and cases before the Commission and the Court raise disability rights. However, as the Article shows by canvasing their case law through 2020, the overall activity of the Commission and the Court is increasing and may further accelerate as procedures and resources are adapted to process a significant backlog of cases. In lieu of an overarching set of disability rights in the Inter-American treaties, a few specific streams of jurisprudence have developed. These streams attach disability rights to the ACHR’s provisions regarding the rights to life and humane treatment, and to the progressive realization of economic, social, and cultural rights. Cases have focused mainly on treatment of persons held in state institutions, and on extending access to health care and public education. Recent rulings seem to indicate a fusion of due process rights of redress to these substantive rights, in principle, expanding access to judicial remedies for persons with disabilities. The Article concludes that the Court and the Commission will likely continue to build out their framework of enforceable disability rights, but there are severe practical limits to what they can accomplish. Even when states willingly engage with the Court’s and the Commission’s effort, economic factors constrain governments’ responses.
PubDate: Tue, 14 Jun 2022 09:05:06 PDT
- Table of Contents and Masthead
Authors: Georgia Journal of International; Comparative Law
PubDate: Tue, 14 Jun 2022 09:05:01 PDT
- Telemedicine Across Borders: Entrenched Issues Exposed by COVID-19
Authors: Richmond B. Wrinkle
PubDate: Thu, 05 May 2022 09:32:16 PDT
- International Construction Law: The Development of the Business and Human
Rights Treaty and Its Implications on Migrant Workers
Authors: Anna Parks Muecke
PubDate: Thu, 05 May 2022 09:32:11 PDT
