Thursday, April 27, 2017

The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank

Maintaining High Standards of Multilateral Infrastructure Financing

By Bo Lei
Bo Lei is a third-year student at Albany Law School. He is from China and is known on campus as Michael. He graduated from Rockefeller College of Public Affairs & Policy of SUNY at Albany with a Master's degree in Public Administration.
Prior to studying in the U.S., Michael graduated from Northwestern Poly-Technical University in China with a Master's degree in Computer Science and worked 8 years in ZhengZhou Commodity Exchange as an advanced programmer and an analyst of risks of futures market. He has been committed to expanding his knowledge to the profession of law to satisfy his strong interest in public affairs.
At Albany Law School, he served as a judicial intern in U.S. District Court for Hon. Daniel J. Stewart. He also served as an intern in various public sectors, including N.Y.S. Office of General Services, N.Y.S. Offices of the Inspector General, and the Empire Justice Center.
Michael is interested in public international law and originally prepared this paper for a course entitled International Business Transactions.
He prepared this paper for Prof. Halewood's course in International Business Transactions.

In March 2015, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (“the AIIB”) dominated front-page headlines in most of the world’s important news media, not merely because of the bank itself, but more because the United Kingdom (U.K.) joined the AIIB as a founding member.   Following the U.K.’s decision, Australia and South Korea, the U.S.’s main allies in Asia, and other G7 countries such as Germany, France, and Italy, eventually announced their intention to join as well.

The U.S. opposed the establishment of the AIIB and had been attempting to lobby its allies not to join it.   Some deemed the AIIB a part of China’s plan to challenge the World Bank as well as the standing global financial order.   Others were concerned that the AIIB “would not live up to the ‘highest global standards’ for governance or lending.”

Why is the establishment of the AIIB so controversial?  What are multilateral infrastructure investment banks’ roles for regional and global development?  Would the AIIB challenge the global system of governance or supplement the existing system?  This paper discusses these questions from the perspective of global governance with respect to infrastructure investment, examines and compares measures and standards adopted by the AIIB and the Asian Development Bank (“the ADB”), analyses projects that have been approved by the AIIB, and will find that the AIIB supplements the existing system and maintains no lower standards of governance than the ADB does.
To read the entire paper, open HERE.

Sunday, October 23, 2016

Animal Law: Evolution and the Need for International Protection

By Myleah Misenhimer
Myleah Misenhimer is a 2016 cum laude graduate of Albany Law School. She earned her undergraduate degree in English, summa cum laude, from the State University of New York at Albany. She is also a graduate of the American Musical and Dramatic Academy in Manhattan.
During her time at Albany Law School, Myleah was active in the moot court program, competing in both inter and intra school trial and appellate competitions. She was also a member of the Animal Law Pro Bono Project, and continues to be a member of the Animal Legal Defense Fund.
Myleah is currently a first year associate at Rose Waldorf PLLC.
She prepared this paper for Professor Bonventre's International law of War and Crime seminar.

In 1948, following the atrocities committed against the Jews by Nazi Germany, the Genocide Convention was passed, elevating and isolating genocide as an aggravated crime against humanity. But what of the right to existence of entire non-human groups?  Have the “dictates of public conscience” and the principles of our nations expanded to the point where protection for non-human beings would reflect our communal notions of humanity and morality?

In a literal sense, a crime against humanity is a crime committed externally against humankind. Humankind is humanity, but also has humanity, and thus a crime against humanity can be viewed as a crime that goes against the collective conscience, whether innate or learned. In a time where domestic animals are regarded as family members or referred to as man’s best friend, where we, as people, can set up pet trusts to ensure a safe and secure future for our animals, where most nations in the world have independently adopted laws to criminalize the abuse of such animals, is it time for another convention to bring about internationally recognized animal laws?

The bond between humans and animals was formed in antiquity, primarily out of economic need.   Humans exploited animals for physical purposes, such as plowing fields, but animals also served metaphysical purposes. In her article, Attitudes towards Animals in Greco-Roman Antiquity, Liliane Bodson writes about philosophical views of animals. For example, in the 7th Century B.C., Hesiod made the ox his first servant. Though he asserted Zeus granted justice only to humans, Heisod would treat the animal servicing him with a basic level of care. Pythagoras believed after death that human souls transmigrated into other living beings, and consequently taught his followers to never harm an animal.

Plato believed in the dual soul of man; the divine half was shared with the Gods, whereas the spirited half was shared with animals. Domesticated animals in antiquity were attributed a certain level of intelligence, at least enough to offer consent, as evidenced by Plato’s classification of such animals as “willing partners in human culture.” The notion of consenting animals even extended into the area of religious animal sacrifice, where the sacrificial animal was said to have nodded to humans in assent before being killed.
To read the entire paper, open HERE.

Friday, October 14, 2016

Supervised Release and Illegal Immigration: An Empty Gesture?

By Kellan B. Potts
Kellan Potts was born and raised in Opossum Creek, Tennessee. He received his bachelor’s degree from Binghamton University, graduated from Albany Law School this past spring, and is a fervent proponent of criminal defense.
While in law school, Kellan interned with the Ulster County District Attorney’s Office, the United States Department of Justice in Washington D.C., the Federal Defenders of Eastern Tennessee, and the Schenectady Public Defenders Office.
He won the ABA National Client Counseling Competition and went on to represent the United States of America in the International Client Counseling Competition, where he and his partner advanced to the semi-finals. He also won the ABA Regional Negotiation Competition, the ABA Regional Client Counseling Competition, the Donna Jo Morse Client Counseling Competition, and placed 6th in the nation at the ABA National Negotiation Competition.
Kellan currently works at O’Connell & Aronowitz doing criminal defense. In his free time he enjoys playing with his three-year old son, spending time outdoors, and watching far too many movies.
He prepared this research paper for the International Law of War & Crime seminar.

As stated in the name, "illegal immigration," being an illegal alien in the United States is a crime. Being in the United States illegally is only a civil infraction, punishable by deportation.  However coming back into the country, after being previously removed (without the permission of the Attorney General), is a felony under 8 United States Code (U.S.C.) §1326, or Reentry of Removed Aliens (commonly called Unlawful Reentry). This article will address the felony version of illegal immigration.

Specifically, this article will examine the practice of imposing a period of supervised release on defendants who are convicted of 8 U.S.C. §1326, even though every defendant who is convicted under this statute is deported at the end of their incarceration. Beginning with an examination of the laws concerning illegal immigration, this paper will argue that the imposition of supervised release on defendants who are deported is an empty gesture, one which the United States has no authority to enforce once the defendant is deported and out of the country.

Following this examination is an analysis of the 1989 Crime Omnibus Act, the law that abolished federal parole and set up supervised release in its place. After explaining how supervised release works, this article will conclude with why supervised release is not warranted in deportation cases.
To read the entire paper, open HERE.

Friday, October 7, 2016

"Just War" Essays

These two essays on the concept of "Just War" were prepared as an assignment for the International Law of War & Crime seminar at Albany Law School this semester.
Just War Theory: Ambiguities and Varying Approaches
By Eric Brenner
Eric Brenner is a third-year student at Albany Law School. He graduated with honors from Siena College in 2014 with a degree in Finance.  At the law school, he is currently the Executive Managing Editor for Volume 80 of the Albany Law Review.
Eric has been a teaching assistant and research assistant for members of the Albany Law faculty, and he has also served as a judicial intern in U.S. District Court for both the Hon. Lawrence E. Kahn and the Hon. Charles J. Siragusa.
Later this year, his Note on reverse mortgages will be published by the Albany Law Review.
Read the Essay.

Jus ad Bellum
By Corey Carmello
Corey Carmello is a third-year student at Albany Law School. He graduated summa cum laude from the University at Albany in 2014 with a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science.
While in law school, Corey has interned with Judge Lawrence E. Kahn, of the Northern District of New York, the Albany County District Attorney’s Office, and the Appeals and Opinions Bureau of the New York State Attorney General’s Office. He is also a member of the Albany Law Review.
Upon graduation, Corey will be working as an associate for Milbank Tweed Hadley & McCloy.
Read the Essay.