The Expressive Necessity of Gender-Based Violence Prosecutions

By Allison Wells Zuckerman
Allison Wells Zuckerman, a 2010 graduate of Temple University’s James E. Beasley School of Law, is a practicing member of the Pennsylvania bar. A former policy researcher and United Nations intern, she developed an interest in international gender issues while researching the mail order bride industry for a high school history class.

Ms. Zuckerman continues to work on women’s issues through the American Bar Association’s International Model Project on Women’s Rights and ongoing research on gender violence as a tool of war.  She currently resides with her husband in the Greater Philadelphia area.

Despite the recent prominence of the Rome Statute’s stance against gender-based violence (“GBV”), many view international anti-GBV prosecutorial powers as ineffective and unenforceable. While acknowledging such pitfalls, this note opts to focus on the broad expressive value of landmark anti-GBV measures.

Although their case-by-case tangible benefits may be unclear, anti-GBV prosecutions are an expressive necessity for several important reasons. They (1) support the further development of international criminal law; (2) represent and reiterate broad support for the international shift in views on sexual violence; and (3) help solidify new public norms regarding GBV as a reprehensible tool of war.

In discussing the history of anti-GBV measures, as well as the expressive value of new GBV prosecution, this note concludes that GBV prosecutions are an imperative to reinforcing new international legal norms and making permanent progress in the global social conscious. 

_____________________________

To read the paper, open HERE.

Cuba, the United States, and the World Trade Organization

Relic of the Cold War in a New Age of Trade

By Peter M. Stecker
Peter Stecker, a third-year law student at Albany Law School, did his undergraduate work at Fordham University where majored in History and spent a summer studying at Heythrop College in London. While in law school, he worked for a year as an intern in the Low-Income Taxpayer Clinic,  and he has held several positions with state and local governmental entities, including his current clerkship with Judge Rachel Kretser of the City of Albany Criminal Court. This past winter, he competed in the Jessup International Moot Court Competition in New York City.
This paper, prepared for Professor Harrington’s Fall 2012 International Organizations class, was a journey of self-discovery for Peter. He is half-Cuban, and a descendant of the Menendez family who founded the world-renowned Montecristo cigar brand.

The following is a story of revolution, retribution, and rum.

The World Trade Organization’s (“WTO”) General Council meeting on July 25, 2012 was relatively unremarkable.  Like so many other WTO meetings the topics of discussion were activities of States that required WTO action, progress reports on organizational initiatives, and other assorted proposed internal policy changes.

After the planned portion of the WTO’s July 25th gathering, however, the unremarkable turned fascinating in the “other business” phase of the meeting.  At this point, a representative from the Cuban government addressed the General Council and reiterated that the United States (“U.S.”) was still not in compliance with a Dispute Settlement Body (“DSB”) order from 2002 to change a 1998 U.S. law designed to prevent trademark protection for items seized by the Cuban government after the Communist Revolution of the late 1950s.

After shortly recapping this situation, the Cuban representative posed a complex question to the General Council: “what guarantee of industrial property rights does the [U.S.] offer in their territory to the Members of this Organization and, in particular, to Cuba?”

This paper focuses on the history of the Cuba-U.S. trademark dispute, how it has been handled by the WTO, and its current status.  Also, this paper addresses the issue of the WTO’s lack of power, the questionable validity of Cold War legislation, and the nebulous treatment of international intellectual property protection.

Finally, this paper examines the impact that this dispute will have on the most potent of all Cold War relics, the U.S.-Cuba trade embargo.

_____________________________

To read the paper, open HERE.

Corporations and the Water Supply

Can privatization of water systems lead to sustainability?

by Abby Brinkerhoff
Abby Brinkerhoff, a third year student at Albany Law School, completed her undergraduate studies at Utah State University, where she studied psychology, sociology, and political theory. She is a member of the Albany Law School Interschool trial team and currently interns with the US Attorney's Office for the Northern District of New York.
This paper was prepared for Professor Harrington's International Environmental Law class, Summer 2012.


"Gosh Daddy, I never realized large, monopolizing corporations could be such a force for good in the world," sighs Hope. "Few do," responds her father.

Thus is the explanation from Mr. Cladwell to his daughter about why he has such harsh tactics and high prices in the play Urinetown, a humorous telling of an unsustainable dream and what happens when that dream takes over.

In Urinetown, It's a Privilege to Pee, and one corporation owns all the rights to flushing.  Mr. Cladwell's daughter eventually sees all the pain and suffering of the poorer members of the community and joins the fight against her father to make it free to pee.  She wins the day but quickly realizes that her father may have been right.

Hope makes it free to pee, and eventually the water dries up completely.  After the community gives Hope an unceremonious heave-ho, the narrator informs us that this is the end.

Little Sally, another character in the story, tells the narrator that she doesn't think very many people will come to see this musical.  The narrator replies, "Why do you say that, Little Sally? Don't you think people want to be told that their way of life is unsustainable?"

So is Mr. Cladwell right?  Can "large, monopolizing corporations" be a source of good in the world?  Just like in the fictional Urinetown, water is becoming scarce and our way of life is unsustainable.  It has been estimated that the demand for water will exceed supply by fifty-six percent by the year 2025.  It is clear that our current way of life is unsustainable.

How do we fix it?  Some have espoused the notion that we should let the market fix the problem.  International financial institutions such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) have voiced support for privatization of water supplies.

Will allowing water to be controlled by corporations make it last longer?  Or, as one of Mr. Cladwell's employees’ states, will it merely make "[a]ll those coins that we take from the throng, end up here where all those coins belong."  After all, the point of a corporation isn't to make our way of life sustainable, or to give better access to water to all people.  The mission of a corporation is to make a profit.  Do we really want to hand our future over to an entity whose primary goal is to make money?

Water scarcity is becoming an increasingly pressing issue, and as an international community, we must face this problem and formulate a solution.  This paper attempts to add to the international debate by juxtaposing privatization and centralization and supporting a compromise that may lead to a more sustainable future.

_____________________________

To read the paper, open HERE.

Why Should Treaty Violations Matter:

If Somebody Else Will Pay for Them?

by Yannick Adler
Yannick Adler is a third year student at Albany Law School and graduate of Bielefeld University in Germany, where he majored in Economics and minored in German Law. He also holds an MBA from Union Graduate College.
Before attending law school, Yannick worked for a mid-cap corporation in an accounting capacity; he also spent a year working with disabled children at a school in Bielefeld.
Yannick is currently serving as the Executive Editor of the Albany Law Journal of Science and Technology. During law school he interned for the New York State Office of General Services and Bogdan, Lasky and Kopley, a local firm. After law school, he plans to return to Germany.
This paper was prepared for Prof. Harrington's International Organizations class.

The recent sovereign debt crisis within the European Union has caused several regulatory responses.  Among other measures the Union created (by treaty) two instruments called European Financial Stability Facility and European Stability Mechanism.

This paper will show how the European Union has set up this framework.   It will also show how this framework (or specifically the two instruments) violates the establishing treaties of the European Union and domestic constitutional provisions at the example of Germany and its recent decision to ratify the European Stability Mechanism.

This paper also includes a short note considering the mixing of fiscal and monetary policies within the European Union framework, and how these acts can become toxic to the government debt markets.
_____________________________

To read the paper, open HERE.

Humanitarian Intervention in the Twenty First Century

Would the Security Council Intervene to Stop the Genocide in Rwanda if it Happened Today?

By Anna Ovcharenko

Anna Ovcharenko is a third-year student at Hofstra Law School and President of the Hofstra International Law Society. She is a magna cum laude graduate from Tomsk State University, Russia, where she majored in International Relations. Before law school, Anna served as a diplomat at the Russian Mission to the United Nations where she specialized in international development, children’s rights and environmental issues. In March 2010, she visited Rwanda as part of the UN official delegation. Past summer, Anna worked at the Global Legal Program at the Center for Reproductive Rights. In Spring 2013, she will start her legal internship at the Immigration Clinical Practicum.

This paper was prepared for Professor James Hickey’s International Human Rights Seminar at Hofstra Law School.

The 1994 genocide in Rwanda claimed the lives of at least 800,000 people while the United Nations withdrew its peacekeepers and the rest of the world stood aside. Had the UN Security Council mandated humanitarian intervention, it would have saved the lives of many innocent people.

This paper examines the development of the humanitarian intervention doctrine and analyzes whether it could have been used by the U.N. Security Council in the case of Rwanda. Specifically, it provides the factual context for the genocide in Rwanda and summarizes the lack of effective action by the Security Council to prevent it. It analyzes the international law of humanitarian intervention as it stands today and examines several instances of the use of force by the Security Council in situations amounting to genocide.

The paper concludes with a recommendation that the international community needs to develop a clearer framework for the use of force by the Security Council in the future.

_____________________________

To read the paper, open HERE.

The Politics of Whaling

Attempting to Solve a Tragedy of the Global Commons
By Timothy Murphy

Timothy Murphy is a third year student at Albany Law School and graduate of Manhattan College where he majored in English and minored in Philosophy. While studying at Manhattan, Tim spent a semester at the National University of Ireland, Galway. At Albany Law School, Tim serves as the Executive Vice President of the Student Bar Association and President of the Ethics Committee, and he is a member of the Moot Court Trial team.
Tim has interned at the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office in the Family Violence and Sexual Assault Unit, the Attorney General Office’s Environmental Protection Bureau, and the Law Offices of James G. Doyle in Saratoga. He is currently clerking with Judge Kretser in the Albany City Court.
This paper was  prepared for Prof. James Gathii’s Public International Law class, Spring 2012.

It is undeniable that whales hold a special place in the western psyche as a symbol of environmental conservation and natural beauty. To argue only that whaling is a sinister practice, however, would be to ignore such important factors as cultural independence, national sovereignty, and scientific research among other vital human concerns.

The hunting of whales has brought the population of many whale species to such a level that even pro-whaling countries agree that humanity has an obligation to work towards restoring their numbers. Human mismanagement of the Earth’s natural resources is evident in the depletion of one species of whale after another.

This paper will begin by examining the great strides made by humanity since the “dark ages” of commercial whaling, analyzing the international laws and policies which brought this about, and pointing out the major actors in this process. It will then proceed to argue that, while the current system is preferable to open whaling, it is severely broken.

This is by no means an anti-whaling paper. The goal of this paper is to argue that the current international system in place for the protection of whale species, namely the International Whaling Commission (hereinafter referred to as the IWC), is ineffective and must be either reformed or replaced in order to ensure that the earth’s cetacean species return to pre-exploitation numbers without causing further international turmoil.

Western states wish to turn a treaty built for the manageable hunting and exploitation of whales into one that is built purely for whale conservation. In doing so, western states are delegitimizing the treaty and causing tension between states.

A preferable alternative would be to draft a new treaty from a conservationist standpoint, realizing that commercial whaling should be a thing of the past. While whaling states may balk at such a treaty, they would be required to continue the moratorium on endangered, threatened, or young whales.

In exchange for being able to hunt certain whale species under specific quotas, whaling states must commit to assist in ending noise pollution, ocean pollution, inhumane killing practices, and habitat destruction. In addition, any whaling state must honor international whaling sanctuaries that are already in place and any that will be formed in the future.

This compromising treaty would satisfy the interests of all parties, foster a legitimate and stable international treaty for the regulation of whaling, and most importantly bring the populations of the earth’s whales back from the brink.
_____________________________

To read the paper, open HERE.

International Child Abduction Remedies Act

Deference to Foreign Custody Judgments as a Principle of International Comity

By Christopher Honeywell
Chris Honeywell, a 2012 graduate of Albany Law School, is currently an Associate Attorney with Girvin & Ferlazzo in Albany, where he practices in their litigation department. He did his undergraduate work at St. Lawrence University.
While in law school, Chris served as a judicial intern to Hon. Eugene P. Devine, Supreme Court, Albany County. He also served as Executive Director of the law school's Moot Court Program and, in recognition of his contributions, he was inducted into the Albany Law School Chapter of the National Order of the Barristers.
Chris prepared this paper for Prof. Alexandra Harrington's course in International Child Rights, Spring 2012.

The International Child Abduction Remedies Act does not require courts to grant deference to a foreign custody order. In a country where American superiority is at minimum a subconscious thought of many Americans, do United States courts give foreign judgments deference under the principle of international comity even though the full faith and credit clause does not require it?

Child custody is never an easy issue for courts to determine. The ever-evolving standards and criteria upon which to base custody, as well as the emotional toll the proceedings alone can have on a family, cause child custody decisions to be contentious and heart wrenching endeavors. Only complicating these proceedings are the technological advancements in travel during the second half of the 20th century, which make it easier for people to travel abroad, work in other countries, and even marry and settle down in a foreign country.

When the marriage is successful, the child has the tremendous opportunity of being exposed to a variety of cultures and opportunities. However, when the marriage fails, differing views on child rearing, gender roles, and what is best for the child make child custody cases a nightmare to determine. Complicating it even further is when one parent takes the child and flees the country, either returning to their home country to raise the child, or escaping the country where a custody agreement handed down was not in that parent’s favor.

International disputes of any nature often raise questions of which State and court should decide the issue and which State’s laws will be controlling in the case. One more added layer of controversy is that of culture. Disputes will arise because of cultural differences in childrearing and the courts may be in a position where they have to weigh the cultural values of a society they have no experience with and even a culture they may disagree with against a familiar culture. Lacking stable guidelines on dealing with international custody disputes, courts were coming to different conclusions and interpretations, allowing for parents to more easily abduct their child and forum shop for the appropriate location to raise their child out of reach from the other parent.

_____________________________
To read the paper, open HERE.