Tuesday, October 25, 2022

The Future of International Cyberlaw: State Sovereignty Cannot Be the Driving Principle

By Nathaniel Clark 
Nathaniel Clark is a 2022 graduate of Albany Law School. Prior to attending law school, he earned his bachelor's degree from the University at Albany, State University of New York, where he majored in Emergency Preparedness, Homeland Security, and Cybersecurity and minored in Philosophy.
At Albany Law, Nate was a member of the Albany Law Review. He interned in a variety of offices while in law school, including the chambers of Magistrate Judge Christian F. Hummel of the Northern District of New York and the law firm of O’Connell & Aronowitz, P.C.
Nate, who just learned that he passed the bar exam, is currently working as an Assistant Appellate Court Attorney at the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.


Cybercrime cost the world $6 trillion by the end of 2021, and will have cost $10.5 trillion by 2025. While a unified approach is required to effectively combat cybercrime, national positions on cybersecurity differ greatly. The current international framework addressing cybercrime, the Budapest Convention, is twenty years old, and significant international actors, such as China and Russia, are not signatories.

While the Budapest Convention is currently being updated by the European Council, the United Nations is drafting a new and comprehensive cybercrime treaty. At the center of the debate is the issue of state sovereignty and how it should play into international cyberlaw.

Russia, China, and other states strongly support a treaty protecting the sovereignty of states to autonomously regulate cyberspace within their own borders. But frameworks emphasizing state sovereignty ignore the borderless nature of cyberspace and cybercrime. Instead, the UN should adopt a treaty similar to the updated Budapest Convention, which contains provisions essential to fighting transnational cybercrime. 
____________________________
To read the full paper, click HERE. 

Monday, October 17, 2022

Chief Justice John Roberts: An Analysis of His International Law Jurisprudence

By Andrew Cavaluzzi
Andrew Cavaluzzi is an Albany Law alum (class of ’22) and currently works at the Westchester County District Attorney’s Office as an Assistant District Attorney. 
Andrew grew up in New York City. He earned his Bachelor of Arts in Political Science at the College of the Holy Cross in Worcester, MA, and also spent a year studying International Relations at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland.
During his time at Albany Law, Andrew was a member and a class president of the Student Bar Association. He also interned at the Albany County District Attorney's Office, as well as the New York Attorney General's Office. 


John Roberts assumed the role of Chief Justice on September 29, 2005. He is known to have shaped the Court’s role in its international law jurisprudence with a distinct judicial philosophy, best described as institutional-focused and presumptively skeptical.

Institutional focused, as it relates to his opinions, means emphasizing a balance between executive and legislative duties, a balance between judiciaries in state and federal courts, as well as strong adherence to narrow opinions. Presumptively skeptical, as it relates to his opinions, refers to his use of strict textualism and canons of construction.

This paper will first examine the topics of self-executing treaties and presumptive extraterritoriality as Chief Justice Roberts' most impactful decisions on international law. Second, it will discuss a multitude of opinions written by Roberts highlighting his institutional focus and skepticism. Naturally, these terms can be viewed as Roberts having fundamentally more conservative stances, which do often explain Roberts' stance on these cases.

This paper seeks to find the principles that the Chief Justice employs, as well as the impact they have, particularly on the power of the executive branch.
____________________________
To read the full paper, click HERE

Wednesday, September 7, 2022

International Law Studies Staff, 2022 - 2023

Director   Vincent M. Bonventre

Student Editorial Board, 2022 - 2023
Editor-in-Chief
Jaclyn R. Yoselevich is a third-year student at Albany Law School. She grew up in Union, New Jersey, and graduated from Ithaca College where she studied Legal Studies, as well as minoring in Mathematics, Communications, Jewish Studies, and Interdisciplinary Studies. After receiving her bachelor's degree, she continued her education at Albany Law School.  

While at Albany Law School, Jaclyn has served as the Associate Board Member for Moot Court, 2L Class Representative of the Student Bar Association, Vice President of Cardozo Legal Society, Treasurer of Phi Alpha Delta, Teaching Assistant for Introduction to Lawyering, and a subeditor for the Government Law Review. Currently, she serves as the Senior Prize Trials Competition Chair for Moot Court, President of Cardozo Legal Society, Vice President of Government Law Society, 3L Class Representative of the Student Bar Association, and Associate Editor for Government Law Review. In the past, Jaclyn has worked for the Domestic Violence Prosecution Hybrid Clinic in the Saratoga County District Attorney's Office and an intern at the Schenectady County Public Defender's Office. This summer she interned at the Manhattan District Attorney's Office.

Upon graduating, Jaclyn hopes to work as a criminal law attorney. In her free time, Jaclyn loves to spend time with family and friends, be out in nature, and play flute.

Executive Editor
Beven B. Nedumthakady
 is a third-year student at Albany Law School. He grew up in the Hudson Valley, and received a bachelor's degree in electrical engineering before deciding to pursue his JD. During his time at Albany Law School, Beven has served as a Senator and is currently Vice President of the Student Bar Association, has served as Vice Justice of Phi Alpha Delta Rockefeller Chapter, and is the President and co-founder of the Catholic Law Students Association.

Beven has worked in a number of different fields, including civil litigation at Legal Aid Society of Northeastern NY, criminal prosecution at the Albany County District Attorney's Office, and intellectual property at Heslin Rothenberg Farley & Mesiti P.C. In his free time, Beven enjoys hunting, fishing, hiking, and spending time outdoors.

Executive Editor
Nicholas A. Alfano is a third-year student at Albany Law School. He graduated from Seton Hall University, where he majored in Political Science and Philosophy and minored in Economics. 

Nicholas is a founding member of the Catholic Law Students Association where he currently serves as treasurer. He has previously interned with the NYS Division of Consumer Protection’s Utility Intervention Unit and the Third Judicial District of the New York State Unified Court System. 

Executive Editor
Daniel W. Richer
 is a third-year student at Albany Law School. He grew up in Clarence, NY, and graduated from the State University of New York at Fredonia where he majored in History and Political Science. After receiving his bachelor’s degree, Dan worked as a litigation paralegal at a personal injury firm in Buffalo. Since attending law school, he has continued to pursue personal injury law while enjoying the numerous fields of study offered at Albany Law.  
 
In his free time, Dan enjoys distance running and golf. His interests include American history, maritime studies, and international relations. 
________________________

For previous years' staffs, click HERE

Thursday, May 19, 2022

The Irish Potato Famine: Indifferent Colonial Rule as Genocide

By Daniel W. Richer
Daniel Richer is a second-year student at Albany Law School. He grew up in Clarence, NY, and he graduated from the State University of New York at Fredonia where he majored in History and Political Science.
After receiving his bachelor’s degree, Dan worked as a litigation paralegal at a personal injury firm in Buffalo. Since attending law school, he has continued to pursue personal injury law while enjoying the numerous fields of study offered at Albany Law.  



Since the conclusion of World War II, the term “genocide” has been used to describe acts taken by governments with the intent of eliminating a particular class of people. These acts are typically rooted out of prejudice against another group’s race, national origin, or religion.

However, the extent to which the term “genocide” has been used in reference to deliberate inactions of governments is generally limited. Such inactions may be indifference to a group living within a ruling state’s political boundaries as evidenced by certain policy initiatives. Consequently, certain inactions of governments—particularly in the wake of humanitarian crises—have often resulted in the severe exacerbation of disease, mass starvation, and death. Thus, in comparison to systemic acts taken by governments complicit in genocide, inactions may similarly be rooted out of prejudice against another group’s religion, national origin, or social character.

Historically, the nation of Ireland remained the victim of severe poverty, colonialism, and political subjugation for centuries. This repression can ultimately be traced back to its function as a British colony and later through its incorporation by Parliament into the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. In turn, its role as a population was almost entirely based upon the social and economic aspirations of the British Empire, resulting in little political and economic opportunism. Though the island persisted as an ill-equipped nation of people, Ireland was left with minimal institutional structures in place capable of responding to a potential humanitarian crisis. This became particularly evident in the wake of the Irish Potato Famine--a period of scarcity and mass starvation left beyond the control of the people whom it most severely impacted.

This paper seeks to address whether the inactions of the British government at the time of the Potato Famine constituted genocide against the people of Ireland.
____________________________
To read the full paper, click HERE

Friday, April 1, 2022

The Holodomor (Ukrainian Genocide)

As defined by post-WWII international standards
By Harris D. Bresowsky
Harris D. Bresowsky is a third-year student at Albany Law School. He grew up in Brooklyn, NY, and he graduated from the University at Buffalo where he studied Political Science and Public Policy.
During his time in law school, Harris has been the Co-Chair of Albany Law School's chapter of the American Constitution Society and a Government Law Center Fellow. Additionally, he interned with a New York Supreme Court Judge in Nassau County, the Joint Commission of Public Ethics, and SUNY's Office of General Counsel.
Harris is passionate about international law and specifically about human rights research. Following his graduation, Harris plans on working in New York City. Harris's passions outside of law include hiking, reading, and playing golf


The Ukrainian flag is composed of two colors – blue and yellow. The two colors are laid out as almost a portrait of its natural landscape. The blue represents the clear sky above and the yellow represents the wheat fields that produce grain to feed much of the world. These fertile lands are attractive to any country – Russia included.

In 2022, Russia is once again on the offensive against Ukraine. The motivating factor seems to be its desire to keep Ukraine in its sphere of influence. History often repeats itself and Russia (in its many forms) has been a historical colonizing empire in Eastern Europe. As a colonizing state, it has repeatedly engaged in activities to suppress its neighbors’ desires to determine their futures based on their own free wills.

These repressions often resulted in large-scale atrocities such as Holodomor. These tragedies often went unnoticed. But it is important to shine a light on every event of human suffering and recognize Holodomor for what it truly was – a genocide, as defined by contemporary international law.
____________________________
To read the full paper, click HERE.