5450 research outputs found
Sort by
A Delicate Balance: The Japan-US Status of Forces Agreement Applying a Comparative Framework to Recommend Changes to Criminal Jurisdiction Provisions in the Japan-US Status of Forces Agreement to Better Protect the Interests of Japan and the United States
Full text linkThe criminal jurisdiction provisions of the Japan-U.S. Status of Forces Agreement (“SOFA”), which governs the rights of US servicemembers deployed in Japan, must be amended. The recent Japanese criminal conviction of a U.S. naval officer focused U.S. lawmakers’ efforts on revising the Japan-U.S. SOFA. This led to a provision in the 2024 National Defense Authorization Act (“NDAA”), which requires the U.S. Secretary of Defense and Secretary of State to analyze the largest existing U.S. bilateral agreements and their treatment of U.S. servicemembers’ rights in foreign courts and, by the end of 2024, report their findings to congressional committees. This Note argues that changes to the Japan-U.S. SOFA must establish clear and transparent procedures, strengthen procedural protections to U.S. servicemembers in Japanese custody, and make concessions to Japan as an equal allied partner. Although this may be a challenging and formidable task, creating a more equitable and transparent Japan-U.S. SOFA will strengthen the Japan-U.S. alliance and the U.S.’s foreign policy focus in Asia
THE EQUAL PAY GAME CHANGER: USING MANDATORY REPORTING TO ENCOURAGE CORPORATIONS IN THE SPORTS ECOSYSTEM TO INCREASE INVESTMENT IN WOMEN’S SPORTS
Full text linkIn 2016, the United States Women’s National Team began a lengthy fight for equal pay by filing a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. In 2019, the fight continued when the team sued the United States Soccer Federation for gender discrimination. When the court granted summary judgment to the U.S. Soccer Federation on their Equal Pay Act claim, it closed the door for the team to achieve equal pay through a public law remedy. The tedious fight came to an end with a settlement which guaranteed that the U.S. Men’s and Women’s National Teams would be paid equally. Although the settlement agreement was an incredible feat, the team’s fight for equal pay highlighted that with no public law remedy available, women in sports would have to look elsewhere to achieve equal pay. From the outset, women’s sports have faced significant underinvestment. Throughout their history, women’s sports have followed the blueprint of men’s leagues—without the financial support that have allowed those leagues to thrive. With the main focus of inequality for female athletes being monetary compensation, the underlying issues are often ignored. The fight for equality in women’s sports is chalked up to simply achieving equal pay. After addressing the root cause of inequality in women’s sports, this Note analyzes the lack of investment in women’s sports and the need to combat it in order to achieve the ultimate goal of pay equality. Highlighting the need for investment, this Note identifies the incentives that investing in women’s sports offers to corporations. The best solution to create a stable, long-term dedication to investment in women’s sports is through expanding the use of Environmental, Social, and Governance practices
AI Fanfare & Fanfiction: Do Fanfiction Writers Have Protections Against Artificial Intelligence?
Full text linkAs artificial intelligence (AI) becomes a familiar topic in everyday conversation and now increasingly in courts, there is a conflict between its use in creative and artistic spaces. While authors and artists enjoy copyright protections that might shield their works from being misused, there are millions of fanfiction writers who have no such protections. After all, the essence of fanfiction is rooted in writing about the characters, settings, and stories made by someone else. After decades of writing online, these fanfiction authors face the threat of having their works scraped up and fed into AI algorithms to be used in unknown ways, all over the internet. This Note dives into the specifics of what exactly these (rapidly becoming not-so-) niche online terms like “AI” and “fanfiction” are, and how they overlap with the law. Ultimately, this Note argues that fanfiction authors deserve greater recognition as creators, which would entitle them to protections against AI scraping, and offers a solution: that writers have existing self-regulatory powers to discourage AI and scraping behavior
Untangling Bankruptcy’s Most Complex Web: Chapter 11 Rule 1111(b) and Subchapter V
Full text linkThe United States Code Section 1111(b) provides an equitable remedy to debt restructuring for both debtors and creditors in Chapter 11 bankruptcy by allowing the debtor to retain their income-producing assets and repay their creditor(s) through a mutually approved plan. However, section 1111(b) is difficult for courts to apply due to its complex nature, and infrequent application of the section has resulted in limited development of case law interpreting the section. Courts currently interpret 1111(b) elections in Chapter 11 Subchapter V cases to exclude interest accrual; this interpretation establishes an inequitable precedent whereby debtors’ procedural advantages bypass creditor protections during reorganization, granting debtors power far beyond what was contemplated by the Small Business Reorganization Act (“SBRA”). This Note will argue that Subchapter V Chapter 11 reorganization plans should limit Section 1111(b) elections to reduce costs to small business debtors in furtherance of the SBRA’s legislative intent. This proposal ensures Subchapter V cases maintain an equitable remedy for creditors while aligning with bankruptcy principals articulated in the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act (“BAPCPA”) and SBRA
False Start on NIL: Public and Private Law Should Treat College Athletes Like Any Other Student
Full text linkMy Body, Whose Choice? A Case for a Fundamental Right to Bodily Autonomy
Full text linkIn 2022, the US Supreme Court decided Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade and the fundamental right to abortion it had established nearly fifty years prior. The Court’s decision threw into uncertainty the future of not only reproductive rights in this country, but also many other individual rights. At the same time as the decision, the world was still reeling from a global pandemic, and the development of COVID-19 vaccines had spurred widespread controversy over the constitutionality of vaccine mandates. Both advocates for abortion access and opponents to vaccine mandates shared a common cry: “my body, my choice,” recognizing the implication of these issues on their bodily autonomy. However, a fundamental right to bodily autonomy has never been established. Instead, most individual rights—including, previously, the right to obtain an abortion—are protected under a fundamental right to privacy, a right that has received significant criticism for its multitude of meanings and overly broad scope. Situated within the many contours of the right to privacy, however, is a strong constitutional basis for establishing a fundamental right to bodily autonomy, which would better safeguard the individual rights privacy aims to protect. This note proposes that we can and should establish a fundamental right to bodily autonomy. It argues that such a right is soundly supported by the Constitution, would combat privacy’s weaknesses in safeguarding individual rights, and is capable of withstanding the strictest judicial scrutiny. Under a fundamental right to bodily autonomy, abortion bans could likely not withstand strict scrutiny, and vaccine mandates would similarly not survive except in pandemic circumstances. However, the recognition of such a right would serve to safeguard individual choices while continuing to allow government actions aimed at combating the true causes of these issues
Labor Enforcement in the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement: Design, Motivation, and Reality
Full text linkThe United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) includes a novel feature in the agreement’s dispute settlement provisions: the Rapid Response Labor Mechanism (RRM). The stated purpose of the RRM is to ensure the remediation of a denial of collective bargaining rights for workers in certain covered facilities. Its novelty is that it does not follow the typical labor claims processes as found in previous trade agreements, nor is it structured like traditional state-to-state dispute settlement. Primarily, it provides a means to take swift action against a facility when the complainant deems that a denial of specific labor rights is taking place. Essentially, it is an expedited process that targets sanctions at specific facilities instead of the government. While the USMCA was negotiated under the President Donald J. Trump administration, it has become a key feature of the Biden administration’s “worker-centric trade policy.” The results, however, are mixed, and raise serious questions about its implementation and the mechanism’s impact on Mexico’s labor reforms. This Article examines the design and motivation for the RRM, as well as how it has been used to date. The evidence reveals that any claims of the mechanism’s success are premature and, consequently, misleading—with long-standing implications for future U.S. trade deals
Amending the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act to Promote Accountability for Violations of Peremptory Norms of International Law
Full text linkThe current state of the United States legal system, and international law at large, fails to afford victims of violations of international law with proper redress, when those violations were facilitated by a domestic taking. The Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act provides foreign sovereigns immunity from the jurisdiction of United States courts when those foreign sovereigns effectuate of a violation of international law through domestic takings. Courts have attempted to circumvent the restrictions of the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act with exceptions such as the genocide exception. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Federal Republic of Germany v Philipp renounced the genocide exception, leaving victims of domestic takings powerless against their sovereigns.This Note proposes an amendment to the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Amendment that would provide an exception to the immunity enjoyed by foreign sovereigns when those foreign sovereigns’ violations of the peremptory norms of international law are facilitated by domestic takings. Such an amendment would provide otherwise helpless victims of domestic takings with an avenue for redress in United States courts when the taking facilitates a violation of a peremptory norm of international law
NATO Allies on the Brink of War: The Cause for Implement-ing a Dispute Resolution Mechanism Within The North Atlantic Treaty
Full text linkNATO is the largest peacekeeping military alliance in the world and is not yet done growing. Recent events in Ukraine have reinforced the importance of NATO as a defensive alliance. New threats, both internal and external, are emerging. Intra-alliance conflicts over ideological agreements, border disputes, and member contributions put the fate of the organization at risk. To retain its strength as it grows, NATO must develop stronger cohesion between member states to ensure effectiveness and prevent dissolution. This Note uses the recently reignited conflict between Greece and Turkey—NATO members and belligerent neighbors—to demonstrate the pressing need and peacekeeping utility of an intra-alliance dispute resolution mechanism
Preambles Before the Preamble: Rediscovering the Preamble’s Role in Constitutional Interpretation
Full text linkThis article explores how the Preamble to the Constitution (Preamble) would have been viewed when it was drafted by looking at how preambles were used in America in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. It offers the first comprehensive look at how preambles were viewed by lawyers, judges, politicians, and the public in the years before the Constitution was ratified. It demonstrates that courts’ modern treatment of the Preamble is at odds with its original meaning. Eighteenth-century Americans viewed the Preamble as an important tool for understanding and interpreting the Constitution. They would have expected courts to interpret the Constitution’s terms to be consistent with the purposes expressed in the Preamble. Moreover, there is evidence from both judicial decisions and public discourse that members of the public would have expected the Preamble to be used to limit or expand the scope of specific terms of the Constitution if that was necessary to achieve the purposes set out in the Preamble. This means that the way that courts use the Preamble today is at odds with its original meaning. To give the Constitution its original meaning, we must interpret the Constitution’s provisions in light of the purposes identified in the Preamble. For those judges and scholars who are originalists, this may require a shift in how they interpret the Constitution