5450 research outputs found
Sort by
Recommended Amendments to the Truth and Reconciliation Act as the Government of Nepal Considers Prosecuting 65,411 Human Rights Cases from the Armed Conflict (1996- 2006)
Get PDFThe bloody Armed Conflict in Nepal (1996-2006) left an estimated 16,729 dead, 78,689 displaced, and 2,506 victims of enforced disappearance. In the seventeen years since the resolution of the Conflict, none of the 65,411 complaints brought by Conflict victims and their families have been resolved. This article argues that the Truth and Reconciliation Act (the Act) can be blamed for the stalled justice process. The Act, which created two commissions charged with the investigation and prosecution of Conflict crimes—Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) and the Commission on the Investigation of Enforced Disappeared Persons (CIEDP)—must be amended so that victims and their families can have their day in court as promised under International Human Rights Law
Transactional Clinical Support for Mutual Aid Groups: Toward a Theory of Transactional Movement Lawyering
Get PDFFailed Efforts At Harmonization of Securities Regulation
Get PDFThis Article is based on a speech made by Professor Karmel at the Brooklyn Journal of Corporate, Financial, & Commercial Law annual symposium in May 2022 titled “Commercial Law Harmonization: Past as Prologue,” analyzing the work done in the past half-century to balance commercial law. The symposium also celebrated the career of Neil B. Cohen of Brooklyn Law School for his teaching and participation in law reform efforts
Regulating the Autonomous Ocean
Get PDFThe rapid rise in aerial drone use and the future deployment of self-driving cars have both spurred extensive legal and social debate. Autonomous vessels on the ocean, on the other hand, have largely escaped detailed scrutiny, even as they are reshaping the landscape of human interactions with the ocean and creating novel challenges for national and international legal regimes. Autonomous vessels are being captured while spying on other countries, raising concerns about national security and surveillance regimes. The Coast Guard is using enforcement loopholes to justify abandoning many of their autonomous vessels at sea, in flagrant violation of national and international environmental laws. Even the most basic threshold questions, like whether autonomous vessels should be legally considered vessels, are unsettled. In short, the regulatory landscape governing autonomous vessels is a mess. Updating autonomous vessel regulations is essential for supporting the $1.5 trillion global maritime economy. This article evaluates the advent of autonomy at sea and proposes principles for regulating autonomous vessels moving forward. By looking broadly at the diverse ways in which autonomous vessels are changing ocean uses, this article shows how autonomous vessels are challenging existing regulatory frameworks and exploiting governance gaps. While the US and international communities are in the early stages of major new efforts to regulate robotics at sea, these efforts are primarily focused on paving the way for large autonomous cargo ships to be deployed in the 2030s and 2040s. In the meantime, a wide array of smaller autonomous vessels are already common on the world’s oceans, and, in many cases, operating in governance gaps that implicate major environmental, safety, and surveillance concerns. This article proposes concrete principles for regulating autonomous ocean-going vessels moving forward, drawing on analogous regulatory processes developed to govern aerial drones and other types of robotics
How Discretionary Decision-Making Impacts the Financial Performance and Legal Disclosures of S&P 500 Funds
Get PDFWhen investment funds track the S&P 500, the index becomes more than just a list of 500 companies. The focus then becomes the financial and regulatory issues that arise from the discretionary decision-making power of the Index Committee that governs the S&P 500. Based on our empirical research and analysis, this article recommends a new principal risk disclosure under SEC Form N-1A, which we refer to as “selection risk,” to be included in the statutory and summary prospectuses of investment funds that track the S&P 500. This type of risk results when the Index Committee uses its discretionary decision-making power to exclude stocks or groups of stocks that may outperform the index and not allow S&P funds to create portfolios of stocks that most accurately represent the market risk and expected returns of large cap, Blue Chip America. This new disclosure will provide investors with the necessary information to evaluate whether index funds that track the S&P 500 are appropriate for their investment needs. Moreover, this article argues that the S&P 500 index is no longer an appropriate broad-based securities market index for purposes of Form N-1A benchmarking
United States v. Donziger: How the Mere Appearance of Judicial Impropriety Harms Us All
Get PDFIn 2011, environmentalist lawyer Steven Donziger was sued in a retaliatory lawsuit by the oil company Chevron, following his securement of a multibillion-dollar award against the company for its environmental harms in Ecuador. In a case rife with judicial impropriety, Donziger was ultimately charged with criminal contempt of court and his charges were prosecuted by a private attorney. These suits exemplify the growing problem of powerful corporations using legal tactics to retaliate against activists and undermine the legitimacy of the legal system. Federal judges contribute to the problem by misusing the extensive power they hold in distinguishing criminal from civil contempt, as well as appointing private prosecutors. The impartiality of the judiciary is of paramount importance in ensuring the legitimacy of the justice system, meaning even the appearance of judicial impropriety may be detrimental to the system as a whole. This Note argues that the criminal versus civil contempt classification should be clearly defined based on the intent of the contemptor. It also proposes that public prosecutors, rather than the judiciary, should be responsible for the appointment of private prosecutors. Both of these reforms would have better protected Donziger from the partiality of the judges involved in his cases and would safeguard the public’s trust in the federal judiciary as a legitimate means to achieving justice in the United States
Freeing Cryptoassets from Howey: A Defense of Genuine Token Offering
Get PDFThe Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) is the most powerful regulator of the U.S. securities market and serves to “protect investors; maintain fair, orderly, and efficient markets; and facilitate capital formation.” The agency’s task of protecting retail investors and regulating market participants has been, at times, reduced to a binary choice between “Main Street” investors and “Wall Street” insiders. Some regulators and legislators rely on this binary to put pressure on cryptoassets, claiming that more regulation leads to more effective investor protections. This Note rejects that premise. Genuine tokens offerings (i.e., unregistered security offerings not designed to defraud investors) must be allowed to enter the marketplace, without the red tape, in order for the SEC to properly fulfill its three-part regulatory mission