9747 research outputs found
Sort by
Manifestly Unlawful: Why Russian Military Commanders Must Disobey a Nuclear Launch Order Against Ukraine
No full textApplying the international legal framework governing the use of nuclear weapons to the facts of the war in Ukraine leads to a clear answer to the question of whether the use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine by Russia would be legal. While the 1996 International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion on the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons did not conclusively decide whether the use of nuclear weapons was per se illegal, by applying the legal framework articulated by the International Court of Justice to the facts of Russia’s war against Ukraine it is clear that any conceivable use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine by Russia would be illegal. This article builds on the holdings of the International Court of Justice advisory opinion by applying the fundamental principles of international humanitarian law to the war in Ukraine. This includes an evaluation of several types of potential Russian nuclear strikes, including a tactical nuclear strike on a city, at sea, or in a remote location of the battlefield. This analysis demonstrates that there is no Russian nuclear strike against Ukrainian targets that could satisfy the legal requirements of international humanitarian law. Therefore, the article advises Russian military commanders to refuse to launch any nuclear launch order against Ukraine in the present armed conflict
More Haste to Reduce Food Waste: Adopting Food Date Labeling Standards Under Priority Area Four of the Winning on Reducing Food Waste Initiative
No full textIt is estimated that 30-40% of the food supply in the United States goes uneaten. Wasted food means wasted resources and a wasted opportunity to feed those who are food insecure. In 2018, the United States Department of Agriculture, Food and Drug Administration, and Environmental Protection Agency signed the Winning on Reducing Food Waste Initiative to prioritize reducing food waste. This paper argues that, to make meaningful changes under this initiative, FDA and USDA should use their authority to regulate misbranded products to adopt national food date labeling standard
Free, Prior Informed Consent and Extractive Industry: Indigenous Action is the Past, Present and Future of Global Environmental Justice
No full textFree, Prior Informed Consent ( FPIC ) from the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples has been central to global Indigenous action against extractive industries’ harmful practices. Yet, it is often not fully recognized as a sovereign right, which hinders Indigenous peoples’ ability to use it to its full potential. Historically, FPIC has been deemed a consultation right, not a right to “veto” industry action on Indigenous land. Countries that have interpreted FPIC as a mere consultation right have allowed further exploitation of Indigenous peoples, usually leading to environmental and humanitarian disasters. However, when courts have respected the right to consent, rather than consultation, incredible environmental and Indigenous justice has followed. Case studies of South Africa and Ecuador show how communities have protected the environment by asserting their right to FPIC, and thus the right to block environmentally degrading development. FPIC can be an effective way for Indigenous people to achieve environmental justice, yet the delay of universal acceptance has proven harmful to both the environment and Indigenous rights. Therefore, finding additional avenues to achieve this goal is paramount. One such avenue to redress environmental and Indigenous justice is the movement to return Indigenous lands to their ancestral occupants. Globally, governments and private organizations have returned stewardship, and in some cases, ownership to Indigenous peoples. Not only is the movement justified for ethical and humanitarian reasons, but also to protect habitats, wildlife, and biodiversity, as shown by the recent successes of Gayini (New South Wales) and the Bison Range (United States)
\u3cem\u3eAmericans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta:\u3c/em\u3eThe Dire Consequences of Attacking a Major Solution to Dark Money in Politics
Get PDFMental Health Care and Intimate Partner Violence: Unasked Questions
Get PDFThere is significant overlap between the group of people who experience trauma, including domestic or intimate partner violence, and those who are hospitalized for severe mental illness. In recent years there has been a growing awareness in the mental health treatment community of the prevalence of trauma among individuals with behavioral health problems. Despite the strong evidence of elevated rates of exposure to domestic or intimate partner violence among individuals experiencing mental illness (including depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress disorder), mental health professionals often do not effectively address this co-occurring factor in assessing and treating their clients or patients. The failure of these clinicians to screen for domestic or intimate partner violence is even more troubling because of the presence of mental health coercion in some abusive relationships. Research suggests that individuals with co-occurring abuse histories and mental illness may be coerced by intimate partners, other family members, or by official agencies, to receive unwanted behavioral health treatment. This coercion may be the product of emergency detention and/or civil commitment procedures initiated by partners and other family members seeking to leverage those legal mechanisms in order to exert unwarranted control.
Paradoxically, an additional group subject to domestic or intimate partner violence experiences coercion that prevents them from accessing behavioral health services. This group includes some individuals who wish to receive mental health treatment (which may or may not relate to abuse) but who are prevented from doing so by their abusers. The group also includes some individuals whose abusers inhibit or discourage medication, treatment, or hospitalization, as well as those whose abusers pressure substance use or interfere in substance abuse treatment.
This article addresses the overlap of trauma and mental disability, the failure of behavioral health services systemically to screen for domestic or intimate partner violence, the risk that abusive partners may manipulate the civil commitment system, and the likelihood that people with mental illness who experience domestic or intimate partner violence fail to receive sufficient trauma-informed treatment for their mental illness or other behavioral health needs. The article calls for more research, screening, and service integration to meet the needs of persons who experience both mental illness or disability and domestic or intimate partner violence, as well as adjustments to the legal rules governing emergency detention and civil commitment. In particular, it explores systematic screening procedures to assess for trauma, abuse, and coercion at the emergency petition and evaluation stages as well as at involuntary commitment hearings, and analyzes the need for greater system integration of mental health treatment with the existing structure of shelters and other supportive services for domestic or intimate partner violence
\u3cem\u3eSalzberg v. Sciabacucchi:\u3c/em\u3eExpanding Delaware Corporations\u27 Power to Require Securities Act Claims to be Brought in Federal Court
Get PDF\u3cem\u3eCarpenter v. United States:\u3c/em\u3eA Systematic Shift in the Fourth Amendment Jurisprudence in the Digital Age
Get PDF
