Geological Observatory of Coldigioco
PennState, The Dickinson School of Law: Penn State Law eLibraryNot a member yet
7581 research outputs found
Sort by
Want to Solve Labor Shortages? Relaxing the Child Labor Law Is Not the Answer
No full textRecently, the United States has been engaged in a nationwide debate over loosening regulations regarding children’s employment. The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) sets restrictions on the working hours of children under 16 and prohibits their employment in certain hazardous positions. However, some states, such as Iowa, Ohio, Arkansas, and Wisconsin, have either passed or are considering legislation allowing children to work longer hours or in potentially dangerous conditions in response to labor shortages. These new state laws conflict with existing federal regulations. This Comment discusses why states should refrain from relaxing their child labor laws to permit children to work longer hours than the federal limit or in hazardous conditions, and why the relaxed child labor laws in Iowa and Arkansas should be invalidated due to conflict preemption. For states contemplating loosening their child labor laws, like Ohio and Wisconsin, policymakers should carefully consider preemption issues and policy implications before making a decision
Command Responsibility and the War in Ukraine: Can Customary International Law Hold Russian Commanders Accountable for War Crimes?
No full textCurrently, neither Ukraine’s Constitution nor its criminal code establish the principle of command responsibility as a mode of criminal liability within the country. Key international statutes like Article 28 of the International Criminal Court and international case law, like the recently decided Case of Milanković v. Croatia, have firmly established the doctrine of command responsibility as a fundamental principle of customary international law applicable in the context of an armed conflict. Furthermore, the Milanković court affirmed a conviction based on command responsibility even in the absence of a clear domestic governing statute at the time the crime was committed, surviving an ex post facto law challenge.
This Comment posits that Ukraine should pass legislation to amend their criminal code to provide for command responsibility as a new mode of criminal liability. Ukraine should then use the doctrine of command responsibility to hold Russian commanders accountable for their war crimes committed after the bill’s passage.
Furthermore, despite its constitutional ban on ex post facto laws, Ukraine can, and should, rely confidently on Milanković and other international precedent to begin prosecuting Russian military commanders under the theory of command responsibility for crimes perpetrated by their subordinates before the new legislation’s passage. Case law suggests command responsibility has been tempore criminis an essential component of customary international law for the entire span of the War in Ukraine, meaning Ukraine can retroactively hold Russian commanders liable for their subordinates’ war crimes even when there was no law on the books.
Adoption of this principle will provide Ukrainian prosecutors with yet another (and arguably a more appropriate) mode of criminal responsibility to aid them in their pursuit of justice against even the most senior Russian military commanders and mercenary fighters alike for their subordinates’ war crimes committed in the ongoing War in Ukraine
The Case for Climate Reparations
No full textClimate reparations are, to employ an old cliché, an idea whose time has come. Of course, calls for reparations have been emanating from the Global South since long before scholars in the Global North started paying attention. The United States has been in the midst of a public debate over reparations for many years. And reparations have become among the more contentious issues pushed by campaigners and even delegates at international climate summits. Yet, although legal scholars have begun to contend with climate reparations, there is hardly a robust body of literature on the matter. The subject deserves—demands— deep scrutiny.
This Review has two goals. First, it seeks to advance a brief but rigorous case for climate reparations. Second, it aims to broaden legal discussions of climate reparations by placing the subject in direct conversation with the histories of land enclosure, seizure, and privatization. It attempts to do this by reading two seemingly disparate books alongside one another: Reconsidering Reparations by Olúfẹ́mi O. Táíwò (2022) and The Long Land War: The Global Struggle for Occupancy Rights by Jo Guldi (2022). Considering these two recent works side by side allows us to see the historical and analytical building-blocks for the sturdiest possible case for reparations, a case that is responsive to the past, clear-eyed about the present, and even hopeful for a radical future. In the end, it is revealing that two such different books ultimately conclude with the same prescription—that a massive reordering of the world order is perhaps the only thing that can save it
Blind Grading Gives Law Schools 20/20 Vision
No full textThere has been a big push to revamp legal education. Many have argued that after years of doing things the same way, it is time to change. While there is validity for the need for reform, educators should embrace the one thing legal education has gotten right: anonymous or blind grading. This Essay makes the case that blind grading should not only remain in legal education, but every law school course should adopt it, including writing and clinical courses. Only through blind grading can law schools better succeed in the ABA mandated goals of diversity, equity, and inclusion. Grades are important as they impact students’ futures, as well as their educational experiences. By ensuring objectivity and making all students feel that they are being treated equally, blind grading defrosts the chilling effect that grades often have on education, thereby enabling teaching and learning to flourish
Benefits Transparency
No full textRecently, several states and cities have enacted equal pay laws in a push for pay transparency in job postings to inform and help reduce wage gaps. Some of these laws also require a description of the employee benefits that the company offers. However, none of these laws require a detailed description of said benefits, even though employee benefits on average make up 24% of an employee’s compensation.
Businesses can choose how much to disclose with respect to their benefits and they may even engage in what this author calls “benefits washing”—a practice where companies provide vague or misleading information about their employee benefits. This discretion is problematic. Workers make decisions on where to apply and where to work based on information obtained on the internet, such as company websites. But these company disclosures do not divulge enough information to properly value the benefits. For example, many people do not understand that 401(k) plan features differ significantly across employers.
Mandatory detailed, succinct disclosure of employee benefits—specifically 401(k) plan benefits—is a public necessity as these benefits are exceedingly complex. Myriad stakeholders—employees, jobseekers, consumers, investors, and companies—would find more detailed, understandable disclosure of interest. For example, some consumers and investors—including ethical consumers and ESG investors—seek to align their purchases and investments with companies that treat their employees fairly. Additionally, people do not have enough saved for retirement, which not only poses a problem for them but also for taxpayers. And requiring companies to disclose their vesting schedules and other plan features will help companies better assess their own benefits and perhaps nudge or shame them into providing more favorable benefits. One would also hope that the prevalence of such detailed disclosure would help to normalize the value of retirement saving to all stakeholders.
We must not capitulate to the legal fantasy that companies will provide detailed and accurate information willingly, even if it may help the companies themselves. As such, this author calls on the government to mandate benefits transparency.
This Article contends that benefits transparency is essential particularly with respect to complex benefits like 401(k) plan benefits. Governmental regulation mandating detailed disclosure where stakeholders expect to see it is necessary to bring such transparency to fruition in an organized, comparable manner. This could be accomplished by state and local governments in their equal pay/pay transparency laws, or federally through Department of Labor rulemaking or an amendment to ERISA. The SEC and FASB could also require such disclosure for all publicly traded companies. So long as there are enforcement and penalties with teeth, we could see vital benefits transparency take hold
Drawing the Line of Scrimmage: Global Perspective of Daily Fantasy Sports in the Advertising Space
No full text
