Skidaway Institute of Oceanography
DigitalCommons@University of Georgia School of LawNot a member yet
17912 research outputs found
Sort by
Amicus Briefs, 2024
Get PDFSpring 2024 Update on Availability of Generative Artificial Intelligence Platforms Law Library Instruction Faculty Services and Curriculum Support Law Dawgs
Summer 2024 New Law Librarian - Sarah Slinger Generative Artificial Intelligence Updates Digitization Projects Law Library Instruction & Presentations Faculty Services and Curriculum Support Law Dawgs
Fall 2024 Addendum to the Law Library Strategic Plan Law Library Staff Member Departure - David Rutland Generative Artificial Intelligence Updates Faculty Services and Curriculum Support Law Library Fest Law Dawg
The Sixth Warfighting Domain?: Governing the Space-Cyber Nexus
Get PDFThis Article reviews the recent emergence of the space-cyber nexus as a distinct warfighting domain, solidified during the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and analyzes the (missing?) laws of space-cyber warfare. The Article further suggests a roadmap for the development of norms and rules under the constraints of contemporary geopolitics and difficulties in multilateral rulemaking. As space-based infrastructure became critical to modern militaries and economies, it has, as a result, become a prime target. While only four countries possess antisatellite missiles (United States, Russia, China, and India), cyberattacks require much less in terms of funds and technological sophistication and can also be launched by nonstate organizations. They are powerful asymmetric weapons that allow an attacker to cover their tracks, leaving the attacked country uncertain about attribution, thus rendering retaliation and deterrence challenging. The war in Ukraine, dubbed by some as “the first space-cyber war,” saw, for the first time, the targeting of space-based services as part of a military campaign. Significantly, this was achieved through cyberattacks—a telling choice given that Russia, to which the attack was attributed, also possesses antisatellite missiles. This Article suggests that current multilateral regimes are insufficient to address the new space-cyber nexus and that there is an urgent need to develop an integrated, flexible, multilateral regime. Considering the gridlock in traditional international lawmaking and the rise of nonbinding international agreements, the Article suggests a polycentric approach to regime building. Advocated by Nobel Laureate Elinor Ostrom for commons governance, polycentric governance is increasingly used to address a diverse range of global collective action challenges. The Article thus envisions multi-track diplomacy in which multiple forums introduce a series of nonbinding international agreements that together would amount to a feasible and flexible, albeit imperfect, corpus of the laws of space-cyber warfare
Let’s Play God: Commodifying the Human Body
Get PDFThe global shortage of viable organs for transplantation, exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, highlights a stark contrast between organ donation systems, particularly evident in the United States and Iran. While the United States relies on an altruistic donation system, resulting in millions on its waiting list, Iran\u27s compensation-based approach has nearly eradicated its waitlist. The legal framework of the United States, shaped by property law, historical views on the human body, and federal statutes, complicates its approach to organ donation. The reluctance to grant individual rights to body parts hampers success compared to Iran’s incentivization approach. Beyond learning from Iran’s legalized organ market, this Note argues that the United States should grant complete ownership rights in organs to the individual to provide more viable organs, promote autonomy, punish discriminatory behavior, and expand legal protections for the individual. Much like Dr. Frankenstein, the United States can no longer ignore the consequences of its own creation
Compelling Evidence in International Commercial Arbitration After the Section 1782 Shutdown: FAA Section 7 as an Alternative Approach
Get PDFThe United States Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in the 2022 case ZF Automotive US, Inc. v. Luxshare, Ltd. resolved the long-disputed circuit split regarding the application of Section 1782 of Title 28 of the U.S. Code to international arbitrations. The Court’s ruling that the term “foreign or international tribunal” under Section 1782 includes only governmental or intergovernmental adjudicative bodies ended the use of Section 1782 to compel evidence located in the United States in private adjudicative bodies such as international commercial arbitrations. The Section 1782 shutdown has required arbitrators and parties to international commercial arbitrations to seek alternative legal mechanisms to compel evidence located in the United States. Shortly after the Supreme Court eliminated the use of Section 1782, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit opened the door to an alternative approach in its ruling in Jones Day v. Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP. This Note argues that the Ninth Circuit’s application and broad interpretation of Section 7 of the Federal Arbitration Act provides the framework for a 1782 workaround to compel thirdparty evidence located in the United States in international commercial arbitrations
Purpose’s Purposes: Culpability, Liberty, Legal Wrongs, and Accomplice Mens Rea
Get PDFThe federal mens rea for accomplice liability—important in its own right and also as an example to the states—is unsettled. Three cases from the just completed Supreme Court term hint (somewhat surprisingly) at various directions the justices might take. This essay examines the cases with a particular focus on the alternative explanations that might be given for the traditional requirement of purposeful facilitation for accomplice liability. The purpose requirement is contestable so long as it is justified in terms of a narrow conception of culpability. It is better understood as serving a liberty-enhancing function. The liberty focus clarifies difficult questions regarding the elements of an offense for which purpose should be required and, to a degree, validates the legal-wrong approach to mens rea. It also illuminates the common problem of when an actor who purposely facilitates one crime should be liable for a different crime committed by the principal, suggesting a problem with the Model Penal Code’s approach
The Necessary and Proper Stewardship of Judicial Data
No full textAziz Z. Huq is a scholar of US and comparative constitutional law. His recent work concerns democratic backsliding and the regulation of AI. His award-willing scholarship is published in several books and in leading law, social science, and political science journals. He also writes for Politico, the Washington Post, the New York Times, and may other non-specialist publication.
His lecture titled “The Necessary and Proper Stewardship of Judicial Data” was presented as the 122nd SIbley Lecture on March 27, 2024 in the Hatton Lovejoy Courtroom. A reception followed at the law school
Hired Guns : Establishing the Scope of the Proper Cross-Examination and Argument Relating to Expert Witness\u27 Compensation in Criminal Trials
Get PDFThe outcomes of criminal cases can turn on the credibility of the parties’ expert witnesses. The compensation such experts receive in exchange for their work on cases can undermine their credibility, as it provides the experts with a financial incentive that might bias them in favor of the parties who retain them. While concerns with such bias have existed for decades, courts have been inconsistent in the defining the permissible scope of cross-examination and argument on the issue. Some courts have unduly curtailed such cross-examination and argument. Courts have also been inconsistent in their views of whether calling such expert witnesses “hired guns” is proper argument.
The present article begins with an overview of the issue, providing examples of the types of cases in which the issue may arise. The article then explores the general standards of conduct that govern the conduct of both prosecutors and defense counsel. Next, the article proposes standards defining the scope of proper cross-examination and argument on the issue. Finally, it proposes standard jury instructions that can be used to undermine the effect of improper argument on the issue
Parental Kidnapping and Domestic Violence: The Need to Reform and Enforce State Action
Get PDFWhen civil family issues intersect with criminal acts, the civil and criminal systems fail to effectuate a complete remedy. Specifically, there are few effective protections for victims of domestic violence during the pendency of domestic relations proceedings. Given the complicated gender dynamics and inequalities that have developed throughout history, it is unsurprising that the criminal and civil systems have failed to prioritize prosecution of crimes against women. Current criminal laws fail to treat domestic violence and parental kidnapping as serious crimes and instead adopt the view that domestic disputes are private issues to be handled within the family. In turn, the criminal system attempts to rely on the civil system to address these issues, but abuse victims cannot find proper remedies there either. This gap in the law leaves victims helpless.
The criminal justice system must reform to fill the gap. State parental kidnapping statutes, and law enforcement and prosecutors, currently fail to diligently investigate and punish acts of domestic violence and parental kidnapping. Likewise, the civil system leaves victims vulnerable during domestic relations proceedings. Judges have broad discretion in adjudicating custody, and this latitude leaves room for judges to award custody to abusers, especially when claims of parental alienation by one parent take precedent over claims of abuse by the other parent. The consequences of awarding custody to unstable abusive parents can be fatal. Because the civil system is ill-equipped to protect victims and punish perpetrators of domestic crimes, reform must come from within the criminal justice system through aggressive prosecution of parental kidnapping and domestic violence. These issues are not private family issues, and state intervention is required to ensure adequate protection and prevention
The Wild West of State NIL Laws: Asking for Congress to Bail Out the NCAA
Get PDFThis Note explores the evolution of the amateur status in college athletics, particularly the absence of a consistent definition for “amateur collegiate athlete” by the NCAA over the years. The traditional demarcation between amateur and professional athletes blurred significantly, particularly with the exponential growth of college football revenues, leading to indistinguishable time commitments for both categories. The landmark case of NCAA v. Alston marked a pivotal moment as the Supreme Court ruled in favor of allowing college athletes to earn compensation for the use of their name, image, and likeness ( NIL ). This decision overturned decades of prohibiting such practices in the name of amateurism, triggering widespread implications for various stakeholders such as schools, coaches, players, and parents. Individual state laws on NIL further contributed to a confusing patchwork, raising concerns about potential unfair practices impacting competition, particularly in football. The NCAA is now urging Congress to address challenges and uncertainties created by the Alston ruling. This Note supports the conclusion that Congress should play a role in establishing bipartisan legislation to ensure fairness in the recruiting process, protect athletes\u27 intellectual property, and foster healthy competition among university athletic departments. This will help create a level playing field and bring clarity to the confusing and ever-changing landscape of college athletics
Trial by Trademark: Why the Trademark System Needs to Stand on Its Own Two Marks
Get PDFWhile IP-intensive industries continue to produce a significant portion of the American economy, trademarks consistently remain a substantial portion. Given trademarks’ increasingly pivotal role in the global economy, the complexities and nuances of trademark law demand a specialized approach. In examining the current trademark landscape, many scholars have underscored the paradox of its fractured nature, despite its fundamental role in the economy. Currently, trademark law suffers from a lack of uniformity across the various circuits in critical areas of the law itself, as well as vulnerabilities in forum shopping and confusion for businesses.
Rather than endorsing the conventional approach to uniformity through centralization under the Federal Circuit, this Note asserts the need for a paradigm shift, advocating for the implementation of inferior courts exclusively dedicated to trademark. Such a transformative approach promises to bring a more coherent, consistent, and specialized expertise to trademark jurisprudence, aligning it with the economic significance it holds in the contemporary landscape