Global Health Research Center of Central Asia
Columbia Law School Scholarship ArchiveNot a member yet
5770 research outputs found
Sort by
Child Welfare and COVID-19: An Unexpected Opportunity for Systemic Change
Get PDFThe COVID-19 pandemic has already wrecked greater havoc in poor neighborhoods of color, where pre-existing conditions exacerbate the disease’s spread. Crowded housing and homelessness, less access to health care and insurance, and underlying health conditions are all factors that worsen the chances of remaining healthy.Workers desperate for income continue to work without sufficient protective measures, moving in and out of these neighborhoods, putting themselves and their families at risk. During periods of greater disruption, tensions are heightened and violence more prevalent. Already some experts are warning of an onslaught of child maltreatment cases, citing earlier examples of spikes in foster care during drug epidemics and economic recessions. Instead of panicking, thinking creatively and thoughtfully about appropriate responses and using the information and resources we already have may help to diminish such fears and improve the safeguards that are needed to protect the integrity of families and keep children safe
Making Sense of the Arbitrator’s Ruling in \u3cem\u3eDS 316 EC and Certain Member States – Measures Affecting Trade in Large Civil Aircraft (Article 22.6-EC)\u3c/em\u3e: A Jigsaw Puzzle with (at Least) a Couple Missing Pieces
Get PDF“The U.S. won a 7.5 billion USD for an indefinite time period
Mining and the SDGs: A 2020 Status Update
Get PDFIn September 2015, the UN member states agreed on a set of 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which represent the global agenda for equitable, socially inclusive, and environmentally sustainable economic development until 2030. Mining companies have the potential to become leading partners in achieving the SDGs. Through their direct operations, mining companies can generate profits, employment, and economic growth in low-income countries. And through partnerships with government and civil society, mining companies can ensure that benefits of mining extend beyond the life of the mine itself, so that the mining industry has a positive impact on the natural environment, climate change, and social capital.
Mining companies will be called on to extract responsibly, waste less, use safer processes, incorporate new sustainable technologies, promote the improved wellbeing of local communities, curb emissions, and improve environmental stewardship. Mining companies committed to the SDGs will benefit from improved relationships with governments and communities, as well as better access to financial resources. Those that fail to engage meaningfully with the SDGs will put their operations at risk in the short and long term.
In September 2020, in partnership with the Responsible Mining Foundation (RMF), CCSI published a new report, Mining and the SDGs: A 2020 Status Update as a follow-up to the 2016 Mapping Mining to the SDGs Atlas (see below). This report provides an update on what large-scale mining companies are doing to integrate and report on SDGs in their business strategies and highlights nine practical steps that companies can take to demonstrate their commitment to achieving the Goals by the 2030 deadline. The report can be downloaded in English, Chinese, Spanish, French, Bahasa Indonesia, Japanese, Portuguese (BR) and Russian.
In 2015, CCSI worked with the World Economic Forum, United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), and the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN) to create a shared understanding of how the mining industry can most effectively contribute to the SDGs. The report can assist mining companies to navigate where their activities – exploration, operations, and mine closure – can help the world achieve the SDGs. Governments, civil society and other stakeholders can also identify opportunities for shared action and partnership with the mining industry.
A draft report of Mapping Mining to the Sustainable Development Goals: A Preliminary Atlas was released for public consultation in January 2016; the final version of the executive summary and the full report (available in English, Spanish, French, and Portuguese) was released on July 19, 2016
BU S1E03
No full textLine art image of Kate Waldock, research fellow with Columbia Law School\u27s Ira M. Millstein Center for Global Markets and Corporate Ownership.https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/beyond_unprecedented_podcast/1008/thumbnail.jp
BU S1E00
No full textLine art image of Eric Talley, Isidor and Seville Sulzbacher Professor of Law at Columbia Law School.https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/beyond_unprecedented_podcast/1000/thumbnail.jp
Beyond Unprecedented S1 Ep2: Can the Fed Rescue Us?
Get PDFThe Federal Reserve’s awesome power to guide monetary policy and regulate financial institutions is often underappreciated. But the Fed’s actions will determine how quickly and effectively the United States rebounds from this economic crisis.
In the second episode of Beyond “Unprecedented,” host Eric Talley welcomes two experts among a small cadre of legal scholars who study the Fed: Visiting Professor Peter Conti-Brown and Professor Kathryn Judge. These “strange birds,” as Talley affectionately describes them, discuss how the Fed – which is traditionally focused on inflation, interest rates, and the stability of the financial system – is increasingly concerned with labor market conditions and supporting a post-pandemic economy in which everyone who wants a job can find one.https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/beyond_unprecedented/1002/thumbnail.jp
Reimagining Reproductive Rights Jurisprudence in India: Reflections on the Recent Decisions on Privacy and Gender Equality from the Supreme Court of India
Get PDFIn July 2018, twenty-year-old Sarita approached the Supreme Court of India seeking permission to terminate her twenty-five-week pregnancy. Sarita was a domestic violence survivor and suffered from other health complications due to epilepsy. She had learned of her pregnancy at seventeen weeks and her petition stated that she had become pregnant as a result of her husband’s refusal to use contraceptives. At twenty-one weeks, when she first approached the Bombay High Court, Sarita was just one week over the legal limit specified in the 1971 Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP Act), which permits termination of pregnancies on certain grounds up to twenty weeks. When the court refused permission, Sarita appealed to the Supreme Court, citing a recent Supreme Court decision — Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India — which recognized the right to privacy as a fundamental right in India. However, she was devastated when, at twenty-five weeks pregnant, the court issued a one-line order simply denying her permission for an abortion. Troublingly, the two-judge bench stated that her request amounted to murder and that the “unborn child” should have been represented in court instead of Sarita. The bench also questioned Sarita’s competency to make decisions, claiming that if she had listened to the foetal heartbeat, she would have changed her decision, further implying that Sarita would ultimately come to “regret” having an abortion if she chose to reconcile with her husband in the future
Sabin Center Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Anti-Racism Plan
Get PDFThe climate crisis is a crisis of unprecedented scope and scale. It arises from everywhere, and impacts everyone. But some – some countries, some companies, some communities, some individuals – are more responsible than others; and some are more impacted, and more vulnerable, than others. Climate change has made clear that diversity increases the power of potential solutions and the resilience to adverse impacts – for ecosystems, social systems, economic systems and their various hybrids and combinations. At the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law we believe that by creating and fostering a culture of diversity, equity, inclusion, and anti-racism, we will improve the strength and resilience of the Center, as well as the students, researchers and scholars, law and policy practitioners, and maybe even the planet we seek to teach, inform, collaborate with and protect.
The Sabin Center Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Anti-Racism (DEIA) Plan arose from within a larger assessment and planning effort at the Earth Institute that was initiated in 2019, and the imperative to consider and address DEIA issues at the Center intensified in the midst of the national reckoning with racial injustice brought about by police killings and the growth of white nationalism in Spring 2020. The Plan that follows articulates our commitment to diversity, equity, inclusion and anti-racism among our staff, and the people, groups and partners with whom we work, as well as in the issues with which we engage. Through it, we state in the clearest of terms that we welcome, value and respect people’s differences and that we know that by inspiring, developing and accessing a broad array of perspectives, skills and ideas we can be even more effective in achieving our mission
Ordinary Tort Litigation in China: Law versus Practical Justice?
Get PDFThis essay examines the roles courts play in tort litigation in China, in particular in litigation resulting from death and injury on China’s roads. At first glance traffic accident litigation in China appears to be an area in which courts play minor roles. The police, not courts, are the primary fact-finders. China’s mandatory automobile insurance system has clear guidelines for compensation levels and imposes nearly strict liability in most traffic accident cases. Courts’ roles are, at least in law, largely relegated to calculating damages. Chinese law provides schedules for assessing damages based on average local income levels, and thus outcomes in theory are highly predictable
Recovering the Lost History of Presidential Removal Law
Get PDFOn March 3, 2020, the Supreme Court heard argument in Seila Law v. CFPB, the biggest removal law case since Free Enterprise Fund v. PCAOB was decided a decade ago. The petitioner challenges the constitutionality of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the independent agency established by the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act (DFA) to protect consumers from harmful financial products. Seila Law, a California firm under investigation by the CFPB for its debt-relief marketing practices, argues that statutory limits specifying that the president can fire the CFPB director only for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office” (INM) violate the separation of powers. The CFPB, now headed by a Trump appointee and represented by the Justice Department, agrees. To defend the statute, the Court appointed seasoned Supreme Court litigator Paul Clement.
The justices’ questions during oral argument suggest the Court is considering several ways to resolve the case. One possibility would be to avoid the merits by holding that because the challenged conduct — a CFPB demand for information and documents — was subsequently ratified by the Bureau’s acting director, who was removable at will, Seila’s alleged injury cannot be traced to the removal provisions in question. Another possibility would be to dismiss the case, accepting Clement’s argument that such a weighty constitutional question should not be decided in a case where both parties are “in violent agreement” regarding the statute’s unconstitutionality