LARC Cardoso Law (Yeshida Univ)
Not a member yet
9951 research outputs found
Sort by
The Federal Maritime Commission’s New Framework for Ocean Carrier Accountability: Analysis of the \u3ci\u3eMCS Industries\u3c/i\u3e and \u3ci\u3eOJ Commerce\u3c/i\u3e Decisions
Full text linkThis article examines two 2024 Federal Maritime Commission (FMC or “Commission”) cases that significantly impact the interpretation of ocean carrier accountability under the Shipping Act of 1984: MCS Industries, Inc. v. COSCO Shipping Lines Co. Ltd. and OJ Commerce, LLC v. Hamburg Südamerikanische Dampfschifffahrts-Gesellschaft A/S & Co. KG. This article argues that the FMC, whose mission is to “[e]nsure a competitive and reliable international ocean transportation supply system that supports the U.S. economy and protects the public from unfair and deceptive practices,” continues to make ongoing efforts to clarify and enforce protecting shippers’ rights. These efforts focus particularly on (i) service contract obligations, which require reciprocal commitments between shippers and carriers to ensure minimum cargo volumes and guaranteed space or rates; and (ii) prohibiting retaliatory conduct by carriers, including “refusing, or threatening to refuse, an otherwise-available cargo space accommodation” or “resort[ing] to any other unfair or unjustly discriminatory action.” By focusing on practical remedies, the FMC continues to develop its approach to enforcement, emphasizing practical remedies over formalistic legal distinctions
Correcting Course: How Congress Can Streamline U.S. Engagement with the International Criminal Court
Full text linkSince its participation in the 1998 Rome Conference, the United States has vocalized opposition to key components of the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) jurisdiction. This opposition has informed longstanding positions taken by the executive branch and motivated anti-ICC legislation passed by Congress. Support for the ICC’s investigation in Ukraine challenged these narratives across the legislative and executive branches, but the ICC’s arrest warrants of Israeli officials in 2024 renewed Congress’s heightened skepticism of the court and sowed political divisions on efforts to sanction the ICC. Congress’s oscillation on the ICC within the past several years prompts a larger question of how the United States can balance its policy interests with existing legal authorities that narrowly permit U.S. cooperation. Statutory exceptions within the American Servicemembers’ Protection Act (ASPA) and Dodd Amendment readily provide justification for the President to support the ICC’s investigations and prosecutions, but neither exception has been fully employed by the U.S. government. This Note will explore how these exceptions can be deployed by the executive and legislative branches to streamline how the United States can legally support the ICC when doing so aligns with U.S. foreign policy objectives. Based on this assessment, this Note will propose that Congress harness these existing legal authorities and create a cogent legislative fix that establishes long-term parameters for U.S. engagement with the ICC. This new statute should feature the best components of ASPA and the Dodd Amendment’s exceptions, which allow deference to the executive branch for policy decisions on when the United States should support the ICC’s activities, set congressional notification procedures and reporting requirements for the executive branch, and describe what forms of support U.S. agencies can reliably provide to the ICC. Through this reform, the U.S. government can develop straightforward mechanisms for assisting the ICC’s investigation and prosecution of individuals accused of crimes against humanity, genocide, and war crimes
Undo Process: Examining Agency Procedural Levers to Access to Counsel
Full text linkEvery day, through internal adjudicative proceedings, agencies make thousands of rights determinations that affect critical matters such as financial security, family unity, personal safety, and individual liberty. Scholars and policymakers have recognized the significant impact that representation can have on adjudicative outcomes across the administrative state. Many agencies have implemented policies affirmatively seeking to boost an individual\u27s ability to bring an advocate to assist with the adjudication process. In the immigration context, however, agencies have enacted procedural hurdles that have made it more difficult for individuals to reap the benefits of this assistance.
This Essay uses recent developments in the rules governing immigration courts as a vehicle to explore how agencies can alter procedural rules around administrative adjudication to discourage the effective assistance of counsel in these proceedings. It identifies how agency control over docketing practices, scheduling orders, and filing deadlines--often justified in terms of “efficiency”--can constructively limit an individual\u27s ability to find an attorney, as well as that attorney\u27s ability to effectively represent their client in the underlying proceedings. Acknowledging these downstream consequences reveals how agencies can operationalize adjudicative procedures to influence substantive outcomes, possibly violating their statutory and constitutional obligations in the process
Bruni and Sugden on Market Virtues
Full text linkAccording to classical liberalism, markets are instruments for the mutually advantageous voluntary exchange of goods and services among individuals who have conflicting interests. Some critics have used a virtue ethics understanding of behavior in markets to call for moral limits to markets because this classical view does not respect the internal value of human practices and the intrinsic motivations of individuals. In response, Luigino Bruni and Robert Sugden have offered a virtue ethics defense of markets, thereby “reclaiming virtue ethics for economics.” We argue that their account needs further elaboration and clarification before it is possible to assess the soundness of their virtue-theoretic understanding of markets
What are “Wartime Authorities” and When Can the President Use Them? An Expert Q&A
Full text linkThe first several months of President Donald Trump’s second administration have been marred by the chaotic and often unlawful use, or threatened use, of wartime and terrorism-related authorities for what are essentially domestic immigration or criminal law enforcement purposes. This is not the first time a president has sought to push the boundaries of his wartime powers, or outright claimed those he did not have, but it may well be the most extreme. Indeed, Trump’s reliance on wartime authorities in contexts entirely divorced from armed conflict, or even the threat of force against the United States, puts the country on a novel and highly dangerous path. This is especially so given the extent to which he and his administration are demonizing and dehumanizing the people against whom they have aimed such powers. The language Trump is using has both political and legal aims; by using the rhetoric of war he seeks to legitimize his aggrandizement of power and his persecution of vulnerable populations
Cardozo Law News Brief, June 13, 2025
No full textThis Cardozo Law News Brief highlights the 47th Commencement, where Dean Melanie Leslie reminded the Class of 2025 of their duty to uphold the Constitution, and the pre-Commencement Awards Ceremony celebrating outstanding student achievements. It also announces the appointment of three new members to the Board of Overseers and features Rachel Strom ’06 joining a special edition of the SPARKS podcast with Deans Leslie and Grand. In the media, Professor Peter Markowitz spoke to PIX11 about ICE’s proposed office on Rikers Island, Professor Lindsay Nash spoke to WBUR on ICE’s use of warrantless arrests, Professor Michael Pollack was quoted in The New York Times on congestion pricing litigation, and Professor Luís Carlos Calderón Gómez spoke to Bloomberg Tax on the Supreme Court’s Catholic Charities decision. Additional faculty scholarship and news include Ellen Drucker-Albert’s selection to participate in the NCBE NextGen Standard-Setting Study, Professor Jocelyn Getgen Kestenbaum’s published article abstract, University Professor Michel Rosenfeld’s colloquium presentation, and Professor Edward Zelinsky’s extensive commentary and scholarship on state and local tax issues.https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/news-brief-2025/1015/thumbnail.jp
Vino and Vignettes
No full textWine- Dinner Paintinghttps://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/flyers-2025-2026/1036/thumbnail.jp
Dhamaka Celebration
No full textJoin us in your cultural attire for a celebration of diversity, community, and South Asian culture.https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/flyers-2025-2026/1039/thumbnail.jp
Tax Law Panel
No full textJoined By: Kirkland & Ellis Troutman Pepper Locke Lewis Brisbois Legal Services of NYChttps://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/flyers-2025-2026/1035/thumbnail.jp
2025 Lemkin Award
No full textPlease join the Institute for the Study of Genocide and the Cardozo Law Institute in Holocaust and Human Rights for the biennial Lemkin Award Ceremony, honoring Raphael Lemkin, the originator of the term genocide and leading advocate of the UN Genocide Convention. The award recognizes the best non-fiction work focusing on genocide, crimes against humanity, and other gross human rights violations, as well as strategies for prevention. This year’s award winner is Elyse Semerdjian, for her work, Remnants: Embodied Archives of the Armenian Genocide.https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/flyers-2025-2026/1044/thumbnail.jp