LARC Cardoso Law (Yeshida Univ)
Not a member yet
9951 research outputs found
Sort by
The Collision Course Between Outdated State Laws and Automated Vehicles
No full textAmerica stands at the precipice of a vehicular revolution. Myriads of self-driving vehicles—often referred to as “automated vehicles” or “AVs”—are already rolling out across the nation, and innovators assert that AVs will make our roads safer, less congested, and more economically productive. However, reaching these dreams of self-driving utopias will require more than just technological progress. The uses of traditional vehicles are heavily regulated by hundreds of thousands of state laws that ensure public safety, health, and order. Will these traditional laws still make sense when AVs shift the paradigm? Despite the hype and optimism of many AV advocates, this Article sounds a somber warning: State law is perilously unprepared for AV deployment. This Article provides the first comprehensive empirical study of the issue and shows that more than 40,000 traditional state laws are unclear or ineffective when applied to AVs. At its core, the reason is simple. For more than a century, our laws have correctly assumed that flesh-and-blood humans drive vehicles, but this assumption rings false with self-driving technologies, leaving outdated state laws on a collision course with AVs. Without significant reforms, the resulting chaos and confusion threatens to undermine both safety, technological progress, and economic prosperity. After describing and analyzing the problem, this Article considers solutions. Fortunately, the empirical analysis indicates that more than 80% of problematic state laws can be remedied through a single fix: updating the legal definitions of “driver” and “operator.” Less fortunately, addressing the remaining problematic state laws will require resolution of tricky policy questions across many legal domains. This Article then evaluates which legal institutions are best suited to developing the needed AV reforms. To date, most states have done nothing independently to prepare for AV deployment, while a minority of states have enacted inconsistent reforms, producing an incoherent patchwork of AV laws in the United States. This Article asserts that greater federal leadership is therefore needed to spur harmonized action. Specifically, federal authorities should work in partnership with state governments to develop “best practices” and provide financial incentives to encourage states to adopt them, in a fashion patterned after the highly successful Commercial Driver’s License system
Double Standards? A Comparative Analysis of EU and US Refugee Policies
No full textThe disparity in treatment between Ukrainian and Syrian refugees has raised important questions about the consistency and fairness of international refugee protection frameworks. While both the European Union (EU) and United States have established comprehensive legal mechanisms for processing asylum seekers, their practical application reveals concerning inconsistencies in how different refugee populations are treated. This analysis examines these disparities and their implications for international refugee law.
This post was originally published on the Cardozo International & Comparative Law Review on January 21, 2025. The original post can be accessed via the Archived Link button above
How Do You Solve a Problem Like Artistic Freedom in the American Theatre?: A Plea for Denying Copyright Protection to Staging Requirements
No full textThe note argues that extending copyright protection to theatrical stage directions would severely threaten the collaborative nature of American theater, stifling creativity and inclusivity. It contends that stage directions, as a unique aspect of dramatic works, should not be eligible for copyright protection under the Copyright Act of 1976, particularly due to the merger doctrine, which denies protection when ideas and their expression are inseparable. The note emphasizes the importance of preserving theater as a collaborative and interpretive art form, where the interplay between playwrights, directors, and performers is essential to its vitality
China’s Revised Arbitration Law
No full textHistorically, China has been an undesirable venue for arbitration amongst foreign parties. Chinese arbitration institutions had been quasi-governmental, creating concerns about institutional bias and the perception that Chinese arbitrators exercised “ambiguous flexibility” in their decision-making. Chinese courts also had a reputation for not enforcing arbitration awards. Although there has not been empirical data to suggest that Chinese Arbitration proceedings are always biased, the provisions of China’s Arbitration Law itself alongside individual’s experiences painted Chinese Arbitration as unfair and unenforceable.
The print edition of the issue has also been released. This post was originally published on the Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution website on October 28, 2025
Final-Offer Arbitration in Major League Baseball: An Effective Dispute Resolution Process
No full textFinal-offer arbitration, commonly referred to as “baseball arbitration,” is a process where one or more arbitrators will settle an issue by selecting one of the final offers proposed by disputants. In the 1973-1974 offseason, Major League Baseball (MLB) introduced final-offer arbitration as a mechanism to handle salary disputes between professional baseball players and their teams. To be eligible for salary arbitration, players must have more than three, but less than six, years of service time. One year of service time is completed when a player spends 172 days on a team’s 26-man roster or MLB’s injured list in a given season. An exception exists for “Super Two” players, who are players with greater than two but less than the requisite three years of service.
The print edition of the issue has also been released. This post was originally published on the Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution website on March 3, 2025
Challenging the State to Protect the Right to a Future Healthy Environment
No full textClimate change litigation has been increasingly used in different countries to fight the climate crisis through various judicial systems. As of December 2022, there have been over 2,000 climate-related cases in international courts, federal courts, and more local courthouses, with litigation taking place in 65 different jurisdictions. Climate change litigation includes “cases that raise material issues of law or fact relating to climate change mitigation, adaptation or the science of climate change.”
This post was originally published on the Cardozo International & Comparative Law Review on January 21, 2025. The original post can be accessed via the Archived Link button above
Voices for Justice: Firsthand Accounts of Innocent People Fighting for Access in New York’s Post-conviction Process
Full text linkIn 2018, the New York State Court of Appeals’ decision in People v. Natascha Tiger created an insurmountable obstacle for wrongfully convicted individuals pursuing innocence claims. The ruling held that a guilty plea precluded persons accused of crime from challenging their conviction in the absence of newly discovered, exculpatory DNA evidence. This is a troubling fact given 97% of felony convictions and 99% of misdemeanor convictions in New York State are resolved by guilty plea. The National Registry of Exonerations documented that 24% of all exonerated people across the United States pled guilty to crimes they did not commit. According to the Innocence Project, of the cases in which DNA evidence overturned an innocent individual’s conviction, 12% of those innocent people pled guilty. This guilty plea bar has had a profound impact, effectively rendering a significant portion of innocent New Yorkers powerless in the post-conviction process by depriving them of the legal tools necessary to fight their cases. Consequently, many innocent individuals remain incarcerated, serving lengthy and even full life sentences for crimes they did not commit. In addition to those denied relief due to the Tiger bar, many other innocent New Yorkers, who refused plea deals and were convicted at trial, remain wrongfully incarcerated due to gaps in New York’s post-conviction statute, Criminal Procedure Law § 440.
This report explores the impact of wrongful convictions and barriers in the post-conviction process through the firsthand accounts of individuals who have navigated this process. We are incredibly grateful to the 25 courageous people who took the time and emotional resources to share their stories with us for this project. Among them are six exonerated people and 19 others who are still fighting to prove their innocence. Their stories illuminate the devastating personal and societal costs of wrongful convictions, the potentially coercive nature of plea bargaining, and the procedural and practical hurdles they face under CPL § 440. From the automatic denial of § 440 motions to the lack of access to counsel, post-conviction discovery, evidence, and appeals, these individuals detail a system stacked against them at every turn.
Drawing from their experiences, this report identifies key areas where New York’s post-conviction law should be reformed to provide meaningful pathways to justice for the wrongfully convicted. Core recommendations include removing the Tiger bar on non-DNA innocence claims for those who pled guilty, allowing greater access to post-conviction discovery and forensic evidence, providing counsel to § 440 applicants with colorable, or plausible legal claims, ensuring a more equitable appeals process, and removing procedural bars to hearings when there is evidence of innocence. It is indisputable that the integrity of the criminal legal system is strengthened when a fair and robust post-conviction process is capable of responding when people are convicted of crimes they did not commit. By enacting these critical reforms, New York can take important steps to rectify the injustice of wrongful convictions, restore hope, and ensure a fair process for the innocent.https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/perlmutter-center-reports/1002/thumbnail.jp
Trump Puts the Press in the Gallows and American Democracy at Risk
No full textDavid Rudenstine, the Sheldon H. Solow Professor of Law at Cardozo School of Law, argues that press freedoms are at risk under the new administration