8227 research outputs found
Sort by
Jarden Appraisal: Delaware Supreme Court Affirms Chancery Court\u27s Exclusive Reliance on Unaffected Market Price in Determining Fair Value under DGCL Sec. 262
Get PDFChancery Court Refuses to Dismiss Aiding and Abetting Claim against Target Company Financial Advisor, but Grants Dismissal to Outside Counsel and Buyer
Get PDFChancery Court Provides Additional Clarity on Disclosure Requirements for Establishing Corwin Defense
Get PDFEvisceration of the Right to Appeal: Denial of Individual Responsibility as Actionable Genocide Denial
Get PDFTensions arise during litigation in the international criminal justice system between the practice of the international criminal tribunals, domestic laws, and policy decisions of United Nation (“UN”) Member States. One such tension arises between domestic genocide denial laws, which typically criminalize denial of genocide as a strict liability offense, and the preservation of due process for persons convicted of genocide seeking appeal. In theory, denying individual responsibility during the appeal of a conviction by an international tribunal could constitute punishable genocide denial under some domestic laws. This criminalization of the appeal process would violate the due process rights of international criminal defendants, sacrifice the review mechanism ensuring fair trial rights in international criminal tribunals, and affect the legitimacy of international criminal justice. This Note argues for an interdisciplinary solution to combat genocide denial that fully respects due process. First, domestic denial laws should be amended to include an intent requirement to exclude from coverage denial of individual responsibility during litigation. Second, all international and hybrid criminal tribunals should implement safeguards to protect defense counsel and witnesses from domestic prosecution for their role in the appeals process. Third, the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals should clarify its enduring dedication to both reducing denialist behaviors and respecting due process and should call on all states to do the same. Genocide denial is a harmful phenomenon with no place in modern discourse; however, sacrificing full due process rights in the international criminal tribunals does little to reduce the effects of genocide denial
Measuring Semantic Relatedness: A Proposal for a New Textual Tool
Get PDFJudicial decisions, statutes, constitutions, sentencing guidelines, and ERISA-related documents have at least one thing in common: at a molecular level, the laws are all composed of words. The scientific study of linguistics, particularly the field of semantics, analyzes what words mean and how they are connected with each other. And yet, thus far, the legal field has taken little notice of academic and technological breakthroughs in the field of linguistic semantics. This Note seeks to highlight the potential utility of linguistic semantic tools in interpreting legal texts. Specifically, applying algorithms to a free online lexical database allows anyone with a computer to measure the level of relatedness between two nouns. Like more classical and widely accepted textual tools, these algorithms shed light on the plain meaning and semantic nuances of different words. Applying them to two prominent federal circuit splits regarding federal sentencing guidelines and ERISA benefits further underscores their usefulness across the legal discipline. The legal field stands to benefit from employing semantic linguistic algorithms in the law to help resolve semantic ambiguity in legal texts and arrive at more consistent, quantifiable conclusions
A World of Their Own: Illiberal Religious Communities Struggle to Comply with COVID-19 Public Health Regulations
Get PDFThe COVID-19 pandemic did not eliminate existing social tensions; rather, it at times intensified them. Thus, it is unsurprising that. the tension between the liberal state and illiberal religious communities likewise intensified, as those communities were late to comply with COVID-19 public health regulations issued by state authorities. This Article suggests that alongside the behavioral and psychological explanations for individual non-compliance, illiberal religious communities\u27 late response to the COVID-19 threats stems out of these communities\u27 unique characteristics and deeply held norms. It provides five explanations supporting this argument and argues that all result from the interventionist liberal-centric policies embraced by most Western states for dealing with illiberal religious communities.
Since COVID-19 is not expected to be the last health-related crisis, and as other environmental, economic, or security emergencies may still require social adherence to government regulations, liberal states should rethink their policies toward illiberal religious communities. The ability to harness those communities to comply with life-saving regulations may not only save lives within these communities but also reduce threats to areas and neighborhoods adjacent to those communities. This Article suggests that the isolation and fortification processes that illiberal religious communities engage in may be mitigated if states embrace pluralistic-centric policies regarding illiberal religious communities
Solving the Unsolvable? How a Joint Development Zone Could Extinguish the Natural Gas Conflict in the Eastern Mediterranean
Get PDFRecently, the Cyprus conflict has manifested itself in the competing claims of Greek Cyprus, Turkish Cyprus, and Turkey over their maritime jurisdictions. During the past decade, the discovery of natural gas exacerbated these preexisting claim disputes. Solutions have been nonexistent due to the unwillingness of the parties to conduct multilateral negotiations or use international courts and are complicated by the fact that not all parties are signatories to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, an instrument most countries defer to in comparable disagreements. While prior publications have proposed mechanisms that could solve maritime disputes in this geographic area, none have explained how those mechanisms would function in the context of the Cyprus conflict. To fill this functional gap, this Note proposes a joint development zone with boundaries informed by an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice and with management processes influenced by procedures that are commonly found in power- sharing democracies
The State and the Patriarch: Rewriting Charan Lal Sahu, Rakesh Shrouti, Rajkumar Keswani, Nasrin Bi and Others v. Union of India (1990) 1 SCC 613
Get PDFIn this contribution, as part of the Indian Feminist Judgement Project, we reconsider the decision of the Supreme Court of India in the Charan Lal Sahu case that followed the Bhopal gas leak tragedy. We present a dissenting opinion on the case, finding that the law empowering the State to supplant the victim-survivors as plaintiffs was unconstitutional. Alongside, we offer a brief commentary on why this finding comports with what a feminist judge on the bench might have decided. We consider a variety of ways in which feminist criticism of the majority decision might proceed, and how this criticism informs our rewriting. We also consider a set of persistent questions about feminist judging, and ways in which our rewriting, in turn, might be subject to further feminist objection
Checks and Balances in the Criminal Law
Get PDFThe separation of powers is considered essential in the criminal law, where liberty and even life are at stake. Yet the reasons for separating criminal powers are surprisingly opaque, and the “separation of powers” is often used to refer to distinct, and sometimes contradictory, concepts.
This Article reexamines the justifications for the separation of powers in criminal law. It asks what is important about separating criminal powers and what values such separation serves. It concludes that in criminal justice, the traditional Madisonian approach of separating powers between functionally differentiated political institutions—legislature, executive, and judiciary—bears no necessary connection to important values like preserving liberty, preventing tyranny, and safeguarding the rule of law. Not only is adhering to the traditional Madisonian approach to separation of powers insufficient to promote these values, it is likely unnecessary to protect them as well.
Instead of the separation of powers, the organizing principle for the structure of the criminal justice system should be the distinct idea of “checks and balances.” A checks-and-balances approach would emphasize the diffusion of decisionmaking power among different social and political interests in society; functional duplication and overlapping jurisdiction between different decisionmakers; insulation of decisionmaking power by individual actors within single institutions, along with more formal checking roles for non-state actors; and careful design to optimize electoral accountability