UC Law SF Scholarship Repository
Not a member yet
18602 research outputs found
Sort by
Bring Back the Milkman: Legal Structure and Feasibility of a Circular Economy Within the United States Food and Product Packaging Distribution System
Get PDFWarWilding: A Weapon and a Shield in the Midst of Conflict
Get PDFWar disrupts the lives of people, governments, and the wider environment. The purpose of this article is to examine how rewilding and ecological planning could be applied to military logistics to enhance peace and security amid war and post-war periods. This is explored through a concept that conservationists have coined “WarWilding.” I will develop my conclusions by analyzing WarWilding case studies from active warfare and post-war zones. To evaluate the boundaries in the ethics of WarWilding, this paper will frame the analyses around provisions in the Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques (ENMOD) and the Geneva Conventions.
Specifically, this paper will argue that WarWilding is: (1) ecologically and militarily strategic amid war, and (2) contributes to ecological and civil restoration post-war. It has potential to mitigate amid inherently destructive state activities. This argument will be developed by assessing WarWilding through three prongs: what is permissible WarWilding; when does WarWilding breach international agreements regarding warfare ethics; and what are the policy applications of applying WarWilding in military operations.
Ultimately, this article will assert that WarWilding is permissible when used defensively within the constraints of international regulations but goes too far when used offensively. Defensive WarWilding typically materializes in the form of buffer zones, conflict mitigation, rehabilitation of military zones, and passive rewilding in active war and post-war settings. Offensive WarWilding includes environmental modification for the purposes of depriving life. All in all, military planning and ecological conservation can come together in an interdisciplinary effort to preserve the environment and mitigate destruction during human conflict. However, international protocols require further specification, and more research is needed to clarify what incorporating conservation into warfare logistics practically looks like. As such, WarWilding is a dangerous weapon when used for destruction, but may be a shield when used against conflict
Dirty Secret: The Laundering of Foreign Arbitral Awards
Get PDFThis Article addresses an undertheorized but important topic: the laundering of foreign arbitral awards. Prevailing parties in foreign arbitrations often obtain judgments confirming their awards at the place of arbitration. Fifty years ago, the Second Circuit established the so-called “parallel entitlements” doctrine, pursuant to which prevailing parties can seek enforcement of the foreign award under federal law, or enforcement of the foreign confirmation judgment under state law, or both.
If an award faces obstacles to enforcement under the New York Convention or the Federal Arbitration Act, the prevailing party can still obtain enforcement of the confirmation judgment under the legal standards that apply to the enforcement of foreign judgments under state law. Although a modest but persuasive body of commentary has criticized this laundering of foreign arbitral awards, observers have treated it as a logical consequence of the parallel entitlements doctrine that will continue until legislatures or courts change the direction of the law.
However, when recently serving as an expert witness in a high-end dispute, the author discovered a line of cases in which U.S. courts have effectively limited the scope of the parallel entitlements doctrine. Specifically, those cases have construed state law as sufficiently broad to permit consideration of certain fundamental lapses in the underlying arbitration when deciding whether to enforce foreign confirmation judgments. Such lapses include arguments that (1) the parties never had a valid arbitration agreement; (2) the arbitrators exceeded the scope of the submission to arbitration; (3) the respondent did not receive adequate notice of the arbitration proceedings; and (4) the tribunal lacked independence or impartiality. This line of cases provides new and meaningful limits on the laundering of foreign arbitral awards
