18809 research outputs found
Sort by
Adapting Smart: Rethinking Climate Resilience Through Finance, Security, and Governance
No full textThis article examines the dual challenge of climate change—mitigation and adaptation—focusing on how policy can advance climate resilience. We argue that, while climate change presents a dual challenge of mitigation and adaptation, achieving robust climate resilience depends less on technological fixes alone and more on coherent, justice-centered policy frameworks that integrate scientific consensus, inclusive governance, and strategic finance, without defaulting to securitized paradigms. Drawing on foundational works such as William Nordhaus’s The Climate Casino and Wagner and Weitzman’s Climate Shock, along with insights from the IPCC and UNFCCC, the article reviews scientific consensus on escalating global temperatures, extreme weather events, and socioeconomic vulnerabilities. It identifies policy strategies to reduce risk and enhance adaptive capacity, including the development of National and Subnational Adaptation Plans (NAPs), strengthened financing mechanisms, and inclusive governance frameworks.
Emphasis is placed on risk transfer instruments like insurance, investments in resilient infrastructure, and the integration of both technological and nature-based solutions. Case studies from India’s Ahmedabad Heat Action Plan, the Netherlands’ adaptive water management, and Saudi Arabia exemplify context-specific adaptation success. The Article also critically assesses the implications of framing climate change as a national security issue. While security framing may increase urgency and resource mobilization, it risks marginalizing justice concerns and overemphasizing military responses. A balanced, inclusive approach is recommended—one that aligns climate adaptation with sustainable development and global equity. Ultimately, scaling finance, fostering multilevel governance, and resisting over-securitization are essential for effective, long-term climate resilience
770 LEX HOLDINGS LLC v. Reyes
No full textIn this nonpayment proceeding, the court granted the tenant\u27s post-eviction Order to Show Cause, restoring the tenant to possession forthwith under RPAPL § 749(3). The re-execution of the warrant of eviction was stayed to allow the tenant to obtain payment for all outstanding rent arrears, along with the landlord\u27s legal and marshal fees. The court noted that ordering post-eviction restoration before full payment is rare. Additionally, the court sua sponte joined the New York City Human Resources Administration (HRA) to the proceeding, pursuant to NYC Civil Court Act § 110(d), to facilitate payment assistance
Justice Compromised: How Systemic Corruption Hinders Colombia\u27s Victims\u27 Law (Law 1448)
No full textIn 2011, Colombia enacted Law 1448 of Victims and Land Restitution providing restitution and reparations to victims of the civil armed conflict in an ambitious reconciliation and transitional justice effort at reform. The successes and the limitations of this legislation and its implementation serve as a vehicle through which public corruption—as well as anti-corruption strategies—in Colombia can be understood. This paper argues that fundamental changes must be made to the existing system by creating stronger accountability mechanisms for the effective enactment of the legislative program.
This analysis is highly relevant to understanding modern armed conflicts and their aftermath. Understanding the ways in which corruption interacts with legislative reforms like Law 1448 highlights systemic vulnerabilities that can derail post-conflict recovery. Lessons learned from Colombia’s approach to transitional justice can inform ongoing armed conflicts and post-conflict scenarios in countries such as Ukraine
Conservative Legal Advocacy Organizations and Constitutional Change in the Roberts Court
Full text linkEon Charles v. Green
Full text linkHandwritten opinion. The court dismissed the holdover proceeding due to a defective predicate notice that failed to comply with GCEL, despite being dated March 10, 2024. Citing 1303 Needham Realty LLC v. Brown, the court applied GCEL\u27s requirements to proceedings commenced after April 20, 2024. Judge Arrindell held that GCEL\u27s notice provisions became effective August 18, 2024, and there was no exemption for predicate notices served before April 20, 2024. The court, relying on Chinatown Apts. v. Chu Cho Lam, deemed the defect unamendable and denied the petitioner\u27s request for adjournment. Judge Arrindell\u27s ruling aligned with prior judicial notes, reinforcing that noncompliant notices invalidate proceedings under GCEL
Sales v. Justiniano
Full text linkIn this case, tenants sought declaratory relief and damages due to violations of the certificate of occupancy and rent-impairing violations. The landlord\u27s motion to dismiss the case based on improper service was denied after the court found proper service had been completed. Additionally, a preliminary injunction was granted, requiring the landlord to address repair violations and stop refusing to schedule necessary repairs. The judge showed strong support for the tenants\u27 claims of unsafe living conditions
GVS PROPERTIES IV LLC v. GILMAN
Full text linkIn this holdover case, the landlord sought eviction based on claims of nuisance and breach of lease, citing unsanitary conditions and a flood caused by the tenant. However, the court found that the alleged uncleanliness had been remedied before trial and that a single flooding incident did not constitute a legal nuisance. Additionally, as the tenant\u27s rent-controlled status meant no lease was in evidence, the breach of lease claim was dismissed for failure to state a cause of action. The case was ultimately dismissed
Scienter Potentia Est: The Case for the Presumption of Use Standard in Insider Trading
Full text linkIs it possible to accidentally insider trade? The Supreme Court has held that scienter is a necessary element of all § 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 actions, but the federal appeals courts are split on how the scienter requirement applies to insider trading cases. In a non-insider- trading § 10(b) case, the Supreme Court stated that § 10(b) scienter requires intentional misconduct. Although the Supreme Court has not heard a case specifically about the scienter element in the context of insider trading, those who support a use requirement claim that the § 10(b) scienter element requires the plaintiff to show that the insider used the MNPI in the decision to trade.
Those who support a possession standard reason that possession of MNPI creates an unfair informational advantage, which is sufficient reason to prohibit an insider from trading. They also argue that it is impractical to require a plaintiff to prove a defendant actually used the MNPI in the decision to trade. This Note argues that possession of MNPI should create a rebuttable presumption of use for the purposes of insider trading liability under the § 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 scienter requirement. This standard best balances the Supreme Court’s clarification that fraud under 10(b) includes intentional conduct with the practicality of the knowing possession standard