14041 research outputs found
Sort by
Cyber Operations and the Crime of Aggression
Full text linkThe Article examines how the crime of aggression could be committed through cyber operations, analyzing the definition of the crime contained in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The Article also examines the restrictive jurisdictional regime that the ICC has over the crime of aggression, which States Parties must fix so that the ICC can have meaningful jurisdiction over the crime. The Article briefly also considers the topic of gravity and cyber-operations. (Abstract from author.
Federal Reach, Academic Speech: The Legal Limits of Executive Authority in Higher Education
No full textIn the early stages of his second term as president, President Trump has released a flurry of executive orders to change the landscape of educational funding and content. In particular, President Trump has focused on eliminating Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion programs and has made demands regarding matters typically left to faculty discretion, including curriculum content and faculty expression, to align with the government’s policies. These changes have been in response to criticisms of DEI programs as non-meritorious and the exercise of free speech in the form of protesting across campuses nationwide. President Trump’s executive orders call into question how much power the federal government holds over the operations and curriculum of universities and directly implicates the First Amendment rights of students, faculty, and universities. Given the ever-changing legal and political landscape of these issues, the boundaries of executive control over university autonomy and speech policies are more vital than ever.
This symposium will explore the wide-sweeping impact of these policies on executive power, universities, DEI programs, and the First Amendment. To do so, this symposium will analyze the complexities of DEI programs and the freedom of curriculum within universities and reveal the how and why of where the future of higher education is headed
Flawed Framework, Fatal Discretion: Unraveling Implicit Bias in Capital Punishment Decisions
No full text
Case Global: A Winning Tradition
No full textVolume 17, No. 1 (2025) CWRU once again ranked among the best in 2025 PreLaw magazine and US News & World Report rankings of International Law Program... Case Western Journal of International Law Tackles the Need to Update the Geneva Conventions Building on a Winning Tradition CWRU Launches New International Development Law Lab CWRU Establishes Spring Break in the Hague Program Professor Michael Scharf leads Team to Prepare Ukrainian Judges and Prosecutors to Try Environmental War Crimes Professor Rapp teaches Comparative Law to Saudi Administrative Judges in Riyadh Yemen Accountability Project publishes two new White Papers Immigration Clinic Builds Momentum CWRU Expands its Concurrent Degree Program to Two Additional Foreign Schools CWRU’s Kaitlyn Booher Elected Leader of Foreign Graduate Students in Spain CWRU Human Trafficking Clinic Director Honored for Her Work International internships An Interview with 3L Sophia Fisher, who interned at Navy JAG in Honolulu International Externship Spotlight: Jonathan Kronert International Law Conferences, Experts Meetings, and Distinguished Lectures From CWRU to Security Council, George Kamanda (LAW ‘22) discusses his exciting international career Su He (LAW ‘13) Selected for Prestigious Leadership Award Alumnus elected to African Court of Human Rights A Legacy of Leadership: Steven Petras (LAW ‘79) Establishes First Endowment for the Canada-United States Law Institute at Case Western Reserve University School of Law International Law Alumni A Community of Experts: Our International Law Faculty Student Leaders Honoredhttps://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/case_global/1000/thumbnail.jp
Inventions Without Inventors: The Need to Recognize AI Systems as Inventors
Full text linkAs AI systems increasingly generate innovative products and processes, a critical issue to address is the nature and extent of the patent protection that is conferred upon such outputs. The overarching objective of patent law is the support of innovation and progress. In determining applications, the clear focus of patent judgments is whether the claimed invention satisfies the required standards of inventiveness, novelty, and non-obviousness. It is hence curious that incidental references to “individuals” and “persons,” variously scattered through patent statutes, operate to deny recognition of AI inventors. This is the result of the global test litigation instigated by Dr. Stephen Thaler of the University of Surrey related to two products invented by an AI system. These patent applications for a humble beverage container and flashlight have shaken the very foundations of patent law. As the inventiveness of these products was not disputed, it is suggested that this has resulted in the unusual situation of there being “inventions without inventors.” In such a vexing legal and technological context, the objective of this paper is to analyze whether the present requirement in patent statutes for a human inventor should be removed to extend protection to AI-generated inventions. To do so, this paper begins by considering the historical and theoretical underpinning of patent law. It then transitions to an analysis of the notion of inventiveness in patent law and the relevance of human attributes to the conception of an inventor, connecting the Thaler judgments to subsequent legal developments and scholarship. As the patentability of AI-generated inventions is of international relevance, the analysis seeks to transcend national boundaries by identifying concerns, musings, and themes that resonate across the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia. This paper concludes by presenting a case for statutory reform to permit the patentability of AI-generated inventions
Discriminating Alignment in the Innovation Sphere
Full text linkContracts play an important role in innovation. As a result, some. scholars have proposed theories highlighting contract provisions as devices that can serve to informally enforce agreements and build trust between parties. Others emphasize the hierarchical provisions between firms to promote efficiency. Yet another group views these agreements as a mechanism to institutionalize learning and protect property interests. This Article offers a new theory. To understand a firm’s contractual choices and governance, we must look at how the same provisions in different contracts may have distinct meanings or operate differently in different contexts. So, scholars must give context to these contracts by evaluating how specific industries utilize these provisions in different ways. Separate industries may use the same provisions––like information sharing, for example––within their contracts, but they will pair these provisions with different clauses or private strategies, resulting in different governance choices. This Article looks at two areas––the manufacturing and biopharma industries––because these fields use collaborative agreements with similar provisions and suggests that the same provisions actually work in very different ways. The theory of discriminating alignment suggests that parties within these two industries use contractual and other strategy choices differently in order to meet their separate goals in a cost minimizing way. This Article reaches this conclusion based on qualitative interviews to learn about how participants in the biopharma industry use provisions and understand them. It draws on prior empirical work and scholarship to analyze how the same provisions operate differently within the manufacturing industry. It concludes that the same contract provisions operate differently in manufacturing and biopharma, leading to a divergence in governance choices. In manufacturing, where relational sanctions are possible, parties can combine informal enforcement with formal provisions to achieve their goals. This is consistent with a “braiding theory” of formal and informal enforcement. By contrast, biopharma parties have a joint interest in collaborating early on to achieve profits and success, which renders informal enforcement unhelpful. Biopharma uses formal provisions––including information transfer provisions––because they are the best means of facilitating a successful complex project. However, when the interests of parties within biopharma diverge, property provisions take over. This Article echoes Professor Macaulay’s view that to to understand governance within a specific industry, the industry must be analyzed using qualitative interviews
Access Repository Dashboard
Do you manage Open Research Online? Become a CORE Member to access insider analytics, issue reports and manage access to outputs from your repository in the CORE Repository Dashboard! 👇