14041 research outputs found
Sort by
Approaches to Advancing Human Rights
Full text linkA panel discussion on approaches (or lack thereof) by the United States and Canada to advance human rights. Also, whether or not human rights produce wellbeing
Compliance Update with Tom Fox
No full textJoin us for lunch with Tom Fox, compliance professional, author and creator of the Compliance Podcast Network, hosting a variety of compliance related podcasts, including a succinct daily compliance tip
Autonomous Weapons Systems and Proportionality: The Need for Regulation
Full text linkThis Article examines the question of whether International Humanitarian Law (IHL) requires modification to effectively govern autonomous weapons systems (AWS). Given that the imminent development and deployment is unlikely to be prohibited, and that AWS may not comply with IHL in certain circumstances, the question of why and how IHL needs to be adjusted is important, and not sufficiently studied. The analysis focuses on the principle of proportionality—a principle whose implementation demands complex, contextual, and sophisticated judgment—as a means of exploring and illustrating the issue. The Article explains why the operationalization of the principle of proportionality would present challenges for AI-operated AWS, and defends proposals for certain adjustments to IHL to better regulate AWS, in line with the core principles of IHL. (Abstract from author.
“The Craze for Legal Proceedings”: Another Look at Schloendorff v. New York Hospital
Full text linkIn 1914, Judge Benjamin Cardozo wrote an appellate decision in the case of Schloendorff v. Society of the New York Hospital containing the assertion, “Every human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done to his own body.” This quotation later became a touchstone for discussions of the principle of informed consent. Previous scholarship has questioned the use of Schloendorff as a byword of patient self-determination, but more recently discovered records suggest yet another way to understand the famous case. Material from the archive of the New York Hospital—where Mary Schloendorff’s surgery took place—demonstrates that her testimony was almost certainly true: she did not give consent to the surgery that led to her injuries. Yet fully aware of these facts, hospital officials followed a policy, by then more than thirty years old, to deny all liability and litigate all malpractice claims rather than admit fault and compensate injured patients. This paper explores a new perspective on Schloendorff. We should understand the case as an important, albeit early, skirmish in the 20th Century medical malpractice wars. Calls by medical societies to block access to court for injured patients were commonplace even before Schloendorff, and early proposals for what is currently termed “tort reform,” predate it as well. The defense strategy of routinely denying liability and refusing to compensate patient injuries regardless of how they were caused was a well-established practice at the New York Hospital even in 1914. Current campaigns to further limit patient access to courts often echo century-old policies designed to avoid responsibility for medical errors
The 1949 Geneva Conventions at 75: Examining the Place of Non-State Armed Groups
Full text linkWhen the 1949 Geneva Conventions were adopted seventy-five years ago, the armed conflict landscape was very different from the one we currently observe. Back then, although non-State armed groups (NSAGs) existed, their regulation was considered to fall (almost exclusively) under the relevant territorial State’s internal laws. Nowadays, on the contrary, every time the international community discusses the application of international law to armed conflict, questions emerge about the role, status, and behaviors of NSAGs. Due to their involvement in the majority of armed conflicts, NSAGs have become immovable actors of the international humanitarian legal scene. Many of these queries arise as a result of the dual nature of these entities, which operate at both domestic and international normative levels and hold different legal standings within each framework. While domestically, NSAGs are typically deemed unlawful by territorial States, international law remains agnostic regarding their legality and focuses instead on their obligations during armed conflict situations. This Article considers these dynamics and, in light of the seventy-fifth anniversary of the Geneva Conventions, reflects on (i) how international law deals with NSAGs; (ii) how NSAGs behave in armed conflict with respect to their international obligations; and (iii) the mechanisms and initiatives that exist to increase humanitarian norms’ compliance by NSAGs in conflict settings. This examination leads to the conclusion that these non-State actors do not staunchly adhere to or entirely disregard their international legal obligations; instead, NSAGs may follow certain rules while disregarding others, and these variations will depend on various factors.
(Abstract from author.
Closing Arguments with Luke Dauchot
No full textIn this third installment of the Steven S. Kaufman Family Anatomy of a Trial Lecture Series, nationally recognized trial attorney Luke Dauchot will share his insights into the art of the closing argument—the final opportunity to persuade the jury to deliver a winning verdict. Dauchot has more than 35 years of experience trying tort, complex commercial and intellectual property cases. A Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers and senior trial lawyer at Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Dauchot’s trial wins across many jurisdictions have secured some of the country’s top jury verdicts and prevailed against the most substantial of damage claims.
Dauchot, a native of Cleveland who began his career trying cases in local federal and state courts, emphasizes that winning a jury trial of any size and complexity requires the same fundamental ingredients: credibility, thematic appeal and a compelling narrative, all inviting jurors to assimilate and process facts and law in a way that makes a favorable verdict seem fair, intuitive and consistent with the court’s instructions. That invitation comes shrouded in a fog of competing themes and narratives, a particularly tough dynamic in complex, high-stakes, cases. Based on his years of trial work, Dauchot distills the fundamental aim in closing to have your side be the “brighter beacon”— the one to which the jury is naturally drawn — through argument predicated on fairness and reason that is tethered to an unfailingly credible review of the facts (good and bad) and a clear explication of how application of the facts to the law yields a winning verdict.
This presentation will cover practical strategies for structuring closing arguments. They include addressing facts in the context of validating themes and narratives introduced to the jury in opening and echoed throughout trial, and how best to deal with unhelpful facts or issues. Dauchot will also provide guidance on the effective deployment of exhibits, demonstratives, and courtroom presence, all critical to effective communication. Finally, Dauchot will address tactical considerations raised by the order of closing arguments, which typically dictates a plaintiff proceeding first and last.
In sum, an effective closing argument requires far more than a summation—even eloquently made—of the evidence. This session explains why that is, and will give you the tools effectively to package the evidence and law to help jurors reach a winning verdict.
A networking reception will follow the lecture
Emergent Threats to the Charitable Sector
No full textThe United States has long enjoyed a vibrant, pluralistic, and independent charitable sector, with minimal government interference in the missions and goals of private organizations that serve the public good. Free and dynamic association is fostered by state nonprofit law, the First Amendment, federal tax law, and longstanding norms of tax administration. Since the turn of the century, however, political scandal, tax law changes, and regulatory inertia have slowly weakened the legal apparatus that supports charities. Now, the new Administration appears ready to leverage executive power against many nonprofit organization policies and programs. Legislation also is developing to target nonprofits in various ways. The lecture will survey existing and new threats to nonprofit pluralism and autonomy and weigh possible responses to the shifting legal and political landscape
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! 👇