2208 research outputs found
Sort by
The Common Heritage of Mankind: Past, Present, and Future
Get PDFThis essay reflects on what has happened to the principle of the common heritage of humankind (the CH principle whereby all manage resources and share in the rewards of exploiting them, even if they are not able to participate in that exploitation) including recent developments affecting its implementation and its possible future. Part II of this essay discusses what the CH principle means in international law. This discussion involves three questions: To what situations does the principle apply? What are its components or elements? And what is its legal status? Parts III and IV suggest that context is essential to understanding the CH principle, or indeed any principle of international law. Part III places the CH principle, which was promoted especially in the late 1960s and the 1970s, in historical context. Part IV notes that the CH principle has been incorporated in some treaties. The most notable of these is Part XI of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea ( LOS Convention ), as revised by its associated 1994 Implementation Agreement, concerning seabed mining beyond the limits of national jurisdiction. An additional development has accompanied the translation from principle to detailed rule in the law of the sea: the practice of states and international legal institutions has reinforced aspects of the CH seabed mining regime. Finally, Part V of this essay evaluates the current status and significance of the CH principle or concept. What, if anything, remains of it
Making Lawyers out of Law Students: Shifting the Locus of Authority
No full textThis article proceeds in three parts. Recent critiques of legal education have centered on two main themes: the cost of legal education and the need for curricular reform (to teach law students to be lawyers rather than legal theorists). In the first and second sections of this article, we address the call for curricular reform and describe the innovative curricular design of the STEPPS Program at California Western School of Law as an answer to that call. The STEPPS Program, a required second-year course in ethics and skills, provides a unique forum for teaching the knowledge, skills, and values necessary for a successful legal career. In the final section, we focus on the internal values in our students and the connection between the development of internal values and the expression of professional judgment. We explain why it is both difficult and necessary for new professionals to move the locus of authority from external to internal
Protected by Association? The Supreme Court’s Incomplete Approach to Defining the Scope of the Third-Party Retaliation Doctrine
Get PDFFor decades, courts have struggled with how to treat claims of third-party retaliation - situations where one employee engages in some protected activity for purposes of Title VII but where the employer retaliates not against that employee, but rather against one of her coworkers-her spouse, or sibling, or mere workplace acquaintance. With its January 2011 decision in Thompson v. North American Stainless, LP, the U.S. Supreme Court finally has weighed in on this issue, deeming employees protected against third-party retaliation under Title VII.
This Article stands as one of the first in-depth examinations of Thompson and its potential impact on both employers and employees. While this Article approves of the Supreme Court\u27s decision to deem third-party retaliation claims viable under Title VII, this Article proposes a different framework for analyzing these claims than that applied by the Supreme Court in Thompson. Specifically, this Article argues that courts should apply jurisprudence from negligent infliction of emotional distress cases to conduct a more structured analysis of third-party retaliation claims. In addition, this Article argues that courts should define the class of plaintiffs who can assert third-party retaliation claims by requiring that only individuals who have engaged in some protected activity can sue. Other employees affected by employer retaliation- those who receive adverse treatment from their employer, but who did not themselves engage in any protected activity-should not be permitted to bring third-party retaliation claims. In articulating this framework, this Article seeks to strike a balance between deterring employers from engaging in retaliatory behavior and avoiding the negative consequences that could result from failing to place reasonable limits on the third-party retaliation doctrine
