Florida International University College of Law

https://ecollections.law.fiu.edu/faculty_books/1289/thumbnail.jp

Gomez, Manuel A

Beyond Borders and Across Legal Traditions: The Transnationalization of Latin American Lawyers

FIU Law Review 
Volume 15 Number 2 Article 2 
2021 
Editorial Board 
Follow this and additional works at: https://ecollections.law.fiu.edu/lawreview 
 Part of the Law Commons 
Online ISSN: 2643-7759 
Recommended Citation 
Editorial Board, 15 FIU L. Rev. iii (2021). 
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.25148/lawrev.15.2.2 
This Front Matter is brought to you for free and open access by eCollections. It has been accepted for inclusion in 
FIU Law Review by an authorized editor of eCollections. For more information, please contact lisdavis@fiu.edu. 
 
iii 
 
2020–2021 EDITORIAL BOARD 
 
Editor-in-Chief 
SOFIA PERLA 
 
Executive Managing Editor 
CHRISTINA RAMSEY 
 
Executive Articles Editor 
SAMANTHA GONZALEZ 
Executive Articles Editor 
CHRISTIAN OSORNO CORTES 
 
Executive Comments Editor 
YINA CABRERA 
Executive Marketing Editor 
IVAN FERIS JR. 
 
 
Articles Editors 
JORDAN BITTLE 
DARLYN DE LA ROSA 
DEVON HOFFMAN 
BRIAN PETERS 
DANIELA SILVA 
KISHEL STUBBS 
 
 
Senior Staff Members 
JESSICA AUJLA 
LINDSAY BEHNKE 
JUANA CETOUTE 
VICTORIA DELEON 
SHAKEYLA FLORES 
 
ANGELIQUE HERNANDEZ 
MICHELLE JUAREZ 
LIANE MARTINEZ 
KRISTIANNE NEU 
 
STEPHANIE PARRA 
SIERRA PRESS 
MARIO ROMERO 
DALTON TRITSCHLER 
ZANE KATZ 
 
Staff Members 
DOĞA BARUT 
MORGAN CARR 
HOLLI CREDIT 
STEPHANIE CROSS 
MARCEL DE LA CRUZ 
DILARA DEMIREL 
COOPER EISINGER 
LOUIS FIGUEROA 
AUDREY FRANKLIN 
 
LYNDEN JAMES JR. 
ROBERT KEMPER 
MARY KENNEY 
SAMANTHA LEE 
MARIA LLANOS 
KYLE MACDONALD 
AMADA MARTINEZ 
SHIRLEY MIRANDA 
J’DJOUNA PIERRE 
AMANDA PULIDO 
 
 
SEAN SABOGAL 
CHRISTIAN SARCEÑO ROBLES 
NICOLAS SCUTARI 
GLEISY SOPENA 
WALLACE STAGE 
FRANCESCA STEIN 
THOMAS TRABUE 
ASHLEY VALIDO 
MARISSA ZINK 
 
 
 
Faculty Advisory Committee 
PROFESSOR ERIC R. CARPENTER, CHAIR 
FIU LAW LIBRARY DIRECTOR LISA DAVIS 
PROFESSOR JORGE ESQUIROL 
 


English

Editorial Board

FIU Law Review 
Volume 15 Number 2 Article 4 
2021 
A Letter from the Editor in Chief 
Follow this and additional works at: https://ecollections.law.fiu.edu/lawreview 
 Part of the Law Commons 
Online ISSN: 2643-7759 
Recommended Citation 
A Letter from the Editor in Chief, 15 FIU L. Rev. vii (2021). 
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.25148/lawrev.15.2.4 
This Message from the Editor is brought to you for free and open access by eCollections. It has been accepted for 
inclusion in FIU Law Review by an authorized editor of eCollections. For more information, please contact 
lisdavis@fiu.edu. 
A Letter from the Editor in Chief 
 
 
Dear readers, 
 
When the executive editorial board was selected in January 2020, the world 
was a different place. In the year and a half that followed, the world underwent a 
drastic, sudden, and, for many, an unwelcome change. During this time, FIU Law 
Review also transitioned. Since the law review’s inception in 2004, we have been a 
symposium-based journal, producing issues based on ideas brought forth by our 
professors. However, this issue, the second of our fifteenth year and fifteenth 
volume, is our inaugural open submission issue, a long-term goal of our law review. 
The hard work of all the student editors and faculty advisors that guided and 
ultimately produced Volumes One through Fourteen paved the way for our student 
editors to further grow our journal in its fifteenth volume.  
This transitional year presented challenges and difficulties that our 
executive editorial board did not anticipate when we assumed our roles. Through 
the diligence of our student editors, the guidance of our faculty advisors, the 
patience of our authors, and many adjustments to the circumstances of this year, we 
have successfully achieved our long-term goal and published the fifteenth volume 
of FIU Law Review based on author submissions. I’d like to extend my immense 
gratitude to everyone involved in the production of Volume Fifteen, especially to 
our authors, Mr. Juan Antonio Solis, Professor Rory Ryan, Professor Lynda Wray 
Black, Ms. Chelsea Caldwell, Professor Nicholas Georgakopoulos, and Professor 
Peter Huang, whose kindness, patience, and enthusiasm carried us through this 
transitional year. The articles featured in this issue discuss important and timely 
topics, which I am proud to have published in our journal. The outgoing board 
members and I wish continued success to future boards and to FIU Law Review, as 
it continues to transform and grow.  
 
 
      With gratitude, 
 
 
 
 
      Sofia Perla 
      Editor in Chief, 2020−2021 
 
 
 
 
 
vii 


A Letter from the Editor in Chief

Carter, Linda

FIU Law Review 
Volume 15 
Number 1 Symposium: The Legal Legacy of the 
Special Court for Sierra Leone (Miami, Florida, 
2020) 
Article 5 
2021 
Legacy of the Special Court for Sierra Leone: Creating Space for 
Non-Judicial Alternatives 
Linda Carter 
University of the Pacific McGeorge School of Law, lcarter@pacific.edu 
Follow this and additional works at: https://ecollections.law.fiu.edu/lawreview 
 Part of the Human Rights Law Commons, International Humanitarian Law Commons, and the 
International Law Commons 
Online ISSN: 2643-7759 
Recommended Citation 
Linda Carter, Legacy of the Special Court for Sierra Leone: Creating Space for Non-Judicial Alternatives, 
15 FIU L. Rev. 15 (2021). 
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.25148/lawrev.15.1.5 
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by eCollections. It has been accepted for inclusion in FIU 
Law Review by an authorized editor of eCollections. For more information, please contact lisdavis@fiu.edu. 
2 - CARTER (DO NOT DELETE)  7/11/2021 12:08 PM 
 
LEGACY OF THE SPECIAL COURT FOR SIERRA LEONE:  
CREATING SPACE FOR NON-JUDICIAL ALTERNATIVES 
Linda Carter* 
Professor Jalloh’s excellent book on the legal legacy of the Special 
Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL) gives us a comprehensive view of the 
pioneering efforts of the SCSL and its legacy in international criminal justice 
today. It has been an honor to participate in this microsymposium, especially 
because Professor Jalloh facilitated my first trip to Sierra Leone and 
introduced me to the dual operation of the SCSL and the Truth and 
Reconciliation Commission (TRC).1 As a beneficiary of Professor Jalloh’s 
background, experience, and insights on the developments in Sierra Leone, I 
have become particularly interested in the role of non-judicial alternatives in 
addition to criminal prosecutions for atrocity crimes. 
Non-judicial mechanisms, as usually discussed, include not only truth 
commissions, but also amnesties and traditional mediation practices. As 
Professor Jalloh develops in two of his chapters, the SCSL wrestled with 
issues related to both amnesties and a truth and reconciliation commission.2 
In addition to contributing to the continuing evolution of legal issues, a 
lasting legacy of the seminal efforts and experience of the SCSL will 
hopefully be a move towards a more comprehensive, coordinated use of both 
judicial and non-judicial mechanisms in post-conflict situations. It is this 
issue, the neglected element of non-judicial alternatives, that I would like to 
comment on, building on Professor Jalloh’s discussion in his book. 
The international community has created significant and important 
judicial accountability venues—international criminal tribunals such as the 
SCSL and the International Criminal Court (ICC), domestic prosecutions in 
countries around the world, and universal jurisdiction to expand the domestic 
forums in which cases can be tried.   
Largely left out of the initial discourse on international justice were non-
judicial procedures. One reason is that non-judicial processes often operate 
 
* Distinguished Professor of Law Emerita, University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law. 
1 The research from my first trip to Sierra Leone was part of a rewarding collaboration with 
Professor Jalloh, which led to a chapter in a prior book of Professor Jalloh’s on the SCSL. Linda E. Carter, 
International Judicial Trials, Truth Commissions, and Gacaca: Developing a Framework for Transitional 
Justice from the Experiences in Sierra Leone and Rwanda, in THE SIERRA LEONE SPECIAL COURT AND 
ITS LEGACY: THE IMPACT FOR AFRICA AND INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW 724–45 (Charles C. Jalloh 
ed., 2014).  
2 See CHARLES C. JALLOH, THE LEGAL LEGACY OF THE SPECIAL COURT FOR SIERRA LEONE 181, 
193 (2020) [hereinafter JALLOH, LEGAL LEGACY]. 
2 - CARTER (DO NOT DELETE) 7/11/2021  12:08 PM 
16 FIU Law Review [Vol. 15:15 
in a parallel track, not necessitating a direct integration with judicial trials. A 
second reason, though, is insufficient agreement on whether and, if so, how 
to integrate non-judicial mechanisms into a legal framework for international 
justice for atrocity crimes. For example, when the Rome Statute for the ICC 
was developing, South Africa wanted consideration of its form of a truth and 
reconciliation commission. Agreement could not be reached on how to treat 
TRCs under the Statute, and, consequently, there is no mention of them in 
the statutory provisions.3  
The SCSL had to tackle issues with amnesty and the TRC that arose 
during the criminal trials. As Professor Jalloh points out, the legacy of the 
Court’s decision rejecting the applicability of the Lomé Agreement on 
amnesty is apparent in today’s discourse in multiple forums that questions 
the validity of any amnesties for international crimes.4 The Court’s 
jurisprudence also leaves a legacy on issues related to TRCs and lays the 
groundwork for protocols to define the relationship between a Court and a 
TRC. Professor Jalloh points out that the lack of coordination between the 
SCSL and the TRC resulted in problems related to funding, disclosure of 
confidential information, primacy, and public testimony by SCSL detainees.5 
As he notes, a legacy of Sierra Leone’s experience is the need at the outset 
for a formal clarification of the relationship between the Court and the TRC.6  
The SCSL’s decisions on legal issues related to non-judicial alternatives 
also have the possibility, and I hope probability, of leading to an even broader 
legacy based on the need to develop a more comprehensive, coordinated, and 
inclusive approach to post-conflict situations. There is a tendency to 
compartmentalize post-conflict mechanisms: the box for judicial criminal 
trials is different from the box for TRCs (or amnesties or traditional 
mediation practices). The overlap of the SCSL and the TRC in Sierra Leone 
 
3 See Darryl Robinson, Serving the Interests of Justice: Amnesties, Truth Commissions and the 
International Criminal Court, 14 EUR. J. INT’L L. 481, 483 (2003) (describing the negotiations and the 
purposeful ambiguity left in the statute on amnesties and truth commissions); Sharon A. Williams & 
William A. Schabas, Article 17, in COMMENTARY ON THE ROME STATUTE OF THE INTERNATIONAL 
CRIMINAL COURT 605, 617–19 (Otto Triffterer ed., 2008) (describing the difference of views on 
amnesties); John Dugard, Possible Conflicts of Jurisdiction with Truth Commissions, in THE ROME 
STATUTE OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT: A COMMENTARY 693, 700 (Antonio Cassese et al. 
eds., 2002) (noting the issue of amnesties was raised but not resolved). 
4 Amnesties have raised, and continue to raise, complex and controversial legal issues. As 
Professor Jalloh discusses in his in-depth chapter on amnesties, blanket amnesties are almost always 
rejected for international atrocity crimes. Even with conditional amnesties, there is a growing body of 
commentary that rejects them for atrocity crimes. See JALLOH, LEGAL LEGACY, supra note 2, at 181; see 
also Linda E. Carter, The Relationship of International Criminal Courts with National Non-Judicial 
Proceedings, in THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT IN AN EFFECTIVE GLOBAL JUSTICE SYSTEM, 137–
208 (2016) (discussing the status of amnesties and other non-judicial processes under the Rome Statute) 
[hereinafter Carter et al., Non-Judicial Proceedings]. 
5 JALLOH, LEGAL LEGACY, supra note 2, at 313–14, 321–36. 
6 Id. at 310. 
2 - CARTER (DO NOT DELETE) 7/11/2021  12:08 PM 
2021] Creating Space for Non-Judicial Alternatives 17 
is illustrative of political and societal interests in multiple solutions based on 
different purposes. A legacy from Sierra Leone should be that it is not 
sufficient to simply punt either a legal or a policy question to the next 
situation or case. Instead of separating the post-conflict mechanisms, we need 
to find a bigger box and combine the thinking about judicial and non-judicial 
post-conflict processes in the planning stages, policy discussions, and legal 
analyses.   
In addition to recognizing the importance of multiple proceedings, a 
legacy of Sierra Leone’s experience should also lead to a better framework 
in which they can operate. Truth commissions, in particular, are a common 
tool in post-conflict societies. Professor Jalloh notes that “nearly half of the 
fifty-five African countries have established a truth commission in one form 
or another.”7 TRCs are also in use throughout the rest of the world.8 
Furthermore, there continue to be combinations of criminal proceedings and 
TRCs. As Professor Jalloh notes, this is occurring now in the Central African 
Republic and in South Sudan.9   
Moreover, there are good reasons for the co-existence of criminal trials 
and TRCs. They serve different purposes in a post-conflict society. As 
Professor Jalloh points out, TRCs are primarily aimed at reconciliation while 
criminal courts are focused on retribution, deterrence, and incapacitation.10   
Although not at issue with the SCSL, traditional mediation practices are 
also prevalent in many parts of the world and, like TRCs, serve broader 
purposes than a criminal trial. Many societies around the world have 
community-based procedures or rituals to resolve conflict and restore 
harmony within the community. This serves as a means for a community to 
reintegrate an offender and to move forward. Usually, there is a form of 
restitution as a penalty; this might, for example, be an apology, 
compensation, or both.11 Not only do traditional practices raise issues of 
substituting for, or operating parallel to, criminal trials, they also could 
potentially serve as an alternative to a sentence of incarceration. For example, 
in the case of Dominic Ongwen at the ICC, the defense is requesting his 
return to the Acholi Cultural Institution in northern Uganda for a traditional 
 
7 Id. at 309. 
8 Carter et al., Non-Judicial Proceedings, supra note 4, at 139–40 (identifying TRCs around the 
world). 
9 JALLOH, LEGAL LEGACY, supra note 2, at 309. 
10 Id. at 310–11. 
11 Carter et al., Non-Judicial Proceedings, supra note 4, at 154–57 (discussing mato oput in 
Uganda and nahe biti bot in Timor-Leste). 
2 - CARTER (DO NOT DELETE) 7/11/2021  12:08 PM 
18 FIU Law Review [Vol. 15:15 
ritual designed to reintegrate a serious offender into the community in lieu of 
a sentence to prison.12  
Continuing developments, such as those briefly discussed here, with 
both TRCs and traditional practices, demonstrate that the field of post-
conflict justice is not static. Lessons can be learned from the ground-breaking 
efforts of the SCSL, as Professor Jalloh documents well in his book. As the 
first country in which an international court and a truth commission existed 
side-by-side, the issues that arose and the decisions about that relationship 
are fundamental to the ongoing process of improving coordination and 
thoughtful co-existence of judicial and non-judicial procedures.   
 
 
12 Public Redacted Version of ‘Corrected Version of “Defence Closing Brief”’ ¶ 733, Prosecutor 
v. Ongwen, (2020) (No. ICC-02/04-01/15), https://www.icc-cpi.int/CourtRecords/CR2020_00998.PDF. 


Legacy of the Special Court for Sierra Leone: Creating Space for Non-Judicial Alternatives

https://ecollections.law.fiu.edu/faculty_books/1285/thumbnail.jp

Uribe-Uran, Victor M.

Fernando Vélez Barrientos (Colombia, 1847–1935)

https://ecollections.law.fiu.edu/faculty_books/1286/thumbnail.jp

Mirow, M C

Félix Varela y Morales (Cuba, 1788–1853)

Terilli, Jr., Samuel A.

FIU Law Review 
Volume 14 
Number 4 Symposium: The First – Florida 
International University College of Law (Miami, 
Florida 2020) 
Article 9 
2021 
Stanley Fish, The First, and the Life of the Law 
Samuel A. Terilli, Jr. 
University of Miami, School of Communication, sterilli@miami.edu 
Follow this and additional works at: https://ecollections.law.fiu.edu/lawreview 
 Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, and the First Amendment Commons 
Online ISSN: 2643-7759 
Recommended Citation 
Samuel A. Terilli, Jr., Stanley Fish, The First, and the Life of the Law, 14 FIU L. Rev. 731 (2021). 
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.25148/lawrev.14.4.10 
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by eCollections. It has been accepted for inclusion in FIU 
Law Review by an authorized editor of eCollections. For more information, please contact lisdavis@fiu.edu. 
6 - TERILLI (DO NOT DELETE)  3/22/2021 12:26 PM 
 
 
STANLEY FISH, THE FIRST, AND THE LIFE OF THE LAW 
Samuel A. Terilli, Jr.* 
Any thoughtful reading of The First by Stanley Fish will lead many to 
come away feeling discouraged about the state of the First Amendment and 
free speech in the United States, for the simple and compelling reason that 
Fish is right on target with his observations and analysis. Particularly 
distressing will be his conclusion that the First Amendment provides only 
limited help when tackling either of two dreaded speech viruses spreading 
across the country: hate speech and fake news.  
While concern is understandable, no one should assume all hope for our 
democracy and society is lost, or that Fish is suggesting it is lost. Instead, 
Fish throws a cold bucket of realist water on those who think some embedded 
and neutral constitutional principle, as opposed to democratic and political 
action, including speech, will save us from the likes of neo-Nazis and Internet 
trolls, be they domestic or foreign. 
Fish starts with a convincing refutation of any search for a unifying 
principle deciding free speech disputes under the First Amendment. He 
dismisses, for example, common terms such as the oft-heard and often 
adoring references to the so-called free marketplace of ideas as mere slogans 
devoid of substantive or coherent meaning.  
Fish next shatters any effort to identify hate speech as a coherent 
category of speech, the first step in any effort to define it as unprotected by 
the First Amendment and, thus, subject to punishment and exclusion. He does 
not suggest that some speech is not, in fact, hurtful and even hateful, but he 
demonstrates with wit and clarity that no widely accepted formula exists to 
decide that which is hateful and that which others might say is only offensive 
or possibly even truthful. As Justice John Marshall Harlan wrote in Cohen v. 
California, “one man’s vulgarity is another’s lyric.”1 As pointed out by Fish, 
one man’s (or woman’s)2 hate is another’s revelation.  
Fish is no more comforting on the topic of fake news. With the erosion 
of trust in traditional institutions, including the mainstream or legacy press, 
Fish finds the seeds of the problem. One cannot distinguish the fake from the 
 
*  Samuel A. Terilli, Jr., Associate Professor and Chair, Department of Journalism and Media 
Management, University of Miami. 
1 Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15, 25 (1971). 
2 STANLEY FISH, THE FIRST: HOW TO THINK ABOUT HATE SPEECH, CAMPUS SPEECH, RELIGIOUS 
SPEECH, FAKE NEWS, POST-TRUTH, AND DONALD TRUMP 51 (2019). 
6 - TERILLI (DO NOT DELETE) 3/22/2021  12:26 PM 
732 FIU Law Review [Vol. 14:731] 
 
real, in terms of news, when one side of the divide has signed on for a new 
wave of populist-inspired narratives and the other for a “messianic faith in 
data.”3 Merely adding more data to the mix without context or trust leaves 
too many people subject to the lure of the good story told with alleged facts 
of questionable lineage or provenance. 
Discouraging, indeed! Along the way, Fish also takes his readers on 
equally distressing analyses of the First Amendment’s anomalous religious 
clauses. He dissects the ill-defined campus speech controversies 
masquerading as free speech issues when they really represent administrative 
abdications or subterfuges. He even jumps into the myriad issues raised by 
the Trump presidency and the cries about a post-truth era when the evidence 
of any era truly committed to truth is wanting, to say the least.  
Not all hope is lost, however. Even in the jurisprudential world outlined 
by Stanley Fish, one can find, upon a closer examination, cause for optimism, 
albeit cautious optimism, or at least a more realistic strategy for those who 
care. As with the recent exhortations against the so-called new post-truth 
world populated by the likes of Donald Trump and the trolls, the truth is, as 
argued by Fish, that the term “post-truth” identifies not a new development 
but the age-old human condition.  
Engage in the political processes, from elections to legislation, to defeat 
those who disseminate “verbal poison (at least as you see it), and don’t flinch 
when the First Amendment is brandished as a weapon against you.”4 In short, 
among the messages delivered in this short and quite readable analysis of the 
First Amendment is the fact that we cannot rely merely on a text written more 
than 200 years ago, but must rely on ourselves, and we must continually 
engage in the debates, even when our political landscape seems so desperate. 
If one were to read Fish as a lawyer, one would find an underlying truth about 
the law and the courts. There may be rules for everything from evidence to 
procedure, but nothing guarantees justice. One must seek to plead one’s case 
and not flinch when those same laws appear twisted beyond recognition. 
Such is the human condition.  
If one hears a faint echo of some of the thinking of that great and 
enigmatic jurist, Oliver Wendell Holmes, this is no wonder. As once said by 
Holmes, “[t]he life of the law has not been logic: it has been experience.”5 
So, too, with the life of the First Amendment—another law. Fish has shown 
we are obliged not merely to rely on logic but to argue for what we think 
should be the felt necessities of our time. 
 
3 Id. at 194. 
4 Id. at 191. 
5 OLIVER WENDELL HOLMES, JR., THE COMMON LAW 1 (Dover 1991) (1881). 


Stanley Fish, The First, and the Life of the Law

FIU Law Review 
Volume 15 
Number 1 Symposium: The Legal Legacy of the 
Special Court for Sierra Leone (Miami, Florida, 
2020) 
Article 2 
2021 
Editorial Board 
Follow this and additional works at: https://ecollections.law.fiu.edu/lawreview 
 Part of the Law Commons 
Online ISSN: 2643-7759 
Recommended Citation 
Editorial Board, 15 FIU L. Rev. iii (2021). 
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.25148/lawrev.15.1.2 
This Front Matter is brought to you for free and open access by eCollections. It has been accepted for inclusion in 
FIU Law Review by an authorized editor of eCollections. For more information, please contact lisdavis@fiu.edu. 
 
iii 
 
2020–2021 EDITORIAL BOARD 
 
Editor-in-Chief 
SOFIA PERLA 
 
Executive Managing Editor 
CHRISTINA RAMSEY 
 
Executive Articles Editor 
SAMANTHA GONZALEZ 
Executive Articles Editor 
CHRISTIAN OSORNO CORTES 
 
Executive Comments Editor 
YINA CABRERA 
Executive Marketing Editor 
IVAN FERIS JR. 
 
 
Articles Editors 
JORDAN BITTLE 
DARLYN DE LA ROSA 
DEVON HOFFMAN 
BRIAN PETERS 
DANIELA SILVA 
KISHEL STUBBS 
 
 
Senior Staff Members 
JESSICA AUJLA 
LINDSAY BEHNKE 
JUANA CETOUTE 
VICTORIA DELEON 
SHAKEYLA FLORES 
 
ANGELIQUE HERNANDEZ 
MICHELLE JUAREZ 
LIANE MARTINEZ 
KRISTIANNE NEU 
 
STEPHANIE PARRA 
SIERRA PRESS 
MARIO ROMERO 
DALTON TRITSCHLER 
ZANE KATZ 
 
Staff Members 
DOĞA BARUT 
MORGAN CARR 
HOLLI CREDIT 
STEPHANIE CROSS 
MARCEL DE LA CRUZ 
DILARA DEMIREL 
COOPER EISINGER 
LOUIS FIGUEROA 
AUDREY FRANKLIN 
 
LYNDEN JAMES JR. 
ROBERT KEMPER 
MARY KENNEY 
SAMANTHA LEE 
MARIA LLANOS 
KYLE MACDONALD 
AMADA MARTINEZ 
SHIRLEY MIRANDA 
J’DJOUNA PIERRE 
AMANDA PULIDO 
 
 
SEAN SABOGAL 
CHRISTIAN SARCEÑO ROBLES 
NICOLAS SCUTARI 
GLEISY SOPENA 
WALLACE STAGE 
FRANCESCA STEIN 
THOMAS TRABUE 
ASHLEY VALIDO 
MARISSA ZINK 
 
 
 
Faculty Advisory Committee 
PROFESSOR ERIC R. CARPENTER, CHAIR 
FIU LAW LIBRARY DIRECTOR LISA DAVIS 
PROFESSOR JORGE ESQUIROL 
 


Sadat, Leila Nadya

The Important Contributions of the Special Court for Sierra Leone on Amnesties and Immunities: Reinforcing Foundational Principles of International Criminal Law

Florida International University

Not a member yet

Beyond Borders and Across Legal Traditions: The Transnationalization of Latin American Lawyers

Editorial Board

A Letter from the Editor in Chief

Legacy of the Special Court for Sierra Leone: Creating Space for Non-Judicial Alternatives

Fernando Vélez Barrientos (Colombia, 1847–1935)

Félix Varela y Morales (Cuba, 1788–1853)

Stanley Fish, The First, and the Life of the Law

Editorial Board

The Important Contributions of the Special Court for Sierra Leone on Amnesties and Immunities: Reinforcing Foundational Principles of International Criminal Law

The “Ultimate” Question: Are Ultimate Employment Decisions Required to Succeed on a Discrimination Claim Under Section 703(a) of Title VII?

1,407

3,246