Monday, December 21, 2015
This month we highlight two new Comparative Law Papers on SSRN:
To start, Martin Oyhanarte of the Universidad Austral in Argentina and the Universidad del Salvador has posted an article entitled, "Public Law Litigation in the U.S. and in Argentina: Lessons from a Comparative Study." From the abstract:
"This article provides a comparative study of Public Law Litigation and the use of structural remedies in the United States and in Argentina. The case of Argentina is interesting because it is one of the few countries with strong-form judicial review that has implemented this kind of litigation. The experiences in both countries reveal disparate results. Evidence suggests that sustained impact depends on certain political conditions and technical requirements. The article describes these conditions and requirements, fitting them into a model. The model may prove useful to assess the implementation of complex procedural devices under different legal environments. Further, it suggests possible courses of action to judges, legislators, or legal activists seeking to promote structural reform."
Our second paper is from T.J. McIntyre of the UCD Sutherland School of Law, who has posted a forthcoming book chapter entitled, "Judicial Oversight of Surveillance: The Case of Ireland in Comparative Perspective." From the abstract:
"This chapter examines how judicial oversight can regulate state surveillance, with a particular focus on Irish, European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and European Union (EU) law.
It begins by considering the general arguments for judicial oversight and the types of oversight structures which can be used, from ex ante authorisation to ex post review and the variants in between.
It then examines the extent to which Irish, ECHR and EU law require judicial oversight in particular circumstances - particularly in light of the landmark decision of the Court of Justice in Digital Rights Ireland v. Minister for Communications invalidating the Data Retention Directive.
Next, it takes as a case study the Irish experience of data retention and discusses how judicial oversight of data retention has operated and why it has failed to secure the rights of the individual.
It concludes with suggestions for improving the effectiveness of judicial oversight surveillance."
Friday, December 4, 2015
In prior blogs (here and here) we discussed both the trial of Oscar Pistorius, in South Africa, for the death of his girlfriend, and then the verdict, which found Pistorius guilty of culpable homicide, that is, what we in the United States would call manslaughter, but not guilty of murder. We commented, among other things, about the experience of seeing a single judge rendering a verdict (in which two invisible lay assessors joined), and of hearing a detailed statement of reasons – two experiences we rarely (as to the first) or never (as to the second) have in the United States. This week, the Supreme Court of Appeal in South Africa entertained the prosecution’s appeal from that verdict and reversed it. The court convicted Pistorius of murder instead: a third unheard phenomenon in the US criminal justice system.
The appellate court held that the trial court had incorrectly applied the doctrine of dolus eventualis, which supports a murder conviction based, in essence, on recklessness, by concluding that because the defendant did not know who he was shooting at (error in objecto), he could not have understood that death was likely to follow. The court explained that “the accused’s incorrect appreciation as to who was in the cubicle [in which he fired the fatal shots] is not determinative of whether he had the requisite criminal intent.” The court also held that the trial court had incorrectly applied the law on circumstantial evidence by ignoring some of the relevant evidence.
As the Supreme Court of Appeal noted in the opening sentence of its opinion, “[t]his case involves a human tragedy of Shakespearean proportions;…”.
- Lissa Griffin, South Africa: Reflections on the Pistorius Trial, Comparative Law Prof Blog (Apr. 10, 2014).
- Lissa Griffin, The Pistorius Verdict, Comparative Law Prof Blog (Sept. 12, 2014).
- Director of Public Prosecutions, Gauteng v. Pistorius (96/2015)  ZASCA 204 (3 Dec. 2015) (S. Afr.) (Court’s PDF).
Wednesday, November 25, 2015
This conference aims to explore the features and the challenges of the fundamental rights protection system in Europe. The first day of the conference will feature keynote speakers such as Prof. Bruno De Witte, Prof. Morten Kjaerum, Prof. Federico Fabbrini, Prof. Cormac Mac Amhlaigh and Prof. Michael Addo.
The second day of the conference, after the keynote speech of Prof. Matej Avbelj, will be dedicated to the presentation of papers selected through this call.
The Convenors invite submissions from scholars in Comparative Public law, European law, International law at all levels. Submissions may address one or more of the following subjects:
1. Theory of fundamental rights
2. Pluralism within the European system of fundamental rights protection
3. The role of the judiciary in fundamental rights protection
4. The role of international/supranational agencies
5. The challenges of fundamental rights protection after the Eurozone-crisis
6. Social rights protection within the EU
7. Comparisons between the European fundamental rights protection system and other non-European experiences
Interested scholars should email no more than one (1) abstract of max. 500 words by December 10, 2015 to the following address: email@example.com
Successful applicants will be notified no later than December 30, 2015.
There is no cost to participate in the workshop. Successful applicants are responsible for securing their own funding for travel, lodging and other incidental expenses.
Sunday, November 15, 2015
Lena Foljanty, Max Planck Institute for European Legal History, recently posted this interesting article on SSRN.
From the abstract:
Monday, November 2, 2015
ANNUAL CONFERENCE 2016
23-24 MAY 2016
SCHOOL OF LAW AND THE IRISH CENTRE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS,
‘(DIS) LOCATING COMPARATIVE LAW’
The Irish Society of Comparative Law (ISCL) and the School of Law of the NUI Galway together with the Irish Centre for Human Rights are pleased to announce the seventh annual conference of the ISCL to be held in Galway on 23-24 May 2016. The keynote speaker will be Prof Mark Tushnet of Harvard Law School.
Theme: In an increasingly interconnected world, where geographies of protection are premised on the centrality of national territory and state sovereignty, the importance of being cognisant of the concept of location/geography/space/place in the comparative law arena, cannot be underestimated.
Does comparative law continue to contrast the laws of states, or is there now, a new focus? What effect does this have on the diversity inherent in plural legal systems? How are different types of laws (state/customary/indigenous/international) (dis/re)located? How does this (dis)location impact our analysis of these laws, including any effort at being a ‘comparativist’? What does this mean for places of transience not holding enough significance to be regarded as legal places? This conference questions traditional narratives of comparative law, in the context of the increasing complexity of legal orders within, between and beyond states.
The conference aims to encourage theoretical and empirical interdisciplinary reflection on comparative law and space/place, to explore why location matters, and ensure cognisance of the sensitivities of location in comparative law. However, any comparative topic may be proposed, eg private law, criminal law and criminal justice, public or constitutional law, legal education, etc. In addition, proposals on European or International law will also be considered.
The deadline for receipt of proposals is Monday, 29 February 2016. Proposals by both members and non-members, as well as by professional academics and graduate students are welcome.
Proposals should be maximum 500 words in length and be sent to firstname.lastname@example.org. The conference fee will be €60 for members of the ISCL and €120 for non-members (membership fees are €60, student membership is free). The ISCL regrets that it cannot cover travel or accommodation expenses. All additional information about the conference (including a special Conference group rate in local hotels) will be posted in due course at http://www.conference.ie/Conferences/index.asp?Conference=218
Thursday, October 22, 2015
We are promoting the Supreme Court Fellows Program on the Comparative Law Blog this year because the program offers a placement in the Office of the Counselor for the Chief Justice that is particularly appropriate for comparative law scholars as well as current judicial clerks who may wish to pursue a career in the field of comparative law.
Sunday, October 18, 2015
Conference Announcement: May 2nd and 3rd, 2016 (Rome, Italy)
The Center for Parliamentary Studies, LUISS Guido Carli University of Rome in cooperation with The University of Milan, Department of National and Supranational Public Law; The International Society of Public Law (ICON-S); and The Younger Comparativists Committee (YCC), American Society of Comparative Law
Subject-Matter of Symposium
We can trace the institutional evolution of bicameralism from ancient Greece and Rome, to Medieval Europe and the emergence of the House of Lords in fourteenth century, in the intellectual debates triggered by the French Revolution and the design of the United States Constitution, to the reflections in Alexis de Tocqueville’s Souvenirs, through the present day. Bicameralism is today a common feature of constitutional democracy. At its best, bicameralism diversifies democratic representation, strengthens representative government, promotes legislative deliberation, and reinforces the separation of powers. Yet bicameralism has often failed either to fulfil its intended purposes or to keep pace with the evolution of constitutional democracy. Many constitutional states, for instance Canada, Ireland, Romania and the United Kingdom, have sought to revise their bicameral arrangements only to confront significant legal or political barriers to change. Only relatively few reforms have succeeded. This Symposium will inquire why. Drawing from country-specific and cross-national experiences with bicameralism, scholars in this Symposium will bring to bear comparative, doctrinal, historical, legal and theoretical perspectives to the study of constitutional reform of national legislatures.
This Symposium will devote one session to constitutional reform in Italy. Bicameralism in Italy has been a matter of controversy since the drafting of the Constitution in 1946-47. Both chambers in Italy are co-equal in the most important ways: they are directly elected, they exercise the same legislative powers, and they possess the same confidence relationship with the executive branch. Yet bicameralism in Italy has been the object of several failed reform efforts both to overcome the challenges of perfect bicameralism and its degeneration, as well as to guarantee a representation of local and regional authorities as the country moves toward greater regionalization. Italy is currently undertaking a major constitutional reform to its bicameral arrangements.
These and other developments raise important questions for constitutionalism. How should a legislature be structured, and what values—democracy, representation, efficiency, deliberation— should its design prioritize? Does bicameralism still fit the times in light of the globalization and Europeanisation of public policies, the increasing dominance of judicial and executive actors, mounting calls for greater devolution of legislative powers to subnational levels of government and the multiplication of levels of government? When and under what conditions is a bicameral arrangement to be preferred over a unicameral one? How can second chambers best perform their functions.
These questions, in particular with respect to Canada in comparative perspective, were the focus of the master’s dissertation written by Gabriella Angiulli, a dear friend and colleague to whom this Symposium is dedicated. Gabriella Angiulli passed away in March 2013. She was a doctoral student at the University of Siena and a Teaching Assistant at LUISS Guido Carli University, where she earned her master’s degree cum laude in Comparative Public Law in 2008 under the supervision of Prof. Carmela Decaro. The first conference held in her memory in 2014 explored “The preliminary reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union by Constitutional Courts.” This second scholarly program will foster academic debate and collaboration on another important line of inquiry in contemporary constitutional law—on questions that formed the subject of Gabriella Angiulli’s research when she was embarking on her promising academic career.
Structure of Symposium
The first day of the conference, Monday May 2, 2016, will be held entirely in English and will feature three panels each with two presenters. The second day of the conference, Tuesday, May 3, 2016, will be held in partly in English and Italian. There will be one roundtable in Italian focused on the constitutional reform of bicameralism in Italy, and two panels in English each with two presenters.
The Symposium will feature a keynote presentation by Professor John Uhr (Australian National University), one of the leading scholars in the study and design of bicameral legislatures.
Possible Subjects for Paper Proposals
The Convenors invite submissions from scholars in comparative public law at all levels, from doctoral candidates to senior professors. Submissions may address one or more of the following subjects from national, comparative, or European perspectives:
1. Constitutional history of bicameralism
2. Bicameralism in historical perspective
3. Bicameralism in constitution-making
4. Overcoming challenges and stalemate in bicameral and unicameral systems
5. Bicameralism in federal systems and in federalizing processes
6. Bicameralism, ICT revolution and open government
7. Bicameralism, representative democracy and minorities
8. Bicameralism and electoral systems
9. Bicameralism, the separation of powers and forms of governments
10. Bicameralism and lawmaking
11. Bicameralism and parliamentary oversight
12. Bicameralism in the framework of the European Union: intra- and inter-State dynamics
To Submit an Abstract
Interested scholars are invited to submit a CV and an abstract no longer than 500 words by
November 30, 2015 to
email@example.com. Applicants will be notified by December 30, 2015. Full drafts of papers will be due by email to firstname.lastname@example.org no later than April 1, 2016. Papers should be no longer than 10,000 words (footnotes included).
Papers presented at the conference will be published subject to successful blind peer-review. The remaining papers may be considered for publication in the LUISS School of Government Working Paper Series:
There is no cost to participate in the conference. The Convenors will provide meals and accommodations (for up to two nights) to presenters. Presenters are responsible for their own travel and incidental expenses.
For additional information, please contact Cristina Fasone at email@example.com.
Monday, October 12, 2015
The Younger Comparativists Committee (YCC) of the American Society of Comparative Law (ASCL) is pleased to invite submissions for its second workshop on comparative business and financial law to be held on February 5-6, 2016 at UC Davis School of Law in Davis, California. The purpose of the workshop is to highlight, develop, and promote the scholarship of new and younger comparativists in accounting, banking, bankruptcy, corporations, commercial law, economics, finance, and securities.
Up to fifteen papers will be chosen from those submitted for presentation at the workshop pursuant to this Call for Papers. The workshop audience will include invited young scholars, faculty from UC Davis School of Law and Graduate School of Management, faculty from other institutions, and invited guests.
Submissions will be accepted from scholars who have held a full-time academic appointment for no more than ten years as of June 30, 2016.
To submit an entry, scholars should email an attachment in Microsoft Word or PDF containing an abstract of no more than 1000 words before October 15, 2015, to the following address:
Please title the email "YCC Business Law Workshop – [Name]." Abstracts should reflect original research that will not yet have been published, though may have been accepted for publication, by the time of the workshop. Abstracts should include a cover page with the author’s name, title of the paper, institutional affiliation, contact information, as well as the author’s certification that she/he qualifies as a younger scholar.
Scholars may make only one submission. Both individual and co-authored submissions will be accepted. For co-authored submissions, at least one author must qualify as an eligible younger comparativist.
Invitees will be selected via a blind review by a workshop selection committee. Authors of the submissions selected for the workshop will be notified no later than November 15, 2015. There is no cost to register for the workshop but participants are responsible for securing their own funding for travel, lodging and other incidental expenses. A limited number of travel stipends may be awarded to scholars from ASCL member schools who demonstrate financial need. If you
would like to be considered for a travel stipend, please make that request in your submission.
Final papers for the workshop will be due no later than January 18, 2016.
Acknowledgements and Questions
The YCC gratefully acknowledges the support of UC Davis School of Law and the California International Law Center. Please direct all inquiries to Professor Afra Afsharipour, Chair of the Program Committee, by email at firstname.lastname@example.org or telephone at 530-754-0111.
Please feel free to share this Call for Papers with any colleagues who may be interested.
The Program Committee:
Afra Afsharipour (UC Davis School of Law) (Chair)
Martin Gelter (Fordham University School of Law)
Haider Ala Hamoudi (University of Pittsburgh School of Law)
Virginia Harper Ho (University of Kansas School of Law)
Workshop Selection Committee:
Afra Afsharipour (UC Davis School of Law)
Martin Gelter (Fordham University School of Law)
Haider Ala Hamoudi (University of Pittsburgh School of Law)
Virginia Harper Ho (University of Kansas School of Law)
Andrew Tuch (Washington University School of Law)
YCC Board of Directors:
Afra Afsharipour, Professor of Law, University of California - Davis
Richard Albert, Associate Professor, Boston College, Chair
Virginia Harper Ho, Associate Professor, University of Kansas, Treasurer
Sally Richardson, Associate Professor, Tulane University
Ozan Varol, Associate Professor, Lewis & Clark, Vice Chair & Secretary
Thursday, October 8, 2015
This post was written by Peter Widulski, Assistant Director of the Legal Writing Program and Faculty Coach to the ICC Moot Court Team at Pace Law School, in White Plains, NY
On September 18, 2015, Contempt Judge Nicola Lettieri of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon [STL] issued a judgment finding a Lebanese journalist, Ms. Karma Al Khayat, in contempt on one of the two counts filed against her. This count charged Ms. Al Khayat with violating Rule 60 bis (A) (iii) of the STL’s Rules of Procedure and Evidence, which prohibits “knowingly and wilfully interfer[ing]” with the STL’s “administration of justice” by “disclos[ing] information relating to proceedings in knowing violation of an order of a Judge….”
After a trial conducted from April 16, 2015 to May 15, 2015, Judge Lettieri concluded that the evidence showed beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms. Al Khayat was responsible for producing and broadcasting on Al Jadeed TV, and maintaining on Al Jadeed TV’s website, information that effectively identified several prosecution witnesses in the trial against defendants charged with the terrorist killing of the former Lebanese Premier and others. The judge found that by doing so, Ms. Al Khayat knowingly violated STL orders designed to protect witness confidentiality. In a sentencing judgment announced on September 28, 2015, Judge Lettieri imposed a fine of 10,000 Euros on Ms. Al Khayat.
In her September 18 judgment, Judge Lettieri also had to address Rule 60 bis charges the Prosecutor brought against Al Jadeed as a corporate entity. In this respect, Judge Lettieri found it necessary to make recourse to Lebanese law. Like the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia [ICTY] and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda [ICTR], the STL was established by the U.N. Security Council. Unlike the ICTY and ICTR, however, the STL is a “hybrid” tribunal in that it applies both international criminal law and domestic (Lebanese) criminal law.
Applying Lebanese law on corporate liability, Judge Lettieri found the evidence produced at trial insufficient to support the Prosecutor’s charges against Al Jadeed.
Monday, September 28, 2015
A recent patent law decision from India once again highlights the uneasy relationship between the pharmaceutical industry and intellectual property rights. In a decision reminiscent of the Indian Supreme Court’s 2013 decision against Novartis on its patent application for its chemotherapeutic drug Gleevec (generic name, imatinib), the Indian patent office rejected Pfizer’s patent application on its rheumatoid arthritis drug, Xeljanz (generic name, tofacitinib). Both decisions cited to Section 3(d) of the India Patent Act of 2005 to find that neither Gleevec now Xeljanz exhibited enhanced efficacy over earlier known forms of each drug.
In Novartis’ case, the Court rejected the patent application because Gleevec is a beta crystalline, methylate salt form of the known base compound, imatinib. Novartis had previously patented the imatinib base form (outside of India) but developed the Gleevec form so that it could be administered to patients orally. The differences between Gleevec and base imatinib were significant enough to gain patent protection in other countries, including the U.S., but Section 3(d) of Indian patent law imposes an additional requirement not seen in other jurisdictions. Specifically, Section 3(d) states that patentable inventions do not include “mere discovery of a new form of a known substance which does not result in the enhancement of the known efficacy of that substance.” Although Gleevec arguably has enhanced useability over its base imatinib form – which, again, is often enough for patentability in other jurisdictions – Section 3(d) requires evidence of enhanced therapeutic efficacy. Pfizer’s Xeljanz application suffered the same fate this past year.
Pharmaceutical companies are quite understandably up in arms about Section 3(d). Although Section 3(d) is not specific to pharmaceuticals on its face, India’s policy on drug patents quite expressly favors drug affordability over drug patenting. Section 3(d) is thus designed in large part to prevent pharmaceuticals from “evergreening” patent protection of their drugs by sequentially patenting variations on those drugs. This kind of sequential innovation is common in all areas of technology, but it is viewed with particular suspicion when it comes to pharmaceuticals, and understandably so. High pharmaceutical costs lead to tragic choices, even in relatively wealthy nations, and even more tragic lack of access to medicines in countries, such as India, where very few enjoy health insurance.
That being said, the pharmaceutical industry is the one area in which the patent system is thought actually to achieve its purpose of incentivizing investment in R&D. Although commentators disagree greatly on the exact cost to develop and market drugs, the pharmaceutical R&D is clearly an expensive and time-consuming enterprise, if only because of the heavy regulatory burdens of the drug approval process. Patents may raise pharmaceutical prices, but they also may help drug innovators recoup their costs.
India, on the other hand, is known more for its generic drug industry than for its innovative drug industry; not coincidentally, India’s strict policy toward pharmaceutical patenting favors its generic manufacturers. What correlation might exist between strong drug patents and strong pharmaceutical innovation would be interesting to measure by comparing data from various countries.
Saturday, September 26, 2015
Earlier this month news broke that the U.S. Department of Justice had begun investigating the auto manufacturing giant, Volkswagen. Now, VW faces investigations throughout Europe and Asia.
In Germany, prosecutors in Braunschweig have opened a pre-investigation review that seeks to determine whether the State might prosecute individuals at VW on charges including aggravated fraud. This is not the first time that the Braunschweig prosecution office has investigated VW. In 2008, several top executives were charged and convicted of funneling payments to labor leaders to gain support for corporate policies. A court sentenced the company's chief employee representative, Klaus Volkert, to a three year prison sentence. Other allegations against the company at the time were far more scandalous. Investigators discovered that company executives arranged trips for employee representatives that included visits to prostitutes and shopping sprees. At the time, critics blamed VW's problems on the unusually close ties between labor and management at VW.
On the federal level, Germany's Minister of Transportation has also opened an investigation into "improper vehicle tampering" -a violation of both German and European law.
During the earlier scandal at VW, critics blamed the company's problems on the unusually close ties between labor and management at VW. Given that VW has long lauded its commitment to producing environmentally friendly cars, one wonders what kind of incentives engineers received for hiding their inability to meet those standards.
Mark Landler, "Sentence in Volkswagen Scandal," New York Times, February 23, 2008.
"VW May Face Criminal Probe in Germany," Automotive News Europe, September 23, 2015.
Wednesday, September 16, 2015
The London Times reports that members of the Scottish Parliament's Justice committee voted against changing the form of legal aid payments from fixed to hourly rates on criminal appeals.
As a comparativist, I paused for a moment when reading a New York Times editorial, also from today, that indicated that Bad lawyering is behind most death sentences...." While I question the correctness of that assertion, the alleged lawyer deficiency in that case - failure to introduce an impeaching confession from the government's main witness - might well have resulted, as have others, from the very low assigned counsel fees paid in the United States.
Monday, September 14, 2015
Professor Strong, Missouri College of Law, has recently posted an article on SSRN entitled, "Reasoned Awards in International Commercial Arbitration: Embracing and Exceeding the Common Law-Civil Law Dichotomy."
From the abstract:
Over the last few decades, international commercial arbitration has become the preferred means of resolving cross-border business disputes. The popularity of this particular device is due to a number of uniquely attractive features ranging from the mechanism’s sophisticated blend of common law and civil law procedures to the routine use of reasoned awards. As a result, international commercial arbitration does not resemble domestic arbitration so much as it does complex commercial litigation.
Although international commercial arbitration is considered a highly mature form of dispute resolution, very little information exists as to what constitutes a reasoned award in the international commercial context or how to write such an award. This situation is becoming increasingly problematic given the rising number of international commercial arbitrations that arise every year, the expansion and diversification of the pool of potential arbitrators, and the significant individual and societal costs that can result from badly written awards.
This Article provides the first-ever in-depth analysis of the reasoned award requirement in international commercial arbitration. In so doing, the discussion draws heavily on the large body of material involving reasoned rulings in both common law and civil law courts and considers whether and to what extent those criteria apply in the arbitral context. As a result, this Article not only provides useful information to those seeking to better their understanding of the reasoning requirement in international commercial arbitration, it also provides key comparativeinsights into the judicial process in both common law and civil law legal systems.
Much of the analysis focuses on theoretical concerns relating to reasoned decision-making in judicial and arbitral settings. However, the discussion also incorporates a strong practical element. As a result, this Article is relevant not only to specialists in international commercial arbitration but also to judges involved in enforcing reasoned awards domestically or internationally, scholars studying arbitral and judicial decision-making, and domestic arbitrators seeking to understand the parameters of a reasoned award under national law.
Sunday, September 6, 2015
We are pleased to publish this Guest Editorial by Miguel Calmon Dantas
Doctor in Public Law by Universidade Federal da Bahia and Professor of Constitutional Law
The scenes are still in everyone's memory. The little boy held by police after a failed attempt to find life far from where he was born, because there is no more hope.
Forgive us, little Aylan, because you did not live what could. Because you will not giving all the smiles that could. To have found the dark side of the life so anytime soon.
Many children as Aylan lose their lives every day for a variety of causes: violence, poverty - and with it, hunger and disease - ethnic conflicts, wars and accidents. They had denied access to the most basic right of all, the right to life. Life to them is denied by the violation of other rights, human rights and fundamental rights that they cannot, despite its history, prevail over the most intense violations.
If the twentieth century was the Age of Rights, according to Norberto Bobbio, also experienced unbearable and countless atrocities.
The twenty-first century has witnessed the gradual emergence of a new constitutionalism, global, popular and virtual, turning to claim the effectiveness of human rights and fundamental rights; however, it has been also a century of intolerance and excesses of uncontrolled and ambivalence. A horror century of terrorists and terror of the States. A century of suffering and pain.
The pains of September 11. The pains of Atocha. Suffering from Guantanamo. Suffering from Charlie´s. The suffering that inspired the Arab Spring, the Indignados, Greek workers, all Occupies and even recent demonstrations in Brazil.
The frustration of those who see the persistence of tyrannical governments, the debt collection that oppress millions of national, countries governed not by politics neither by the will of the voters, but by the creditors. The frustration of those who see the increasingly internalized corruption in the res publica management.
All, in a way, feel the pain, frustration and suffering, exacerbated by what happened with the little Aylan, they are prey to despair, conformism and despair. To feel the human and fundamental rights as nothing. The non-human being. The denial of humanity because they are not brought the texts to life, not to be tried and experienced.
Human rights are addressed to all human beings, regardless of particular aspects such as nationality, ethnicity, gender, age. Only the single condition that they all have a single identity: the condition of being human. And out of all the violence that can be committed against a human being, that lead people to flee their homeland, to be outsiders and those who deny or hinder the entry of these refugees are the most serious because it undermines citizenship and solidarity. The right to have rights, in the precious definition of Hannah Arendt, and the right to have the community uphold rights of others, share responsibilities, and feel as the other.
Aylan and his family had the application for admission to Canada as refugees denied. The country closed its border not only for a family. Closed to human rights. Do not close to tourists and to lex mercatoria. There were no Syrians wanting to get in a developed country to explore their wealth or find a place in the sun. There were human beings desperately looking for a place to live. Closing for Aylan and family, leaving them delivered at random, Canada denied the human dimension of human rights. Only after the tragedy, the Canadian government began to investigate what happened so that there was the refusal of the request, granting it to the father, who did not accept more.
For these rights, which crave the dignity and turn to citizenship, founded on solidarity, reached the degree of recognition, many gave their lives. Giving your life, they ensured that the rights could save the life of the same as theirs. Aylan will be next to those who gave their lives for human rights.
At this point, the consolidation of human rights in the global legal civilization, should not be necessary more people lose their life for the rights to express their senses and their needs to be taken seriously. While all the time, not being touched by rights, people are losing their lives. It is clear, then, how uncivilized, in fact, it is our civilization.
So we should all apologize to the little Aylan. That even without being aware, guided by his father's hope, moved everyone, everyone impacted by global media. Seen as another, not as unique as a pair, such as a human. Must have his name in the pantheon of human rights.
To paraphrase of the article 377 of the 1795´s French Constitution, Aylan, seeking life by paths taken by his father, he´s going to be with those who courageously guard and defend human and fundamental rights.
Forgive us, Aylan. Human rights not saved your life. It is that you may have saved human rights, at least as to its universality and indivisibility, calling humanity to the full meaning of human life.
Sunday, August 30, 2015
This semester I am working with eight students who are completing a research project for the U.S. State Department as part of the State Department's Diplomacy Lab project. The effort is part of a new program in which faculty and students develop ideas and solutions to policy issues identified by the federal agency.
This semester my students are studying public defender systems in four areas of the world: Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa, South America, and Europe. They will examine the different models for public defense in each area of the world and compile a report that they will present to the State Department.
The great part about the project is that the students get to participate in teleconferences with State Department officials and receive real world feedback on their work. I will report back on this project later, but it is a rare opportunity for my law students to do applied work in comparative law.
Wednesday, August 26, 2015
As the summer draws to a close, let's take a deep breath before swinging into the next semester, for a look at the lighter side of jury service - US v. UK-style:
Best wishes to all for a rewarding Fall semester.
Sunday, August 9, 2015
German prisons are popular right now with criminal justice reformers, non-profit organizations, and even some reform-minded American politicians.
According to a recent editorial in the New York Times by Nicholas Turner of the Vera Institute and Jeremy Travis of the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, Germany not only incarcerates individuals at a far lower rate than in the U.S., but German prison officials treat those individuals far differently than in the U.S. Turner and Travis highlight the fact that German prisons allow inmates to wear their own clothes, encourage responsible decision-making, and seldom use solitary confinement.
While punishment in America seems structured to strip inmates of any vestige of humanity and dignity, German inmates live in rooms rather than cells, sleep on beds rather than concrete slabs, and cook their own meals rather than attempt to survive on the cheapest meals than prisons can provide.
Ironically, the American public that appears to crave television programs like “Lockup” and “Jail” that use a National Enquirer-like lens to paint a picture of life behind bars in America as some sort of spectacle in which the American public feasts on the brutality of prison life. Footage of correctional officials decked out in full riot gear entering into cells to “extract” non-compliant inmates, inmate fights, and officials finding contraband in cells apparently boost viewership.
Perhaps we can take solace in the fact that in some corners there is a debate about the value of these shows. When “Lockup” visited Cincinnati to film life at the Hamilton County jail, the majority of community officials opposed the visit. Dan Horn of the Cincinnati Enquirer described the show as “sort of the Kardashians with blood, death threats, snitches and a guy who stabs people with pencils.” According to Horn, while Hamilton County Sheriff Jim Neill approved the visit, other county officials opposed it. Notably, County Administrator Chrisian Sigman wrote in an email to other county officials that “[i]t is highly unlikely that viewers of Lockup will visit or invest in our community after watching, in fact, I believe the show would have the opposite effect." To his credit, Sigman also denounced the show as being “dehumanizing and essentially us[ing] the misfortune of others for entertainment purposes.”
While most of the county officials were worried that the portrayal of the county lockup would hurt the community’s economic fortunes, the jail officials apparently were more interested in showing the public their working conditions. To that end, the Sheriff’s spokesman told the paper that, “[o]verall, we believe it's a fair representation of life in the Hamilton County Justice Center and it gives viewers a small glimpse into what we deal with day in and day out.”
In contrast to the brutality and dehumanization in American facilities that seems to pervade our criminal justice system, American visitors to German prisons note that the centerpiece of the German correctional system is “human dignity.” But the difference between our correctional systems is broader than that, in the sentencing hearings and main proceedings that I observed in German, I noticed that both prosecutors and judges in most cases treated defendants, much more like the prodigal son or daughter who needed to be built up and reintegrated into the community rather than stripped down banished as some constructed “other.” As Nora Demleitner wrote in an article last year: “European sanctioning systems start with the offender’s ‘‘place in the community’’ rather than his relegation to a space outside society. Presumably that concept makes all actors in the criminal justice system more reluctant to remove the offender from the community by sending him to prison.”
The focus on human dignity can be extended beyond the criminal justice system towards governance in general. In particular, how does the concept of human dignity square with how American society treats the poor, the disabled, and the sick? Can we even square “human dignity” with the American myth that if you work hard enough, you will be rewarded? More on point, can we bring “dignity” to our criminal justice system, without bringing “dignity” into our norms of governance?
Maurice Chammah, “Germany’s Kinder, Gentler, Safer Prisons,” THE MARSHALL PROJECT, June 17, 2015 at: https://www.themarshallprojec t.org/2015/06/16/how-germany-does-prison.
Nora V. Demleitner, “Human Dignity, Crime Prevention, and Mass Incarceration: A Meaningful, Practical Comparison Across Borders, FEDERAL SENTENCING REPORTER, Vol. 27, No. 1, Ideas from Abroad and TheirImplementation at Home (October 2014), pp. 1-6 at http://www.vera.org/sites/default/files/fsr-editors-observations-october-2014.pdf
Nicholas Turner & Jeremy Travis, “What we Learned from German Prisons,” THE NEW YORK TIMES, August 6, 2015 at: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/07/opinion/what-we-learned-from-german-prisons.html
Wednesday, July 29, 2015
I had the privilege this week of participating on a panel at the 2015 SEALS Conference that explored the question of whether Edward Snowden is a whistleblower or a spy. The panel members engaged in a robust discussion which examined (1) whether Snowden’s actions fit under a traditional model of civil disobedience; (2) the extent to which Snowden harmed national security; and (3) whether our current legal framework offers adequate internal avenues for individuals like Snowden to question the legality and wisdom of national security programs.
My comments focused primarily on question three. In this post, I’d like to briefly highlight that issue looking at U.S. law. In a subsequent post, I will offer a comparative perspective by looking at how European states address the issue.
While a good number of American commentators have called on Snowden to return to the U.S. to face trial, our current whistle-blowing laws in the national security field offer Snowden no adequate defense to his actions. Although whistle-blowing legislation in the healthcare, financial, and consumer products industries protects whistleblowers from retaliation and in some cases actually provides financial rewards for disclosure, whistle-blowers in the national security field enjoy less protection.
Although the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998 (ICWPA ) creates a process for employees and contractors who work in the national security sphere to report matters to Congress, it does not fully protect those individuals who do report from retaliation. Nor does it cover civilian contractors like Snowden. The IWCPA also gives the agency directors the ability to limit the scope of external disclosure. President Obama attempted to rectify that problem with Presidential Policy Directive 19. However, the real problem for whistleblowers is that none of these laws protect them from prosecution under the Espionage Act. Notably, the structure of the act does not allow the fact finder to consider the defendant’s motivations for disclosure. Nor does the Act permit a jury to weigh whether the benefits from the disclosure to the public outweigh the damage done to our national security.
Harvard law professor, Yochai Benkler, has proposed a Public Accountability Defense for individuals who “violate the law on the reasonable belief that by doing so they will expose to public scrutiny substantial violations of law or substantial systemic error, incompetence, or malfeasance even when it falls short of formal illegality.” Benkler argues that this defense is necessary because the national security organizations themselves, like other organizations, are prone to group think and routinely discourage individuals from challenging the majority position. As Benkler points out, by failing to adequate provide a robust mechanism for external review, our current regulations insulate the national security establishment from public accountability.
Yochai Benkler, “A Public Accountability Defense for National Security Leakers and Whistleblowers,” 8(2) Harvard Review of Law and Public Policy, July 2014.
Daniel D’Isidoro, “Protecting Whisteblowers and Secrets in the National Intelligence Community,” Harvard National Security Journal, September 29, 2014. Available online at: http://harvardnsj.org/2014/09/protecting-whistleblowers-and-secrets-in-the-intelligence-community/
Thursday, July 23, 2015
A colleague, Professor Hongjun (Nick) Yao, recently told me about an interesting trade dress case currently pending before the Supreme People’s Court in China. The state-owned Guangzhou Pharmaceutical Group (GPG) licensed its trademark, “Wang Lao Ji” (also read as “Wong Lo Kat”) to Hong Kong-based Hongdao Group for use in marketing ready-to-drink herbal tea throughout China. Hongdao invested millions of dollars in both advertising and designing a well-known red can for what became the top-selling canned beverage in China, surpassing even Red Bull and Coca Cola. GPG also marketed the same tea in a green carton under the same trademark but at much lower sales volumes. Problems arose, however, when the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission invalidated continuations of the licensing arrangement in 2011 because they were based on bribery. Hongdao thereafter changed the name of its tea to “Jia Duo Bao” but continued using its well-recognized red can design.
GPG sued Hongdao, however, claiming that the red can design was protectable trade dress that belonged to GPG along with the licensed Wang Lao Ji trademark. The Guangdong High Court agreed in a decision that has engendered more than a little criticism. First, as Professor Yao notes, trademarks serve as “source” identifiers, allowing consumers to associate the quality of a particular good or service with the company that manufactures the good or provides the service. Because the red can design marked the herbal tea that Hongdao produced and sold (as opposed to the herbal tea that GPG produced and sold in green cartons), the High Court presumably should have held that trade dress rights in the red can design belonged to Hongdao. Second, the High Court suggested that trade dress rights in the red can design could not be separated from the trademark rights in the licensed WLJ mark. As Professor Yao notes, this differs markedly from U.S. trademark jurisprudence, under which any single product might bear multiple protectable trademarks owned by multiple separate entities.
One interesting aspect of the case that might explain the High Court’s decision, however, is the court’s factual finding that it was GPG, not Hongdao, who was more responsible for the reputation and trade dress value of the red can design. Although the Court acknowledged that Hongdao had invested a great deal in the design, the court attributed most of reputation and value of the red can trade dress to its association with the 150-yr-old WLJ mark – i.e., that GPG’s “investment” (associating its WLJ mark with the red can design) was more important than Hongdao’s investment in the design. This seems dubious as a factual matter, but if nonetheless accurate, it would not only explain the High Court’s decision but also help reconcile it to general trademark theory.
Regardless, it will be interesting to see the Supreme Court’s decision when it comes out.
Thanks so much to my fellow Comparative Law Prof Bloggers, Shawn Marie Boyne, Monica Eppinger, and Lissa Griffin for allowing me to join them on this blog.
Sunday, July 19, 2015
A recent article in The Economist of a case in which a Japanese prosecutor altered a document that was being used as evidence casts an unusually revealing eye on the traditionally respected Japanese prosecution, in a system that is already heavily weighted against an accused.