American Bankruptcy Institute Law Review 17 Am. Bankr. Inst. L. Rev., No. 1, Spring, 2009. Boston College Law Review 50 B.C. L. Rev., No. 3, May, 2009. Boston University Public Interest Law Journal 18 B.U. Pub. Int. L.J., No. 2, Spring, 2009. Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution 10 Cardozo J. Conflict Resol., No. 2, Spring, 2009. Cardozo Public Law, Policy, & Ethics Journal 7 Cardozo Pub. L. Pol’y & Ethics J., No. 3, Summer, 2009. Chicago Journal of International Law 10 Chi. J. Int’l L., No. 1, Summer, 2009. Colorado Journal of International Environmental Law and Policy 20 Colo. J. Int’l Envtl. L. & Pol’y, No. 2, Winter, 2009. Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts 32 Colum. J.L. & Arts, No. 3, Spring, 2009. Connecticut Public Interest Law Journal 8 Conn. Pub. Int. L.J., No. 2, Spring-Summer, 2009. Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy 18 Cornell J.L. & Pub. Pol’y, No. 1, Fall, 2008. Cornell Law Review 94 Cornell L. Rev., No. 5, July, 2009. Creighton Law Review 42 Creighton L. Rev., No. 3, April, 2009. Criminal Law Forum 20 Crim. L. Forum, Nos. 2-3, Pp. 173-394, 2009. Delaware Journal of Corporate Law 34 Del. J. Corp. L., No. 2, Pp. 433-754, 2009. Environmental Law Reporter News & Analysis 39 Envtl. L. Rep. News & Analysis, No. 7, July, 2009. European Journal of International Law 20 Eur. J. Int’l L., No. 2, April, 2009. Family Law Quarterly 43 Fam. L.Q., No. 1, Spring, 2009. Georgetown Journal of International Law 40 Geo. J. Int’l L., No. 3, Spring, 2009. Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics 22 Geo. J. Legal Ethics, No. 2, Spring, 2009. Golden Gate University Law Review 39 Golden Gate U. L. Rev., No. 2, Winter, 2009. Harvard Environmental Law Review 33 Harv. Envtl. L. Rev., No. 2, Pp. 297-608, 2009. International Review of Law and Economics 29 Int’l Rev. L. & Econ., No. 1, March, 2009. Journal of Environmental Law and Litigation 24 J. Envtl. L. & Litig., No. 1, Pp. 1-201, 2009. Journal of Legislation 34 J. Legis., No. 1, Pp. 1-98, 2008. Journal of Technology Law & Policy 14 J. Tech. L. & Pol’y, No. 1, June, 2009. Labor Lawyer 24 Lab. Law., No. 3, Winter/Spring, 2009. Michigan Journal of International Law 30 Mich. J. Int’l L., No. 3, Spring, 2009. New Criminal Law Review 12 New Crim. L. Rev., No. 2, Spring, 2009. Northern Kentucky Law Review 36 N. Ky. L. Rev., No. 4, Pp. 445-654, 2009. Ohio Northern University Law Review 35 Ohio N.U. L. Rev., No. 2, Pp. 445-886, 2009. Pace Law Review 29 Pace L. Rev., No. 3, Spring, 2009. Quinnipiac Health Law Journal 12 Quinnipiac Health L.J., No. 2, Pp. 209-332, 2008-2009. Real Property, Trust and Estate Law Journal 44 Real Prop. Tr. & Est. L.J., No. 1, Spring, 2009. Rutgers Race and the Law Review 10 Rutgers Race & L. Rev., No. 2, Pp. 441-629, 2009. San Diego Law Review 46 San Diego L. Rev., No. 2, Spring, 2009. Seton Hall Law Review 39 Seton Hall L. Rev., No. 3, Pp. 725-1102, 2009. Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal 18 S. Cal. Interdisc. L.J., No. 3, Spring, 2009. Stanford Environmental Law Journal 28 Stan. Envtl. L.J., No. 3, July, 2009. Tulsa Law Review 44 Tulsa L. Rev., No. 2, Winter, 2008. UMKC Law Review 77 UMKC L. Rev., No. 4, Summer, 2009. Washburn Law Journal 48 Washburn L.J., No. 3, Spring, 2009. Washington University Global Studies Law Review 8 Wash. U. Global Stud. L. Rev., No. 3, Pp.451-617, 2009. Washington University Journal of Law & Policy 29 Wash. U. J.L. & Pol’y, Pp. 1-401, 2009. Washington University Law Review 86 Wash. U. L. Rev., No. 6, Pp. 1273-1521, 2009. William Mitchell Law Review 35 Wm. Mitchell L. Rev., No. 4, Pp. 1235-1609, 2009. Yale Journal of International Law 34 Yale J. Int’l L., No. 2, Summer, 2009. Yale Journal on Regulation 26 Yale J. on Reg., No. 2, Summer, 2009.

/pdf/current-index-to-legal-periodicals-8re353ze53.pdf

Current index to legal periodicals

International organizations are widely believed to undermine domestic democracy+ Our analysis challenges this conventional wisdom, arguing that multilat- eral institutions can enhance the quality of national democratic processes, even in well- functioning democracies, in a number of important ways: by restricting the power of special interest factions, protecting individual rights, and improving the quality of dem- ocratic deliberation, while also increasing capacities to achieve important public pur- poses+ The article discusses conflicts and complementarities between multilateralism and democracy, outlines a working conception of constitutional democracy, elabo- rates theoretically the ways in which multilateral institutions can enhance constitu- tional democracy, and discusses the empirical conditions under which multilateralism is most likely to have net democratic benefits, using contemporary examples to illus- trate the analysis+ The overall aim is to articulate a set of critical democratic standards appropriate for evaluating and helping to guide the reform of international institutions+ Many scholars and popular commentators assert that international organizations undermine democracy+ Global governance, they argue, is distant, elitist, and tech- nocratic+ Debates over multilateralism are increasingly waged between critics, who point to the ways in which international institutions undermine domestic demo- cratic processes, and defenders, who stress pragmatic benefits+ In this article we challenge this conventional framing of the issue+ We do so by arguing that participation in multilateral institutions—defined broadly to include international organizations, regimes, and networks governed

/pdf/democracy-enhancing-multilateralism-8xkrvkjk2b.pdf

Democracy-Enhancing Multilateralism

Part I. Mapping a Hybrid World: 1. Introduction 2. A world of legal conflicts Part II. Retreating from Hybridity: 3. The limits of sovereigntist territoriality 4. From universalism to cosmopolitanism Part III. Embracing Hybridity: 5. Towards a cosmopolitan pluralist jurisprudence 6. Procedural mechanisms, institutional designs, and discursive practices for managing pluralism Part IV. Conflict of Laws in a Hybrid World: 7. The changing terrain of jurisdiction 8. A cosmopolitan pluralist approach to choice of law 9. Recognition of judgments and the legal negotiation of difference 10. Conclusion.

/pdf/global-legal-pluralism-a-jurisprudence-of-law-beyond-borders-55gz0sjo6l.pdf

Global Legal Pluralism : A Jurisprudence of Law Beyond Borders

With the rise of internet marketing and e-commerce around the world, international and cross-border conflicts in trademark and unfair competition law have become increasingly important. In this groundbreaking work, Tim Dornis - who, in addition to his scholarly pursuits, has worked as an attorney, a public prosecutor, and a judge, giving him experience in both civil and common-law jurisdictions - presents the historical-comparative, doctrinal, and economic aspects of trademark and unfair competition conflicts law. The book should be read by any scholar or practitioner interested in the international aspects of intellectual property generally, and trademark and unfair competition law specifically. This title is available as Open Access.

/pdf/trademark-and-unfair-competition-conflicts-historical-1ihxe805ws.pdf

Trademark and Unfair Competition Conflicts: Historical-Comparative, Doctrinal, and Economic Perspectives

The meaningful participation of stakeholders in decision-making is now widely recognized as a crucial element of effective water resource management, particularly with regards to adapting to climate and environmental change. Social learning is increasingly being cited as an important component of engagement if meaningful participation is to be achieved. The exact definition of social learning is still a matter under debate, but is taken to be a process in which individuals experience a change in understanding that is brought about by social interaction. Social learning has been identified as particularly important in transboundary contexts, where it is necessary to reframe problems from a local to a basin-wide perspective. In this study, social learning is explored in the context of transboundary water resource management in the St. Lawrence River Basin. The overarching goal of this paper is to explore the potential role of serious games to improve social learning in the St. Lawrence River. To achieve this end, a two-pronged approach is followed: (1) Assessing whether social learning is currently occurring and identifying what the barriers to social learning are through interviews with the region's water resource managers; (2) Undertaking a literature review to understand the mechanisms through which serious games enhance social learning to understand which barriers serious games can break down. Interview questions were designed to explore the relevance of social learning in the St. Lawrence River basin context, and to identify the practices currently employed that impact on social learning. While examples of social learning that is occurring have been identified, preliminary results suggest that these examples are exceptions rather than the rule, and that on the whole, social learning is not occurring to its full potential. The literature review of serious games offers an assessment of such collaborative mechanisms in terms of design principles, modes of play, and their potential impact on social learning for transboundary watershed management. Serious game simulations provide new opportunities for multidirectional collaborative processes by bringing diverse stakeholders to the table, providing more equal access to a virtual negotiation or learning space to develop and share knowledge, integrating different knowledge domains, and providing opportunities to test and analyze the outcomes of novel management solutions. This paper concludes with a discussion of how serious games can address specific barriers and weaknesses to social learning in the transboundary watershed context of the St. Lawrence River Basin.

/pdf/exploring-the-potential-impact-of-serious-games-on-social-41iq4tr4bz.pdf

Exploring the potential impact of serious games on social learning and stakeholder collaborations for transboundary watershed management of the St. Lawrence River Basin

In this Article, Professor Parrish explores the legitimacy of the U.S. Supreme Court's use of foreign law in constitutional adjudication. In recent years, the U.S. Supreme Court has used foreign law as persuasive authority in a number of highly contentious cases. The backlash has been spirited, with calls for foreign law to be categorically barred from constitutional adjudication, and even for Justices to be impeached if they cite to foreign sources. Last year, the condemnation of comparative constitutionalism reached a high note, as a barrage of scholarship decried the practice as illegitimate and a threat to our national sovereignty. The result has been a change to the debate's tenor. Instead of exploring how to use foreign materials in a sophisticated, refined manner, the debate has been reduced to an overly simplistic one of all or nothing. This Article is the first to systematically address the recent condemnation of the U.S. Supreme Court's use of foreign law as persuasive authority. After explaining how the debate has unfolded, the Article critiques the arguments recently made by those who oppose the use of foreign law. The Article reveals how those arguments are misplaced, at times extreme, and inconsistent with a long history of American jurisprudence. In particular, the Article explains how comparative constitutionalism is a hallmark of our state court system. The Article then explains how the use of foreign law is not only sensible, but compatible with American constitutionalism and the proper role of the judiciary. Professor Parrish concludes that the judiciary's use of foreign law as persuasive authority is largely commendable, not illegitimate. The recent attacks against the use of foreign law are spurred on by rhetoric not substance: a storm in a teacup.

/pdf/storm-in-a-teacup-the-u-s-supreme-court-s-use-of-foreign-law-24l88xe0kv.pdf

Storm in a Teacup: the U.S. Supreme Court's Use of Foreign Law

A fierce debate ensues among leading international law theorists that implicates the role of national courts in solving global challenges. On the one side are scholars who are critical of international law and its institutions. These scholars, often referred to as Sovereigntists, see international law as a threat to democratic sovereignty. On the other side are scholars who support international law as a key means of promoting human and environmental rights, as well as global peace and stability. These scholars are the 'new' Internationalists because they see non-traditional, non-state actors as appropriately enforcing international law at the sub-state level. The debate has had an impact. In recent years, the U.S. has disengaged from traditional sources of international law, and in particular, multilateral treaties. In its place, the U.S. and non-state actors use domestic laws, applied extraterritorially, to exert international influence. Following the U.S. lead, other countries now increasingly apply their domestic laws extraterritorially too. This Article addresses a topic that leading theorists have given scant attention - the rise of global extraterritoriality. It argues that the two prevailing dominant perspectives in international legal theory have miscalculated the dangers that extraterritoriality poses. In so doing, the article advocates for an approach that acknowledges changes in the international system, but also seeks to shore-up territorial sovereignty to prevent the problems that extraterritoriality creates. It thus offers a way beyond the stalemate currently existing in international law scholarship. Controversially, it concludes that international law scholars - from both the Sovereigntist and new Internationalist perspective - should embrace and reclaim multilateral international lawmaking.

/pdf/reclaiming-international-law-from-extraterritoriality-1zuiqwyfeq.pdf

Reclaiming International Law from Extraterritoriality

American laws increasingly regulate the conduct of foreigners abroad. The growth in extraterritorial laws, in no small part, can be traced to the effects test - a doctrine that instructs courts to presume that Congress intended to regulate extraterritorially when foreign conduct is found to have a substantial effect within the United States. For many scholars and lawyers, the effects test is the doctrinal lynchpin for determining the geographic reach of domestic laws. Territorial limits on legislative jurisdiction, on the other hand, are seen as anachronistic; a remnant of a pre-modern, pre-globalized world.This article takes a different, more skeptical view of the effects test. The article argues that many scholars have failed to appreciate the effects test's shortcomings, and the problems that extraterritorial laws create. Rather than place meaningful limits on legislative jurisdiction, the effects test has created confusion and inconsistency, while dramatically increasing the number of laws applied extraterritorially. Contrary to now conventional wisdom, courts would be wise to reembrace territorial limits to legislative jurisdiction. Domestic laws that regulate extraterritorially not only undermine international harmony and are inherently undemocratic, but also threaten long-term American interests. In a globalized world, where territorial borders play a less important role, territorial limits have become ever more important as a necessary constraint to legislative action and as a way to protect not foreign, but American interests. The article concludes that the effects test is best understood as a narrow limit on Congressional power, not as a doctrinal command that reverses the presumption against extraterritoriality. In short, academics have unwisely given the effects test center stage in legislative jurisdiction doctrine, yet it should be no more than a Fifth Business - a minor character, playing merely a supporting role.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID1099485_code358157.pdf?abstractid=1099485&mirid=1

The Effects Test: Extraterritoriality's Fifth Business

The Due Process Clause with its focus on a defendant's liberty interest has become the key, if not only, limitation on a court's exercise of personal jurisdiction. This due process jurisdictional limitation is universally assumed to apply with equal force to alien defendants as to domestic defendants. With few exceptions, scholars do not distinguish between the two. Neither do the courts. Countless cases assume that foreigners have all the rights of United States citizens to object to extraterritorial assertions of personal jurisdiction. But is this assumption sound? This Article explores the uncritical assumption that the same due process considerations apply to alien defendants as to domestic defendants in the personal jurisdiction context. It concludes that the current approach to personal jurisdiction over foreign defendants is doctrinally inconsistent with broader notions of American constitutionalism. The inconsistency is particularly stark given recent Fifth Amendment jurisprudence, including that involving Guantanamo Bay detainees. The limits on a court's power to assert extraterritorial personal jurisdiction over alien defendants derive not from the Due Process Clause, as commonly assumed, but from the inherent attributes of sovereignty under international law. The Article concludes by suggesting two frameworks for determining when a court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident, alien defendant. For theoretical coherence and pragmatic reasons, the Court should untether the personal jurisdiction analysis from the Constitution in international cases. Sovereignty, not due process, limits a U.S. Court's extraterritorial assertion of personal jurisdiction.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID891288_code358157.pdf?abstractid=807045&mirid=1&type=2

Sovereignty, Not Due Process: Personal Jurisdiction Over Nonresident, Alien Defendants

For much of the 19th and 20th Centuries, the international community resisted the notion of indigenous peoples' rights. In recent years, however, this has changed. The emergence of indigenous rights in international law may finally be upon us. At the very least, the language of international instruments and certain court decisions indicate a new era is emerging in which international law is beginning to recognize the rights of indigenous peoples. And the public seems increasingly aware of the challenges facing indigenous groups. Despite a past where victories for indigenous peoples' rights have been few, scholars are cautiously optimistic for the future. The current momentum behind the development of indigenous rights leads to the question: why now? Many of those who are optimistic attribute the development to the slow crystallization of international norms friendly to indigenous groups that are a natural extension of human rights or environmental justice. Other scholars suggest that the dedication of indigenous populations in national, regional, and international forums to advance and make others aware of indigenous issues has finally come to fruition. In this Article, Professor Parrish suggests that another phenomenon may be partly responsible for indigenous rights reaching an age of maturity in international law. The role of territoriality and territorial sovereignty as an organizing principle around which law coalesces is changing, and the dominance of the sovereign nation-state is fading. As the territorial state disassembles, the international system is no longer blind to non-state actors, like indigenous groups. Professor Parrish suggests that this "fading sovereignty" has left fertile ground for the rights of indigenous peoples to take root.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID969075_code358157.pdf?abstractid=969075

Austen L. Parrish

Papers

Storm in a Teacup: the U.S. Supreme Court's Use of Foreign Law

Reclaiming International Law from Extraterritoriality

The Effects Test: Extraterritoriality's Fifth Business

Sovereignty, Not Due Process: Personal Jurisdiction Over Nonresident, Alien Defendants

Changing Territoriality, Fading Sovereignty, and the Development of Indigenous Rights