Predictive policing algorithms, which use artificial intelligence (AI) to forecast potential criminal activity and allocate resources, are transforming law enforcement across the globe. This Note examines the ethical, legal, and social implications of implementing predictive policing technologies across various countries-including the United States, China, India, and the European Union (EU). While AI offers benefits such as improved efficiency and crime prevention, its use raises significant concerns about discrimination, bias, and privacy violations. Countries face balancing public safety with their respective philosophies regarding individual rights. The EU is currently the leader in AI regulation, with legal frameworks such as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the AI Act. At the same time, nations like China prioritize security, often at the expense of privacy. This analysis underscores the importance of certain philosophies, such as transparent, accountable, and equitable values, in integrating AI technologies into law enforcement practices.
The debate on how to prosecute the international crimes linked to the aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine is ongoing. This Article explores an aspect of that debate, i.e., whether international or national courts may prosecute those who are allegedly entitled to a personal immunity under international law, particularly Vladimir Putin, the head of state of the Russian Federation. The debate has so far been particularly alive in relation to the question of which type of international court is able to "pierce the veil of head of state immunity." This is because-according to the nearly unanimous view on the matter-foreign national courts cannot prosecute a foreign head of state without the consent of his or her state. The assumption is, therefore, that heads of state enjoy absolute immunity from foreign jurisdiction and inviolability. A decision of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the Arrest Warrant case strongly supports this view. In contrast, according to a minority of scholars, foreign domestic prosecutions of heads of state for international crimes are possible. They argue that the history of International Criminal Law (ICL) contradicts the position adopted by the ICJ in Arrest Warrant. The most important support for their argument is the judgment of the Nuremberg International Military Tribunal (IMT). In its decision, the IMT set forth a non-immunity principle for international crimes. This Article introduces a novel perspective on the matter. It puts forward that, even though the judgments of the ICJ and the IMT are apparently incompatible, they can be reconciled. The main argument of the Article is that, whereas the judgment of the ICJ sets out a general rule of head of state immunity which applies in times of peace, the IMT judgment supports the conclusion that the law of war, as lex specialis, provides an exception to such rule for situations of international armed conflict.
The U.S. Constitution entitles every person to due process. But nearly fifty years ago, the Supreme Court distinguished the due process entitlement of noncitizens from that of citizens. This Article takes a novel approach to due process for noncitizens in certain so-called "crimmigration" cases by further distinguishing the citizen-noncitizen dichotomy. The Article argues that, as applied to lawful permanent residents, certain provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act are unconstitutional. The article proceeds in three parts. Part I summarizes the existing caselaw regarding due process for noncitizens. Part II explores two aspects of crimmigration law: immigration fraud and terrorism. This Part conducts a comparative analysis of the various statutes that penalize fraud and terrorism in the immigration and criminal codes. Part III employs the Mathews v. Eldridge balancing test and argues that in immigration fraud and terrorism cases, lawful permanent residents are entitled to additional procedural safeguards to remedy identified due process violations. This Part then formulates distinct procedural safeguards for lawful permanent residents in crimmigration cases involving fraud and terrorism.
There is growing evidence that private corporate and multi-stakeholder initiatives- often termed 'Supply Chain Solutions'-are failing to address the social and environmental challenges arising from the governance of Global Value Chains (GVCs). GVCs themselves challenge traditional labor laws and employment regulations due to their multi-tiered supply structures, the dynamics of private power, and the cross-border reach of contracting frms. These factors render traditional labor law tools largely inaccessible or irrelevant to workers in the lower tiers of GVCs. Efforts to regulate labor in GVCs, such as corporate Human Rights Due Diligence (HRDD) legislation, have fallen short. These top-down approaches, typically originating in the Global North, lack input from affected communities in the Global South, exclude meaningful worker participation, and often lack enforcement mechanisms. This raises a critical question: can labor law address the harsh working conditions created by GVC dynamics under supply chain capitalism? This Article explores whether localized tripartite models of labor regulation- specifcally wage boards that institutionalize bargaining between unions, employer associations, and state representatives to set working conditions, social security, and wages-could be scaled up to address the low labor standards in GVCs. One particularly promising model is the Mathadi Boards in Maharashtra, India, which have successfully improved the working conditions of informal workers who carry loads on their heads in markets, construction sites, industrial sites, and ports. This Article investigates whether the Mathadi Board model could be adapted to protect precarious workers in global and domestic value chains in the Economic South and North. It also examines which institutional features of the Mathadi Boards are most transferable to GVC labor regulation and which features are specific to the historical and social context of headload carriers in Maharashtra. The Mathadi model offers important lessons, particularly in its approach to multi-tiered bargaining. We propose adapting the Mathadi Board model into a multi-stakeholder bargaining forum. This forum would include local unions representing workers, global union confederations providing perspectives from other value chains, state representatives, and both local employers and buyers. Such multi-tiered wage boards have the potential to redistribute power and funds across different links in the supply chain. The boards would make public many issues that are currently addressed privately within supply chain solutions and provide enforcement mechanisms that are missing in most current models. Enforcement can be more robust under this model, with dedicated personnel to impose state-backed sanctions, unions wielding collective power to sanction violating employers, and buyers able to exert economic pressure on non-compliant suppliers. The model would be economically self-sustaining and autonomous, funded through levies collected from suppliers and buyers. While it may raise labor costs for suppliers, these costs would be shared by buyers, thus distributing the financial burden. Finally, one of the key strengths of the proposed model is its localization. By operating under the laws of 'host countries,' it avoids the pitfalls of HRDD laws currently proliferating in the OECD, which often fail to refect local realities. This localized approach enhances the models' relevance and effectiveness in regulating workers' rights in GVCs. In conclusion, this Article argues that multi-tiered wage boards, modeled on the Mathadi system, offer a viable solution to addressing the inequities in GVCs, providing a more effective and equitable approach than current supply chain solutions.
This Symposium contribution assesses the ability of international law to evolve to offer essential protections for workers in an increasingly globalized world. It focuses on protections for women seafarers, specifcally around gender-based violence and harassment on board vessels. Even though it is the worlds' oldest transnational sector, seafaring remains overwhelmingly male-dominated. Consequently, international law was not initially conceived with women seafarers in mind. Now that women have broken into the maritime profession, they count on international law to evolve in kind. Notwithstanding, they continue to face sexist, if not violent, workplaces, and report high incidents of gender-based violence and harassment at sea. The international organization responsible for adopting and supervising protections for workers, the International Labour Organization (ILO), has long prioritized the special needs of seafarers. Its Maritime Labor Convention, 2006, promised to ensure holistic protections for all women and men at sea and to quickly adapt with evolving sectoral challenges. A close look at the prevalence of gender-based violence and harassment at sea shows, however, that the ILOs' bureaucratic pathologies and interinstitutional processes preclude it from accomplishing that mission. The ILOs' failure to quickly respond to mounting evidence of that violence and harassment has broad implications for international law, which must absorb and respond to transnational works' dynamic and fuctuating demands to remain useful and relevant.
This Article explores the defenses available to States for justifying unilateral economic sanctions that appear prima facie inconsistent with World Trade Organization (WTO) rules. It focuses on two key types of sanctions: those imposed in the context of armed conficts and those aimed at inducing compliance with non-WTO international obligations. This Article first examines whether such sanctions can be justified under the WTO's general and security exceptions. Contrary to the prevailing assumption that these sanctions can be straightforwardly accommodated within these exceptions, this Article argues that their justification is considerably more complex and nuanced. While some sanctions may clearly fall within these exceptions, others require significant legal creativity to fit within their scope. In view of this, this Article investigates whether the defense of countermeasures under the general international law of State responsibility can be invoked by respondents in WTO disputes. It argues that this defense is residually available under WTO law and can be employed to justify trade sanctions adopted as a means of implementing the target State's international responsibility.
While legal education plays an important role in upholding the rule of law and protecting the rights of individuals, there is a dearth of research on the impact of differences in institutional and cultural contexts on legal education. This Article examines the impact of educational systems and culture on the law school experiences of American and Chinese students and assesses whether the students' experiences meet the educational goals of law school diversity. Using data from LSSSE 2020-2021, we compared and evaluated the law school experiences of 21,706 American and 218 Chinese students using descriptive statistics and linear regression. We found that differences in educational systems and cultures infuence Chinese students' satisfaction with law school to some extent. Chinese students focus more on interactions with faculty rather than students, and their enjoyment of law school life relies more singularly on quantifiable achievement motivations. This study contributes to an understanding of how culture and institutions have shaped the development of legal education in different countries, and how a very different socio-political environment affects the satisfaction of American and international Chinese students with their law school experience. These findings help to rethink whether legal education effectively contributes to the fulfilment of liberal legalism. In addition, the findings urge policymakers and law schools to adjust their strategies in order to achieve the goal of diverse interactions in legal education.
Borrowing from Albert Hirschmans' classic work, Exit, Voice, and Loyalty, focused on deteriorating performance in economic organizations, this Article explores the interplay among three key elements of a proposed International Convention on Global Supply Chains (GSCs). In doing so, it suggests that Hirschmans' model may not have adequately appreciated the distinctive role of power in the labor setting- in particular the power that frms possess over the job security and conditions of workers. The Article emphasizes the importance of "Voice" as applied to the precarious labor relationships that characterize transnational supply chains. The structure of these relationships makes Exit unlikely and Loyalty less relevant. Relatedly, conditions in GSCs invite, if not demand, creation of institutions that can effectively communicate worker complaints. Against this background, the proposed GSC convention envisions a robust, institutionally protected role for workers' voice. The Article explains how this role requires proactive worker participation, along with employers and governments, in creating and implementing a process of human rights due diligence. But voice alone is not enough in the GSC setting. The Article discusses why there must also be a commitment to "Prevention" of human rights abuses. The proposed convention calls for legally binding obligations on business enterprises, and the Article examines several issues that governments must face when implementing prevention provisions. Further, in addressing how efforts at prevention become meaningful only when supported by "Remedy," the Article discusses an array of remedial approaches, including government-imposed penalties, civil liability available to victims, and a competent authority to oversee this structure. The Article concludes that the proposed convention, as a policy mechanism setting international standards, may encourage workers to actualize their labor rights in ways that transcend Hirschmans' understanding of the role of voice shaped by market forces.
Despite a plethora of normative discussions on gender equality as well as empirical studies on gender discrimination and gender effects in various settings, there is a paucity of large-scale empirical studies on son preference by ordinary people in asset distribution. Using an idiosyncratic data set on more than 1800 notarized or authenticated wills in Taiwan, this Article investigates whether testators show son preference in distributing estates in wills, and if so, what the driving factors are. It finds that son preferences exist in no more than 29% of the studied wills. Moreover, no matter whether son preference is broadly or narrowly defined, and no matter whether the sample is limited to land distribution or not, the pattern is consistent. Aboriginal people exhibit less son preference, as a few ethnic groups are matrilineal. Female testators do not tend to favor sons. In wills distributing more valuable estate and those distributing land, son preference is more pronounced. Notarized wills tend to contain son-preferring provisions, likely because notarized wills, due to their formal validity, have usually been upheld if disputes arise, despite son-preferring provisions often violating the mandatory share law. Thus, when preparing a will that favors their sons, testators elect to notarize their wills. Finally, the strategic bequest theory explains the testator decisions in some wills, while the altruism theory has little explanatory power.
