RSS 1.0
We are upgrading the repository! A content freeze is in effect until November 22nd, 2024 - no new submissions will be accepted; however, all content already published will remain publicly available. Please reach out to repository@u.library.arizona.edu with your questions, or if you are a UA affiliate who needs to make content available soon. Note that any new user accounts created after September 22, 2024 will need to be recreated by the user in November after our migration is completed.
Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law
ABOUT THIS COLLECTION
The Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law is published three times annually by the students of the James E. Rogers College of Law at the University of Arizona. The Journal publishes articles on a wide variety of international and comparative law topics in order to provide a forum for debate on current issues affecting international legal development including international and comparative law issues and tribal/indigenous peoples law.
The Journal has three major goals: to provide an opportunity for all members to publish articles on international and comparative law topics, to serve the publication needs of the Arizona Bar Association with respect to international law, and to provide practitioners, judges, and governmental bodies with a central source of information on international topics that increasingly arise in practice.
QUESTIONS?
Visit the Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law website for more information.
Sub-communities within this community
Recent Submissions
-
Exploring Algorithmic Governance in International Trade Law: An Analysis of the United States, European Union, and China [Note]This Note aims to explore a new global framework for governing algorithms under international trade law. Algorithms are instructions for solving a problem or completing a task based on the past data collected from the users of applications operated by transnational big tech companies. Using the implied adverse effects of algorithms (e.g., people being unaware that their choices and decisions will be driven by an inaccessible algorithmic system) and the trend of algorithmic governance in different jurisdictions, this Note aims to compare the actions taken by the United States, China, and the European Union, about how they react to the algorithmic era, and how they regulate the use of algorithms conducted by covered entities and develop an international framework for the global governance on algorithms. There are commonalities and differences among the actions taken by the United States, China, and the EU. There is a prevalent legislative trend to regulate algorithmic tools by mandating transparency and accountability to prevent adverse effects for personal information possessors. Based on the analysis of synthesizing the differences, this Note sees a possibility to explore a global framework for algorithmic governance and provides two directions on global governance on the algorithms which consists of strengthening the global collaboration and setting up a relevant multilateral treaty.
-
Winning is Secondary: Secondary Boycotts in the United States and Denmark [Note]The Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 removed some of labor’s most effective tools for collective bargaining without providing any alternatives. Among other tools, the Act made secondary boycotts illegal and allowed employers to recover damages caused by secondary boycotts. This Note will show how effective these secondary boycotts can be internationally and discuss how the lack of clarity in the American law prevents workers from engaging in constitutionally protected speech. Many argue that the current law is in place to prevent industrial strife from affecting third-party employers. The current law, however, places too powerful of a thumb on the scale in favor of management and effectively chills labor organizations’ speech out of fear of a lawsuit over one misstep. This Note explores how Denmark regulates secondary boycotts in an effort to provide an alternative way of thinking about this powerful tool of labor and considers potential next steps to improve existing American law.
-
Saad eí Data: Formalizing the Indigenous Data Sovereignty Movement Within the Navajo National Legal System, A Comparison to the Māori's Data Governance Model [Note]This Note attempts to determine how tribal governments such as the Navajo Nation can exercise greater control over and protect their Nation’s data from external entities. Tribal Nations or Indigenous Nations can exercise their political and cultural sovereignty by utilizing both Indigenous Data Sovereignty (IDSov) and Indigenous Data Governance (IDGov). This Note will examine the Māori’s application of IDSov within their own culturally-specific IDGov framework. Then, there will be an overview of the existing mechanisms available within the Navajo Nation legal system that govern data and the fundamental principles embedded in the culture of the Diné (Navajo) people. Finally, this Note will discuss recommendations that the Navajo Nation can incorporate into its legal system using the Māori’s example of its own data governance model and tools as a template. Overall, the goal of this Note is to demonstrate the legal mechanisms available to the Navajo Nation to implement its own set of data sovereignty principles aligning with its own traditional values, similar to the Māori in Aotearoa (New Zealand).
-
Constitutional Amendments Contrary to Constitutionalism: The Political Nature of Unconstitutional Constitutional Amendment in Japan [Article]Constitutional law scholars in Japan have acknowledged the limitations of power to amend the Constitution since before the enactment of the Constitution of Japan in 1946. They argue that there are some “cores” that cannot be changed, even if pursuant to the prescribed procedure in the Constitution. However, they deny judicial scrutiny of when a constitutional amendment exceeds its limits. In this sense, the argument about unconstitutional constitutional amendments in Japan tends to be political, not legal, in nature. One of the “cores” of the Japanese Constitution is constitutionalism. Many constitutional law scholars have recently criticized attempts at constitutional amendment by Prime Minister Shinzō Abe’s administration and the Liberal Democratic Party as “contrary to constitutionalism” and/or a “crisis of constitutionalism.” This article analyzes the meaning of that criticism and points out that it does not always mean the proposed amendment is an unconstitutional constitutional amendment: they sometimes use these narratives because the content of the proposed amendment is problematic, and sometimes amending the Constitution is unnecessary. The article argues that the reason for such a loose usage of the concept of constitutionalism stems from political motivation: the goal is to maximize the political effect of holding up constitutional amendments by taking advantage of the vague concept of constitutionalism. This article claims that scholars should abstain from overusing the concept of constitutionalism and crisis narratives and clarify what constitutes a legally unconstitutional constitutional amendment in Japan.
-
Legally Sufficient: The Compatibility of Puerto Rico's Post-1952 Status and Modern Principles of International Law [Article]Autonomy and sovereignty are typically associated with colonization issues. The alleged absence of both factors in Puerto Rico’s territorial condition raises the question of whether changing the island’s status is legally required to end a colonial arrangement that would otherwise allow the United States to defy normative standards of international law. To settle the colonial question, this article demonstrates how Puerto Rico has been a decolonized territory since the 1950s. The findings stemmed from a fact-based model set on five events advancing the evolution of Puerto Rico’s legal condition. To validate the results, the study tested the end product(s) of Puerto Rico’s legal evolution against decolonization standards established under international law. A confirmatory analysis of relevant jurisprudence enhanced validation with decisions resolving popularized misconceptions about the status quo. Consequently, changes to Puerto Rico’s legal condition are not mandatory because the status quo concurs with international law.
-
Table of ContentsThe University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law (Tucson, AZ), 2024
-
Title PageThe University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law (Tucson, AZ), 2024
-
Table of ContentsThe University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law (Tucson, AZ), 2024
-
Title PageThe University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law (Tucson, AZ), 2024
-
United States Air Passenger Rights: Grounded or Cleared for Take-Off? [Note]The golden age of flying is no longer. ln the last two years, there has been an unprecedented surge in demand for air travel, and with that demand has come an equally unprecedented wave of passenger complaints relating to cancellations, delays, or other interruptions. Much of the allure that flying once possessed has been replaced with uncertainty, dissatisfaction, and frustration with what is and is not considered a passenger's right. This Note examines the current state of airline passenger rights in the United States and the European Union and how government regulation has shaped those rights. This Note delves into the intricacies of the current regulatory landscape in both regions and highlights the divergent approaches to addressing passenger concerns. The United States relies on the variability of carrier-specific contracts, leaving passengers uncertain about their rights and the assistance or compensation they might receive. ln contrast, the European Union's regulatory framework provides uniformity but poses challenges in the cumbersome process of obtaining compensation and creates an environment where airlines will not do more than what is strictly required. This Note posits that neither extreme serves passengers optimally and suggests that an effective solution lies in striking a balance that safeguards consumer interests while allowing airlines operational autonomy. This Note contributes to the ongoing discourse on airline passenger rights by offering a comparative analysis of regulatory approaches in the United States and the European Union. By scrutinizing proposed regulations in the United States, it seeks to provide insights into potential frameworks that could better serve the interests of consumers and the aviation industry, ultimately posing the question: Can a balanced regulatory model be crafted to ensure a win-win scenario for all stakeholders in air travel?
-
The Next Green Investment Bank: Comparing Australia's Clean Energy Finance Corporation with the United States' Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund [Note]The United States needs massive investments in green energy and infrastructure. As part of that investment, the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 established the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, a type of green investment bank. In 2012, Australia passed legislation that established the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, also a green investment bank. This Note explores the organization and efficiency of Australia's Clean Energy Finance Corporation and compares it to the possible investment models the United States could use in distributing the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund.
-
Money for Justice: Comparing Day Fines in Germany and Maricopa, County AZ [Note]This Note examines the concept of day fines and their implementation in two contrasting jurisdictions: Arizona's Maricopa County and Germany. Day fines, a system of monetary sanctions weighted according to a person's income, gained traction in the twentieth century as a means of ensuring substantively equitable punishment regardless of an individual's financial status. Maricopa County, among a handful of other U.S. jurisdictions, experimented with day fines during the early 1990s, only to see its program falter due to legislative constraints and political dynamics. ln contrast, Germany has maintained a robust day fine system for over four decades, with a flexible yet occasionally heavy-handed approach. This Note delves into the historical and operational aspects of day fines, highlighting the differences in implementation between the two jurisdictions. It investigates the reasons behind the failure of the U.S. day fine experiment and its continued success in Germany, considering factors such as political climate, economic considerations, and procedural intricacies. By comparing these experiences, the article offers insights that might inform the potential adoption of day fine systems in the United States-serving as a resource for activists, scholars, and policymakers seeking to enhance the fairness and effectiveness of punitive measures.
-
Evolving Sovereignty Relationships Between Affiliated Jurisdictions: Lessons for Native American Jurisdictions [Article]Though sovereignty is principally associated with governance over a territory and freedom to act in the international arena, this article examines sovereignty as empowerment. The study tests the applicability to Native American jurisdictions of the experiences of 15 jurisdictions presently associated with the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and France in shared sovereign relationships. The focus is on the evolution of those relationships and opportunities for development where jurisdictions do not attain full control over their affairs. The case studies examine the relationships from the perspectives of political, economic, and cultural sovereignty. The article further examines the relationships in three dimensions: evolutionary, frictions, and interwoven governance. It concludes with identifying factors of political cohesion, leadership, and entrepreneurship; conditions of good governance; and structures of consultation that allow for leveraging even limited degrees of sovereignty for political, economic, and cultural advancement.
-
An Undefined Global Threat: A Brief History and the Human Rights Implications of the Lack of a Universal Definition of Terrorism [Article]This article seeks to stimulate truly critical thought on terrorism by providing a proposed universal definition. The background of this article briefly touches on the history of terrorism-broadly defined for historical analysis as the use of politically motivated violence by a non-state group against governments or the public. It then examines national and regional definitions of terrorism. Lastly, it provides an overview of international efforts aimed at defining, preventing, and criminalizing terrorism. The analysis explains why the lack of a universal definition is such a pressing issue for human rights. This article argues that the problem is one of both over- and under-inclusiveness: over-inclusiveness as to the proscribed conduct and under-inclusiveness as to perpetrators. Finally, the analysis proposes a universal definition of terrorism and presents the framework within which such a definition could be adopted and implemented at the international level.
-
Table of ContentsThe University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law (Tucson, AZ), 2023
