Volume 37:2


James C. Hathaway
Special Feature Seventh Colloquium on Challenges in International Refugee Law // pdf // repository

James C. Hathaway 
The Michigan Guidelines on Risk for Reasons of Political Opinion // pdf // repository

Catherine Dauvergne
Toward a New Framework for Understanding Political Opinion // pdf // repository


Sharon Bassan
Shared Responsibility Regulation Model for Cross-Border Reproductive Transactions // pdf // repository

Volume 37:1


S.I. Strong
Reasoned Awards in International Commercial Arbitration: Embracing and Exceeding the Common Law-Civil Law Dichotomy// pdf // repository

Charles W. Mooney, Jr. 
A Framework for a Formal Sovereign Debt Restructuring Mechanism: The Kiss Principle (Keep It Simple, Stupid) and Other Guiding Principles // pdf // repository

Odysseas G. Repousis
On Territoriality and International Investment Law: Applying China’s Investment Treaties to Hong Kong and Macao // pdf // repository


Jesse W. Stricklan
Testing Constitutional Pluralism in Strasbourg: Responding to Russia’s “Gay Propaganda” Law // pdf // repository

Reprisals: Why Defenders Need Defending

Tania Morris Diaz
Vol. 37 Associate Editor

Ordinarily, the term ‘reprisal’ is used to refer to a State’s deliberate violation of international law as retribution directed at another State for breaking international law.[1] However, in the lesser-known context of international human rights law, reprisals are measures taken with “the intent to deter or punish individuals who have opposed legislative or policy framework adopted by public authorities.”[2] The difference is that reprisals in the international law context operate horizontally among States, while reprisals in the international human rights law context operate vertically among various actors. Essentially, reprisals occur when “a state violates international law norms if it commits an act of violence against, or intimidates, or curtails the rights” of an individual. A state also violates international law norm if it fails to act in a way that contributes to a “climate of impunity and arbitrariness.”[3] Continue reading

FATF Recommendations: Becoming Soft Law

Michael Pucci
Vol. 37 Associate Editor

In his 2009 article in Foreign Policy, Moisés Naím popularizes the concept of minilateralism, a type of multilateralism that “bring[s] to the table the smallest possible number of countries needed to have the largest possible impact on solving a particular problem.”[1] Instead of relying on the post-WWII global institutions, many of which have become paralyzed because of their failure to adapt to changing power dynamics and requirement for world-wide consensus, minilateral organizations offer states an alternative type of international organization which is more limited in membership and scope.[2] In the domain of combatting terrorism, these organizations are particularly useful because they create soft law, incentivizing states to collaborate but not creating legal obligations. Continue reading

Baseball Diplomacy: Impact of Major League Baseball on the Cuban Embargo and Emigration

Daniel Mooney
Vol. 37 Associate Editor

Reports indicate that United States and Cuban officials and Major League Baseball have been holding private meetings in the past months to figure out a way to allow Cuban baseball players to come to the United States legally to play in the MLB.[1] These talks are the latest in a string of attempts by the Obama administration to warm relations with Cuba.[2] These attempts will culminate in late March when President Obama will become the first U.S president to visit Cuba since 1928. The president, while in Cuba, will attend an exhibition game in Havana featuring the Cuban National team and the Tampa Bay Rays.[3] Continue reading

Political Violence in Burundi: Human Dignity and the Sanctity of Sovereignty

Cole Lussier
Vol. 37 Associate Editor

Domestic conflict in a small Central African country is once again leading the international community to reflect on its willingness to ensure human security and republican government in a nation long marred by violence and instability. Since April 2015, the Republic of Burundi has teetered on the brink of civil war, prompting concerns of possible ethnic cleansing and genocide.[1] With the memories of neighboring Rwanda’s genocide still weighing on the global conscience, the killings in Burundi have once again raised serious questions regarding the sanctity of state sovereignty and the moral urge to protect human life and democratic government.[2]  Continue reading

Assessing the EU-Turkey Migrant Crisis Deal

Jacob Greenberg
Vol. 37 Associate Editor

At the stroke of midnight on March 20, 2016, Greece began the process of designating all migrants arriving by boat for return to Turkey.[1] This major milestone in the refugee/migrant crisis was the product of deal struck by the European Union (EU) and Turkey just days earlier. Turkey agreed to receive and process all migrants arriving by boat in Greece. It will also sort those refugees fleeing war from other migrants.[2] The EU, in addition to paying to send the migrants to Turkey, has agreed to several other concessions. For each migrant the EU sends Turkey, the EU will resettle one vetted Syrian refugee. The EU will also send Turkey 3 billion Euros on top of the 3 billion it has already pledged to help it deal with the crisis, grant visa-free travel for Turks in Europe, and accelerate negotiations over Turkish accession to the EU.[3]  Continue reading

CFIUS: The Little-known Multi-Billion-Dollar Deal Killer

Christian Husby
Vol. 37 Associate Editor

On February 23, 2016, Tsinghua Unisplendour Corporation of China abandoned its attempted $3.78 billion purchase of a 15% stake in Western Digital, an American computer data storage company.[1] Tsinghua didn’t abandon the deal because it lost interest in the deal, and it wasn’t because it couldn’t get the financing; it was because of a decision by the Committee on Foreign Investment (“CFIUS”) to review the prospective deal.[2] Continue reading

The Curious Case of Disappearing Booksellers: A Conflict of Sovereignty between China and Hong Kong

Angela Ni
Vol. 37 Associate Editor
Vol. 38 Managing Note Editor

Free speech and separation of political spheres in China have always been tenuous. Publishing houses and bookshops in Hong Kong have spent years churning out books banned on the Chinese mainland, often focusing on poorly sourced secrets and rumors about the top echelons of China’s ruling Communist Party.[1] However, the recent arrest of five Hong Kong citizens, who published books that revealed critical and salacious information regarding the Chinese leadership, ignited citywide protests and debates about Hong Kong’s true political status.[2] One of the booksellers, Lee Bo, disappeared from his warehouse in December 2015 when his publishing company was to publish a book on Chinese president Xi Jinping’s alleged love affairs before his political ascent.[3] Continue reading