Emory International Law Review

Volume 29Issue 3
Article

Future War and the War Powers Resolution

Eric Talbot Jensen | 29 Emory Int'l L. Rev. 499 (2015)

Since its passage in 1973 over the veto of then-President Nixon, the War Powers Resolution (WPR) has failed in its design to require notification and consultation to Congress by the President. Amidst emerging technologies such as drones, cyber tools, nanotechnology, and genomics, the ineffectiveness of the WPR will prove even more profound. As American presidents analyze the applicability of the WPR to military operations using these advancing technologies, they will have no reporting requirements because the WPR is not triggered. For the WPR to fulfill its original purpose, Congress must amend the statute to cover emerging technologies, expanding the coverage of the WPR from actions by armed forces to actions by armed forces personnel, supplies, or capabilities. This Article also proposes expanding the coverage of the statute to hostilities and violations of the sovereignty of other nations by the armed forces.

Read More »
Comments

Harmonizing Regulations in the Financial Services Industry Through the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership

Brett Bickel | 29 Emory Int'l L. Rev. 557 (2015)

The 2007 financial crisis exposed ineffective oversight and inconsistent financial regulation in the United States and throughout the European Union. In 2013, address this gross mismanagement, the U.S. and the EU began negotiating the terms of Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). Through TTIP, the U.S. and EU look to increase market access through eliminating trade barriers and enhancing regulatory coherence and cooperation, as well as cultivating new rules in the global trade market that will prevent another financial disaster. Through this Comment, Brett Bickel discusses the history of TTIP and the detrimental flaws of the current financial regulation. Bickel discusses three major ways in which TTIP can bridge the critical gap that prompted the financial crisis.

Read More »

The Benefits and Dangers of Proportionality Review in Israel’s High Court of Justice

Michael Kleinman | 29 Emory Int'l L. Rev. 589 (2015)

In the landmark case Beit Sourik Village Council vs. the Government of Israel, the Israeli High Court of Justice grappled with a highly charged question: should a state have to sacrifice its security to improve human rights? The court answered in the affirmative and held that certain sections of Israel’s controversial security fence could not be built as planned. In these sections, the loss of human rights outweighed the security benefit of placing the fence through certain villages. Scholars focused on the court’s proportionality review, which was the seminal aspect of the case. Through Beit Sourik and similar cases, this Comment addresses theoretical implications of proportionality review in HCJ decisions. Through extensive case analysis, this Comment determines how a court could best balance security and the right to life and bodily integrity against other human rights.

Read More »

The Principality of Sealand, and Its Case for Sovereign Recognition

Andrew H. E. Lyon | 29 Emory Int'l L. Rev. 637 (2015)

Andrew H. E. Lyon argues for the recognition of the Principality of Sealand as a nation proper. His argument for such recognition extends beyond Sealand’s future. The international legal community’s acceptance of the changing world and the necessity of flexible ideologies should grow alongside our changing planet. Complaints disfavoring Sealand’s statehood claims range from its man-made nature, its lack of a recognizable citizenry, and England’s de jure ownership of the territorial sea in which Sealand resides. These complaints are backed by scholarship, and neighboring nations allege that various judicial opinions support their stance. Lyon agues, however, that recognition of Sealand’s sovereignty will inevitably come with the changing landscape of international law. This recognition could lead to future success for other man-made nations. The argument for Sealand is an argument for the adaptation of international legal norms, and the evolving international conception of “sovereignty.”

Read More »