Current Law Journal Content
Washington & Lee Law School
  Current Law Journal Content
                  an index to legal periodicals
 


  Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law
  Volume 18, Number 3, Fall 2001
  homepage   full-text                   other issues
 

  • ARTICLES
  • HUMAN RIGHTS, TERRORISM AND THE PROBLEM OF ADMINISTRATIVE DETENTION IN ISRAEL: DOES A DEMOCRACY HAVE THE RIGHT TO HOLD TERRORISTS AS BARGAINING CHIPS?
        Emanuel Gross
        p.721                                                                                      +cite        
        This Article examines administrative detention law in Israel. It discusses the Israeli Supreme Court's decision in the second hearing of Anon. v. Minister of Defense, in which the Court held that the State of Israel had no authority to hold Lebanese petitioners in administrative detention under Israel's administrative detention law. The Article concludes that under Israeli and international law, the detention of the Lebanese petitioners was permissible because they were not civilians or prisoners of war entitled to the benefits of laws addressing such persons. The petitioners were members of terrorist organizations, and Israel had authority to detain them and make their release conditional upon the release of Israeli citizens held by terrorist organizations.
  • PUBLIC CORRUPTION: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF INTERNATIONAL CORRUPTION CONVENTIONS AND UNITED STATES LAW
        Peter J. Henning
        p.793                                                                                      +cite        
        The Article compares United States law with three international conventions, adopted by the European Union, the Organization for Economic Cooperation, and the Organization of American States, designed to significantly strengthen domestic laws against public corruption among the signatory nations. The Article then looks at United States law, noting that although federal law on the topic is not entirely consistent and contains no single provision on corruption, the United States has developed a strong anti-corruption law that provides a means to address different forms of corruption and offers examples for the international effort to define and punish corruption.
  • THE ANGLO-AMERICAN REVOLUTION IN TORT CHOICE OF LAW PRINCIPLES: PARADIGM SHIFT OR PANDORA'S BOX?
        Alan Reed
        p.867                                                                                      +cite        
        The Article considers and evaluates the Anglo-American revolution in tort choice of law. It seeks to reflect on optimal desiderata between certainty, uniformity, concern with precedent (stare decisis), simplicity and ease of application and flexibility. It is submitted that many of the English reforms have been ill-conceived, suffer from confused legislative drafting, and arguably were unnecessary. A paradox arises here with the possibility of similar replication of escapes from Bealian conceptualism in the United States via the devices of renvoi, characterization and public policy.

  • NOTES
  • THE RESPONSE OF THE UNITED STATES TO THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT: REJECTION, RATIFICATION OR SOMETHING ELSE?
        Joel F. England
        p.941                                                                                      +cite        
        In 1998, many nations signed the Rome Statute, setting in motion the establishment of the International Criminal Court, a permanent court having jurisdiction over cases of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and eventually aggression. The United States signed, but has not ratified the Rome Statute. The United States is concerned about the Court's potential jurisdiction over Americans, even if the United States is not a party to the agreement. In response, members of Congress introduced two competing bills, the American Servicemembers' Protection Act (ASPA) and the American Citizens' Protection and War Criminal Prosecution Act (ACPA). Each bill seeks to protect Americans from the Court's jurisdiction, but, unlike the ASPA, the ACPA promotes continued engagement and cooperation with the Court. While the United States should seek to protect Americans from the Court's jurisdiction until it is confident of the Court's credibility and effectiveness, the United States should not actively oppose the Court and should remain engaged in the Court's evolution.
  • THE CONTROVERSY OF A PALESTINIAN "RIGHT OF RETURN" TO ISRAEL
        Tanya Kramer
        p.979                                                                                      +cite        
        This Note analyzes whether international law embodies a Palestinian right of return to Israel. It presents a historical overview of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, analyzes the different and conflicting views of the Palestinians and Israelis with regard to history and return, and evaluates the various international instruments that purport to contain a principle or right of return. The Note concludes that although there may be a principle of return in various international documents, a Palestinian return as a matter of right is uncertain. Moreover, it proposes that the focus of the international community has shifted from a right to return to Israel itself to the principle of self-determination and a limited right to return to a portion of Palestine—the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
  • FACING THE PAST, FACING THE FUTURE: APPLYING THE TRUTH COMMISSION MODEL TO THE HISTORIC TREATMENT OF NATIVE AMERICANS IN THE UNITED STATES
        Rose Weston
        p.1017                                                                                    +cite        
        Truth commissions are typically convened to investigate and authoritatively document reports of grave human rights abuses in a country or region. When past mistreatment of a group or class of peoples has risen to the level of genocide, the need for an official, authoritative investigation, such as a truth commission, becomes even more compelling. Here, the author presents the broad outlines of the truth commission model and considers the record of abuses against Native Americans in the United States in both the recent and distant past. The Article explores anticipated objections to a truth commission in the United States and argues for the need to conduct an official investigation into the facts in order to establish a comprehensive public record that would resist revisionism.