• Selected
• Entire List

Abstract:
Law reviews have been objects of study at least since Fred Rodell of Yale published his 1936 article Goodbye to Law Reviews in the Virginia Law Review. Numerous articles have been written about the strengths and weaknesses of student-run law reviews and this issue has garnered the attention of many prominent and influential legal scholars. They include Professor Richard Delgado in articles in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review and the Southern California Law Review, and Judge Richard Posner in a Stanford Law Review article. Recent articles provide some insight into the factors that influence the evaluation of submissions and selection of articles for publication. However, they primarily make descriptive rather than normative claims. They do not answer the key questions that have remained unanswered since the establishment of student-run law reviews: Is there a low-cost way to improve the institution of student-run law reviews? Is there a better way for students to evaluate articles?

This article suggests answers to these important questions and contributes to the existing body of scholarship on student-run law reviews in four ways:

1. First, although many scholars have described and criticized the way that students evaluate and select articles, scholars generally have been inattentive to the ways in which this process could be improved. This article shifts the focus from the discussion of how articles are currently being evaluated and selected for publication to how law review editors should be evaluating articles.

2. Second, this article develops theories of safe scholarship and dissent scholarship that will help to structure the ongoing discussion of the role of students in the evaluation of legal scholarship. The basic theory is that safe scholarship and dissent scholarship represent two ends of a continuum that can be used to gauge the potential for bias entering into the evaluation process in a specific context.

3. Third, this article takes evaluation of legal scholarship in a new direction utilizing a methodology that employs the insights of both critical race theory and law and economics. Applying the economic concepts of information asymmetries, network effects, and switching costs, it develops a framework for understanding why bias may enter the student editors' evaluation process and how this differs from evaluation by legal scholars.

4. Finally, using examples from scholarship on rhetoric and critical reading skills, this article makes clear that there are many opportunities to improve the evaluation of articles by student-editors and decrease the potential for bias in the article evaluation process and calls for retraining on an institutional level.

legal scholarship, law review, legal education, critical race theory, law and economics, rhetoric and reading theory, bias, dissent, evaluation

Abstract:
In February 2003, the Herero People's Reparations Corporation filed a complaint against Germany in the District Court of the District of Columbia alleging violations of international law, crimes against humanity, genocide, slavery, and forced labor before, during, and after the German-Herero War (1904-07). The German government, modern scholars, and other commentators have long taken the position that genocides committed by colonial governments in the nineteenth century did not violate international law at that time. Arguments for this position rely, inter alia, on the belief that all forms of genocide were first criminalized and made punishable by the 1948 U.N. Convention on Genocide. However, an analysis of contemporaneous international customary and treaty law shows this position to be wrong and supports the position that colonial acts of annihilation in Africa were illegal by the end of the nineteenth century. This article further argues that this law was directly applicable to the German-Herero War. It concludes that the Hereros' case for legal redress is stronger than heretofore assumed and examine the implications for the claims of other similarly situated victims of genocide.

international law, genocide, crimes against humanity, slavery, forced labor, colonialism, war, Herero, Germany, Namibia, Africa, Berlin West Africa Convention, third-party beneficiary doctrine

Abstract:
Jamaica is one of several smaller countries that hope to improve their position in the global market, raise living standards, and strengthen democracy through trade liberalization. Adapting David Dollar's cycles of good governance, this article argues that sustainable trade liberalization, rule of law, and democracy are linked and that sustainable success in one area requires contemporaneous progress in the other two. It concludes that improving the rule of law in Jamaica is necessary for sustainable trade liberalization.

rule of law, international trade, democracy, Jamaica, Caribbean

Abstract:
This co-authored essay explores the relationship between law and social change in the context of student activism at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law (Berkeley Law formerly Boalt). My contribution to this essay examines the simultaneously linear and circular history of social justice activism at Berkeley Law and discusses the relationship between social crises and resurging waves of activism, focusing on student activism in the sphere of legal scholarship.

law, social justice, student activism, Berkeley, Boalt

Abstract:
Globalization in the form of foreign direct investment has not lived up to its promise to promote prosperity around the world. Many of the anticipated benefits to developing countries and their citizens have yet to materialize. True, laws promoting foreign direct investment contribute to technology transfer, increased tax revenues, and other economic benefits. However, existing laws are lax, one-sided, or limited in scope. They allow transnational corporations to cause harms like property damage, personal injury, and significant environmental damage. Insufficient protections and limited avenues for redress encourage transnational corporations to chase profits with limited concern for consequences.

I argue that modern foreign direct investment law is a vestige of the colonial era during which early forms of transnational corporations emerged. Unlike international trade law and despite the dramatic developments of the twentieth century, foreign direct investment law remains largely unchanged. Due to a lack of political will, prior multilateral efforts to implement comprehensive foreign direct investment law reforms have been largely unsuccessful. However, in recent years, growing political will has emerged under the umbrella of Global Corporate Citizenship and related movements. In this article, I posit that Global Corporate Citizenship is an opportunity to reframe and reform foreign direct investment law.

This paper is part of a larger project on Law and Global Corporate Citizenship in which I analyze ways to reform the regulation of transnational corporations. In this series of articles, I identify gaps in the international and domestic regulation of transnational corporations, explore reasons for these gaps, set out a Global Corporate Citizenship framework for more comprehensive regulation, and develop proposals for the implementation of this framework.

Abstract:
The role and purpose of large transnational corporations is among the defining questions of our times. Large transnational corporations have economic, political, social, and legal influence that rivals that of some sovereign nations. Transnational corporations act in ways that protect and infringe upon human rights. Transnational corporations engage in activities that can destroy or preserve the environment. However, the regulation of transnational corporations does not adequately create incentives for transnational corporations to make decisions that adequately incorporate ethical and moral values. As a result, the acts of transnational corporations are not as beneficial to society as they could be and often they are downright harmful by violating human rights and damaging the environment.

How should transnational corporations be regulated? I argue that mechanisms based on economic assumptions alone are insufficient. Economic-based mechanisms do not fully make provisions for the dualistic nature of corporations and the transjurisdictional nature of foreign direct investment. Rather, law making and enforcement should take into consideration both the economic and social nature of corporations, their operation in public and private spheres, and the fact that transnational corporations have stakeholders and are stakeholders themselves. I suggest that understanding transnational corporations as global citizens furnishes a lens with which to develop a wider range of regulatory options.

This article is part of a larger project on law and Global Corporate Citizenship. In this series of articles, I identify gaps in the domestic and international regulation of transnational corporations, identify strengths and weaknesses of previous attempts to regulate transnational corporations, and propose options for the implementation of more comprehensive regulation. My first article in this series, Toward Global Corporate Citizenship: Reframing Foreign Direct Investment Law, is forthcoming in the Michigan State Journal of International Law. In that article, I argue that the asymmetry and fragmentation of foreign direct investment law encourages excesses by transnational corporations, and I propose developing a legal framework for Global Corporate Citizenship as part of a comprehensive reform of foreign direct investment law.

In this article, I begin to develop a legal theory of Global Corporate Citizenship and propose a new research agenda called Law and Global Corporate Citizenship. This article presents the case for and maps out this new research agenda in which I analyze ways to reform the regulation of transnational corporations. The purpose of this agenda is to critically analyze weaknesses in current regulation of transnational corporations, provide a framework for developing proposals for regulatory reform, and map out future research. I argue that Global Corporate Citizenship is an appropriate vehicle by which to delineate the ethical responsibilities of transnational corporations and the values that should guide their engagement with society. Further, I propose legal obligations for transnational corporations and explore new substantive rules addressing the role of transnational corporations in human rights, environmental protection, and globalization.

There are three question complexes that this research agenda seeks to answer. First, is there a deficit in domestic and international regulation of transnational corporations, why does this deficit exist, and what harms result from this deficit? Second, are there existing models that could be tweaked to close the gap or is a new model needed and, if so, are there prior efforts or initiatives that could inform the development of a new regulatory framework? Third, what would a new regulatory system based on theories of Global Corporate Citizenship look like and what forms could the implementation of a legal framework for Global Corporate Citizenship take?