Washington and Lee law professor Mark Drumbl recently contributed to the online symposium Greenwalt’s International Criminal Law for Retributivists. The online symposium is hosted by James G. Stewart of the University of British Columbia Law Faculty at http://jamesgstewart.com.
Professor Drumbl’s post is entitled Adjectival Retributivism: A tale of Theory as Empath.
Washington and Lee law professor Mark Drumbl will participate at a conference this week at The Hague, the Netherlands. The conference, “Impact and Effectiveness of the International Criminal Court”, will be held on December 11-12, 2014. It is sponsored by the Hague Institute for Global Justice and the Grotius Centre for International Legal Studies.
Professor Drumbl will speak on a panel titled “Approaches Towards the Nexis Between Peace and Justice, Including Treatment of the Interests of Justice”.
Washington and Lee law professor Susan Franck published a new article in the University of Illinois Law Review. The article, written with Erin O’Hara O’Connor of Vanderbilt Law School, is titled “Foreign Investments and the Market for Law”.
From the abstract:
In this Article, Professors O’Hara O’Connor and Franck adapt and extend Larry Ribstein’s positive framework for analyzing the role of jurisdictional competition in the law market. Specifically, the authors provide an institutional framework focused on interest group representation that can be used to balance the tensions underlying foreign investment law, including the desire to compete to attract investments and countervailing preferences to retain domestic policymaking discretion. The framework has implications for the respective roles of BITs and investment contracts as well as the inclusion and interpretation of various foreign investment provisions.
Washington and Lee law professor Christopher Seaman will speak today, Friday, December 5, 2014 at the American Intellectual Property Law Association’s Trade Secret Law Summit at Intel Corp. in Santa Clara, California. Professor Seaman will participate in a panel entitled “Should Trade Secrets Law be Federalized? A Debate on the Need for a Federal Civil Remedy and Its Interplay with the Uniform Trade Secrets Act.”
Professor Seaman’s paper, “The Case Against Federalizing Trade Secrecy” is forthcoming in the Virginia Law Review.
From the Abstract:
Trade secrecy is unique among the major intellectual property (IP) doctrines because it is governed primarily by state law. Recently, however, a number of influential actors — including legislators, academics, and organizations representing IP attorneys and owners — have proposed creating a private civil cause of action for trade secret misappropriation under federal law. Proponents assert that federalizing trade secrecy would provide numerous benefits, including substantive uniformity, the availability of a federal forum for misappropriation litigation, and the creation of a unified national regime governing IP rights.
This Article engages in the first systematic critique of the claim that federalizing trade secrecy is normatively desirable. Ultimately, it concludes that there are multiple reasons for trade secrecy to remain primarily the province of state law, including preservation of states’ ability to engage in limited experimentation regarding the scope of trade secret protection and federalization’s potential negative impact on the disclosure of patent-eligible inventions. Finally, it proposes an alternative approach — a modest expansion of federal courts’ jurisdiction over state law trade secret claims — that can help address the issue of trade secret theft without requiring outright federalization.
Washington and Lee law professor Mark Drumbl spoke at a conference last week in Denmark at the University of Copenhagen’s Center for Excellence for International Courts. The conference, “New Practices of Transnational Criminal Law”, was held on November 27th and 28th.
The conference focused on the creation and circulation of new practices of transnational criminal law in and between international, European and national criminal jurisdictions. Professor Drumbl presented his paper “Extracurricular International Criminal Law”.
The full conference program is available here.
About ‘Extracurricular International Criminal Law':
Much ink has been spilled in assessing how international criminal law informs the curriculum of domestic criminal law. Might international criminal law nonetheless, and perhaps unexpectedly, stray elsewhere in domestic law? When it comes to domestic legal practice, might international criminal law cast a somewhat longer shadow or leave a somewhat haler legacy?
This project begins to address these questions by unpacking the jurisprudential footprints of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) in domestic litigation in the United States under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS). The ATS allows victims of human rights abuses to file tort-based lawsuits against their abusers for violations of the laws of nations (taken to mean customary international law). This project surveys US federal court citation to ICTR case-law and materials; discusses recent moves by US courts to restrict application of the ATS (though several cases continue); and situates references by US judges to the ICTR’s work within the broader context of their citation to the jurisprudential outputs of other international penal institutions whether past or present.
This project then gestures towards a broader conversation regarding the relationship between penal law and tort law in redressing human rights abuses and the migration of international norms to the national level in different but cognate legal regimes. Also of note are the distortions that may arise when international criminal law norms become applied in extracurricular fashion. On the one hand, extracurricular circulation may ensure wider awareness and internalization of international criminal law. On the other hand, it is not assured that the content of the law thusly diffused is accurately appreciated by national judges, or is even capable of predictable appreciation, thereby threatening international law’s general aspirations of doctrinal consistency, universalism, and legitimacy. Alternatively, and pithily, divergent understandings among national judges as to the substantive content of international law (as well as who is an appropriate subject thereof) may suggest no more than the appositeness of elemental insights of legal realism. The availability of international law may simply, and unromantically, accord judges another tool or device for them to achieve what they wish.
Washington and Lee law professor Mark Drumbl recently presented at a conference in Leiden, The Netherlands, to commemorate the 25th Anniversary of the adoption of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. The event drew over three hundred participants: academics, UN officials, practitioners, and activists.
Professor Todd Peppers’s work, “Random Chance or Loaded Dice: The Politics of Judicial Designation” (with K. Vigilante and C. Zorn) was quoted this week in the New York Times. Appearing on Monday, November 10, 2014, the the article “Coalition Challenges Selection of Judges in Same-Sex Marriage Case” by Adam Liptak discusses a recent court filing alleging panel rigging in the 9th circuit on same sex marriage cases.
Professor Peppers’s article was cited for its findings of “clear and consistent evidence that chief judges, in making designation decisions, tend to choose individuals with similar ideologies.”