Please join us in congratulating the 2014-2015 JICL Executive Board and Submissions Editors! We are all looking forward to publishing some great issues in the coming year!
Executive Managing Editor – Kendall Smith
Executive Articles Editor – Rachael Nave
Notes Editors – Alyssa Bachman and Lisa Meissner
Symposium Editor – Anne McKeon
Production Editor – Christian Struven
Submissions Editors – Rachael Winkler, Tiffany Newman, Marie Hollister
Reviewed by Dr. Johannes van Aggelen
The book under review is an updated version of Antônio Cançado Trindade’s General Course on Public International Law, which the author delivered at the Hague Academy of International Law in 2005. It follows the structure of the general course divided into eight parts, with an important addition in Chapter 27 on the “United Nations and the Rule of Law at National and International Levels” before his conclusions on “Codification and Progressive Development of a Universal International Law.”
In recent years, legislation and regulations in different countries of the
world have raised questions about the conscientious objection of health care
providers. In Spain, the Sexual and Reproductive Health and Voluntary
Interruption of Pregnancy Act of 2010 (Sexual and Reproductive Health Act)
recognizes the right to conscientious objection of professionals directly
involved in the termination of pregnancy but also expands the possibility to
perform abortions in relation to previous legislation. The application of the
conscientious objection clause, however, leaves multiple questions open, and
both the administration and the judiciary have reached different conclusions in
The discussion about distribution of powers regarding conscientious
objection is also present in the United States. In 2008, the Department of
Health and Human Services (HHS) issued rules interpreting the Federal Health
Care Provider Conscience Protection Statutes. The HHS modified the rules in
2011, alleging that many of these norms were unnecessary because the federal
statutes already included enforcement mechanisms. Another example of an
unresolved question concerning conscientious objection is present in the
controversy created around the religious exemptions of the HHS mandate
under the Affordable Health Care Act…
Sam F. Halabi
The discipline of comparative constitutional law today is focused in significant part on the study of how and why judges use foreign precedent. Scholars debate the propriety of using foreign precedent as “authority,” circumstances under which such use is consistent with democracy (or a product of democratization), and which constitutional traditions may derive the greatest benefit from comparison. While comparative law theorists have long reflected on, and struggled with, a standard disciplinary vocabulary to describe what judges do when they engage in “comparative constitutional law,” the existing scholarship generally distributes judges’ use of foreign precedent into one of three modes of comparative adjudication. First, courts use foreign precedent to identify “universal” principles of law applicable across jurisdictions. Second, courts sharpen understanding of domestic law through contrasting foreign judgments. Third, courts use foreign authority to identify, then choose, constitutionally permissible options to solve jurisprudential or policy problems. These theories have a methodological approach in common: scholars analyze the treatment given certain foreign decisions and sort the cases into one category or another…
The Notre Dame Journal of International and Comparative Law is proud to announce that the new editor-in-chief for Volume IV will be Alyssa Shaughnessy.
The Journal looks forward to continued success under her leadership.
Julie Dubé Gagnon
On January 6, 2011, President-elect Alassane Ouattara of Côte d’Ivoire requested the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) to intervene in order to remove incumbent Laurent Gbagbo, who refused to leave power following the democratic presidential elections of November 2010. In December 2010, ECOWAS gave a final ultimatum to Laurent Gbagbo to comply with its request on ceding his throne. Otherwise, ECOWAS warned, it would be compelled to use legitimate force to serve the demands of the Ivorian people. This Article ascertains the illegality of a military intervention for pro-democratic motives in light of the current post-election crisis in Côte d’Ivoire. ECOWAS could not have lawfully intervened in Côte d’Ivoire in order to install Alassane Ouattara because such use of military force contravenes the U.N. Charter, and permitting such derogation would destabilize international peace and security.