UCLA Journal of International Law and Foreign Affairs

This article suggests that comparative literature can gain valuable insights in turning to the design of legal norms. Building on and further developing the notional framework of Louis Kaplow with regard to rules versus standards, simplicity versus complexity, and structure ddecision-making versus free balancing, it introduces the rules-model and the standards-model as tools of comparative norm design. The article applies this approach in the area of criminal justice, comparing the systems of the United States and Germany. In doing so, it relativizes a common characterization of U.S. criminal justice as flexible and discretionary and of German criminal justice as rigid and rules-based. Indeed, a closer analysis of norm design in criminal procedure suggests quite the opposite: focusing especially on norms governing the exclusion of evidence, the impeachment of witnesses, sentencing, and plea bargaining, it will be possible to link the way in which the United States administers criminal justice to the rules-model and the German approach to the standards-model. Analyzing the respective vices and virtues of both models, the article further explains the described difference in norm design by reference to the prevailing concept of the judge: whereas the United States tends to underline the fallibility of judges, the German legal culture tends to idealize them. This comparative analysis harmonizes well with the broader context and can explain other areas of the law as well. Indeed, the proposed distinction of norm design (rules-model versus standards-model) can also explain differences in contract law and aligns with the common-civil law divide and dominant strains of legal thought in both countries. In addition, the diverging concept of the judge (fallible versus idealized) can be contextualized by reference to the differences in the structure of authority, the concept of individuals, and the philosophical heritage.

The paper explores the potential for international human rights law to further articulation of indigenous rights to environment. The paper does so by using the case of sea peoples struggling against marine plastic pollution in Southeast Asia as an illustration clarifying how provisions in international human rights instruments can advance indigenous interests against environmental harms. The term “sea peoples” references the Bajau, Moken, and Orang Laut peoples, whose communities span multiple countries in the Association of Southeast Asian States (ASEAN) and whose cultures are tied closely to the marine environment. The paper applies international human rights instruments to identify legal rights covering substantive, procedural, and legal personality issues relevant to the concerns of sea peoples contending with marine plastic pollution. In doing so, the analysis demonstrates an international human rights law approach to the delineation of indigenous rights to environment.

Economic policies are increasingly guided by a whole set of different concerns from those that inspired International Economic Law (IEL). Instead of interdependence, trade liberalization, and market-orientation, rules and government decisions are increasingly directed to pursue goals such as reduction of dependence, resilience, autonomy, and even self-reliance. A geoeconomic logic is gradually replacing the liberal rationale that underpinned IEL for the past decades. Understanding where IEL might be headed requires an appraisal of this changing logic. This Article makes the following contributions to this effort. First, it proposes a conceptual framework centered around the notion of “geoeconomics,” which provides a coherent meaning to many developments that are transforming economic relations. The framework is unique in that it clearly outlines what is considered under the concept of geoeconomics, particularly by distinguishing it from other potentially misleading notions. This Article describes the assumptions that back the geoeconomic framework and show how they play out in practice. Thus, it sheds light on the factors driving many recent developments in the global economy which are difficult to explain from a liberal logic. Second, it contributes to sophisticate the terms of the debates among international economic lawyers that seek to address the transformations impacting IEL. These debates have neglected elements that are brought to light by the geoeconomic framework. This Article presents the insights arising from the geoeconomic framework and how they offer directions for future debates on the evolution of IEL.

This Articlewill focus on one particular burning question: what is the relationship between economic sanctions and corruption? More specifically, are economic sanctions an effective tool for fighting corruption or are they a “corruption super spreader?”

Part I briefly summarizes the most relevant types of sanctions, namely international and national comprehensive sanctions, and targeted sanctions (with a focus on anti-corruption targeted sanctions). Part II analyzes the positive and negative consequences of such sanctions programs, especially when it comes to corruption. Finally, Part III presents an overview of some crucial next steps to be followed to ensure that sanctions become more effective both generally, and in the fight against corruption specifically. Due to its brevity, the Article is intended to provide an overview of key problems and potential solutions and is it not to be considered as an exhaustive analysis of all the issues presented.