Law Commons^™

What's Law Got To Do With It: Mapping Modern Mediation Movements In Civil And Common Law Jurisdictions, Nadja Alexander

Research Collection Yong Pung How School Of Law

Context defines mediation and has a direct impact on how it is practised. National legal contexts reveal historically embedded systemic differences that can provide insights into the reasons behind the rapid expansion of mediation in common law jurisdictions, and the comparatively hesitant development of mediation in civil law jurisdictions. In this article I consider the legal and political forces behind the modern mediation movements in Australia and Germany: two countries that represent the common law and the civil law traditions respectively.

Reconciling Amnesties With Universal Jurisdiction - A Reply To Mr. Phenyo Keiseng Rakate, Juan E. Mendez, Garth Meintjes

Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals

No abstract provided.

The Jurisdiction Of The Community Courts Reconsidered, Paul Craig

Articles by Maurer Faculty

No abstract provided.

Federal Common Law, Cooperative Federalism, And The Enforcement Of The Telecom Act, Philip J. Weiser

Publications

Congress increasingly has enacted cooperative federalism programs to achieve complex regulatory policy objectives. Such programs combine the authority of federal regulators, state regulators, and federal courts in creative and often pathmarking ways, but the failure of these actors to appreciate fully their respective roles threatens to undermine cooperative federalism's effectiveness. In this Article, Professor Philip Weiser develops a coherent vision of how federal courts should enforce cooperative federalism regulatory programs. In particular, he relates the rise and purpose of cooperative federalism to the federal courts' increased reluctance to make federal common law under the Erie doctrine and their greater deference …

Empowering United States Courts To Hear Crimes Within The Jurisdiction Of The International Criminal Court, Douglass Cassel

Journal Articles

United States courts have only incomplete and uneven jurisdiction, most acquired piecemeal and only in recent years, to prosecute genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity committed outside our borders. Recent developments in international law and practice-especially the heightened commitment of democracies including the United States to end impunity for atrocities, and the imminent prospect of a permanent International Criminal Court (ICC) with worldwide jurisdiction-suggest the need to expand and rationalize the jurisdiction of U.S. courts to make it coextensive with that of the ICC.

It now appears all but certain that the ICC will come into being in the …