Blood Cobalt: Unmasking And Charging Corporations For Involvement In International Law Violations In The Democratic Republic Of Congo

Joint Criminal Enterprise (JCE) is a legal doctrine developed by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) to hold participants in a criminal enterprise equally liable for all results of the group’s criminal actions, even if the individuals were not directly involved in committing the crimes. While traditionally used to prosecute individual criminal actions, JCE provides a legal pathway to hold corporations criminally liable for their actions that further international law violations. Although corporations currently do not have specific, listed responsibilities under international law, they are required to respect human rights and ensure their activities do not perpetrate human rights violations. This Comment argues that in buying illegally sourced cobalt from Congolese March 23 Movement (M23) rebels out of Ugandan and Rwandan markets, many transnational corporations satisfy the elements required by the third culpability of JCE and can be held criminally liable for the violations of human and environmental rights, such as forced labor, enslavement of women and children, and deforestation

Objectives and Principles for an Instrument on Limitations and Exceptions: Relevant Excerpts and Proposals

The Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) has been mandated by the 2012 General Assembly to work toward “an appropriate international legal instrument or instruments (whether through model law, joint recommendation, treaty, and/or other forms)”. In SCCR 43, the Committee adopted a Work Program (SCCR/43/8) to draft “objectives, principles, and options” for potential instruments. With the goal of facilitating the discussion within the Committee and the design of principles and objectives, our research team systematically gathered and organized relevant excerpts from a variety of sources including existing treaties, laws, SCCR documents, academic contributions, and civil society proposals. This document presents a collection of relevant excerpts aimed at supporting the drafting of principles and objectives for an instrument on Limitations and Exceptions (L&E), and address areas such as educational uses, preservation activities, research facilitation, technological measures, orphan works, cross-border cooperation, and rights for persons with disabilities

Guidelines on Access to Justice and Effective Remedies in the Context of Toxics

Guidelines on access to justice and effective remedies in the context of toxics Report of the Special Rapporteur on the implications for human rights of the environmentally sound management and disposal of hazardous substances and wastes, Marcos Orellana

Report of the Special Rapporteur on the implications for human rights of the environmentally sound management and disposal of hazardous substances and wastes, Marcos Orellana - Military activities and toxics

Implications for human rights of the environmentally sound management and disposal of hazardous substances and wastes Note by the Secretary-General The Secretary-General has the honour to transmit to the General Assembly the report of the Special Rapporteur on the implications for human rights of the environmentally sound management and disposal of hazardous substances and wastes, Marcos Orellana, in accordance with Human Rights Council resolution 54/10

Documentary History of the Limitations and Exceptions in the SCCR

The objective of this study is to systematically map all meetings of the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) and the General Assemblies (GA) of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) to extract, compile, and organize all relevant statements made by Member States regarding the Limitations and Exceptions (L&Es). The analysis was based on publicly available data from the WIPO website, particularly the official pages dedicated to each SCCR and GA meeting. Our primary focus was on statements recorded in the official Report document of each session. When available, we also examined supplementary documents, such as the Summary by the Chair or Conclusions . When analyzing the GAs, we focused on the “Report” and “Report on the SCCR” documents. Links to documents containing relevant information on L&Es were also included at the beginning of each section. To maintain the specificity of this study and avoid overlap with separate historical research on the protection of broadcasting organizations, for example, we primarily extracted statements from the sections titled Limitations and Exceptions for Educational and Research Institutions and for Persons with other Disabilities”, “Limitations and Exceptions for Libraries and Archives”, and other related topics. Except when relevant for context, we did not add content for SCCR meetings or GAs where no relevant statements were made under the specific agenda item on L&Es, even if the topic was referenced in discussions under other items. Unless explicitly stated otherwise, all statements included in this document are direct quotations from official WIPO records. The mapping of documents, as well as the extraction and compilation of information, was carried out in March 2025. At the time of completing this work, no report was available on the SCCR/46 webpage, and no content was available on the WO/GA/58 webpage

Cross-border Limitations and Exceptions to Copyright: “Powered by AI”

Businesses and institutions that wish to utilize copyright-protected works in multiple countries face a multiplicity of national copyright laws; although national copyright laws have been harmonized in accordance with several international treaties, and harmonized even more in the European Union member states by European Union legislation, countries’ copyright laws continue to vary. The multiplicity of national copyright laws raises costs of transnational operations, including for businesses and institutions that rely on limitations and exceptions to copyright (“L&Es”) in multiple countries. For example, AI companies might want to rely on L&Es to train and deploy their AI in multiple countries, as the recently adopted European Union AI Act anticipates, but complying with the conditions of numerous national copyright laws on L&Es can be burdensome and complex. This article discusses several possibilities for ensuring that L&Es operate smoothly across national borders; attempts have been made to this end by the Marrakesh Treaty (for accessible format copies for the visually impaired) and the European Union (for example, in its treatment of orphan works), and there are other examples. This article surveys, categorizes, and critically analyzes the examples, and proposes possible solutions to the problems of the cross-border operation of L&Es, including in the AI context

ReCreate\u27s Amicus Submission to the Constitutional Court in South Africa, May 2025

The Copyright Amendment Bill in South Africa aims to reform the copyright regime to provide additional rights to creators and users of copyrighted material. The main provisions for creators are a royalty right and increased control over commissioned works. For users, a series of exceptions and limitations are to be introduced.These include fair use for purposes such as education, personal use and research, as well as exceptions for libraries, archives and people with disabilities. South African President Cyril Ramaphosa referred the legislation to the Constitutional Court, primarily over concerns that the new rights for creators and users would constitute an “arbitrary deprivation of property” from rights holders (primarily publishers, broadcasters and other large corporations. ReCreate South Africa, a coalition of South African creators and users was admitted as amicus curiae to the court, to add its views on the legislation. In this document, ReCreate’s legal team sets out the key arguments, focused on the view that there can be no arbitrary deprivation of property where a law is being introduced to fulfill the rights of South Africans in a rational way through a law of general application. Abstract written by Ben Cashdan, convener of ReCreate

Navigating the Backlash and Reimagining Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in a Changing Sociopolitical and Legal Landscape

This article examines the shifting landscape of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in higher education amid intensifying sociopolitical opposition. Once central to fostering inclusivity for marginalized groups, DEI efforts now face backlash from federal, state, and corporate entities. The challenge lies not only in defending DEI efforts but also in reimagining it to remain effective and resilient in politically volatile times. Without historical context, debates risk oversimplifying DEI’s purpose and challenges. This piece traces the origins of DEI and anti-DEI movements, examines current legal threats and restrictive policies, and offers strategies to sustain and strengthen DEI initiatives in higher education

This Union Drive Could Have Been an Email: Adapting Representation Elections to the Internet Age Under the NLRA

During its 2024 Session, the Supreme Court of the United States sent shockwaves throughout the field of administrative law. Its decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo dramatically changed the level of deference owed to federal administrative agencies. Further, the holding of SEC v. Jarkesy imposed an obligation to try some cases concerning administrative penalties “sound[ing] in both law and equity” in an Article III court. These decisions all but guarantee an explosion of litigation in federal court concerning administrative rules, adjudication, and governance. Moving forward, administrative agencies must severely increase their budget allowances for federal litigation, take prophylactic measures to avoid prolonged judicial review, and prepare to slow down their policymaking and governing processes to account for time spent in federal court. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or the Board) stands to bear a comparatively increased burden from these decisions as it already operates under severe budget constraints and a progressively increasing load of outstanding cases year over year