Ending 30 years of IMF Exceptionalism: A Call for an Accountability Mechanism at the International Monetary Fund

This year marks the 30th anniversary of the World Bank’s Inspection Panel (WBIP or Panel), created as the result of grass-roots and international pressure on the Bank to address the well-documented negative impacts on marginalised communities of the Bank-financed Narmada dam and similar projects. The establishment of the world’s first independent accountability mechanism (IAM) at the World Bank led to the creation of similar mechanisms at nearly all international financial institutions (IFIs), with the IMF an important exception. The establishment of the WBIP and other IAMs was a step-change in accountability, as previously IFIs were only accountable to shareholders and borrowers – as opposed to communities affected by their investments. That said, at the 75th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the establishment of the international human rights system, IAMs remain severely constrained in their ability to ensure IFIs ‘do no harm’ and contribute, rather than negatively impact the ability of citizens to avail themselves of their human rights

Harold Hunt v. Matthew Smith

USDC for the Middle District of Pennsylvani

Communication with Public Officials in the Modern Age of Social Media: Does It Violate the First Amendment When Public Officials Block Private Individuals From Their Social Media Pages?

In the modern world, social media dominates. It is considered an almost essential function of public officials, ranging from the President of the United States to local politicians, to maintain at least one social media page to keep the public updated on their policies and current events. As public officials shift toward social media to communicate with the public, these social media sites become the new spaces for public discourse, with members of the public often commenting on or responding to public officials\u27 posts. As more public discourse occurs on these sites, and individuals begin to criticize their public officials on them, this criticism of the officials, protected by the First Amendment, must be given the same safeguards as more traditional forms of speech. This Note argues that it violates the First Amendment when public officials block individuals from their public social media pages for criticizing the official. Various courts have analyzed this issue, with some courts finding First Amendment violations due to the public official\u27s blocking of an individual and other courts finding no such violation. The Supreme Court has yet to issue an opinion on this issue but will soon, after recently granting cert. for two cases discussed in this Note: Garnier v. O\u27Connor-Ratcliff and Lindke v. Freed. Therefore, this Note argues that the cases where the courts did not find First Amendment violations were decided incorrectly. In a time when social media is the center of public discourse, the law must adopt to fit modern times, leading to a finding of First Amendment violations when public officials prohibit free speech online, in the same way as it does when they prohibit free speech in any other public forum

Giving people the words to say no leads them to feel freer to say yes

We examine how to structure requests to help people feel they can say no (or yes) more voluntarily. Specifically, we examine the effect of having the requester provide the request-target with an explicit phrase they can use to decline requests. Part of the difficulty of saying no is finding the words to do so when put on the spot. Providing individuals with an explicit script they can use to decline a request may help override implicit scripts and norms of politeness that generally dictate compliance. This should make individuals feel more comfortable refusing requests and make agreement feel more voluntary. Hence, we hypothesized that telling people how to say no (by providing them with an explicit script) would make compliance decisions feel more voluntary above and beyond merely telling them they can say no. Across two experimental lab studies (N = 535), we find support for this prediction

Intellectual Property & Information Law Program IP+IL Program\u27s Distinguished Speaker Series: Paul Levitz

https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/flyers-2023-2024/1101/thumbnail.jp

Barrister Ball

https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/flyers-2023-2024/1106/thumbnail.jp

THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UGLY OF DOBBS: A CONSTITUTIONAL RECKONING

The United States Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization marked a constitutional reckoning, with pervasive and inescapable consequences for many Americans. This article discusses this constitutional reckoning in two senses. First, it was a reckoning with the Court’s own precedent, as it overturned nearly fifty years of precedent on abortion rights. Second, it was a reckoning with the Court’s role in American society, as it raised fundamental questions about the Court’s legitimacy and its ability to protect the rights of minorities. This article begins by outlining a history of abortion rights in the United States, from the early days of the republic to the present day. The Court’s landmark decision in Roe v. Wade in 1973 established a constitutional right to abortion; and while it was a controversial decision, it has been challenged ever since. The Dobbs decision, like every other decision made by the Supreme Court, was not immune to the interpretive whims of the individuals who currently inhabit their seats of judgment and power. While the Dobbs decision may be characterized as “flawed” by some, this article seeks to examine the notion that there are no “flawed” or “unflawed” interpretations of the United States Constitution; only ones which we like, or do not like. As such, this decision will have a devastating impact on women’s rights and reproductive health for many years to come. This article concludes by discussing the potential future landscape of abortion rights in the United States. Although the Dobbs decision was a setback for abortion rights, this is nowhere near the end of the fight, considering other available levers outside of the judiciary, including and not limited to legislative action, public education, and grassroots organizing