Adapting Smart: Rethinking Climate Resilience Through Finance, Security, and Governance

This article examines the dual challenge of climate change—mitigation and adaptation—focusing on how policy can advance climate resilience. We argue that, while climate change presents a dual challenge of mitigation and adaptation, achieving robust climate resilience depends less on technological fixes alone and more on coherent, justice-centered policy frameworks that integrate scientific consensus, inclusive governance, and strategic finance, without defaulting to securitized paradigms. Drawing on foundational works such as William Nordhaus’s The Climate Casino and Wagner and Weitzman’s Climate Shock, along with insights from the IPCC and UNFCCC, the article reviews scientific consensus on escalating global temperatures, extreme weather events, and socioeconomic vulnerabilities. It identifies policy strategies to reduce risk and enhance adaptive capacity, including the development of National and Subnational Adaptation Plans (NAPs), strengthened financing mechanisms, and inclusive governance frameworks.  Emphasis is placed on risk transfer instruments like insurance, investments in resilient infrastructure, and the integration of both technological and nature-based solutions. Case studies from India’s Ahmedabad Heat Action Plan, the Netherlands’ adaptive water management, and Saudi Arabia exemplify context-specific adaptation success. The Article also critically assesses the implications of framing climate change as a national security issue. While security framing may increase urgency and resource mobilization, it risks marginalizing justice concerns and overemphasizing military responses. A balanced, inclusive approach is recommended—one that aligns climate adaptation with sustainable development and global equity. Ultimately, scaling finance, fostering multilevel governance, and resisting over-securitization are essential for effective, long-term climate resilience

International Human Rights Law and Forced, Coerced and Involuntary Sterilization in Africa

In the last several years, courts and tribunals at the international, regional, and national levels have tackled the issue of forced, coerced, and involuntary sterilization, especially as it affects the rights of members of vulnerable or marginalized groups (e.g., women and girls with disabilities, or those living with HIV). International, regional, and national human rights bodies have described forced and coerced sterilization as a violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms, which include the right to the highest attainable standard of mental and physical health, the right to information, the right to found a family, and the right to be free from discrimination. In addition, these human rights bodies have recognized forced and coerced sterilization as a violation of the right to be free from torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The obligation imposed on States by international and regional human rights instruments to protect the people within their jurisdictions from forced and coerced sterilization extends into the private sphere, which includes practices carried out by healthcare professionals. While the responsibility to protect the rights of women and girls in each African country lies with the government, civil society and its organizations, as well as the judiciary, are important. Civil society organizations, for example, can help individuals whose rights have been violated petition the courts for redress of their grievances. The courts, in turn, can adjudicate cases, clarify the laws relating to coerced and forced sterilization, and provide victims with necessary relief. An examination of case law from various African jurisdictions shows that domestic courts are making significant contributions to the emerging jurisprudence on efforts to eliminate forced, coerced, and involuntary sterilization on the continent. One way to eliminate this violation of the rights of women and girls is to impose a legal duty on doctors to ensure that they obtain the patient’s free, informed, and written consent before subjecting them to the bilateral tubal litigation procedure. So that the consent given is fully voluntary and informed, doctors must ensure that it is undergirded by or rests on three fundamental legs: knowledge, appreciation, and consent

770 LEX HOLDINGS LLC v. Reyes

In this nonpayment proceeding, the court granted the tenant\u27s post-eviction Order to Show Cause, restoring the tenant to possession forthwith under RPAPL § 749(3). The re-execution of the warrant of eviction was stayed to allow the tenant to obtain payment for all outstanding rent arrears, along with the landlord\u27s legal and marshal fees. The court noted that ordering post-eviction restoration before full payment is rare. Additionally, the court sua sponte joined the New York City Human Resources Administration (HRA) to the proceeding, pursuant to NYC Civil Court Act § 110(d), to facilitate payment assistance

Automated Decision-Making Systems and Black Box Challenges Under European Union Administrative Law

Automated Decision-Making (ADM) systems have been increasingly utilized by both private and public entities across the world to reduce errors by humans, increase efficiency, and make more consistent decisions. That is especially true in the case of the European Union. However, significant legal and ethical challenges arise because of ADM systems, subsequently giving rise to questions of compliance with underlying principles of law. This Article analyzes these challenges as they pertain to EU law through the examination of issues of accountability, transparency, and the protection of human rights. Furthermore, the use of ADM systems has been closely regulated by the EU’s General Data Protection Regulations, the Artificial Intelligence Act, and the Digital Service Act, amongst others. Even so, it is inconceivable that problems of compliance persist, especially since the existing institutional framework is meant to regulate the use and operation of ADM systems. Compliance shortcomings are critical because said institutional framework keeps on expanding. This Article showcases the need for improved accountability, the importance of human oversight, and legal safeguards to ensure that the regulatory framework put in place ultimately upholds the fundamental principles of the EU legal order

Dyckman 1010 LLC v. Brea

In this nonpayment proceeding, the court granted the tenant\u27s pre-answer motion to dismiss the petition. The landlord\u27s Notice of Petition was deemed defective for failing to comply with the mandatory form prescribed by 22 NYCRR § 208.42(b) and Administrative Order 163/19. The court found that even minor deviations from the standard form were fatal to the proceeding and rejected the landlord\u27s attempt to amend the defective notice. Consequently, the petition was dismissed without prejudice to the landlord\u27s underlying claims