The Good, the Bad & the Ugly - A New Way of Looking at the Intercountry Adoption Debate

The two sides of the intercountry adoption debate seem worlds apart. Proponents view international adoption as an effective solution to stop the proliferation of institutionalized and street orphans across the globe. To them, intercountry adoption is a panacea-offering a potential solution to such diverse issues as children orphaned after war and disaster; adults who are unable to conceive; global intolerance; and the limited resources of developing nations. On the other hand, critics of intercountry adoptions view it as modem-day imperialism, allowing dominant, developed cultures to strip away a developing country\u27s most precious resources, its children. Moreover, the view one holds in the debate impacts how subsidiary issues such as culture, family, rights, and sovereignty are treated. The emotional nature of intercountry adoption often leads each side to demonize the other, impeding the ability to find common ground. Moreover, keeping the debate focused on whether intercountry adoption is good or bad is problematic; there will always be compelling arguments on either side, and compelling reasons to which each can point in support of their position. As such, focusing on the positives or negatives in the debate amounts to a stand-off in which neither side is willing to compromise any ground, a perpetual lose-lose situation. Yet are these two sides really so far apart? Is there not another way of examining the debate that accommodates both viewpoints and makes allowances for each side? What if, for instance, one legal instrument could accommodate both one country\u27s view that culture should be paramount in deciding a child\u27s adoption and a prospective parent\u27s desire to adopt across cultural lines? These are not simply rhetorical questions. Currently, many countries (predominantly potential sending countries) refuse to participate in intercountry adoptions. These countries refuse to allow intercountry adoption largely because of issues that fall under the rubric of family, culture, and rights. In crafting a framework that accommodates all sides of the debate we can move the process forward to a more fluid structure that takes into consideration both sides of the debate. To do so we must start from a different premise, one where a prism of choice frames the intercountry adoption debate. Instead of locking the groups in a war of right and wrong, each group in the intercountry adoption debate can work together within a framework that is flexible enough to accommodate the different arguments and the hierarchical presumptions that embody each approach. This paper argues that such an approach to international adoption is possible if we analyze how each side of the debate treats the main axes of debate: issues of culture, family, and rights. Accordingly, the thesis of this paper provides that one can develop a framework that accommodates each side by recognizing the importance it attaches to each of these axes. Under this paradigm, this Paper examines the legal landscape, not to determine whether it facilitates or restricts intercountry adoption, but to determine how successful it is at accommodating the various viewpoints towards intercountry adoption and its underlying presumptions regarding family, rights, and culture

In Praise of Process: Examining the SEC, Rule 14a-8(i)(8), and AFSCME v. AIG

Part one of this essay will discuss the rule, including a brief analysis of proxy access generally and the election exclusion specifically. Part two will examine the AFSCME v. AIG case and the SEC\u27s response thereto in more detail-discussing the arguments posited both for and against increased shareholder access, as well as the aftermath of the SEC\u27s decision. Part three will analyze how the SEC\u27s failure to change Rule 14a-8(i)(8) to allow greater shareholder access specifically caused one thread in the financial crisis-as a direct result of a loss of shareholder empowerment. Finally, part four offers an epilogue-a discussion of the SEC\u27s current position on shareholder access generally and the election exclusion specifically as a portend for the future

It\u27s Complicated: The Challenge of Prosecuting TNCs for Criminal Activity under International Law

Like it or not, Transnational Corporations (TNCs) are taking an increasingly active role in larger societal issues and debates. Whether it\u27s a social advocacy campaign that seeks to reduce violence and bullying, a decision by a pharmacy company to stop selling tobacco products, or a sportswear company\u27s decisions to take a stand in solidarity with an advocate\u27s resistance to police brutality, TNCs are becoming increasingly vocal regarding their role in larger societal issues. But there is a darker side to the increased intermingling between corporations and the larger societal impact; namely the potential for a corporation to be involved, or sometimes, at the heart of, crimes against humanity. As a result of the increased allegations levied against corporations for these types of violations, having corporations criminally prosecuted is a top priority for many business and human rights\u27 (BHR) advocates who wish to hold TNCs accountable. The argument certainly engenders sympathy: in order for TNCs to reach the level of culpability to justify accountability under international criminal law, some horrendous acts must have occurred. Whether in the area of exploitative labor practices, gross environmental impacts, or even complicity with genocide, victims of these crimes at the hands of TNCs have an understandable desire to want to see justice served

The End of the Beginning - A Comprehensive Look at the U.N.\u27s Business and Human Rights Agenda from a Bystander Perspective

With the endorsement of the Guiding Principles regarding the issue of business and human rights, an important chapter has come to a close. Beginning with the then U.N. Secretary-General\u27s global compact speech in 1999, the international legal framework for business and human rights has undergone tremendous change and progress. Yet, for all these developments, there has been no exhaustive examination in the legal academy of all of these events; certainly, there is no one piece that discusses or analyzes all the major instruments that have been proposed and endorsed by the U.N. on the subject of business and its relationship with human rights issues. This Article attempts to fill that gap. By documenting the rise and development of Transnational Corporations as potential subjects under international law, the Article will help to provide a comprehensive overview of the issues concerning Transnational Corporations and businesses for the last twelve years. In addition, by examining the Guiding Principles through the lens of bystander rhetoric, this Article hopes to point the way forward to the next phase in developing a meaningful accountability structure for TNCs under international law

Data Privacy Issues in West Virginia and Beyond: An Overview

Work on the first edition of this white paper originally began in February 2019. The final results were published in February 2021 and was originally entitled Data Privacy Issues in West Virginia and Beyond: A Comprehensive Overview. In the almost three and a half years since that work was commissioned, the landscape of data privacy and its attendant technologies has grown so significantly that I no longer feel comfortable in calling any paper that discusses these issues comprehensive. Indeed, when engaging with experts, insiders, and consumers, the one common theme that seems to now permeate this work is its vastness, and the law’s increasing struggle to keep up with the pace of change. As such, while I have endeavored to update this white paper with as much information as possible, there will invariably be some areas where gaps will occur, despite my best efforts. Nevertheless, I believe that this second edition will provide readers with an accurate assessment of the current landscape and issues regarding ways that data, its benefits, and the harms involved in its misuse can intersect. Finally, a caveat: although the contributors (listed above) were instrumental in helping craft this paper and the Center for Consumer for Law and Education provided the initial grant for the first edition of this paper, all views, opinions, and errors are my own

It\u27s Complicated: The Challenge of Prosecuting TNCs for Criminal Activity Under International Law

This essay aims to tackle an increasingly thorny and relevant issue: what do you do if a Transnational Corporation (TNC) commits a crime? The question raises a number of challenges, both philosophically and practically. First, what does it mean to prosecute an organization? Although there are some limited examples (the United States’ prosecution of accounting firm Arthur Andersen being among the most note-worthy), we have relatively little precedence regarding what this would entail; how exactly do you put a corporation on trial? Second, practically speaking, where do you hold the trial? This challenge is magnified by the fact that, by definition, TNCs have separate legal personalities that are domiciled in numerous jurisdictions, raising challenges based on jurisdictional principles of extraterritoriality. In addition, as non-state actors under international law, TNCs have a very different legal role in issues that arise within the human rights and humanitarian law field (but often gives rise to the most brutal crimes). As such, this essay hopes to engage in a “thought exercise” that attempts to provide a comprehensive list of the challenges that could come from prosecuting a TNC. In addition, this essay will examine some solutions suggested by others (specifically, using the International Criminal Court as a venue to prosecute TNCs) and discuss the attendant pitfalls of doing so. Finally, the essay concludes that the successful prosecution of a TNC may amount to a Pyrrhic victory in that many stakeholders – including managers, shareholders and the larger community – could ultimately pay the price for its prosecution

What\u27s in a Name? Transnational Corporations as Bystanders Under International Law

(Excerpt) By giving TNCs the “bystander” name, this Article attempts to take the rhetoric out of its sound-bite environment and examine it for what it is: a strategy with implications for corporate accountability. This Article attempts to distinguish the “bystander” label that TNCs employ, which conveys the idea of the innocent bystander, and the name of the bystander that this Article would like to adopt, which contemplates a party that is complicit to the underlying action even when it is inactive. The term “rhetoric” employed throughout this Article is used as a more generic term for discussions of TNCs within the international discourse. To the author’s knowledge, no one has ever used the bystander paradigm within the context of corporate accountability. Some scholars have discussed the role of bystanders within a larger accountability framework. However, the bystander framework has not yet been applied to issues of corporate accountability. This Article attempts to fill that gap by offering a new theoretical perspective, one that names the TNC as a “bystander” under international law. Giving the TNCs this name is important, because it allows us to move beyond the current framework—or lack thereof—for corporate accountability and instead move towards a realistic solution for TNCs under international law

The United Postal \u3cem\u3eService\u3c/em\u3e—The One Word that Makes all the Difference

In recent months, the United States Postal Service (USPS) has taken center stage on a number of intersecting issues in our society: the pandemic; the upcoming election (through mail-in voting) and the controversy surrounding the appointment of Louis DeJoy to the position of Postmaster General. President Donald Trump has frequently made derogatory remarks regarding the Postal Service, calling it a “joke,” and has made repeated statements encouraging its privatization. However, President Trump’s rhetoric (as well as the rhetoric of others before him) obfuscates the critical mission of the USPS – to provide service to every American in the country; not simply through its Universal Service Obligation but through other particularly public functions that are largely unique to this agency. This essay unmasks this rhetoric and argues that privatization is not a good fit for USPS. Through an examination of both the debates of privatization and the implications of becoming a profit-making business, we show how these goals are misaligned with the central mission of the Postal Service. Americans rely on USPS for a number of essential functions that it would be impossible to carry out on a for-profit basis. Now, more than ever, we need to focus on the key public mission of USPS to serve all Americans