Press Freedom under Threat in Europe: A Case Study Analysis of the increasing threat to Press Freedom in Greece, Italy, and Hungary

This research critically examines the legal systems of European countries and their relationship to press freedom. This research focuses on the vexatious legal threats used by government officials and corporations to silence journalists. These legal threats are known as SLAPPs (strategic lawsuits against public participation) and their use has increased exponentially in the last decade. Considering the scope of the problem, this research analyzes the issue through the lens of European countries Greece, Italy, and Hungary. Being members of the European Union, each of these countries have an obligation to uphold the democratic standards put forth by the EU as well as international agreements regarding human rights. Journalists are a vital aspect of the democratic processes of each of these countries, and are protected by both domestic laws and binding international agreements. In recent years, SLAPPs targeted at journalists served by politicians and authoritative figures have made their role difficult. The intention behind each case being questionable. This research aims to answer the question of whether current domestic and international law is being enforced in a manner that protects journalistic authority. Corruption within governments who are stated as democracies is on the rise, and the inability of European countries to recognize and prevent these attacks against journalists is cause for increasing concern. The current governmental systems in place show a declining respect for the profession of journalism and the increase in legal threats targeted at journalists insinuates a shift from democratic values to more authoritarian practices. This leaves both governments and civil society vulnerable to corruption

Global Judicial Transparency Norms: A Peek Behind the Robes in a Whole New World — A Look at Global “Democratizing” Trends in Judicial Opinion-Issuing Practices

Global developments over the last two decades have debunked the traditional understanding that separate opinions are idiosyncratic of courts in nations following the common law tradition. History reflects that judicial opinion-issuing practices have evolved around the world, adapting to the increasing globalization of legal systems. And recent research confirms that most international and supranational tribunals, even those headquartered in continental Europe, expressly permit individual judges to issue separate opinions, although in some courts various internal norms and customs operate to discourage the practice. In addition, the majority of European national constitutional courts now permit individual judges to publish separate opinions, and judicial members of many “ordinary” supreme courts may do so as well. The United States Supreme Court is known globally for its justices’ regular practice of issuing separate opinions, and some international scholars hold up the Court as a shining example of the common law tradition of transparency. Yet even in the United States, few if any formal norms govern the Supreme Court’s opinion-issuing practices, which have also evolved quite significantly, if incrementally, over time. Without any formal constraints whatsoever, a time might come when a bare majority of the Court could choose secrecy over transparency in the blink of an eye. Yet the many United States scholars who have long championed the dissenting opinion, and who urge that tradition on other sovereigns, generally overlook the absence of formal norms that protect federal courts’ judicial opinion-issuing practices against change. A few scholars have advanced preliminary theories that seek to explain institutional variations in opinion-issuing practices, but those theories are narrow in scope and warrant considerably more testing and refinement. A predictive model has little value unless it can be generalized beyond a small group of international and supranational courts. While theoretical models hold promise, more scholarly work is warranted to better conceptualize the competing “judicial values” that influence the practices of national and subnational multi-member courts. Scholarly research is also needed to identify the reasons for individual judicial choices about disclosing votes and publishing separate opinions. The remarkable contemporary global interest in the opinion-issuing practices of national, supranational, and international tribunals reflects our expanding vision of the rule of law and each sovereign’s role in that new world order. In our increasingly global, interconnected legal community, should judicial tribunals speak with one institutional voice? Or should a cacophony of individual judges communicate judgments, each writing seriatim? The polarized views of many scholars who advocate for and against separate opinions disregard legitimate differences in the underlying norms and values that inform judicial practices. There is no clear, “one-size-fits-all” answer. Much more comparative scholarly work remains to be done. But the global trend is clearly in favor of “democratizing” justice by defrocking the myth of judicial consensus and unanimity

Separating State from Church: Researching the Legal System of the Vatican City State

Mr. Young and Ms. Shea discuss the unique situation of the Vatican City State in legal research. They provide an overview of the founding documents and the constitutional structure of the world\u27s smallest sovereign nation, a discussion of the complex nature of the Vatican\u27s international status, and a bibliographic essay covering the materials most likely to be available in law libraries in the United States

Come and Go? How Temporary Visa Works Under U.S. Bilateral Trade Agreements with Arab countries

The United States (U.S.) and Jordan launched negotiations for a free trade agreement in 2000.The US-JO FTA includes a preamble, nineteen articles, three annexes, joint statements, memorandums of understanding, and side letters. In addition to the interesting articles on labor and environment, the US-JO FTA provides the opportunity for Jordanian nationals to come to the U.S. to make investments and participate in trade. Under certain conditions, Jordanian nationals can enter the U.S. to render professional services. The purpose of this article is to examine in detail article 8 of the US-JO FTA which relates to entry of nationals of one party into the territory of the other. The article starts by providing a brief background of the negotiation and conclusion of the US-JO FTA. Then, the article analyzes in detail the specific provision related to temporary entry of nationals. The article draws a comparison between US-JO FTA with the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the more recent trade agreements between the U.S., Oman, Bahrain, and Morocco. Finally, the article observes that although the US-JO FTA, like all US FTAs, is designed to permit temporary entry, without intent to establish permanent residence, of persons, the U.S. should have provided Jordan with special and differential treatment for entry of its nationals. Taking into account the special circumstances of Jordan as a developing country with low-income status, high unemployment rate, and lack of resources, movement of business visitors, investors, intra-company transferees, and professionals should have been dealt with leniency so that the FTA could generate effective and real market access

Copyright as Monopoly: The Italian Fire Under the Ashes

This essay provides an overview of some research that is in its early stages. The principal purpose of the authors is to understand whether, in a Continental European legal system such as the Italian one – traditionally led by a strong historical and normative vision of copyright (or author’s right) as natural right and nowadays influenced by the EU propertization trend – it is yet possible to foresee a different approach that is prone to interpreting the exclusivity of copyright in terms of monopoly. The latter approach, to some extent, might in fact be more relevant to restricting copyright protection by limiting the exclusive rights (ius excludendi alios) while supporting the public interest. Besides, the vision of “copyright as monopoly” seems in particular to play an overriding role within the digital context, where property is less apt in terms of the promotion and sharing of knowledge and, on the contrary, monopolistic jeopardy is sensibly flourishing

2017-2018 Fordham Law School Faculty Bibliography

https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/fac_bib/1021/thumbnail.jp