Selling Ice in Alaska: Employment Preferences and Statutory Exemptions for Alaska Native Corporations 40 Years After ANCSA

In 1971, Congress enacted the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) in order to settle land disputes between Alaska Natives and the federal government. ANCSA established Alaska Native Corporations (ANCs), which were tasked with managing settlement funds to provide for the health, education, and economic welfare of Alaska Natives. To enable the ANCs to promote the interests of their shareholders, Congress exempted ANCs from certain employment restrictions contained in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, but did not exempt ANCs from other worker-protective legislation. In subsequent decades, courts reviewing the preferential practices of ANCs have often construed these statutory exemptions narrowly, thus exposing ANCs to liability under various anti-discrimination statutes. This Article argues that Congress never intended to subject ANCs to these pieces of worker-protective legislation, despite court holdings to the contrary. The Article proposes two possible solutions to this discrepancy: (1) congressional amendment of ANCSA to clarify and further limit the extent of ANC liability; and (2) judicial adoption of a two-part test which would consider employment policies giving preference to Alaska Native shareholders in light of Congress\u27s intent to protect such preferences

Sanctions for E-Discovery Violations: By the Numbers

This Article reviews our comprehensive survey of written opinions from cases in federal courts prior to January 1, 2010, involving motions for sanctions relating to the discovery of electronically stored information (ESI) We analyzed each case for various factors, including date, court, type of case, sanctioning authority, sanctioned party, sanctioned misconduct, sanction type, sanctions to counsel, if any, and the protections provided from sanctions by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e) The survey identified 401 sanction cases and 230 sanction awards and showed that sanction motions and awards have increased over time, particularly in the last five years Sanctions against counsel are rare but are also increasing Sanction motions have been filed in all types of cases and in courts across the country Failure to produce ESI is the most common basis for sanctions Courts have used a variety of different rules, statutes, and powers to sanction parties for e-disco very violations, including Rule 37 and the inherent power of the court, and courts impose many different sanction types on e-discovery violators, including the severe sanctions of dismissal, default Judgment, adverse jury instructions, and sizeable monetary awards Rule 37(e) has not provided broad protection from such sanction

High Court was wrong to stop \u27war crimes\u27 extradition

In 2005, the Australian government and ALP opposition stated their firm principled position on war criminals: extradite or prosecute. War criminals are not welcome to live freely in Australia. As the High Court has recently blocked a war crimes extradition, it has left the government with a difficult potential prosecution. Hungary had requested the Commonwealth government to extradite Charles Zentai to stand trial for a war crime committed in 1944. Allegedly, while a member of the Hungarian Royal Armed Forces, Zentai recognised Peter Balazs, an 18-year old-youth, as a Jew who was out on the street without wearing the yellow star required to be sewn and displayed on his outer garments

Sanctions for E-Discovery Violations: By the Numbers

This Article reviews our comprehensive survey of written opinions from cases in federal courts prior to January 1, 2010, involving motions for sanctions relating to the discovery of electronically stored information (ESI) We analyzed each case for various factors, including date, court, type of case, sanctioning authority, sanctioned party, sanctioned misconduct, sanction type, sanctions to counsel, if any, and the protections provided from sanctions by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e) The survey identified 401 sanction cases and 230 sanction awards and showed that sanction motions and awards have increased over time, particularly in the last five years Sanctions against counsel are rare but are also increasing Sanction motions have been filed in all types of cases and in courts across the country Failure to produce ESI is the most common basis for sanctions Courts have used a variety of different rules, statutes, and powers to sanction parties for e-disco very violations, including Rule 37 and the inherent power of the court, and courts impose many different sanction types on e-discovery violators, including the severe sanctions of dismissal, default Judgment, adverse jury instructions, and sizeable monetary awards Rule 37(e) has not provided broad protection from such sanction

Environmental Terrorism: Not Yet an International Crime

The ease with which severe harms can be deliberately inflicted upon the natural environment to coerce political behaviour pose real and current threats to both nature and to social stability. There is a serious lack of international law to criminalise environmental terrorism. This lacuna could be remedied in part by the formulation and adoption of a new treaty to define and criminalise acts of terror against the natural environment. The outline of such a treaty is described in this article

Arbitration Jurisdiction in Philippines v PRC: Quixotic Judicialisation and Sovereign Resistance in Law of the Sea

Law of the sea is an area where few opportunties to take jurisdiction are declined by international tribunals. Expansion of judicial fiat satisfies the lawyerly appetite for binding global law. However, it poses risks to the maritime interests of States subject to compulsory binding procedures under the Law of the Sea Convention, by eroding the premise of their direct consent to international law obligations. The Philippines v China arbitration is demonstrated here to be an instance, part of a pattern in international law, where judicial jurisdiction is adventurously asserted while sovereign consent is diminished. In response, China is resisting international law in the South China Sea. Indications for the near future are that international maritime relations will be judicialised further. In the longer term, this may result in disrepute, disuse and disobedience of the judiciary in connection with maritime dispute settlement

Legal Considerations concerning Recognition of Israeli Sovereignty over the Golan Heights

The United States of America, on 25 March 2019 under the administration of President Trump, formally recognised Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights.1 Under President Biden, the State Department signalled continuing support for Israeli de facto control and recognition of sovereignty but that the latter could be reviewed if there were to be a change in the threat situation from Syria.2 There has been little legal analysis of the international legal status of the Golan Heights, lost by Syria to Israel in June 1967, and this article evaluates de jure recognition of Israeli sovereignty there

Regulating humanitarian assistance by Australian charities: legal tools to deter funding of terrorism abroad

What are the obligations and risks in Australian law confronting the managers of charitable funds disbursed overseas to conflict zones where funds may be diverted into political violence? The 2016 allegations against World Vision Australia for funding HAMAS are described here as a case study of applicable Australian laws. Apparent gaps in the administrative, civil and criminal regulatory framework are identified and are contrasted with approaches in other common law jurisdictions: Canada, England and Wales, and the United States. Based upon these comparisons, recommendations are made to address perceived defects in the regulatory framework to counter financing of terrorism abroad by Australian not-for-profit organisations

Boycotting Israeli academics, or boycotting academic freedom?

On Wednesday last week, the Student Representative Council at the University of Sydney adopted a motion to boycott Israeli academics. The motion called specifically for the University to cut its current research ties with the Technion, Israel’s leading higher education technology institute, and supported the general academic boycott of Israel called for by the University of Sydney’s Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies (CPACS)