"Virtual disenfranchisement": cyber election meddling in the grey zones of international law

This Article examines remotely conducted election meddling by cyber means in the context of international law and asks whether such cyber operations qualify as "internationally wrongful acts." An internationally wrongful act requires both a breach of a legal obligation owed by one State to another under international law and attribution of the act to the former. The Article considers three possible breaches related to such meddling-violation of the requirement to respect sovereignty, intervention into the internal affairs of another State, and, when the cyber operations are not attributable to the State from which they were launched, breach of the due diligence obligation that requires States to ensure cyber operations with serious adverse consequences are not mounted from their territory. The Article then examines the various modalities for attributing a cyber operation to a State under international law. Whether cyber meddling in another State's election is unlawful, as well as the severity thereof, determines the range of responses available to the victim State. The Article concludes that the law applicable to remotely conducted meddling in another State's election is unsettled, thereby comprising a normative grey zone ripe for exploitation by States and non-State actors

Quel droit comparé?

Il y a un choix à faire entre des types différents de droit comparé. Il y a d’abord le droit comparé qui a prévalu pendant les deux derniers siècles, un droit comparé dominé par le positivisme juridique et la logique dite classique, qui vise la description de systèmes juridiques conçus comme entités statiques. Il y a cependant un autre droit comparé, dominé par la comparaison normative et la logique paraconsistante. L’article examine d’abord l’état actuel du sujet pour ensuite se tourner vers le choix à faire entre ces types de droit comparé et les conséquences d’un tel choix.Abstract : There is a choice to be made between different types of comparative law. There is first of all the comparative law which has prevailed during the last two centuries, a comparative law dominated by legal positivism and so-called classical logic, which aimed at the description of legal systems conceived as static in character. There is, however, another comparative law, dominated by normative comparison and paraconsistent logic. The article examines the present state of the subject before turning to the choice to be made between these two types of comparative law and the consequences of such a choice

Temporary International Legal Regimes as Frames for Permanent Ones

This chapter explores the footprint that temporary international legal regimes can leave on international law. Drawing on four different theories of state behaviour, it considers how temporary regimes can shape future permanent regimes. Under a rational design approach, temporary legal regimes influence future permanent regimes largely because they provide valuable experiences from which state actors learn. Under other theories of behaviour—historical institutionalism, constructivism, and behavioural international law—temporary legal regimes can have even more influence on permanent ones. Although these other three theories have important differences, all suggest that temporary regimes strongly shape the real and perceived possibilities for future permanent design choices. This chapter then looks at how these different theoretical approaches play out in case studies in refugee law, international criminal law, and international environmental law. While these case studies do not solely support any one theoretical account, collectively they demonstrate that temporary regimes can have outsized influence on permanent ones. This in turn has important implications for negotiators involved in regime design

"Virtual" Disenfranchisement: Cyber Election Meddling in the Grey Zones of International Law

This is the author's accepted manuscript.The final version is available from Chicago Unbound via the link in this record.This Article examines remotely conducted election meddling by cyber means in the context of international law and asks whether such cyber operations qualify as "internationally wrongful acts." An internationally wrongful act requires both a breach of a legal obligation owed by one State to another under international law and attribution of the act to the former. The Article considers three possible breaches related to such meddling - violation of the requirement to respect sovereignty, intervention into the internal affairs of another State, and, when the cyber operations are not attributable to the State from which they were launched, breach of the due diligence obligation that requires States to ensure cyber operations with serious adverse consequences are not mounted from their territory. The Article then examines the various modalities for attributing a cyber operation to a State under international law. Whether cyber meddling in another State's election is unlawful, as well as the severity thereof, determines the range of responses available to the victim State. The Article concludes that the law applicable to remotely conducted meddling in another State's election is unsettled, thereby comprising a normative grey zone ripe for exploitation by States and non-State actors

Segnali di fumo. Una prospettiva comparatistica sugli obblighi di avvertenze per la salute sui distributori automatici di sigarette a partire dalla causa C-370/20

Commento a C-373/20

Bitcoin, Virtual Currencies, and the Struggle of Law and Regulation to Keep Pace

At less than a decade old, Bitcoin and other virtual currencies have had a major societal impact, and proven to be a unique payment systems challenge for law enforcement, financial regulatory authorities worldwide, and the investment community. Rapid introduction and diffusion of technological changes throughout society, such as the blockchain that serves as Bitcoin’s crypto-foundation, continue to exceed the ability of law and regulation to keep pace. During 2017 alone, the market price of Bitcoin rose 1,735%, from about $970 to$14,292, causing an investor feeding frenzy. As of September 11, 2018, a total of 1,935 cryptocurrencies are reported, having an approximate market capitalization of $191.54 billion at that date. A brief history of the fast moving adoption of blockchain-based technology is provided, along with a look at the efforts of regulators to keep up with the staggering worldwide growth in the usage of virtual currencies. In the United States, enforcement actions for violations of law involving virtual currencies are brought primarily by: The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC); The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC); and The Department of The Treasury through the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN). This Article contributes to the literature and our understanding of the constant struggle of law and regulation to keep pace with rapid technological developments

Race, Civil Rights, and Immigration Law after September 11, 2001

This article is part of a symposium on Migration Regulation Goes Local: The Role of States in U.S. Immigration Policy. Although only time will tell, September 11, 2001 promises to be a watershed in thehistory of the United States. Not long after the tragedy, supporters and critics alike saw the federal government as pushing the envelope in restricting civil liberties in the name of national security. This article analyzes the nation\u27s response to the horrific loss of life of September 11 and shows how the centralization ofimmigration power in the hands of the federal government, may exacerbate the civil rights impacts of theenforcement of the immigration laws. The federal government has acted more swiftly and uniformly thanthe states ever could, with severe consequences for the Arab and Muslim community in the United States. That the reaction was federal in nature - and thus national in scope as well as uniform in design and impact,and with precious few legal constraints - worsened the civil rights impacts. The civil rights deprivations resulting from federal action reveals that national regulation of immigration is a double-edged sword. Although federal law pre-empts state laws designed to regulate immigration or discriminate against aliens, it can also, with few legal constraints, strike out at immigrants across the nation if it sees fit. That in turn suggests that the role of states, as well as the federal government, in the regulation ofimmigration and immigrants, especially in times of national crisis, deserves most serious attention. The federal government\u27s response to September 11 also demonstrates the close relationship between immigration law and civil rights in the United States. Noncitizens historically have been the most vulnerable to civil rights deprivations, in large part because the law permits, perhaps even encourages, extreme governmental conduct with minimal protections for the rights of noncitizens. Unfortunately, the current backlash against Arabs and Muslims in the United States fits comfortably into a long nativist history. In sum, a complex matrix of otherness based on race, national origin, religion, and political ideology contributes to the current attacks on the civil rights of Arabs and Muslims in the United States. As has occurred in the past, the ripple effects of national security measures in the end may adversely affect the legalrights of all noncitizens, not just Arabs and Muslims. Indeed, as we contend in this article, the civil rightsdeprivations resulting from the war on terrorism may have long term adverse impacts on the civil rights ofcitizens as well as noncitizens in the United States. To help us better understand the latest war on terrorism, Part I of the Article analyzes the general demonization of Arabs and Muslims generally in the United States and how the law has been influenced by,and reinforced, the negative stereotypes. This section reviews the federal government\u27s actions directed atArabs and Muslims in the name of combating terrorism well before September 11. As Professor Edward Said has observed, terrorism in these times has displaced Communism as public enemy number one. That has translated into a near exclusive focus on foreign terrorists, particularly Arabs and Muslims. Part II studiesthe federal government\u27s zealous investigatory methods after September 11 directed at Muslim and Arab noncitizens, with disregard for their civil rights, and the possible long term impacts of that response