Spreading Democracy Everywhere But Here: The Unlikely Prospect of Foreign National Defendants Asserting Treaty Violations in American Courts After \u3cem\u3eSanchez-Llamas v. Oregon\u3c/em\u3e and \u3cem\u3eMedellin v. Dretke\u3c/em\u3e

To squarely address this decisional quagmire, this article examines the binding effect of ICJ orders, entered pursuant to its compulsory jurisdiction, on American courts; earlier decisions of the Supreme Court penalizing foreign nationals for failing to timely raise individual treaty claims; the effect on treaty enforcement in domestic courts after the executive branch’s recent foreign policy decision to withdraw from compulsory ICJ jurisdiction; the current policy disputes dividing the United States and the ICJ; and, the national interest, or lack thereof, in treaty compliance. The article concludes that the government’s current claim that a “long standing presumption” exists to prevent the assertion of individual rights under Article 36 is simply not supported by international law or prior decisions of the Supreme Court

Introduction

Legal educators increasingly use the classroom to import expertise from scientists and social scientists to better prepare law students to engage in specialized and collaborative fields of practice. Indeed, this project grew out of a paper course on Scientific Evidence in Civil and Criminal Cases offered during the spring 2006 semester at the law school. Students heard from accident reconstruction experts, DNA scientists, forensic pathologist and medical malpractice experts. In February 2006, Dr. Aaron Lazare, Dean and Chancellor at the University of Massachusetts, addressed the law school on a cutting-edge legal theory from his recently published book, “On Apology.” Stimulated by this flow of information from scientists and social scientists, the journal staff invited articles from various scientific and non-scientific disciplines in an effort to identify new forensic theories and consider their relevance and possible application to the law

The Convention on Cybercrime: A Harmonized Implementation of International Penal Law: What Prospects for Procedural Due Process?, 23 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 329 (2005)

The CoE Convention on cybercrime provides a treaty-based framework that imposes on the participating nations the obligation to enact legislation criminalizing certain conduct related to computer systems, create investigative procedures and ensure their availability to domestic law enforcement authorities to investigate cybercrime offenses, including procedures to obtain electronic evidence in all of its forms and create a regime of broad international cooperation, including assistance in extradition of fugitives sought for crimes identified under the CoE Convention. Since there is no internationally recognized legal definition of computer crime, this article briefly presents the generally recognized categories of cybercrime and then proceeds in a presentation of the historical development of International Cybercrime Law as well as the practical impediments to international investigation, enforcement and prosecution including the absence of global consensus on the legal definition of criminal conduct, the transnational character of many cybercrimes and the lack of extradition and mutual legal assistance treaties. A presentation of the CoE Convention provisions follows where special emphasis is given to Procedural Safeguards under the CoE Convention, where it is being noted that while the complicated problem of guaranteeing civil rights protection to citizens living in different cultures and political systems is recognized, no specific minimal procedural guarantees of due process incident to treaty implementation are established, and the methods of collecting evidence under the Convention the CoE Convention which, similarly, do not require the enactment of certain minimal procedures by a party nor do they contain any minimal requirements concerning confidentiality of materials obtained through a production order. Notably, the CoE Convention contains significant restrictive language in the areas of transborder search and seizure and data interception, deferring authority to domestic laws and territorial considerations. The issues of Jurisdiction and Extradition and the relative problems are also being examined as well as the pre-existing mutual legal assistance treaties ( MLATs ) or other reciprocal agreements between parties. Finally the author examines the CoE Convention as a harmonization model and concludes that it does not adequately safeguard procedural due process. Although the decentralized nature of international penal law may explain such flexible harmonization to achieve law enforcement goals aimed at the timely eradication of cybercrime, cybercrime prosecutions will most certainly raise issues relating to concurrent jurisdiction and/or the application of domestic law to foreign nationals especially regarding the means of investigating and prosecuting the conduct. In view of the fact that in its present form, the CoE Convention allows state intrusions into the sphere of individual privacy rights to gather evidence for use in subsequent criminal prosecutions without adequate guarantees of procedural due process, an addition of a Protocol to the treaty is proposed, modeled after the proposed CoE Constitution providing minimal guidelines for procedural due process, extended to citizens of all participating nations

Ruthless Utilitarianism? COVID-19 State Triage Protocols May Subject Patients to Racial Discrimination and Providers to Legal Liability

As the coronavirus pandemic intensified, many communities in the United States experienced shortages of ventilators, intensive care beds, and other medical supplies and treatments. Currently, there is no single national response to provide guidance on allocation of scarce health care resources. Accordingly, states have formulated various triage protocols to prioritize those who will receive care and those who may not have the same access to health care services when the population demand exceeds the supply. Triage protocols address general concepts of \u27fairness under accepted medical ethics rules and the consensus is that limited medical resources should be allocated to do the greatest good for the greatest number of people.\u27 The actual utility of this utilitarian ethics approach is questionable, however, leaving many questions about what is \u27fair unanswered. Saving as many people as possible during a health care crisis is a laudable goal but not at the expense of ignoring patients\u27s legal rights, which are not suspended during the crisis. This Article examines the triage protocols from six states to determine whose rights are being recognized and whose rights are being denied, answering the pivotal question: If there is potential for disparate impact of facially neutral state triage protocols against Black Americans and other ethnic groups, is this legally actionable discrimination? This may be a case of first impression for the courts to resolve

Effect of Hydrocortisone on Mortality and Organ Support in Patients With Severe COVID-19: The REMAP-CAP COVID-19 Corticosteroid Domain Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Evidence regarding corticosteroid use for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is limited. Objective: To determine whether hydrocortisone improves outcome for patients with severe COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: An ongoing adaptive platform trial testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, for example, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, or immunoglobulin. Between March 9 and June 17, 2020, 614 adult patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were enrolled and randomized within at least 1 domain following admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) for respiratory or cardiovascular organ support at 121 sites in 8 countries. Of these, 403 were randomized to open-label interventions within the corticosteroid domain. The domain was halted after results from another trial were released. Follow-up ended August 12, 2020. Interventions: The corticosteroid domain randomized participants to a fixed 7-day course of intravenous hydrocortisone (50 mg or 100 mg every 6 hours) (n = 143), a shock-dependent course (50 mg every 6 hours when shock was clinically evident) (n = 152), or no hydrocortisone (n = 108). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of ICU-based respiratory or cardiovascular support) within 21 days, where patients who died were assigned -1 day. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model that included all patients enrolled with severe COVID-19, adjusting for age, sex, site, region, time, assignment to interventions within other domains, and domain and intervention eligibility. Superiority was defined as the posterior probability of an odds ratio greater than 1 (threshold for trial conclusion of superiority >99%). Results: After excluding 19 participants who withdrew consent, there were 384 patients (mean age, 60 years; 29% female) randomized to the fixed-dose (n = 137), shock-dependent (n = 146), and no (n = 101) hydrocortisone groups; 379 (99%) completed the study and were included in the analysis. The mean age for the 3 groups ranged between 59.5 and 60.4 years; most patients were male (range, 70.6%-71.5%); mean body mass index ranged between 29.7 and 30.9; and patients receiving mechanical ventilation ranged between 50.0% and 63.5%. For the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively, the median organ support-free days were 0 (IQR, -1 to 15), 0 (IQR, -1 to 13), and 0 (-1 to 11) days (composed of 30%, 26%, and 33% mortality rates and 11.5, 9.5, and 6 median organ support-free days among survivors). The median adjusted odds ratio and bayesian probability of superiority were 1.43 (95% credible interval, 0.91-2.27) and 93% for fixed-dose hydrocortisone, respectively, and were 1.22 (95% credible interval, 0.76-1.94) and 80% for shock-dependent hydrocortisone compared with no hydrocortisone. Serious adverse events were reported in 4 (3%), 5 (3%), and 1 (1%) patients in the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with severe COVID-19, treatment with a 7-day fixed-dose course of hydrocortisone or shock-dependent dosing of hydrocortisone, compared with no hydrocortisone, resulted in 93% and 80% probabilities of superiority with regard to the odds of improvement in organ support-free days within 21 days. However, the trial was stopped early and no treatment strategy met prespecified criteria for statistical superiority, precluding definitive conclusions. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570

Regulating unlawful behavior in the global business environment: The functional integration of sovereignty and multilateralism

This article uses the Convention on Cybercrime as a case study to illustrate the functional integration of international law into diverse national legal systems through the paradigm of treaty harmonization. Nations control the impact of international regulation on domestic business interests by implementing legislation to preserve fundamental rights. Thus, the sovereignty-based legal harmonization model better explains the baseline characteristics of national sovereignty while recognizing that global cooperation in business is a necessary and positive feature of multilateralism. Critics dismiss sovereignty as irrelevant, claiming instead that a "new world order" has emerged in its place. That kind of deconstructionist talk typically injects fear of multilateralism into the global business community. However, the premise is flawed because it ignores the actual mechanics of treaty accession and the synergy between international law and commerce in the global legal environment.International law Harmonization Sovereignty Multilateralism Cybercrime