Communication Breakdown?: The Future of Global Connectivity After the Privatization of INTELSAT

In 1971, eighty-five nations (including the United States) formed the International Telecommunications Satellite Organization (INTELSAT), a public intergovernmental treaty organization. INTELSAT was charged with operating the world\u27s first global telecommunications satellite system, to guarantee the interconnectedness of the world\u27s communications systems and the availability of international telecommunications service to every nation on earth. By the late 1980s, however, INTELSAT\u27s operations began to experience substantial competition from the private sector. In 2000, the proliferation of privately-owned telecommunications satellites and transoceanic fiber-optic cables led the U.S. Congress to mandate the privatization of INTELSAT. That privatization process began in 2001, and was substantially completed on April 8, 2005, when the Federal Communications Commission approved the $5 billion sale of INTELSAT\u27s former satellite system to private investors

Incorporation of the Criminal Procedure Amendments: The View from the States

I. Introduction . . . . . 397 II. The Incorporation Debate . . . . . 402 III. State Bills of Rights Before and After the Civil War . . . . . 408 IV. State Analogues of the Rights that Have Been Incorporated . . . . . 411 A. Searches and Seizures/Warrant Requirement . . . . . 413 B. Double Jeopardy . . . . . 423 C. Compelled Self-Incrimination . . . . . 431 D . Public Trial . . . . . 440 E. Criminal Jury Trial . . . . . 446 F. Notice of Charges . . . . . 455 G. Right To Counsel . . . . . 458 V . Conclusion . . . . . 46

Incorporation of the Criminal Procedure Amendments: The View from the States

I. Introduction . . . . . 397 II. The Incorporation Debate . . . . . 402 III. State Bills of Rights Before and After the Civil War . . . . . 408 IV. State Analogues of the Rights that Have Been Incorporated . . . . . 411 A. Searches and Seizures/Warrant Requirement . . . . . 413 B. Double Jeopardy . . . . . 423 C. Compelled Self-Incrimination . . . . . 431 D . Public Trial . . . . . 440 E. Criminal Jury Trial . . . . . 446 F. Notice of Charges . . . . . 455 G. Right To Counsel . . . . . 458 V . Conclusion . . . . . 46

A Rationale For The Abolition Of The Juvenile Court\u27s Power To Waive Jurisdiction

The juvenile court\u27s power to waive jurisdiction which entails the transfer of juvenile offenders to adult courts presents a topic of longstanding controversy. It\u27s rationale, one of protection of the public, has been labeled by the authors as untenable. Moreover, it is asserted that waiver of jurisdiction in such cases contravenes the very cornerstone of the juvenile court process--the doctrine of parens patriae. Three methods of transfer are seen to exist--legislative, prosecutorial, and judicial. Focusing on the latter, the authors posit an argument advocating the abrogation of the concept of waiver. Justification for this proposition is seen to flow from a presently inadequate and inappropriate adult system. It is theorized that the integration of juvenile offenders into the adult process produces adverse labeling, and enhances the likelihood of physical and emotional trauma. Additionally, it is suggested that requiring juvenile courts to hear cases that would otherwise be transferred would eliminate arbitrary decision- making in that regard, and would facilitate the diversion of status offenders to forms of treatment other than institutionalization

The Reception of Hannah Arendt’s Eichmann in Jerusalem in the United States 1963-2011

-