Sovereignty

By Ben Casolaro
Benjamin Casolaro graduated this spring from Albany Law School.  He studied political science as an undergraduate at American University. While at Albany Law, he was a summer intern with the New York State Law Revision Commission.  He has also interned for the Judge Robert Littlefield of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Northern District of New York, and for Judge Lawrence E. Kahn of the Northern District of New York. A member of the Law Review, he served in his 3rd year as an Executive Editor for Notes and Comments.
He wrote this paper for the International Law of War and Crime Seminar, Fall 2011.  

The concept of sovereignty is an integral part of international law. It plays a role in almost every issue debated today. This paper aims to give a primer on the concept of sovereignty, and how it impacts international relations today.

This paper will provide a definition of sovereignty, as well as of several types of sovereignty. It will discuss how various schools of thought in international relations view sovereignty.

The Paper will also discuss the importance of legitimacy, and will examine the theoretical underpinnings of legitimacy in international relations today. Finally, it will discuss some of the important treaties that touch upon sovereignty, and will give an example that demonstrates the complexity and necessity of sovereignty in today’s world.*
_____________________________
* To read the entire paper, open HERE.

The Consular Notification Compliance Act of 2011

Senate Bill 1194 and Article 36 of the Vienna Convention


By Shawn Smith 
Shawn Smith graduated from Albany Law magna cum laude in 2012 and is originally from Jefferson, NY. He earned a Bachelor’s Degree from the State University at Albany. Throughout law school, Shawn interned at the Schenectady County District Attorney’s. He has tried several cases, argued in the Appellate Division, conducted felony hearings in both City and County Court, and written numerous appellate briefs. In addition, Shawn owns and operates A-1 Transmission in Albany, NY and the Blenheim Hotel in Blenheim, NY. Shawn was also a Senior Editor for the Center for Judicial Process.
This paper was prepared for Professor Gathii’s International Buisiness Transactions class, Fall 2011.


The President signed, and the Senate ratified, the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations Done at Vienna on April 24, 1963. Article 36 of that treaty, titled “Communication and Contact with Nationals of the Sending State,” provides that detained foreigners shall have the right to contact their nation’s consulate. More importantly perhaps, Article 36 also provides that the authorities of the receiving state shall inform the detained person of their right to contact their consulate.

This treaty language, which on its face appears to grant a specific right to foreign nationals detained in the United States, became the subject of many state and federal court cases throughout the latter part of the twentieth century. Criminal defendants who had not been informed of their right to contact their consulate, sought to have their convictions overturned on that ground. Courts interpreted Article 36 of the Vienna Convention in various ways, but nearly all courts refused to grant the defendant’s relief.

United States courts were not the only judicial bodies that interpreted defendant’s rights under Article 36 of the Vienna Convention. Germany and Mexico each brought suit against the United States in the International Court of Justice contending that, by not notifying certain detained German and Mexican nationals of their right to contact their consulate, the United States had failed to comply with its obligations under Article 36. In both of these cases, the International Court of Justice held that the United States was in violation of its treaty obligations.

However, despite the ICJ’s rulings, the Supreme Court of the United States decided a case involving an alleged violation of Article 36 and determined that the treaty did not create domestically enforceable rights, because the Vienna Convention was not “self executing.” The Supreme Court held that if Congress desired Article 36 to be domestically enforceable, it would need to enact legislation to that effect.

In an effort to comply with the Supreme Court’s ruling, Senator Leahy of Vermont, the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, introduced Senate Bill 1194: Consular Notification Compliance Act of 2011, on June 14, 2011. Bill 1194’s purpose is “to facilitate compliance with Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations,” and it requires state and federal officers to inform certain detained foreigners of their rights pursuant to Article 36 of the Vienna Convention.*
_____________________________
* Citations to references in this introduction are available in the paper.
To read the entire paper, open HERE.

The Challenges of Child Labor Issues in International Trade Policies

By Nic Rangel
Nic Rangel is a 2012 graduate of Albany Law School. While in law school, she was the President of Amnesty International, the Project Director of the LGBT Pro-Bono Project, a member of the National Lawyer's Guild, and a member of the Women's Law Caucus. She has been a law clerk for the Legal Aid Society of Northeastern New York.
Nic is also a 2011 M.PA. graduate of the Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Public Policy.
This paper was prepared for Prof. Jame Gathii's International Business Transactions seminar, Fall 2011.

Child labor is prevalent in nearly every international trade market today. Over 215 million children between the ages of 5 and 14 are currently engaged in paid employment, nearly half of them work full-time. When the figures account for low reporting of domestic and illicit work, the “invisible laborers,” the numbers jump as much as 30 percent in some regions. Holding an entity responsible for labor violations, however, has proven very difficult and truly uncommon.

Further, combating child labor has been thus far a fairly elusive task. International trade, labor law, and human rights law is comprised of customary law, multilateral and bilateral conventions, domestic law, and the principles common to the major legal systems of the world. These, in combination, make up the legal paradigm available to us to address child labor issues in the courts. However, it may not be a failure, per se, of the current legal paradigm that has prevented the elimination of child labor, for it seems that there are a plethora of laws and regulations against extreme child labor. Instead it may be the way in which international free trade and loan/debt forgiveness agreements affect the way a government operates that prevents poor nations from combating child labor.

There is substantial evidence that laws and regulations do little, if anything, to positively reduce child labor and often has the negative affect of inadvertently driving child labor underground, into the informal sectors. At their worst, laws that prohibit or restrict child labor in communities of extreme poverty may cause more harm to children than the work conditions they are excluded from. The evidence shows us that, depending on the overall economic conditions of the community in question, (compulsive or non-compulsive) free public education, and higher household incomes are the two most effective (and possibly only) means to reducing child labor. Free trade agreements and lending practices prevent these two approaches from actualization though.

This paper begins with a comprehensive view of child labor: explaining both child labor and its primary causes. It then surveys current labor and trade laws, treaties, and guidelines that address child labor practices in Section II. In Section III, it looks at the debate on how to combat child labor practices. Finally, in Section IV, it concludes with a few fairly straightforward remedies.*
_____________________________
* Citations to references in this introduction are available in the paper.
To read the entire paper, open HERE.