This Article discusses the development of the modern legal consequences of surrender under the law of armed conflict and explores how technologically enabled surrender is being used in Ukraine. It concludes with an analysis of the impact of these technologies on the surrender process and presents an adaptive interpretation of existing norms, leading to three overarching themes.
This article investigates the concept of tenure security within international law, emphasizing the global legal architectures that influence and shape land tenure governance at the intersections of international human rights law and development. By tracing the evolution of tenure security from colonial practices to modern development paradigms, the article contends that international development and human rights frameworks often perpetuate dispossession and inequality. It critiques the convergence of human rights and development narratives around the formalization of land tenure, demonstrating how this practice reinforces Western legal frameworks and ontologies of land. The article examines a range of instruments including various UN CESCR General Comments, Reports and Guidelines issued by UN Special Rapporteurs, the Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure, and the Sustainable Development Goals and indicators. It explores the mechanisms through which these international frameworks propose solutions for securing land tenure based on a resource ontology, highlighting how they perpetuate land commodification, marginalize and displace vulnerable populations, and contribute to the proliferation of racial capitalism. It further underscores the limitations of international human rights law mechanisms in addressing the complexities of land tenure security, dispossession, and the neoliberal agendas underlying and driving global land governance. Advocating for a decolonial approach, it challenges some of the foundational assumptions of international law and calls for the unsettling of Eurocentric and capitalist ontologies of land embraced by international development and international human rights law alike.
The 2011 Arab Spring was an inflection point for the Middle East and North Africa region, representing an opportunity for democracies in countries that have only experienced authoritarianism as sovereign nations. Both Tunisia and Egypt drafted and ratified new constitutions in the wake of their revolutions. Among the chief worries that citizens and onlookers had in their drafting processes was the role that Islamists would have, particularly in human rights and minority protections. As more citizens wanted fundamental rights protected in their constitutions, the drafters had the task of incorporating them with the Islamic identity of the state. Compromises by the Tunisian Islamists and secular groups led to a more well-received constitution by minority groups, while the opposite happened in Egypt. This Comment argues, based on the comparative success of the 2014 Tunisian Constitution, that religious-based democratic states will need to include more protections for minority and historically marginalized groups to increase their acceptance and longevity.
Experts predict that millions of people will need to migrate internally and across borders due to global warming. Currently, international legal frameworks do not extend the same legal protections to climate migrants as are afforded refugees and asylum seekers. While international law recognizes the right to asylum based on political persecution, there is no international right to migrate based on climate-based harms that states are legally bound to observe. This Comment proposes a climate migration lottery (CML) that would be administered internationally to address current and future climate-based migration. Under this proposal, receiving states would agree via a treaty to admit their fair share of the total pool of climate migrants selected through the lottery. Migrants from countries with a high susceptibility to having large portions of territory rendered uninhabitable by climate change would be eligible to enter the CML. This comment argues that a CML can alleviate the strain on regions in developing states that must accommodate internally displaced persons as well as the burden on countries that are near low-lying Pacific island states that will experience significant rates of displacement due to sea level rises.
Write it down. Write it. With ordinary ink
on ordinary paper; they weren’t given food,
they all died of hunger. All. How many?
It’s a large meadow. How much grass per head?
