About CJIL Online
CJIL Online is the official digital-only imprint of the Chicago Journal of International Law. Established in 2021, CJIL Online furthers the Journal’s mission by highlighting particularly timely, dynamic, and cutting-edge developments in international and comparative law. CJIL Online also strives to be as accessible as possible—both for readers and academics seeking to publish. We review submissions on a year-round, rolling basis and consider a wide range of manuscripts, from shorter Essays to traditional Articles. CJIL Online upholds the Journal’s long-standing values of intellectual curiosity, rigor, and professionalism.
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.
Normatively, most nations agree that holding onto artifacts belonging to other peoples is both morally and legally unconscionable, but practically, there has been no enforcement scheme under international law for artifacts to finally return home. Calabresi and Melamed’s property, liability, and inalienability rules could be justified and applied to repatriation disputes through consideration of a mixture of economic efficiency, distributive, and justice motivations. Using this framework to create a model of variable protection of international law would create a comprehensive enforcement scheme that resolves the fundamental enforcement problem that international law faces in facilitating repatriation.
Introduction
In 1889, Ethiopia and Italy both signed the Treaty of Wuchale.1
In October 2021, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development announced a global tax agreement that creates a territorial tax system and imposes a 15% global minimum tax. This Comment analyzes the OECD agreement by using case studies of previous multilateral tax proposals to provide historical context and by delving into various criticisms of the agreement.
In February 2022, the Russian Federation invaded the territory of Ukraine, igniting the largest military conflict in Europe since the end of the Second World War. This Article argues that under the powers articulated in the 1950 Uniting for Peace resolution, the General Assembly has the authority to convene an international tribunal capable of prosecuting the crime of aggression in Ukraine.