This volume contains three articles and two comments on current international and comparative law issues. Available online at HeinOnline, Westlaw, or LexisNexis.
Legitimacy Push: Towards a Gramscian Approach to International Law. 13 UCLA J. Int’l L. & For. Aff. 307.
This article ostensibly is the first to apply the neo-Marxist International Relations theory known as Gramscianism to international law. Gramscianism is a useful lens through which one might view international law in attempting to better understand the dynamic processes shaping it and the foundations of the international legal system. This article focuses on the aspect of Gramscianism that sees in society the simultaneous elements of coercion by a dominant historic bloc (or hegemon) and the consent of the dominated. Such domination, in essence, is made possible by hegemony providing a sense of normality for the interacting groups, which in turn creates within the dominated groups a pull towards complying with the hegemon’s norms.
Reformulating the Nuclear Nonproliferation Regime: Al-Qaeda, Global Terrorism, and the Rogue State Paradigm. 13 UCLA J. Int’l L. & For. Aff. 337.
As demonstrated by the September l1th attacks, state-centric concepts of international security are evolving. The increased global mobility of non-state actors, weapons of mass destruction and radical fundamentalism are changing the dynamics of terrorism. Globalization amplifies both the likelihood of nuclear proliferation and the potential range of nuclear destruction.
Using Constitutional Adjudication to Remedy Socio-economic Injustice: Comparative Lesson from South Africa. 13 UCLA J. Int’l L. & For. Aff. 369.
This article seeks to explore the effectiveness of constitutional protection and court adjudication of social welfare rights as tools to address and remedy social injustice and economic inequality. The focus of this examination will be on South Africa and its post- apartheid Constitution that enumerates rights and protections intended to remedy the economic injustices of the country’s past. This article argues that the model of adjudicating social rights in South Africa is exportable to other countries, while clarifying the reasonable expectations and potential contributions of such adjudication toward the achievement of socio-economic justice. Part I ad-dresses two questions: first, why look to constitutional social welfare rights as a new solution when they have long existed?; second, why look to South Africa for guidance? Part II examines South Africa’s relevant post-apartheid jurisprudence, focusing on the novel concept of “differentiated incorporation, ” the exportable process by which South Africa defended its adjudication against claims of the non- justiciability of socio-economic rights. Finally, Part III addresses the question of whether South African social rights provisions have served their goals.
COMMENT: War Reconstruction and the Establishment Clause: A Framework for Foreign Aid. 13 UCLA J. Int’l L. & For. Aff. 407.
Since the end of the war in Iraq, the U.S. has allocated vast re- sources to aid in the reconstruction of this war-torn country. However, much of the funding directed toward reconstruction flows to religiously affiliated organizations. As such, it is important to determine whether U.S. reconstruction aid must conform to the standards for the separation of church and state set out in the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution. This article examines this question by first looking at the legal, political and moral obligations of an invading state to aid in reconstruction after the armed conflict has come to an end. Second, it explores whether the Establishment Clause applies extraterritorially and concludes that it does. Third, this article examines the current conceptual framework used to analyze the Establishment Clause and applies the framework to the particular issue of reconstruction. Finally, it outlines a statutory scheme that will assist in directing reconstruction funds without violating the Establishment Clause.
COMMENT: Russian Corporate Law: Is “Self-Enforcement” Still the Way to Go? 13 UCLA J. Int’l L. & For. Aff. 435.
In 1995 Russia adopted the Law on Joint Stock Corporations (“LJSC”) as the legal framework that would help the country develop healthy corporate governance practices and strong securities markets. The LSC was based on a different corporate governance model, the ‘self-enforcing’ model. The ‘self-enforcing’ model was chosen as a template for the LJSC because it was designed to be effective in countries with a weak judiciary, cultural norms that dis- courage free market dynamics and nascent markets susceptible to outside forces. However, after its adoption in 1995, the LJSC failed to create adequate corporate governance practices and strong markets. This article examines the current political and economic conditions in Russia in order to determine which corporate governance model has the best chance of success. It argues that, in light of recent political and economic changes under President Putin, the self-enforcing model will now be successful and remains Russia’s best hope for developing both strong securities markets and a favor- able corporate culture.
Available online at HeinOnline, Westlaw, or LexisNexis.