Interlocutory Appeal Research Articles

VACCINATION HESITATION FROM THE BIOETHICAL PERSPECTIVE

Introduction: Vaccine hesitation represents a significant challenge to public health, with serious consequences, such as the resurgence of eradicated diseases, the return of measles and pertussis in Brazil, as well as other immunoprevenable diseases, due to the fall in vaccination coverage. There is a bioethical conflict between the autonomy of parents who choose not to vaccinate their children and the lack of responsibility, as citizens, to protect public health. In addition, the responsibility of health professionals to work in accordance with the principles of beneficence and non-maleficence, so that they always indicate and encourage vaccines duly endorsed by science. Respect for autonomy should be balanced with the collective good, where vaccination hesitation contributes to the resurgence of preventable diseases and generates negative impacts on public health. Objective: Discuss vaccine hesitation from the perspective of bioethics from a real case report, addressing the repercussions of doctors’ instructions to their patients. Additionally, the legal aspects related to the obligation of vaccination in Brazil are discussed, with emphasis on collective protection and ethical duty to promote public health. METHOD: This is a descriptive and qualitative study based on a real case report of meningoencephalitis resulting from chickenpox, whose searches were performed in the Scielo, PubMed and Lilacs databases. Discussion: Varicella is a disease caused by the varicella-zoster virus, whose transmission occurs through respiratory aerosols or contact with the contents of skin lesions. Its main complications are meningoencephalitis, pneumonia, skin and ear infections. Meningoencephalitis is a rare interlocutory appeal that consists of acute central nervous system inflammation and can be fatal. Vaccination against chickenpox prevents injuries resulting from this infection. According to the legislation in force in the country, the obligation to immunize through a vaccine that, registered with a health surveillance body, is part of the National Immunization Program or its obligatory application determined by law is constitutional. Addressing the precepts of principalist bioethics, the present study relates them to the reported case, aiming to broadly discuss vaccine hesitation from medical advice. CONCLUSION: The case report highlights the importance of vaccination against the varicella zoster virus in preventing serious complications and the bioethical dilemma between parents’ autonomy and the responsibility of protecting the health of children and the community. Non -immunization, as in the case of the varicella, highlights the need to prioritize the principles of beneficence and non -maleficence. Although autonomy is essential, it should be balanced with the individual and collective good, especially in vaccination, where protection depends on adherence to immunization policies. Vaccine hesitation is a growing public health problem, requiring health professionals to be well formed to combat misinformation and promote evidence -based practices.

A study on the regulation of digital platforms and the need or excess in the employment relationship

The purpose of this article is to identify how the principles of labor law and the requirements of the employment relationship were applied to the case of the United Kingdom Court in which it recognized an employment relationship for Uber drivers and in a diametrically opposed decision of an Interlocutory Appeal in an appeal filed by the claimant, the 4th panel of the TST recognized the impossibility of a link between the driver and technological platforms. Thus, this article intends to raise the aspirations of Brazilian society in not wanting to import foreign laws anymore, without due analysis by the competent regulatory bodies, running the risk of these regulatory decisions not bringing any benefit to Brazilian society. The developed research adopts a basic review method on Digital Platforms, Uberization and Employment Relationship Requirements, where the procedure used was bibliographical research. As a result, we conclude that the objectives of this research are achieved by demonstrating that innovation has removed 85% of the world's population from extreme poverty in 200 years, which provokes reflections in the reader public on excessive regulation of innovation, if in fact there is a need more regulation, as we have enough tools to correct market failures.

Problematyka zaskarżalności postanowienia w przedmiocie spisu inwentarza – w poszukiwaniu intencji ustawodawcy

The article presents an analysis of the regulation concerning the possibility of challenging the decision on the preparation of the inventory. The procedure for the preparation of the inventory ends with the issuance of a substantive decision on the merits. Therefore, before the amendment of 2015, it was assumed, in accordance with the resolution of the Supreme Court of 23 August 2006, that Art. 518 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) was applicable and the decision was subject to a suspensive appeal. Nowadays, after the change of the law in question, the provision of Art. 637 § 4 of the CCP is assumed to be directly applicable, as it states that am interlocutory appeal may be lodged against the decision on the preparation of the inventory. Pursuant to the provisions, the afore-mentioned appeal can be also lodged against a decision dismissing an application for making an inventory, a decision to reject an application for making an inventory, and a decision to discontinue the proceedings. An interlocutory appeal may also be filed against the decision to draw up a supplementary inventory. However, there is no last resort (cassation) appeal under the current law, nor was there any under the previous legal status. This follows directly from the content of Art. 519 1 § 4(3) of the CCP. However, it should be noted that the amendment of the provisions of civil procedure gave rise to a certain far-reaching doubt. The fact that the legislator deems an interlocutory appeal to be the appropriate mean of challenge in this case suggests that these decisions do not constitute decisions on the merits. On the other hand, if the legislator did not provide for a suspensive appeal as a means of recourse against decisions on issues related to the inventory, then limiting the admissibility of a last resort appeal would seem unnecessary.

As medidas de obrigatoriedade da vacina contra a Covid-19 no Brasil são razoáveis e proporcionais?

ABSTRACT This is an essay based on a court decision handed down by the Court of Justice of the State of Santa Catarina, Brasil, that released a municipal teacher from vaccination. The injunction in a writ of mandamus was overturned at the higher court through an interlocutory appeal authored by the State Prosecutor´s Office. This essay discusses the grounds listed by the judge for granting the injunction and the arguments presented by the appellant, while making an analysis from the point of view of public health and health law, in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court on reasonableness and proportionality of the mandatory vaccine.

The Law of State Immunity before the Brazilian Supreme Court: what is at stake with the “Changri-La” case?

It was 1943 when the Changri-La fishing boat and its ten fishermen crew disappeared near Cabo Frio, Rio de Janeiro. But only in 2001 the Tribunal Marítimo da Marinha do Brasil recognized that the vessel had been sunk by a German submarine. The relatives of the victims sought compensation at the Brazilian courts for its material damages and non-pecuniary losses. However, they stumbled upon a customary norm of Public International Law: the rule prescribing that a State is entitled to immunity in respect of acta jure imperii before the domestic courts of another State. After a long journey within the Brazilian courts, the case reached the Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF) – the Brazilian Supreme Court, which blends functions of constitutional review and court of last appeal – and in March 2021, the trial finally started. In the Extraordinary Appeal with Interlocutory Appeal (ARE) 954858 – currently suspended after Justice Alexandre de Moraes’ request to see the records –, it is discussed whether human rights violations are an exception to the rule of States’ sovereign immunity. While the case has not yet reached a conclusion, some Justices have already expressed their legal views – their votes, as they are called in the Brazilian Supreme Court – offering potential outcomes for the discussion. In this essay, we analyze two issues present in some of the votes: absence of proper engagement with international legal arguments, revealing a detachment from international law, and the possible consequences of the thesis proposed by the reporting Justice, Edson Fachin. Our endeavor is both to comment and to explain what is at stake with the Changri-la case.

Even in Inspite of Interlocutory Appeal, a Lower Court Has Jurisdiction to Hear the Substantive Suit - A New Judicial Perspective in Dr Okezie Ikpeazu v. Dr Sampson Ogah (2016) LPELR-40845 (CA)

In a decision handed down on Thursday 18th August 2016, a full panel of Abuja division of the Court of Appeal seemed to have taken a novel but progressive position on interlocutory appeals when the court had the singular opportunity of interpreting the provision of Order 4 Rules 10 and 11 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2011 (which is impari materia with 2016 rules).

Texas Governor Greg Abbott and His Court: The One Ballot Drop-Off Site Per County Case

In Abbott v. Anti-Defamation League, Common Cause, and Robert Knetsch, the Texas Supreme Court sided with Republican Governor Greg Abbott in a legal challenge to his order reducing the number of drop-off sites for mail ballots during the early voting period of the 2020 general elections to just 1 per county regardless of the county’s population and geographic size. Counties in Texas range in population between a few hundred to several millions.The lower courts had ruled for the plaintiffs and enjoined Abbott's reduction order, but the all-Republican high court reversed and used the occasion to greenlight Abbott’s use of emergency power for non-disaster purposes in denigration of express statutory restrictions.Abbott v. Anti-Defamation League Austin, Southwest, and Texoma Regions, No. 20-0846, 2020 WL 6295076 (Tex. Oct. 27, 2020) (per curiam) (rejecting state constitutional and ultra-vires challenge to proclamation issued pursuant to gubernatorial emergency powers under Chapter 418 of the Texas Government Code in interlocutory appeal of temporary injunction against Governor and Secretary of State). It was the third time in the 2020 election season that the all-Republican high court ruled against Texas voters. This time the SCOTX decision came at the expense of vulnerable citizens: older and disabled voters entitled to case absentee ballots. In a prior legal challenge to Abbott’s exercise of pandemic powers under the Texas Disaster Act, one brought by Harris County misdemeanor judges in April against an order that interfered with the judges’ authority to set bail and grant release, the Court found that the plaintiffs lacked standing and vacated a restraining order against the Governor on that basis. See In re Greg Abbott, No. 20-0291, 601 S.W.3d 602 (Tex. Apr. 23, 2020)(orig. proc.). In Abbott v. Anti-Defamation League, by contrast, the Court skipped the question of standing and issued a precedent-setting decision on the merits, through which it blessed an expansionist notion of gubernatorial emergency powers. This article offers a critique encompassing (1) the Texas High Court's procedural handling of the Attorney General's appeal of the injunction against Abbott; (2) the Court's undue reliance on an opinion by a Fifth Circuit panel consisting of three Trump appointees in a similar challenge brought by LULAC and other advocacy organizations based on federal constitutional law, and (3) the Texas Court's cursory treatment of the plaintiffs' ultra-vires challenge to Governor Abbott's use of emergency powers under Texas Disaster Act, and the ominous ramifications of the newly created precedent. CITE for the federal case: Texas League of United Latin American Citizens v. Ruth Hughs, No. 20-50867, 2020 WL 6023310 (5th Cir. Oct. 12, 2020)(“We agree with the Secretary and grant the stay.”)(Motions panel opinion by Duncan, concurrency by Ho). Defendant Governor Abbott was dismissed from the underlying federal district court cases on Eleventh Amendment immunity grounds. STATUTORY BASIS for emergency powers in Texas: Tex. Government Code Chapter 418, titled Emergency Management (Texas Disaster Act of 1975).

A TÉCNICA DE AMPLIAÇÃO DO COLEGIADO NO JULGAMENTO NÃO UNÂNIME DO RECURSO DE APELAÇÃO E O INCIDENTE DE ASSUNÇÃO DE COMPETÊNCIA Nº 1 DO TRIBUNAL REGIONAL FEDERAL DA 2ª REGIÃO

The Law no 13,105, of March 16th, 2015, which instituted the new Code of Civil Procedure, introduced into the legal system the technique of expansion of the collegiate, applicable in the judgments of the appeal, the interlocutory appeal and the rescissory action, the results of which are not unanimous, to replace the embargoes infringed. The main objective of this study is to analyze the understanding adopted by the Regional Court of the Second Region in the Assumption of Jurisdiction Incident no 1, which narrowly interpreted the article 942 of the Civil Procedure Code, stating that the technical allusion, specifically in the judgment of the appeal, only takes place in the circumstances in which the majority asserts itself in the sense of the reform of the judgment on the merits. Regarding the structure, after the introduction, is examined the technique of collegial enlargement, its nature and its hypothesis. In the next chapter, the novel institute is analyzed in comparison with the infringing embargoes, appeal that was extinguished and replaced by the alluded judgment technique, examining the similarities and fundamental differences between them. Next, the thesis signed by the TRF of the 2nd Region in IAC No 1 is presented. The next chapter deals with the real scope of article 942, caput, of the CPC, bringing some understandings of the doctrine on the subject and, in conclusion, formulates a critical analysis of the understanding set in the referred precedent binding.

‘His home is his castle. And mine is a cage’: a new partial defence for primary victims who kill

This article provides an in-depth analysis of the Crimes Amendment (Abolition of Defensive Homicide) Act 2014 which had the effect of repealing the Australian state of Victoria’s only general ‘partial defence’ of defensive homicide, and replaced the existing statutory self-defence in murder/manslaughter provisions and general common law self-defence rules with a single test. The abolition of defensive homicide means there is now no general ‘partial defence’ to accommodate cases falling short of self-defence. The change is likely to mean that some primary victims will find themselves bereft of a defence. This is the experience in New Zealand where the Family Violence Death Review Committee recently recommended the reintroduction of a partial defence, postabolition of provocation in 2009. Primary victims in New Zealand are being convicted of murder and sentences are double those issued pre-2009. Both jurisdictions require that a new partial defence be introduced, and accordingly, an entirely new defence predicated on a fear of serious violence and several threshold filter mechanisms designed to accommodate the circumstances of primary victims is advanced herein. The proposed framework draws upon earlier recommendations of the Law Commission for England and Wales, and a comprehensive review of the operation of ss 54 and 55 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, but the novel framework rejects the paradoxical loss of self-control requirement and sexed normative standard operating within that jurisdiction. The recommendations are complemented by social framework evidence and mandatory jury directions, modelled on the law in Victoria. A novel interlocutory appeal procedure designed to prevent unnecessary appellate court litigation is also outlined. This bespoke model provides an appropriate via media and optimal solution to the problems faced by primary victims in Victoria and New Zealand.

Recent High-Profile Cases Highlight the Need for Greater Procedural Protections for Freedom of the Press

Two recent high-profile First Amendment cases, Terry Bollea (a/k/a Hulk Hogan) v. Gawker Media and Beef Products, Inc. v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. (a/k/a the “Pink Slime” case) demonstrate the need for greater procedural protection for media defendants in civil litigation arising from their newsgathering and publishing activities. To provide the “breathing space” for the freedom of speech the Constitution demands, there must be an opportunity for interlocutory appeal of dispositive motions premised on First Amendment defenses. To subject members of the press to the devastating costs of discovery and trial as the prerequisite for obtaining independent appellate review is to effectively deny that remedy altogether. This article discusses four alternative approaches to establish such a procedural mechanism. The author also calls upon those in the legal academy to prepare more detailed and scholarly articles urging the judiciary to recognize this constitutionally-mandated remedy.

Dizzying Gillespie: The Exaggerated Death of the Balancing Approach and the Inescapable Allure of Flexibility in Appellate Jurisdiction

In Gillespie v. U.S. Steel Corp., the Supreme Court appeared to endorse a balancing approach to federal appellate jurisdiction, whereby courts could weigh the costs and benefits of an interlocutory appeal in any case. But the Court soon disavowed the balancing approach and today eschews case-by-case determinations of appellate jurisdiction. The common perception, then, is that Gillespie and the balancing approach are dead. But the balancing approach persists in the Courts of Appeals. In a variety of contexts, these courts have relied on the balancing approach to hear appeals. They’ve constructed doctrines based on the balancing approach. And they engage in case-by-case balancing in determining their jurisdiction. Contrary to popular belief, the balancing approach is alive and well in the Courts of Appeals.The balancing approach’s persistence — seemingly in direct defiance of the Supreme Court’s mandate — suggests that appellate judges cannot resist wielding some discretion when defining their jurisdiction. This allure of discretion poses a challenge to the primary goal of the literature on interlocutory appeals: reform. If reform is to happen, it will likely take the form of categorical rules. But if what the balancing approach’s persistence suggests is true — if appellate judges cannot completely forego using discretion in defining their jurisdiction — that threatens to undermine the certainty, predictability, and ease of application of any rules that reform might develop. I thus propose a largely novel approach to interlocutory appeal reform: a combination of categorical rules and a discretionary catchall.

CDT & EFF Brief in FTC v. Wyndham Worldwide Corporation

In June 2012, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) sued Wyndham Worldwide Corporation for unfair and deceptive trade practices as a result of a series of security breaches the company suffered in 2008-2009. Wyndham moved to dismiss the lawsuit but failed at the district court, and then filed an interlocutory appeal concerning the FTC’s authority to police data security. At Wyndham’s prayer, the Third Circuit considered, “whether the FTC has authority to regulate cybersecurity under the unfairness prong of § 45(a); and, if so, whether Wyndham had fair notice its specific cybersecurity practices could fall short of that provision.”In this brief submitted to the Third Circuit, students and faculty of the Samuelson Law, Technology & Public Policy Clinic wrote on behalf of clients the Center for Democracy & Technology and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and argued that 1) Wyndham provided no principled reason why data security should be excluded from the FTC’s general powers to prevent unfair or deceptive trade practices; 2) Wyndham’s arguments would upset a variety of laws that use “unfairness” authority to address emerging consumer protection problems; 3) that unfairness authority has given the FTC flexibility to address the nuanced and evolving challenges presented by data security problems.On August 24, 2015, the Third Circuit affirmed the district court (No. 14-3514), answering both questions in the affirmative. The Third Circuit concluded that Wyndham’s activities fell within the plain meaning of unfair practices, that Congress had not excluded data security from the FTC’s ambit, and that Wyndham had fair notice that its practices surrounding handling of data could be subject to FTC authority.

Process Considerations in the Age of Markman and Mantras

This article asserts that although notions of uniformity and certainty have always been part of patent law parlance, since the Federal Circuit's decision in Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., these noble ends have achieved mantra status. In Markman, the Federal Circuit, in the name of uniformity and certainty, characterized claim interpretation as a question of law subject to de novo review, thus positioning itself as the arbiter of claim meaning. If the Federal Circuit is unwilling to exercise greater obeisance toward district court claim interpretations, this article argues that to achieve uniformity and certainty in the context of de novo review the Federal Circuit should entertain interlocutory appeals of Markman hearings. Accordingly, this article proposes that the Supreme Court, pursuant to the Rules Enabling Act, promulgate a rule specifically permitting or requiring the Federal Circuit to hear an interlocutory appeal of a district court claim interpretation decision. The Federal Circuit, which has a special duty to promote uniformity and certainty, cannot have it both ways; that is, the court cannot employ a de novo standard of review on the one hand, and, on the other hand, refuse to entertain interlocutory appeals. Furthermore, acceptance of interlocutory appeals would foster early certainty and promote settlement negotiations. Consistent with this proposal, this article also recommends that district courts, when applicable, apply the doctrine of issue preclusion to their sister courts' claim interpretation decisions. The application of issue preclusion would promote uniformity at the district court level, and coupled with interlocutory review, would promote early certainty.

Rules, Standards, and Experimentation in Appellate Jurisdiction

The current system of interlocutory appeals in federal court has long been criticized for its complexity and unpredictability, and federal courts scholars have long debated how best to reform it. But much of this discussion occurs at an abstract level. Scholars debate the effects of potential reforms — such as whether a particular reform will increase the number of interlocutory appeals — and these arguments have a substantial empirical element. They are often based, however, on implicit theories of judicial and litigant behavior, not empirical evidence. All of these arguments contain plausible positions on the potential effects of particular reforms. And therein lies the problem; there is no way to evaluate such arguments other than to agree or disagree with the logic and normative commitments at their core. Some empirical evidence could go a long way toward breaking the current stalemate in interlocutory appeal reform.This article offers a means of using experimentation, initiated and overseen by judges, to generate evidence about the consequences of different approaches to interlocutory appeals. Under this experimental approach, the Courts of Appeals would be permitted to take differing positions on the appealability of particular orders; repeated application of these different rules would then illustrate their effects. The courts could reassess these different rules in light of their observed consequences. Although such experimentation (sometimes called percolation) is controversial, it could work in the interlocutory appeals context. As a specific means for facilitating such experimentation, this article looks to the choice between rules and standards and suggests the modest and feasible reform of making the current collateral order exception more standard-like. In so doing, this article shows how standards can facilitate rapid and fruitful experimentation in a hierarchical judiciary, something the literature on rules and standards has often overlooked.

New Mexico

The Ideal case developed existing New Mexico law concerning the "marketable condition rule." The New Mexico Supreme Court granted certiorari of an interlocutory appeal from the district court's class certification order because it was already considering a similar appeal of a companion case from the same district, Davis v. Devon Energy Corp. In Davis, the Supreme Court noted that "[t]he common pre-tailgate deduction issues and the 'marketable condition rule' continue to dominate the overall case." Following Davis, the Court concluded that certification was appropriate in Ideal.

Why and How to Make an International Crime of Medicine Counterfeiting

The article explores why c when the counterfeiting of medicines is so prevalent, hard to detect and quietly dangerous or fatal c it remains totally unaddressed and therefore legal in international criminal law. It is argued that criminalizing the counterfeiting of medicines on an international scale would present no legally insurmountable barriers, and would offer significant advantages over the current national-scale approaches. The authors propose a legal definition of ‘counterfeit’, canvass the current legal doctrines that could be arrayed to better criminalize medicine counterfeiting, including classifying the severest instances as crimes against humanity, and explain the mechanisms necessary to close the jurisdictional gaps that are currently exploited by organized criminals who trade in counterfeit medicines across borders. They suggest that a counterfeit medicine treaty should be drafted under the auspices of theWorld Health Organization, and illustrate the feasibility of doing so with existing and developing treaty law on another health danger, tobacco. Borders should not be considered as a shield against the reach of the law and as a protection for those who trample underfoot the most elementary rights of humanity. * Associate Professor in the Faculties of Law and Medicine, University of Ottawa, Canada. [aattaran@uottawa.ca] ** Legatum Fellow in Global Prosperity, American Enterprise Institute, Washington DC, USA. [rbate@aei.org] *** Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, Canada. All three authors contributed to the work equally. The authors would like to thank the editorial staff and peer reviewers of the Journal for their exemplary help, ideas and advice throughout the publishing process. Their energy and thoughtfulness went far beyond the call of duty, and thanks to them, this paper is clearer and stronger. As authors we are grateful, and needless to say, any remaining problems with the paper are our own. 1 Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, Tadic¤ (IT-94-1-AR72), Appeals Chamber, 2 October 1995, x58. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Journal of International Criminal Justice (2011), 1 of 30 doi:10.1093/jicj/mqr005 Oxford University Press, 2011, All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com by gest on F ebuary 1, 2011 jicj.oxfjournals.org D ow nladed fom

Re-envisaging the International Law of Internal Armed Conflict: A Reply to Sandesh Sivakumaran

The prevailing view of the form which the effort to regulate non-international armed conflicts should take has been summarized by the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in the Tadic interlocutory appeal on jurisdiction: �[w]hat is inhumane, and consequently proscribed, in international wars, cannot but be inhumane and inadmissible in civil strife�. 1 This mirroring approach of emulating the laws applicable in international armed conflicts in the non-international context was subsequently adopted by the drafters of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court in 1998; the drafters chose to include a list of war crimes applicable in cases of non-international armed conflicts which resembled (though was still narrower than) the list of crimes applicable in international conflicts. The recent Kampala ICC review conference expanded the non-international crimes list, further narrowing the gap between the �international� and the �non-international� lists of crimes. 2 Taking a similar position, the 2005 study on customary international humanitarian law (IHL) published by the International Committee of the Red Cross concluded that all but a handful of the rules identified as customary applied in international and non-international armed conflicts equally. 3 Given the traditional resistance by states to assuming the same degree and range of constraints which apply in international armed conflicts in internal ones, humanitarian advocates have sought to advance the regulation of internal armed conflicts by supplementing IHL with norms borrowed from international criminal law (ICL) and international human rights laws (IHRL). The resulting international law of internal armed conflicts has thus been a patchwork of norms which ostensibly apply to all non-international armed conflicts, drawn from the IHL of international conflicts, ICL, and IHRL, often proving to be incoherent, unworkable, and ineffective.

The Tremors ofTadić

This Article considers the impact, or tremors, of paragraph 70 of the decision on interlocutory appeal on jurisdiction of the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia inProsecutor v. Tadić,which was delivered in October 1995. It establishes, and seeks to make clear, that the commitment of the Appeals Chamber in paragraph 70 of that decision was to provide definitions for both of the concepts of international and non-international armed conflicts, even though some impressions might be that the Appeals Chamber tended to run together these different concepts in order to provide a singular and overarching definition of “armed conflict.” In separate and successive turns, the Article explores the specific components of each concept as identified by the Appeals Chamber—first, for international armed conflicts, and, then, for non-international armed conflicts—before testing them against particular facts from practice as well as hypothetical examples, but the Article also makes use of a comparative investigation as to what the Appeals Chamber said for each form of armed conflict when contrasted with each other. We examine the extent to which these components have threaded themselves through subsequent practice—specifically the relationship of the 1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court with the concept of non-international armed conflict—so as to chart the full progress of the jurisprudence of the Appeals Chamber in the afterlife ofTadić:hence the designation of the “tremors” ofTadić.

Sourcing Unlimited, Inc. v. Asimco Int’l, Inc.: Appellate Jurisdiction and Equitable Estoppel

In Sourcing Unlimited, Inc. v. Asimco Int’l, Inc., the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reverses a district court decision denying defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. In doing so, the court addresses two key issues. First, the court analyzes, as a matter of first impression, whether it has jurisdiction to hear an interlocutory appeal from an order denying a motion to compel arbitration of an international commercial dispute, where the appeal is brought by a party that did not sign the agreement containing the arbitration clause. Second, the court addresses the circumstances under which it is appropriate to compel arbitration based on principles of equitable estoppel. The court’s analysis brings into focus what United States courts appear to be doing when they compel arbitration on this basis.

Prosecutor v. Hadžihasanović, Alagić and Kubura (Decision on Interlocutory Appeal Challenging Jurisdiction in Relation to Command Responsibility)

54 International criminal law — Command responsibility — Whether concept of command responsibility applicable to non-international armed conflict — Command responsibility as a method of enforcing responsible command — Whether a superior responsible for failure to punish acts committed prior to that person assuming command — Customary international law — Existence of criminal responsibility — Principle of legalitySources of international law — Customary international law — State practice — Opinio juris — Application of a principle of customary international law — Interpretation of customary international law — Relationship of criminal liability to customary international law — Principle of legalityInternational tribunals — International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia — Power of the Tribunal to apply and interpret customary international law