Belgian scholar finds fault on both sides of Atlantic, charts midway course for U.S.-EU data privacy

KU Leuven Profs. Jan Wouters, Evelyne Terryn, and Peggy Valcke; Sylvia Lissens; me; KU Leuven Prof. Marieke Wyckaert, dissertation committee chair; and via Zoom, Prof. Przemysław Pałka, Jagiellonian University, Poland (photo presumed © and used with permission) 

Congratulations to newly minted-Doctor Sylvia Lissens, who defended her dissertation in the Leuven Centre for Global Governance Studies at Katholieke Universiteit (KU) Leuven in Belgium on October 1.

Dr. Lissens's dissertation is The U.S. and EU Approach Towards Personal Data Protection: "A Collision of Tides or a Convergence of Waves?": A Legal Exploration of the Differences and Convergences Between the United States and the European Union. The first paragraph of the dissertation gives a sense of its ambitious scope:

This research addresses the question of what the core differences between the U.S. and EU legal approaches towards personal data (protection) are and if there are signs of convergences. The question is approached through functional comparative law research conducted on three levels to reflect the perspectives of the three main stakeholders: the private sector, civil society, and the public sector, consisting of government intelligence and law enforcement agencies. The United States and the European Union seem to understand and qualify personal data differently in words and deeds, but upon closer inspection they have more in common than may seem at first sight. Consequently, it was possible to develop a roadmap for how the U.S. and EU approaches can co-exist, based on the convergences between the U.S. and EU approaches towards data privacy on all three levels.

I have learned and benefited immensely from serving on Lissens's dissertation committee for about the last five years. I myself posited a convergence in the data privacy expectations of American and European people many years ago, before the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) superseded its predecesor EU Data Protection Directive. I dared not then conceive a practical framework for a U.S. "adequacy" determination under what became the GDPR, which is the aim of Dr. Lissens's work. 

Faculty of Law at KU Leuven, Belgium
RJ Peltz-Steele CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

The dissertation is especially bold by European standards for suggesting that the EU might have to trim the sails of the GDPR to meet the United States partway. Most works in this vein take the GDPR at face value as a favorable norm. Lissens rather criticizes the GDPR for exporting worldwide norms with almost imperial ferocity, thus failing to give legal regimes and cultural communities around the world an opportunity to develop data privacy standards that might be qualitatively different or appropriately more or less protective of personal liberty. This critique resonates with contemporary critical perspectives in comparative law, which might note that the individualist model of privacy right that the GDPR promotes discounts the prominence of collectivist values in non-European legal systems.

On October 1, Lissens defended her theses ably against healthy skepticism both from European interrogators and from me. I asked whether the hodgepodge of U.S. state data protection systems, as long as Congress remains paralyzed, can possibly be GDPR "adequate" when the state systems reach only consumer transactions. 

Consumer privacy is mostly what the GDPR is worried about, Lissens reasoned, and the EU might have to settle for the states' laboratory approach. Contrary to what I have witnessed as the prevailing ethos among young people in Europe, Lissens argued that European people might have to become comfortable with the notion known to U.S. law that being photographed in a public place is not a privacy violation.

On the national security front, Lissens, like EU courts and human rights advocates, finds plenty cause for concern in dragnet U.S. security surveillance. But she also calls out EU member states for national security practices that are not so different from American methods.

I asked Lissens whether the U.S.-EU Data Privacy Framework can hold up when it does not require the United States to divulge to European complainants how their privacy was compromised or what was done about it. She fairly answered that European citizens usually can expect nothing more from their own governments. 

Moreover, Lissens questions the competence of European courts in the EU treaty system to apply data protection law at all to the national security apparatuses of EU member states, much less to challenge U.S. policy. While she has admiration for the work of European privacy advocates such as Max Schrems, she challenges the very premise of the Schrems decisions in the EU Court of Justice insofar as they assumed jurisdiction over national security policy by way of data protection enforcement.

Among Lissens's distinguished credentials is a 2020-21 stint at Duke University, my alma mater in law, where she held a scholarship to study as a master's student and started adding expertise in U.S. law to her multi-jurisdictional expertise. Lissens, who herself has taught comparative law and graciously visited my class in the past via Zoom, is on the academic job market. She is a gifted scholar and teacher, so schools, place your bids.

Journal calls for imagining FOIA 60 years hence

The Journal of Civic Information plans a special issue on the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) at 60, and the deadline for submissions has been extended.

Top papers can qualify for cash prizes, publication, and presentation at Sunshine Fest in March 2026 in Washington, D.C. One-page proposals are due at the extended deadline of Nov. 1, 2025, with full papers due Feb. 1, 2026. Here is the call for papers:

FOIA at 60: What Should Information Access Look Like 60 Years from Now?

The Journal of Civic Information invites submissions for its Research Competition and Special Issue marking the upcoming 60th anniversary of the U.S. Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). We are looking for innovative ideas and forward-looking research that explore not only FOIA’s legacy but also the future of access to public information in the decades ahead.

We welcome proposals that imagine the next era of transparency, accountability, and civic information, whether through reimagining FOIA itself or proposing entirely new systems for public access to government information. Selected proposals will result in papers that will be judged for cash prizes, presentation at national Sunshine Fest March 16-17 in Washington, D.C., and publication in the Journal of Civic Information on July 4, 2026, the 60th anniversary of FOIA.

Key Topics May Include (but are not limited to):

• The future of FOIA: What should access to information look like 60 years from now?
• Alternatives to FOIA: What systems could replace or complement it?
• AI, automation, and algorithmic transparency in government decision-making
• Public access to algorithms, datasets, and automated systems
• The role of FOIA in digital governance, open data, and information policy
• Reconsidering FOIA fees, exemptions, and enforcement mechanisms
• Expanding FOIA to new sectors: Should Congress, corporations, or nonprofits be subject to FOIA?
• Global perspectives and comparative transparency models

Read more at the journal website. I serve on the journal's editorial board.

Conference launches 'Journal of Workplace Mobbing'

In July, I participated virtually in the second Niagara Conference on Workplace Mobbing, which launched the Journal of Workplace Mobbing.

As a co-organizer and a founder of the conference in 2024, I was privileged to address the assembly on this year's opening morning, in a panel that reviewed, "What Was Learned Last Year." 

The panel also comprised my friends and colleagues, Eve Seguin, University of Quebec in Montreal; Peter Wylie, University of British Columbia; Kenneth Westhues, University of Waterloo; and Caroline Crawford, University of Houston Clear Lake, chair. Dr. Qingli Meng was again the brilliant conference organizer in Niagara.

I will share more from the conference when videos are posted.

Meanwhile, I'm pleased to celebrate the launch of the Journal of Workplace Mobbing. The journal is an online, open source. Here is the table of contents of volume 1, number 1, comprising selected papers from the 2024 conference.

• Qingli Meng, Foreword, Honoring the Pioneers
• Kenneth Westhues, Address, Top Twenty Takeaways from Research on Workplace Mobbing
• Qingli Meng, Workplace Mobbing vs. Workplace Bullying: Understanding the Distinction
• Janice Harper, The Brave New World at Work: From the MeToo Movement to Donald Trump, Political Litmus Tests Transform the Workplace
• Ann Marie Flynn, Executive Action as the Cure: The Essential Role of University Leadership in Mobbing Prevention
• Frances Widdowson, Mobbing and Wokeism: Experience and Analysis
• Peter Wylie, Shoot the Messenger: A Personal Account of Academic Mobbing

Here is the ISSN-registered Journal's "About":

Journal of Workplace Mobbing is a cognitive, intellectual, scholarly, and academic platform dedicated to the rigorous study of workplace mobbing. As the first refereed, open access journal focused exclusively on this phenomenon, this interdisciplinary journal serves as a critical space for researchers, practitioners, and policymakers to explore the complexities of mobbing.

We invite scholars to actively engage in this critical academic discourse, contributing to the advancement of knowledge, the deepening of global awareness and understanding of workplace mobbing, and the development of informed policies and effective interventions—ultimately fostering healthier, more equitable, and just workplace environments.

Authors can find guidelines and submission instructions here. 

Here is the journal editorial team:

• Senior Editorial Advisor: Kenneth Westhues, Sociology, Emeritus, University of Waterloo, Canada
• Editor-in-Chief: Qingli Meng, Criminology, Niagara University, USA
• Lead Editor: Richard Peltz-Steele, Law, University of Massachusetts, USA
• Managing Editor: Peter Wylie, Socioeconomics, Retired, University of British Columbia, Kelowna, Canada 
• Editorial Advisory Board: 
• Emily Godbey, Art History, Retired, Iowa State University, USA
• Janice Harper, Anthropology, Independent Scholar, USA
• Gorazd Meško, Criminology, University of Maribor, Slovenia
• Florencia Peña, Anthropology, National School of Anthropology and History, Mexico 
• Stephen Petrina, Educational Technology Support, University of British Columbia, Canada
• Copy Editor: Martin Sawma, Sociology, Mellen University 

Roberts publishes critique of U.S. government in crisis, endures harassment after criticizing accreditor

Professor Alasdair Roberts, a friend and colleague at UMass Amherst Public Policy, recently published a new article, "The Crisis of Design in American Government." Meanwhile, he endured a baseless investigation after criticizing an academic accrediting organization.

Professor Roberts generously workshopped his thinking on the mismatch between the constitutional design of American government and the needs of contemporary society in a lecture at my law school in March 2025. I wrote then about his compelling ideas.

The refined version became the 2025 Charles Levine Memorial Lecture, which Professor Roberts delivered at the School of Public Affairs, American University, in May 2025. From those remarks, he developed the article in the Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration, published by Routledge at the start of July 2025 (SSRN). Here is the abstract.

The American political system confronts two distinct crises. The first is the crisis of the moment, stemming from President Trump’s controversial actions since January 2025. The second is the deeper crisis of design, relating to flaws in the system’s architecture that predate Trump and will persist beyond his presidency. In the long run, the crisis of design is more consequential. Over-centralisation within the system has contributed to four pathologies: overload, gridlock, societal polarisation, and programmatic inefficiency and sclerosis. A better-designed system would be one in which authority was devolved and central institutions reconfigured. Systemic reform will be hard to accomplish because of constitutional constraints and a culture of anti-governmentalism. Still, structural changes are essential. History demonstrates that large and complex political systems are fragile. They are particularly prone to collapse under turbulent conditions like those facing the American system in coming decades.

Professor Roberts published an eight-minute explainer video, too:

Meanwhile, Professor Roberts endured this year a suspiciously unfortunate series of events, reaching a culmination also at the start of July 2025.

As Roberts explained on his Substack: "For seven years, I have been asking questions about the governance and policies of NASPAA [Network of Schools of Public Policy, Affairs, and Administration], an accrediting organization for graduate public policy and public administration programs. I have never succeeded in getting on-the-record answers to these questions."

In January 2025, Roberts published an article, "False globalism: Public Administration in the United States in the Twenty-First Century," in the journal, Administrative Theory & Praxis. The article challenged NASPAA for asserting that its claims to global authority as an accrediting authority belie a U.S.-centric hegemony that eschews genuine efforts of diversity and inclusion.

Subsequently, Taylor & Francis (T&F), the publisher of the journal and parent company of Routledge, received a complaint against Roberts, alleging that "False Globalism" contained "inaccurate data." T&F opened an investigation. Roberts observed that T&F also publishes the Journal of Public Affairs Education, the "official journal" of NASPAA.

T&F's investigation found some minor misstatements, described on the Substack, one arguable, one based on a mistaken report by NASPAA itself. Roberts agreed to minor corrections accordingly. Nothing was discovered that would come close to undermining the integrity or thesis of the article.

To Roberts's surprise, the complaint persisted for months. He continued to cooperate with the investigation and provide supporting data for his assertions. T&F demanded further changes to the article. But this time, as Roberts described, proposed changes were more in the nature of added "rejoinder" than mere correction. In July, Roberts refused further changes. T&F backed down and at last closed the investigation.

Roberts wrote, "For me, this investigation was a prolonged, lonely, time-consuming, and costly experience."

In eagerness to protect itself, T&F seems to be running a process that facilitates the abuse of academic researchers while protecting complainants who effect harassment by transaction costs. Roberts is meticulous in his work and willing to defend his integrity, and he enjoys some protection of status in tenure. T&F's process meanwhile facilitates a problematic chilling effect on academics who might be more junior or less idealistic than Roberts. 

Rep. Dan Webster (R-Fla.) wrote, "Power tends to protect itself merely to maintain its own status and control. Principle gives up power for the sake of the highest good and to create the best public policy.... Power and principle cannot coexist."

Transparency research conference issues CFP for '26

The Ninth Global Conference on Transparency Research has issued its call for papers.

The conference is set for June 24-26, 2026, at Carleton University in Ottawa, Canada. The conference theme is "Transparency Under Pressure."

The deadline for paper and panel submissions is January 20, 2026, with final papers of 7,000 or fewer words due April 20, 2026. The CFP suggests a non-exhaustive list of topics:

• Transparency and crises
• Transparency and governance
• Transparency, secrecy, and privacy
• Open government and e-government
• Freedom of Information and access to data
• Transparency and artificial intelligence
• Transparency and digital surveillance
• Transparency in political institutions
• Transparency and corruption 

The Global Conference on Transparency Research was founded under the direction of my esteemed colleague Suzanne J. Piotrowski (pictured), professor at Rutgers School of Public Affairs and Administration, and director of the Transparency and Governance Center.

The first conference convened at Rutgers–Newark in 2011. The conference hosts an always warm and collegial group of scholars who study transparency and accountability from a broad range of disciplines, embracing both quantitative and qualitative methods.

Anti-mobbing scholars prepare for 2nd N.Y. conference; proposals due May 1; register for in-person by June 1

Colleagues, higher ed students, researchers, and practitioners across disciplines: The 2025 Niagara Conference on Workplace Mobbing, July 21-23, 2025, is open for proposals, due May 1, and registration, due June 1 for in person, or later for virtual.

Here is an invitation letter, circulated since March, by my dear friend and colleague, Dr. Qingli Meng, who superintends the conference on the ground at Niagara Falls.

Read more about mobbing at The Savory Tort.

---

Dear Colleague,

We warmly invite you to join us, either in person or virtually, for the hybrid 2025 Niagara Conference on Workplace Mobbing (NCWM), taking place Monday to Wednesday, July 21–23, 2025, at Niagara University, Niagara Falls, New York, USA.

Workplace mobbing is a serious issue in the work environment that was first identified in the 1980s. However, its existence and impact were not widely acknowledged by the public. Instead, it is often referred to as workplace bullying, leading to semantic confusion.

Mobbing is a form of psychological terror in which individuals gang up on a target. As Leymann (1990) described, "It occurs as schisms, where the victim is systematically stigmatized through various injustices, including violations of their rights. Over time, this can result in the individual being unable to secure employment in their field. Those responsible for this tragic outcome can be either colleagues or management."

The 2024 NCWM marked a significant milestone in establishing workplace mobbing as a comprehensive scholarly discipline. See the following YouTube link for the 2024 NCWM presentation videos: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQ7OwOYUlXM&list=PLZGaVSbKSiyNcB5AwAA8Xhp9srGIrKGAe 

We are thrilled to announce that Niagara University has received generous gift donations to support workplace mobbing initiatives. This funding has made it possible to:

• Make the Niagara Conference on Workplace Mobbing (NCWM) an annual event
• Launch a workplace mobbing journal 
• Establish the World Association for Research on Workplace Mobbing (WARWM)
• Deliberate on creating the Niagara Institute for Research on Workplace Mobbing (NIRWM)

While we encourage in-person attendance to facilitate networking and knowledge exchange amidst the scenic beauty of Niagara Falls, we understand that time and financial constraints may prevent some from traveling. Therefore, we are continuing with a hybrid format, offering both in-person and virtual participation.

Registration Information

• In-person participants: $150
• Includes lunches, coffee, fruit, and snacks on July 21–22, 2025
• Sit-down dinner at the DoubleTree Hotel ballroom on Tuesday, July 22, 2025
• Complimentary tour of Niagara Falls attractions on Wednesday, July 23, 2025

• Virtual participants: $75
• Access to all presentations, including opportunities to ask questions, provide feedback, and join discussions
• Receive a 2025 NCWM Attendance Certificate.

Important Deadlines

• May 1, 2025 – Deadline for abstract submissions (for those wishing to present)
• July 1, 2025 – Deadline for in-person conference registration ($150)
• No deadline for virtual conference registration ($75)

Conference presenters are invited to submit their papers for publication in the Journal of Workplace Mobbing (currently in development).

For more details and registration, please visit the conference website: https://www.niagara.edu/workplace-mobbing-conference/.
 

Accommodation: Niagara Falls offers a variety of hotels, motels, and inns. As July is peak tourist season, we strongly encourage in-person participants to book accommodations early. For the conference hotel (DoubleTree), please use the following link for reservations ($152 per night plus tax): https://group.doubletree.com/igabhd.

For questions and inquiries, please contact the conference Registrar, Dr. Qingli Meng, at qmeng@niagara.edu.

With collegial regards,
Qingli Meng

Qingli Meng, Ph.D.
Niagara University
Registrar, Niagara Conference on Workplace Mobbing (NCWM)

House cap of 435 is unconstitutional, prof argues

My colleague Professor Anoo Vyas has published Why Capping the House at 435 is Unconstitutional in the Penn State Law Review.

Here is the abstract.

Expanding the House of Representatives could offer several benefits, as noted by various public policy experts. It could make gerrymandering more difficult and mitigate the impact of money in our political system. Additionally, it could lessen political polarization, which some scholars argue has reached levels that threaten the long-term viability of our democracy. In fact, increasing the size of the House theoretically could impact all potential legislation at the federal level.

Congress fixed the House at 435 members nearly a century ago when it passed the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929. Though the population of the country subsequently has increased by more than 200 million, the number of House delegates remains at 435. This Article argues that the Permanent Apportionment Act is unconstitutional because it eliminates Congress’ responsibility to assess the size of the House every ten years. This review of House size in connection with the census was a significant tool used by proponents of the Constitution during the ratification period to convince skeptics who feared the House may one day transform into an oligarchical body.

Prof. Anoo Vyas
UMass Law

The Permanent Apportionment Act violates various modes of originalism and textualism, as favored by more conservative jurists. Moreover, it runs afoul of living constitutionalism, espoused by more liberal judges. Finally, a formula, such as one that automatically adjusts House size to the cube root of the population, could avoid contentious fights while simultaneously passing constitutional muster.

As I discussed with Professor Vyas in the development of his work, I believe his thesis is important regardless of whether it precipitates an accordant Supreme Court ruling anytime soon. The impact the article can and should have is to spark serious consideration of the dysfunction of our Congress and why it has failed as an institution to meet the needs of voters. Look no farther than U.S. Rep. Mike Flood's (R-Neb.) disastrous town hall.

In fact, when Professor Alasdair Roberts lectured at the law school last week about deficiencies in the design of American government—I wrote about Roberts's lecture yesterday—Roberts specifically listed the small size of Congress, relative to the legislatures of the world's comparably large and complex polities, as a cause of our defective democracy.

RFK, Jr. hearing prompts reconsideration of civil, regulatory responsibility for vaccine misinformation

"Are you supportive of these onesies?" Sen. Sanders asks.
© C-SPAN (YouTube; license).

The showdown between Bernie Sanders and RFK, Jr., featuring anti-vacc onesies, got me thinking about articles published by a former student, later academic and bar colleague, positing tort and regulatory approaches to harmful vaccine misinformation.

I wrote in 2017 about physician-attorney Donald C. Arthur's Commercial Deception by Anti-Vaccine Homeopathic Websites: A Consumer Protection Approach, 10:1 Biotechnology & Pharmaceutical L. Rev. 1, 27 (2017). At the time, the article was behind a pay wall; it is now freely available.  Here is the abstract.

Some internet marketers offer for sale "vaccination substitutes" that can purportedly replace actual scientifically-tested and federally-approved vaccinations. Deceptive internet advertising for vaccine substitutes has dissuaded parents from vaccinating their children, resulting in a resurgence of vaccine-preventable childhood diseases. The Food and Drug Administration and Federal Trade Commission have the authority to address dangerously deceptive product claims, including those for homeopathic preparations that have thus far avoided safety and efficacy testing. This article presents the issues involved in deceptive advertising and proposes regulatory solutions.

When Dr. Arthur and I first discussed the project in the 2010s, he was thinking about a tort theory for liability for publishers of vaccine misinformation. The tort theory is fraught, but feasible. There are problems of proof, such as the attenuated causation linking the publication of misinformation with later disease, and the inevitable First Amendment defense, which at plaintiff's most fortunate still might require culpability in excess of ignorance.

Dr. Arthur split his research into two works. He published in 2016, I didn't mention in 2017, Negative Portrayal of Vaccines by Commercial Websites: Tortious Misrepresentation, 11:2 UMass L. Rev. 122 (2016), also freely available. Here is the abstract.

Commercial website publishers use false and misleading information to create distrust of vaccines by claiming vaccines are ineffective and contain contaminants that cause autism and other disorders. The misinformation has resulted in decreased childhood vaccination rates and imperiled the public by allowing resurgence of vaccine-preventable illnesses. This Article argues that tort liability attaches to publishers of commercial websites for foreseeable harm that results when websites dissuade parents from vaccinating their children in favor of purchasing alternative products offered for sale on the websites.

When Dr. Arthur wrote both these articles in 2016, it was before the first election of Donald Trump with attendant attempts to disarm and dismantle federal consumer protection systems. The tort theory looks better now. See Dorit Reiss & John Diamond, Tort Law: Liability for Anti-Vaccine Misinformation, 4 Judges Book 107 (2020) (not citing Arthur).

Dr. Arthur is an emergency medicine and preventive medicine physician.  He served 33 years in the U.S. Navy, culminating his career as Navy surgeon general and retiring at the rank of vice admiral. He served as chief executive officer of three hospitals, including the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Maryland. Dr. Arthur teaches adjunct at UMass Law and for seven years practiced of counsel with the Law Offices of Beauregard, Burke and Franco.

HT @ Melissa Colten, UMass Law public interest fellow, whose curiosity reminded me of these articles.

Pop culture scholars invite Chicago program proposals

The American Culture Association and Popular Culture Association will meet for the ACA/PCA national conference in Chicago on March 27-30, 2024, and a call for proposals (CFP), including law papers in particular, is open now to November 30.

ACA/PCA is multi-disciplinary and interdisciplinary, and its Law Area has issued this CFP:

LAW AREA

Call for Proposals: Sessions, Panels, Papers for ACA/PCA National Conference in Chicago – March 27-30, 2024

We invite papers and presentations on all aspects of law and American culture and law and popular culture, including but not limited to: representations of the Supreme Court, the Constitution, and current cases and controversies; pop culture depictions of civil and criminal law, attorneys, and the judicial process; cinematic representations of law and justice; papers that comparatively examine the way different literary texts, musical genres or works in art history depict law and outlaws; historic preservation law. We welcome submissions on all historical, interdisciplinary, and contemporary topics related to the justice system and legal practice. Submit your paper or presentation proposal to: https://pcaaca.org/page/nationalconference.

The proposal should include an abstract of more than 250 words, and complete contact information (name, presenter’s institutional affiliation, and e-mail address). Proposals must be submitted through the PCA website. Only current, paid members can submit proposals. The submission deadline is November 30.

Area Chair: Patricia Peknik, ppeknik@berklee.edu

The PCA website further articulates submission guidelines.  PCA membership starts at $50 and includes a digital journal subscription. The PCA conference site indicates that there will be sessions dedicated to undergraduate research.

I'm pleased to share this CFP on behalf of my colleague Professor Peknik at the Berklee College of Music in Boston.

Journal of Civic Information seeks associate editor

If you're a transparency scholar looking for a side hustle, check out the posting by the Journal of Civic Information seeking an associate editor.

Present editor and FOI advocate extraordinaire David Cuillier has moved into the leadership role at Florida's Brechner Center, so he needs someone new at the helm of the journal. The associate editorship is a three-year gig with a $2,500 annual stipend.

I serve on the Journal's Editorial Board. So you know it's a worthy cause.

The deadline for application is October 1, 2023.

Comparative law class explores death, migration, more

Publicdomainvectors.org

Law students in my comparative law class examined a range of compelling issues this spring, including medical aid in dying, immigration reform, sexual assault and violence against women, and restorative justice in Islamic law; and we benefited from Zoom guests, who joined from Afghanistan, Belgium, Poland, and America.

Teaching comparative law is a distinctive joy, as I have opined previously, because always there is more to learn. The subject gives students with wide-ranging passions an opportunity to explore previously untapped veins of research. Everyone in the class, including me, shares in the riches that are surfaced.

I owe gratitude to special guests who joined our class via Zoom to enrich our understanding and skills.

• Sylvia Lissens, a Ph.D. candidate and teaching assistant in comparative law, joined from KU Leuven in Belgium to talk about EU law-making and share a European legal perspective.
• Ugo S. Stornaiolo Silva, an Ecuadorean lawyer and LL.M. candidate, joined from Jagiellonian University in Poland, to talk about Ecuadorean constitutional law and share a Latin American legal perspective.
• A Dutch friend (whose name I withhold for his security), a humanitarian aid worker, joined from Kabul, Afghanistan, to talk about aid delivery within domestic legal constraints in the Middle East.
• Misty Peltz-Steele, a law librarian (and my generous wife), joined from Roger Williams University Law School in Rhode Island to orient students on foreign, comparative, and international legal research.
  

Next year, I'll be on a break from teaching comparative law, as I tackle two sections of 1L torts. Fortunately, to tide me over, I have a raft of ambitious and thoughtfully developed student research projects on which to ruminate, including the following. I thank our guests and especially thank my students for a rewarding semester.

Sarah Barnes, Dignified Death: A Comparative Analysis of Medical Aid in Dying Between the United States and the Netherlands.  Medical aid in dying (MAID), also known as physician assisted suicide, has been a growing concept globally for several decades. The ethical, moral, and legal issues surrounding the practice have caused some jurisdictions to proceed with caution and others to abandon it completely. While creating processes and procedures around MAID can be complicated and daunting, a few countries have managed to successfully implement a system in which their citizens can participate. The following compares and analyzes two jurisdictions, the United States and the Netherlands, that have managed to provide this practice and allow those who are eligible a way to die with dignity.

Morgan Dunham, Implementing Change: A Call for a Point-Based Immigration System in the United States. As the United States attempts to compete on a global scale with other economic powers, the ability of countries to attract foreign workers to their shores permanently is placed under a microscope. While immigration is a controversial issue across the globe, it is also a growing reality. This paper examines the U.S. employment-based immigration system in comparison with the employment-based hybrid system of the Commonwealth of Australia, focusing on its use of a point-based merit system in screening applicants. In addition, this paper examines attempts by legislators in each country to incorporate elements of the other system to improve efficiency. Through an overview of each country’s paths to legal permanent residency, zones of convergence are analyzed to better highlight the benefits and limitations of each system. 

Jordan Lambdin, "Call Them by Their True Names": Comparing the United States Violence Against Women Act to Chile's Femicide Laws. Violence against women is linked to legal and social institutions, as well as cultural value systems. This project compares the legal systems and codes relating to violence against women in the United States (U.S.) and Chile. The objective of this project is to compare the similarities and differences between the U.S. approach to criminalize domestic violence and Chile’s femicide criminalizing code, namely the lack of a femicide/intimate partner homicide definition or criminalizing statute. This project aims to explain the different U.S. and Chilean cultural and legal responses to criminalizing violence against women. Both systems are part of a global culture of violence against women that aims to physically and culturally destroy women as a group. The result is the repeated destruction and death of many thousands of women.

Sara Zaman, What is a Sexual Offense?: A Legal Comparison Between Pakistan and the United States. Sexual offenses are fairly defined in the same manner across countries. The passage of Pakistan’s Protection of Women (Criminal Laws Amendment) Act of 2006 played a key role in defining sexual assault against women after the Hudood Ordinance of 1979 received severe criticism from the Pakistani population and human rights groups. Likewise, in the United States, the Model Penal Code draft of 1962 also provided a definition of sexual assault. The two documents have striking similarities despite the fact that they were written thousands of miles apart by very distinct cultures. However, the differences are still noted. The laws of both Pakistan and the United States can be improved by comparing and contrasting these two documents and incorporating the necessary and important provisions that they may lack.

[Name withheld for political sensitivity,] Restorative Justice Theory: Iran and USA.  This paper explores the forms of punishment and mitigation related to criminal acts in Iranian and American criminal law, with a predominant focus on the restorative justice theory. The purpose of this paper is to form a comparative analysis between the Restorative Justice theory in Iran and the United States. This paper will touch on subjects such as, why Iran and the United States moved towards to restorative justice theory, how their criminal courts framework function, a comparative analysis of the act of excusing the guilty party in criminal cases between the lawful frameworks and the comparison of Qisas in Iran and restorative justice theory in the U.S. Finally, I will highlight the similarities and differences between the restorative justice theory in Iran and the United States. This paper hopes to clarify the United States construct of justice lacks the critical components of mercy and compassion which are essential towards the attainment of a fair and equitable justice system.  As a guidance for progressing, the U.S. should look at the Iranian criminal justice system as an example of how to provide a fair and just system.

Flags from Flagpedia.net.

Expert explains Ecuadorean constitutional law

Ugo Stornaiolo Silva
(via Mises Institute)

An Ecuadorean lawyer and LL.M. candidate, Ugo Stornaiolo Silva thinks deeply about constitutional law and social and economic organization. Today he'll speak to my Comparative Law class.

The Constitutional Court of Ecuador has been garnering headlines in recent years with landmark rulings in areas such as indigenous rights, animal rights, and the rights of nature. I wrote here last summer about the successful habeas petition of a woolly monkey. That case followed a decision in which the court compelled the government to hear from indigenous people in the Amazon before authorizing extraction projects (before decision).

Last year Stornaiolo wrote a piece for The Libertarian Catholic (other work there) comparing the U.S. Supreme Court with the Constitutional Court of Ecuador. While the Ecuadorean court often appears to the world as a monolithic bastion of progressivism, the court in fact has an ideological divide that is analogous to, though different from, the conservative-liberal divide of the U.S. Supreme Court, Stornaiolo explained. He wrote,

[f]or instance, the Ecuadorian Constitutional Court textualist faction would be composed by President Salgado, and judges Nuques, Herrería Bonnet, Corral, with both Salgado and Corral filling in for Clarence Thomas position as the often-dissenting originalist in the Court, and Herrería Bonnet as more moderate, and its so-called "garantist" and "progressive" faction would consist of judges Grijalva, Ávila, Lozada, Salazar and Andrade, with Ávila and  Salazar filling in for Sonia Sotomayor’s position as the most activist judges, considering they have drafted some of the most controversial majority opinions of the Court in cases such that ruled on the constitutionality of cannabis recreational use, same-sex marriage, abortion and the criminality of teenage consensual sexual relations.

Stornaiolo's other work has examined comparative constitutional interpretation and the public-private divide. In the United States, Stornaiolo has been an academy fellow for the Heritage Foundation and a research fellow for the libertarian Mises Institute. I was fortunate to have Stornaiolo as a student in my American Tort Law class in fall 2022 at Jagiellonian University in Kraków, Poland, where he is studying for his LL.M. in a joint program with The Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C.

On Monday, March 20, Stornaiolo will join my Comparative Law class via Zoom to talk about the Constitutional Court of Ecuador and comparative constitutionalism in Latin America more broadly.

With fascinating developments in constitutional law afoot in Latin America and the Ecuador Constitutional Court driving the trends, Stornaiolo is a lawyer to watch.

'Behind Bars': Petroff article explains how secrecy shields private prison labor from public scrutiny

Alyssa Petroff, a judicial law clerk at the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, has published Behind Bars: Secrecy in Arizona’s Private Prisons’ Labor Pool in the new volume 4, number 2, of The Journal of Civic Information.

In a foreword, Journal Editor David Cuillier, professor of journalism at the University of Arizona, wrote,

Alyssa Petroff educated me on the exploitative private for-profit prison complex in my home state of Arizona—shrouded in secrecy because of a public records law interpreted in favor of corporations. I was astounded by her research findings.... She has a great career ahead of her, based on the eye-popping revelations in Behind Bars....

An Arizona native and 2022 law school graduate, Petroff started work on the article with a paper in my Freedom of Information Law class. Her finished work won the 2021-2022 student writing competition of The Journal of Civic Information, an honor co-sponsored by the Brechner Center for Freedom of Information and accompanied by a $2,000 cash prize.

Here is the abstract:

Prisons run by private corporations in the United States have at hand a pool of individuals who are, by law, required to work while they are incarcerated. This article examines the secrecy behind the use of inmate labor, including on-the-job injuries  sustained by prisoners, focusing on the state of Arizona as a case study. Ultimately, the  article recommends that states create oversight boards of private prison systems or allow private prison records to be accessible through already existing public records laws.

Attorney Petroff was a student also in my Comparative Law class. So I benefited immensely and from her presence and participation, ceaselessly inquisitive and gracious, in law school. I share Professor Cuillier's enthusiasm for her budding career as she cuts her teeth in judicial writing at the Maine high court.

The article, again, is Alyssa Petroff, Behind Bars: Secrecy in Arizona’s Private Prisons’ Labor Pool, 4:2 J. Civic Info. 1 (2022).

Student comparative law research spans sport, schools, drugs, recidivism, regs, copyright, crypto

He who learns teaches.

—widely cited as an Ethiopian or African proverb, the statement has parallels in other cultures and is sometimes paired with the Latin "qui docet discit," "he who teaches learns"

---

Image by Gordon Johnson via Pixabay

Because we are reasonable people, we can all agree that Torts is the most important course in law school.

Comparative Law, however, takes the cake as the best course to teach. That's because one can teach it without exhaustive knowledge of the doctrinal subject matter. For no one knows the law of every jurisdiction in the world.

Thus, for me and my co-teacher, a supremely skilled embedded librarian, Comparative Law is a never-ending opportunity to learn from our students. And our students in spring 2022, as in past semesters, had plenty to teach us.

This is a selection of the ambitious paper topics that our Comparative Law students tackled in the spring.

United States, Vietnam. Firaas Z. Akbar, Free Enterprise Versus Freedom to Enterprise: A Comparative Analysis of Entrepreneurship Rights in the United States and Vietnam. Despite pronounced cultural and ideological differences between the republics of the United States and Vietnam, one of the goals shared by both societies is promoting entrepreneurship among their citizens. While not explicitly provided by the U.S. Constitution, free enterprise has impliedly been read into its language through a series of judicial decisions since the nation's founding, within a legal system where courts are bound to follow precedent. Vietnam enshrined a broad right to entrepreneurship into its constitution as part of an effort to transition to a more market-friendly economy. Yet constitutionalism under Vietnam's civil law system works differently, where rights require legislative substantiation to take effect. This analysis explores how Vietnam gives effect to this right and compares this model of promoting entrepreneurship to the U.S. approach.

United Kingdom (pre-/post- Brexit), Switzerland. Alessandro Balbo Forero, The Impact of Brexit on Football. There has been much debate and discussion regarding the UK exit from the European Union in 2020. Brexit had an impact on the sports industry as a whole, leading to debate and discussion by legal sport scholars on football, in particular, the English Premier League (EPL), and whether Brexit is good or bad. The unrestricted movement of players across the European Union is the catalyst for competition and player power. Prior to Brexit, players enjoyed the freedom of movement between EU Member States when their contracts expired. The current Governing Body Endorsement (GBE) requirements established after Brexit restrict player movement, and, thus, players are no longer able to sign with teams in the UK without first satisfying specific requirements that are tied to their respective countries' FIFA rankings. Although players are able to appeal to an exception panel, it is still not guaranteed to be granted a GBE. The Swiss model of player immigration would provide the UK with the best of both worlds. Brexit would still be in place, thus enjoying the benefits along with it, like unrestricted EU broadcasting regulations, and players would enjoy the freedom of movement once granted by the European Court of Justice in the Bosman ruling. The Swiss model satisfies both the FA and EPL, because highly qualified, homegrown players would continue to be produced while maintaining the multicultural, global product that is the EPL.

United States, England. Elizabeth Cabral-Townson, Using a Comparative Analysis of Special Education Disputes in the United States and England to Develop a Model that Better Serves Schools and Families.  Every country with a formal public education system has a responsibility to meet the needs of all enrolled students, including those with disabilities. Many countries have developed laws or regulations that describe their special education processes and procedures. In some instances, parents and school districts disagree about what a student with a disability requires to make progress in school. In these instances, there are several different dispute resolution techniques that can be an efficient way to resolve issues. Both the United States and England have developed laws and regulations specifically related to special education disputes. There are both similarities and differences to how the United States and England handle special education disputes, and elements from each country may be used to develop a more universal model. A preferred approach may be a consistently used three-tiered system that ensures the timely resolution of special education disputes using no-cost or low-cost options.

United States, Norway. Emma Clune, Prison Education as Means to Reduce Recidivism: A Comparative Analysis of the Effects of Prison Education Programs and Principles of Punishment in Norway and the United States. Access to prison education programs differs greatly between the United States and Norway. In the United States, prison education programs are not widely accessible due to issues such as lack of funding and resources. The programs that are available do not often prepare incarcerated persons for workplace environments after release. In Norway, where education is viewed as a fundamental right, all inmates are eligible to participate in education programs, and every prison facility provides access to academic and vocational programming. Norwegian prison education programs operate based on the "principle of normality," the idea that life inside prison should emulate life after release.  Research confirms that participation in educational programming while incarcerated reduces an offender's likelihood of recidivating by improving the offender's mental health and increasing the likelihood of employment after release. Emulating Norway's prison education programs and adopting the principles of Norway's penal system could be a means to reduce high recidivism rates and ultimately decrease the rapidly growing prison population in the United States.

United States, Canada. Judith Patricia Cruz Caballero, A Comparative Analysis of Refugee Law in the United States and Canada. The United States and Canada are world-leading nations for their international law policies. Refugees are a group of the population displaced from their home country due to war, discrimination, or violence. The United Nations created the 1951 Refugee Convention and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees to create a better humanitarian world. However, as the refugee crisis continue to increase over the next few years, the refugee policies of host nations will impact the support refugees receive. This paper examines refugees' procedures, immigration processes, and funding structures provided to refugees in both countries. In addition, the paper aims to compare each
nation's method of handling refugees in a time of international crisis. Finally, after analyzing each nation's policy areas, the paper provides recommendations to help increase the efficiency and effectiveness of refugee response in the United States and Canada.

Netherlands, Colorado. Ryan Gulley, Comparing the Legalization of Drugs in the Netherlands and Colorado: Recommendations for the Future. This paper compares the similarities and differences between the recent implementation of changes regarding drug use within the legal systems of the country of the Netherlands and the state of Colorado. The paper begins with a brief introduction to both systems. Following the introduction is a brief history of the criminalization of drugs within the two systems, as well as the reason for the changes that have been made in response. The current landscape of the legal systems will then be laid out, including where society stands today. I then examine the effects of those changes. The paper concludes by providing recommendations based on the lessons learned from the changes that were made in both areas.

United States, European Union. Austin Gutierrez, SOPA & PIPA vs. Article 17 "Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market." This paper compares the failed U.S. legislation, the Protect IP Act (PIPA) and Stop Online Privacy Act (SOPA), to the currently enacted Directive (EU) 2019/790, Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market, with a focus on Article 17. This paper goes through the history and then the past and current critiques of each legislation. This paper then creates a hypothetical bill using methodologies from both legislations. This paper has discovered that the current critics of U.S. online piracy protection believe that the U.S. should legislate in favor of website blocking. The EU critics believe that the authorization requirement establishes a mandatory requirement of general monitoring, which may be too much of a request from the website owners. In conclusion, this paper decides that it is in the best interest of the United States to let other nations develop and test online piracy protection while protecting current copyright holders through the use of website blocking for piracy focused websites. 

United States, China, Germany. Christopher Hampton, Comparative Analysis of Crypto Assets/Blockchain Regulation Between PRC & Germany to Form a Spectrum Based Guide for Impending U.S. Regulations. Crypto-assets and blockchain technology have created an array of regulatory responses globally, most of which address the risks associated with illicit activities, consumer protection, and financial stability. The choice of fitting crypto into traditional frameworks, modifying existing regimes, or forming bespoke regulations to address these risks inherently creates strategic variations across the board. However, this range of approaches creates a guiding spectrum for late movers, namely the United States, to survey during impending crypto-asset deliberations. By synthesizing Germany's and China's leading, yet antithetical, approaches to the same priorities, this paper reveals both sides of the spectrum (i.e., acceptance v. full ban), details how the respective strategies address the given concerns, and weighs perceived strengths and weaknesses of their enactments. Further, upon consideration of the United States' current regulatory uncertainty and objectives, recommendations are proffered in promotion of sustainable growth and innovation for the industry. Although the collective knowledge necessary for proper regulations is not solely within this analysis, adequate and sustainable decisions can only be made through considerations as equally expansive and flexible as the emerging industry of focus. Similarly limited, policymakers would be prudent to include market participants in their deliberations and promote international teamwork. Ultimately, regulatory clarity is necessary in any regard for the industry to truly evolve, though the path of evolution depends heavily on U.S. decisions. 

Germany, Russia.  Nicholas Hansen, A Comparative Examination of Environmental Regulatory Policy Models in the Federal Republic of Germany and the Russian Federation. Regulation of the economic activities of any sovereign nation can be foundational in determinations of status, power, and recognition in modern geopolitics. In modern environmental regulation theory, two primary characterizations of economic regulations are found. This analysis compares the use of "process-integrated" environmental policy, to the use of "end-of-pipe" environmental policy, and their relative benefits and hindrances. Process-integrated regulatory policy involves a more direct intervention in production processes and business action, whereas end-of-pipe regulatory policy involves the establishment of penalties for businesses that exceed their allotted carbon output, and violate industrial or automotive emission laws.  These policies have disparate impacts on the economic health of the sovereignties in which they are employed, differing levels of legal security for businesses operating in these sovereignties, and these impacts have been modeled and cataloged in this article.

This author posits that the time-frame around which either model is implemented, and the substantive form of these model regulations have an indirect impact on the long-term economic growth and propensity for foreign investment.  This hypothesis is most principally demonstrated by a comparative examination of the "process-integrated" model presently in use by the Federal Republic of Germany, and the "end-of-pipe" model presently in use by the Russian Federation. This article seeks to explain the characterization of the German and Russian regulatory models as an "end-of-pipe" or "process integrated" model and the statistical and legal evidence that supports this conclusion. In addition, Explanations of the German and Russian environmental regulation and their relative impact on the economic health and growth of their respective sovereignties are given.

Israel, Palestine. Rachel Kilgallen, The Unique Legal Systems of Israeli Settlements. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one of the world's most enduring conflicts, the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip reaching 55 years. Within Israeli settlements, where Israelis and Palestinians must coexist, an abounding number of controversies have arisen. One such controversy revolves around the legal system adopted within these settlements. Upon Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza (along with the Sinai Peninsula and Golan Heights) in June 1967, the Israeli military immediately established military courts in both territories in order to try offenses harming security and public order. Technically speaking, Israeli military and civilian courts hold "concurrent" jurisdiction to try Israelis for offenses related to security. The policy for the last four decades, however, has been to refrain from prosecuting Israeli civilians in the military system, despite critiques that doing so constitutes partial annexation of occupied territory. The result is that Israeli and Palestinian neighbors accused of committing the very same crimes in the very same territory are arrested, prosecuted, and sentenced in drastically different systems—each featuring staggeringly disparate levels of due process protections. The International community seems to be in concurrence that Israel's actions regarding its settlements violate international law on many levels. At this point in time, all measures taken against Israel, in consequence, have been in vain. The longstanding conflict between Israel and Palestine endures.

United States, Germany. Samantha Rapping, The Psychological Toll of Being Prosecuted as an Adult: A Comparative Analysis of Juvenile Prosecution and Incarceration in the United States and Germany. The United States has one of the most complex criminal justice systems, which significantly differs from other systems in the world, specifically Germany. One prominent difference between these two countries is how they handle juvenile offenders. The United States focuses merely on punishment and incapacitation, whereas Germany focuses on education and rehabilitation. As a result of the harsh treatment that juvenile offenders endure, such as frequent sexual and physical abuse, their mental health severely plummets. Juveniles are at a higher risk for suicide, depression, and anxiety. As a consequence, juvenile offenders are likely to re-offend post-release. Germany’s recidivism rates are extremely low as a result of the educational approaches and opportunities that are available to juvenile inmates such as therapy, metalworking, farming, etc. The positive reinforcement that occurs while juveniles are incarcerated leads to an increase in a juvenile inmates overall attitude and positive outlook for the future. The United States should adopt Germany's educational approach to its juvenile offenders.

---

Students: If you spy any errors here, don't hesitate to contact me for correction. If you were in this class and I failed to include you here, that's because I don't have an abstract from you. Please send one, and I'll be happy to add it.

Publishers and employers: Contact me if I can help put you in touch with any of these promising law students, some of whom are now recent grads!

Flags from Flagpedia.net.