Subscribe to RSS feed


Blog- December 2012 issue

“The members of FJIL are pleased to announce that the following authors and articles will be featured in our December 2012 issue:
Jordan E. Toone, Occupation Law During and After Iraq: The Expedience of Conservationism Evidenced in the Minutes and Resolutions of the Iraqi Governing Council
Sebastian Lopez Escarcena, Interferences with Property Under European Human Rights Law
Markus A. Petsche, A Critique of the Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens
Patrick A. Woods, Inevident Truths: Why Current International Norms and Policies May Not Have Supported the American Revolution
Arletys Rodriguez, Copyright Law: Balancing Foreign and Domestic Interests in the International Arena

The Journal will publish the first issue of 2013 in April, and is currently accepting article submissions for the August 2013 issue.”


Blog- August 2012 issue

Blog page:
The members of FJIL are pleased to announce that the following authors and articles will be featured in our August 2012 issue:
Buhm-Suk Baek: RHRIs, NHRIs and Human Rights NGOs

Benjamin G. Davis: State Criminal Prosecution of a Former President: Accountability Through Complementarity Under American Federalism

Kenneth Gallant: Use of Comparative Law in Determining the Customary International Law of Human Rights

M.C. Mirow: The Constitution of Cádiz in Florida

Lara Talsma: U.N. Human Rights Fact-Finding: Establishing Individual Criminal Responsibility?

Omar Yousaf: “IHL” as “Islamic Humanitarian Law”: A Comparative Analysis of International Humanitarian Law & Islamic Military Jurisprudence Amidst Changing Historical Contexts

FJIL is currently accepting article submissions for our next issue, which will be published in December 2012.


Blog – Robert Rains

by  Caroline J.S. Picart, Ph.D., Editor-in-Chief, FJIL

Forthcoming in FJIL Issue 23.3 (December 2011):

Robert Rains’[1] “A Prenup for Prince William and Kate?:  England Inches Toward 20th Century Law of Antenuptial Agreements; How Shall It Enter the 21st?”  begins with an allusion to the extremely popular royal wedding between the newly married Duke and Duchess of Cambridge as  the popular cultural backdrop on the state of English law in relation to prenuptial agreements, which, in Rains’ view, is “uncertain.”  Legal scholars had hoped that the relatively new U.K. Supreme Court would bring “clarity and predictability to the law with its decision in the Radmacher[2] case.”  Indeed, the Radmacher decision, handed down in October 2010, reversed prior precedent that pre-nuptial agreements are contrary to public policy, but “left many basic issues for Parliament to address and resolve.”  Rains’ article aims to do the following:   1.)  “provide background information on the American law of prenuptial agreements as it has evolved since the groundbreaking 1970 Florida Supreme Court decision in Posner[3];” 2.) “explain the English case law and statutory law leading up to Radmacher;” 3.) “examine the Radmacher case and its limitations,” and finally; 4.) “provide suggestions for statutory changes to the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, which could provide greater certainty to marrying couples wishing to settle their financial arrangements, as long as certain safeguards are scrupulously observed.”


[1] Robert Rains is Professor of Law and Co-Director of the Family Law Clinic at the Pennsylvania State University Dickinson School of Law.
[2] Radmacher v. Radmacher, [2010] UKSC 42.
[3] Posner v. Posner, 233 So.2d 381 (Fla. 1970).


Blog – Alan Reed

by  Caroline J.S. Picart, Ph.D., Editor-in-Chief, FJIL

Forthcoming in FJIL Issue 23.3 (December 2011):

Alan Reed’s “The Rome I Regulation and Reapprochement of Anglo-American Choice of Law in Contract:  A Heralded Triumph of Pragmatism Over Theory” aims to “provide a novel and distinctive deconstruction of the modernising reforms contained in the Rome I Regulation which became effective in English law from December 17, 2009.”  In brief, Reed notes that there is a “significant degree of replication” in terms of “applicable law selection in contract on  both  sides  of   the  Atlantic.”  Thus, there is “a consensus in broad methodological perspectives between the Second Restatement and new Rome I Regulation in terms of the general specific presumptions that are adopted to promulgate certainty, predictability and ease of application” which serve to “protect legitimate party expectations.”  These prescribed rules may be “supplanted” in limited situations to enable “beneficial flexible displacement, to protect commercial efficiency, locali[z]e the central gravity of a contract, and consequentially prevent unfairness, inappropriate outcome resolution and capricious injustice.”  Ultimately, Reed argues that “pragmatism has prevailed over functional choice of law principles in contract”  because “party autonomy now reigns supreme and imputed choice is heavily dependent on addressing the factual ‘centre of gravity’ of the contract.”

Alan Reed is currently Professor of Criminal and Private International Law at Sunderland University and has previously lectured at Cambridge University and Leeds University.  He graduated from Trinity College, Cambridge University with a First Class Honours Degree in Law (1988) and was awarded the Dr. Lancey Prize and Holland Scholarship to facilitate study in the U.S.  Professor Reed completed an LLM (Comparative Law) at the University of Virginia and also became a Solicitor of the High Court of England and Wales.


Blog – FJIL Issue 23.3

by  Caroline J.S. Picart, Ph.D., Editor-in-Chief, FJIL

Dr. Daphné Richemond-Barak

Issue 23.3 (December 2011, forthcoming) of the Florida Journal of International Law features, among others, Daphné Richemond-Barak’s “Applicability and Application of the Laws of War to Modern Conflicts,” which analyzes how principles governing inter-state wars could be applied to conflicts involving nonstate actors, whether they are members of guerilla groups, terrorist organizations, or even private military contractors.  Richemond-Barak’s inquiry begins with the question of whether the laws of war apply at all, in “asymmetrical conflicts” because conflicts revolving around nonstate actors “challenge a fundamental assumption of the laws of war: reciprocity, or the expectation that other parties to the conflict will respect similar legal and behavioral norms.”  Richemond-Barak takes the position that “most of international humanitarian law is binding in most conflicts on most actors (whether or not the parties behave reciprocally).” However, she notes one exception:  Richemond-Barak argues that the  “only situation in which a state may not be bound by all of humanitarian law is when, in an international armed conflict, an opposing nonstate party repeatedly violates international humanitarian law.”  Nevertheless, Richemond-Barak acknowledges that “even when the applicability of the laws of war is established,” the legitimacy of their applicability to actors “who do not fit easily within the civilian/combatant divide” remains problematic. Consequently, she argues for “a more expansive and dynamic interpretation of the notion of ‘combatant,’” which includes religious, historical, and legal traditions.  For Richemond-Barak, such a  “broader” understanding of what a “combatant” is, “would clarify the legal regime applicable to nonstate actors and enhance the protection of civilian populations in modern conflicts.”

Dr. Daphné Richemond-Barak teaches at the Radzyner School of Law at the IDC, Herzliya. She holds a Maitrise from Université Panthéon-Assas (Paris II), a Diploma in Legal Studies from Oxford University (Hertford College), an LL.M. from Yale Law School, and a Ph.D. from Tel Aviv University. Prior to joining the IDC, she served as a clerk at the International Court of Justice and worked as an attorney in the New York office of Cleary Gottlieb. Dr. Richemond-Barak has acted as a private counsel for international law firms and as a legal adviser to several states including the government of Colombia in its territorial dispute against Nicaragua before the International Court of Justice. Much of her research focuses on the role and status of non-state actors, asymmetric warfare, and the morality of war.


Blog – Jennifer Allen

by  Caroline J.S. Picart, Ph.D., Editor-in-Chief, FJIL

Forthcoming in FJIL Issue 23.3 (December 2011):


Jennifer Allen,[1] awardee of the Florida Journal of International Law’s Best Case Comment in Fall 2011, writes a thought-provoking piece entitled: “A.C.L.U. v. United States D.O.D.:  Substantive Difference = Substantial Deference.”  Here, a case involving important domestic and international political issues, F.O.I.A. requesters, the A.C.L.U., sought to obtain records relating to the Government’s conduct underlying its stated policy and reported triumphs in relation to the Global War on Terror.  As Allen notes, “the Government had previously trumpeted the importance of the capture of the 14 ‘high value detainees’ and intelligence subsequently gained from them.” Thus, Allen observes that the case marks “a further retreat from the goals of F.O.I.A., in that the [F.O.I.A.] Act was initially envisioned to promote transparency in government.” For Allen, the holding demonstrates that “the D.C. Circuit’s jurisprudence regarding Government invocations of its state secrets privilege strengthens the Government’s ability to shield information from public scrutiny under the classification exemptions contained in the Act.”[2] Allen concludes with a witty pun that explains her title:  “Regarding compelled disclosure in the face of a validly claimed F.O.I.A. exemption, the Government’s assertion of substantial differences in the information sought and that, which had previously been released, resulted in substantial deference to the Government’s affidavit.”

[1] J.D. expected 2012, University of Florida Levin College of Law; M.A. expected 2012 in Development Practice, University of Florida.  She is also a Research Editor of theFlorida Journal of International Law.

[2] For an article similarly arguing against Governmental non-disclosure in relation to torture and terrorism, see Kate Kovaravic, Our ‘Jack Bauer’ Culture:  Eliminating the Ticking Time Bomb Exception to Torture, 22 Fla. J. Int’l L. 251 (2010).


Author Spotlight

Prof. Todd Barnet talks Space Law in the August 2011 issue of the Florida Journal of International Law.

Barnet’s article, “United States National Space Policy, 2006 & 2010″ analyzes and compares the Bush and Obama Administrations’ presidential policy objectives related to the exploration and use of space.  Focusing on important differences in approach with respect to national security and the militarization of space, Barnet addresses each administration’s space policy within the framework of the Outer Space Treaty, long considered the foundation for the international law of outer space.

Todd W. Barnet is an Associate Professor in the Department of Legal Studies at Pace University, Lubin School of Business.