Current Issue

  • Volume 34,
  • Number 1 -
  • Fall 2023


How to Destroy the Liberal International Order
Bryan H. Druzin

This Article argues that a policy of containment directed at China could have disastrous consequences on the stability of the global system. The liberal international order, created to promote international coordination and structure global trade, comprises key institutions such as the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank. It is possible that much of the strength of these institutions stems from the fact that nations are "locked" into them simply because they are the only game in town. Put another way, the liberal order is, for lack of a better word, a "monopoly."

The problem with monopolies is that it is difficult to assess their true strength because it may simply be due to the absence of competition. This Article introduces the term "brittle order" to describe an institutional system where the lack of competition gives the impression of stability, but it is, in fact, fragile and primed to collapse. This Article argues that the current global system may be a brittle order. The risk in trying to isolate China is that it can destabilize the liberal order it seeks to protect because it will force China and its partners to establish parallel institutions, which will weaken the "lock-in effect" of the existing international order. If the liberal order is indeed brittle, disaffected countries will then begin to abandon its institutions, and it might quickly unravel. The Article thus concludes that the most effective way to ensure the liberal order survives is to maintain the strength of its lock-in effect, and the best way to do this is to discourage institutional competition by not isolating China from the global system.

Uncharted Waters: Should International Maritime Terrorism Be Included in the Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court?
Juan-Pablo Perez-Leon-Acevedo & Giorgi Chakhvadze

The International Criminal Court (ICC) lacks jurisdiction over international terrorism. Despite related academic literature, no academic publication discusses whether the ICC should have jurisdiction over international maritime terrorism. This deserves attention due to the increasing importance of this global phenomenon in the last few decades. Consequently, this Article considers whether international maritime terrorism should be included in the ICC’s jurisdiction. First, it discusses international maritime terrorism as a manifestation of the emerging international crime of international terrorism, examining i) whether there is an accepted or an emerging legal definition of international maritime terrorism, ii) whether international maritime terrorism is a serious threat to or attack against international peace and security, and iii) whether there is an emerging customary rule criminalizing international maritime terrorism. Then, the ICC law—particularly the Rome Statute, travaux préparatoires, and amendment proposals—and the ICC’s practice on crimes committed by international terrorist groups or involving serious threats to maritime security are examined to determine the feasibility, advisability, or even necessity to incorporate international maritime terrorism into the Rome Statute. Finally, this Article argues for incorporation based on three main normative grounds: i) better protection of the marine environment (environmental security); ii) contribution towards filling important jurisdictional gaps concerning maritime zones; and iii) contribution towards coherence across supranational courts on international maritime terrorism and maritime security.


Legal Remedies to Collective Trauma in Northern Ireland
Katherine S. Thomas

How can a country legally address collective trauma? Northern Ireland faced this daunting question in 1998, when the signing of the Good Friday Agreement heralded the end of decades of sectarian violence known as the Troubles. More than two decades later, the social and economic damage of the Troubles lingers. Years of piecemeal reconciliation efforts have proved controversial and yielded inconsistent results. The "truth" of the Troubles remains a divisive issue, and the question of how Northern Ireland can achieve lasting reconciliation still looms. This Note offers an up-to-date review of transitional justice efforts in Northern Ireland and the ongoing need for a legal remedy. It conducts an in-depth analysis of four legal strategies as applied to post-Troubles Northern Ireland – criminal prosecution, appeals to the European Court of Human Rights, public inquiries, and truth commissions. After evaluating the four strategies in both historical and social context, this Note makes the case that a truth commission, as a flexible and comprehensive transitional justice mechanism, is the legal remedy best suited to address the collective trauma of the Troubles.

Made in China, Sued in the U.S.: the Exploitation of Civil Procedure in Cross-Border e-Commerce Trademark Infringement Cases
Lei Zhu

During the period of economic resurgence after the subprime mortgage crisis, China became a manufacturing powerhouse, with Amazon playing a pivotal role. Amazon's attractive policies lured Chinese e-commerce sellers to its platform, subsequently drawing many more customers with their competitive pricing. This surge, however, also invited Chinese counterfeiters onto Amazon's platform. Major brands responded by suing those counterfeit sellers for trademark infringement. As most Chinese sellers failed to attend trials, these cases almost always resulted in uncontested wins for the brands, thereby granting them access to the sellers' financial accounts as a means to satisfy the damage claimed. Many U.S. businesses saw this as a lucrative opportunity. They replicated the strategies by bringing suits against numerous Chinese sellers for guaranteed profits. Yet, these cases against Chinese defendants likely possess four procedural flaws: the arguable invalidity of service pursuant to the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad, the questionable jurisdiction of U.S. courts over Chinese sellers, the potential impropriety in joining numerous sellers in one suit, and the inadequate notice for many Chinese sellers.