The Boston College International & Comparative Law Review was published from 1977-2017. The journal published articles addressing a variety of international and comparative law issues, including human rights, cross-border environmental disputes, arms control, covert action, international investment, International Court of Justice jurisdiction, and terrorism.

In 2017, the journal, along with three of Boston College Law School's other student-edited journals was consolidated into a single, larger journal published under the title Boston College Law Review.

Boston College International and Comparative Law Review

In 2014 the District Court of The Hague returned its decision in a case concerning peacekeeper (Dutchbat) wrongdoing during the 1995 massacre at Srebrenica, Bosnia-Herzegovina. The district court dismissed the UN as party to the suit, basing this decision on the organization’s statutory immunity from prosecution. As a basis for holding the Netherlands liable for Dutchbat’s actions, the district court utilized the effective control standard. This standard triggered liability for conduct undertaken either under direct order from Dutch officials, or in violation of the mission mandate. The district court strictly interpreted effective control, concluding the Netherlands was liable for conduct only insofar as it pertained to Dutchbat personnel who actively separated male Muslim refugees, who were later executed by the Bosnian Serbian Army. The decision reflected a commitment to limiting Member States’ liability so as to sustain enthusiastic troop contribution to peacekeeping. This policy could have negative repercussions as peacekeepers adopt increasingly complex responsibilities, especially in areas afflicted by terrorism. These missions frequently involve asymmetrical warfare, and some have become the most dangerous on record. Zealously encouraging Member States to deploy troops to areas under constant threat of unpredictable terrorist acts strongly calls into question the prudence of this policy.

The Legacy of Srebrenica: Potential Consequences of Reducing Liability for Troop Contributing Countries in Modern UN Peacekeeping Operations

Replete with greed, hubris, and deceit, the Volkswagen emissions scandal is not your typical case of corporate wrongdoing. With a price tag of $20 million in the United States, it is already one of the most expensive corporate scandals in history and has caused significant damage to the environment, public health, and the global economy. Dieselgate has had a majorly disproportionate impact on Europe, where nearly nine million of the eleven million affected cars are located. The financial cost of the scandal, however, has been confined almost entirely to the United States, due to a European Union (EU) regulation that allows automakers to change their cars’ performance settings before emissions tests. This Note argues that this regulation, though considered a loophole by some, is not an escape hatch for European car manufacturers. Thus, it argues that Volkswagen’s use of defeat-device software violates EU law. With an eye toward preventing similar scandals in the future, it also recommends ways in which the EU can improve its auto regulatory system, and identifies the costs of allowing Volkswagen’s misconduct to go unpunished in Europe.

Won’t Get Fooled Again: Why VW’s Emissions Deception Is Illegal in Europe and How to Improve the EU’s Auto Regulatory System

In Zuchtvieh-Export GmbH v. Stadt Kempten, the European Court of Justice ruled that a European Council regulation that protects animal welfare during transport applies to the stages of a journey outside of the European Union (EU), if that journey commenced within the EU. This ruling by the European Court of Justice has been praised as it improves animal transport conditions outside of the EU. However, transport companies and governments outside of the EU are less welcoming of the ruling. The ruling highlights the difficulty in determining when and how such a regulation should be applied abroad. It also raises the broader question of striking a balance between efficient and uniform regulation across borders and maintaining territorial sovereignty. As a solution to the issues raised in Zuchtvieh-Export, this Comment suggests the use of bilateral international agreements, which would reduce conflict between nations by protecting territorial sovereignty.

Zuchtvieh-Export GmbH v. Stadt Kempten: The Tension Between Uniform, Cross-Border Regulation and Territorial Sovereignty

Because federalism grants partial autonomy to subunits of a nation, it has potentially broad implications for the prevailing system of international law, which is centered around the integrity of nation states. Military intervention in the internal affairs of a nation to protect human rights or combat terrorist activity might be regarded as more justifiable if the people being protected are members of a federalized subunit. Alternatively, foreign nations may feel more justified in establishing trade or cultural relations with a subunit of a nation, over objections by the nation’s government, if the subunit has federalized status. In other words, federalism can be viewed as modifying the principle of national sovereignty. This important possibility is largely unexplored in the international law literature. In recent years, a great deal of attention has been devoted to the implications of American federalism for the treaty powers of our national government and for the foreign relations powers of the state governments. While these questions refer to international law, they are basically domestic law inquiries about the relationship between state and national government. This article, in contrast, deals directly with federalism’s implications for relations between different nations. On the basis of a theory that treats federalism as a sub-optimal compromise for dealing with conflicts of political identity, the article concludes that federalism does not justify increased levels of intervention, nor does it permit foreign nations to establish relations with subunits in violation of national policy. But the article does recognize an important role for federalism in international relations. One nation should not intervene by force in another nation unless it has some reason to believe its intervention can be effective in solving the problem that provided the basis for the intervention. In a number of cases, federalism may be such a solution. In addition, while nations should not establish trade or cultural relations with subunits in violation of national policy, federalism creates a presumption that certain relations are acceptable to the national government, and thus requires the national government of a federal regime to be more explicit in prohibiting such relations than the government of a unitary regime would need to be.

The Role of Federalism in International Law

In an increasingly global economy, base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS) has allowed multinational corporations to utilize their subsidiaries to move assets and profits. As a result, corporations are able to lower their tax bills, but also deprive governments of integral tax funds, while leaving smaller competitors who pay their fair share of taxes at a disadvantage. To combat the effects of BEPS, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has collaborated with the Group of 20 (G20) major economies for the first time to implement an action plan. The BEPS Project seeks to ensure all corporations pay proper taxes to the government of each country in which they operate by addressing issues presented by transfer pricing and profit reporting. As the plan has been developed by the world’s major economies, difficulties arise for developing countries that may not have the resources to implement the plan successfully. Attempts to implement a universal rule face further difficulties given that an array of treaties addressing these issues already exist. To ease the transition, the BEPS Project utilizes safe harbors—sacrificing equity for efficiency in many instances. While the collaborative effort represents a major step forward, and the creation of the plan and first efforts to implement it are certainly beneficial, there is still a lot of work to be done. Questions remain regarding how to properly address BEPS and create a universally fair system for economies and corporations of all sizes.

Base Erosion and Profit Shifting: How Corporations Use Transfer Pricing to Avoid Taxation

Old meets new as the Italian mafia capitalizes on the European migration crisis. Beginning with the coordination of Mediterranean voyages and ending with the indefinite exploitation of refugees at mafia-run migrant camps, the mafia has found an opportunity to profit from the crisis at every step of the way. With no end to the constant influx of refugees in sight, and verging on a humanitarian crisis within the camps’ walls, Italy faces a serious problem that requires a multifaceted solution. The Dublin regulations, which mandate registration and application for asylum in the first European Union country of entry, are in no small part tied to the situation in Italy. Not only does this system disproportionately burden border states and slow the asylum application process, it also traps refugees in procedural limbo and allows corrupt individuals and organizations to profit from their quandary. In dire need of change in light of the refugee crisis, reforming Dublin has the capacity to loosen the mafia’s financial stronghold on the plight of migrants while also safeguarding the fundamental human rights of refugees and giving them a better chance at the life they seek within Europe’s borders.

Don’t Ask Me About My Business: The Mafia’s Exploitation of the European Migration Crisis

The objective of this paper is to analyze the functions of the Brazilian Supreme Court and the need to attribute to a single specific entity the roles of guardian of the constitution, court of the federation, and moderator of political and social conflicts. It is also important to stress the relevance of the Brazilian Supreme Court as a criminal court, overseeing inquiries and criminal suits involving federal authorities entitled to the prerogative of privileged jurisdiction.

Democracy in Brazil: The Evolving Role of the Country’s Supreme Court

Front Matter

Although war journalism has existed for centuries, changes in the nature of armed conflict and its coverage have put the danger for modern journalists at an all time high. The traditional war correspondent has been replaced in recent years by the independent freelance journalist. While the former receives the full protection and financial backing of his respective news organization and the American military, the latter works on his own, often living in dangerous war zones with little or no training, insurance, or equipment. This new mode of journalism has proved especially dangerous in the current conflict in Syria, where terrorist organizations such as the Islamic State intentionally capture journalists for use as propaganda pieces and bargaining chips. The U.S. government and news organizations worldwide have issued policies and entered into agreements aimed at offering better protection to journalists reporting from dangerous conflict zones. Recently, many voices have advocated for legislative amendments to the Geneva Convention that would establish new protections such as a press emblem or a special status. This will not solve the problem, however, as the major players in current conflicts systematically ignore codified law. The most feasible action to mitigate danger and reduce targeted attacks against journalists is to put an end to the impunity that has allowed the Islamic State and other violent military groups to carry out these acts unprosecuted.

All the News That’s Worth the Risk: Improving Protection for Freelance Journalists in War Zones

Although the international community has addressed whether environmental harm violates human rights norms, only recently has it asked whether international organizations must implement those norms. That changed when Greenland posited that the International Whaling Commission (IWC) has a duty to implement aboriginal subsistence whaling (ASW) in light of customary international human rights norms, including the rights to cultural identity and resources. This article explains why international organizations have an obligation to implement customary international human rights law. Implementation, however, may be challenging because the content of some rights is not clear. In addition, these rights are not absolute. Actions may interfere with human rights provided they can be reasonably and objectively justified, as the United Nations Human Rights Committee has concluded, or are necessary, legitimate, and proportional, as the Inter-American Court of Human Rights has stated. The article concludes that the IWC’s ASW management regime interferes with certain customary international human rights, but that it can be reasonably and objectively justified or is necessary, legitimate, and proportional. Nonetheless, the IWC could strengthen implementation of human rights by, for example, clearly articulating criteria for preparing and evaluating “need statements”—the statements submitted to support an ASW quota.

.repo-1h6ne0y{background:#ffffff;text-transform:uppercase;padding-right:1.5rem;}.repo-1h6ne0y:after{content:'';position:absolute;background:#adadad;transform:translateY(-50%);top:50%;left:0;width:100%;height:0.1rem;z-index:-1;}Volumes & Issues in this journal

Volumes & Issues in this journal