School of Law

Articles A NEW APPROACH TO THE IDENTIFICATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF OPEN QUANTITY CONTRACTS: REFORMING THE LAW OF EXCLUSIVITY AND GOOD FAITH Shelley Smith* I. INTRODUCTION Among the many varieties of open ... v. Cottrell, Inc., 519 F. Supp. ...

Objections that it was "perceived by all relevant actors, including Georgia, as being a facilitator and a State contributing stabilising peacekeeping forces" 15. Elsewhere, Russia contends that "Georgia never alleged that the Russian Federation was a party" to the conflicts and that Georgia "frequently confirmed the internationally recognized role of the Russian Federation as a third-party facilitator to those conflicts" 16. 1.23 This is a further example of Russia's propensity to prefer form over substance. It is also inaccurate, and a serious distortion of history. Georgia has long made clear its view that Russia is a party to the disputes it has raised under the 1965 Convention, not a facilitator of their peaceful resolution. As early as October 2001, Georgia stated that "instead of facilitating conflict settlement, [Russian peacekeepers] rather instigate it" 17. Georgia reiterated this position on numerous occasions and in many international fora. For example, in June 2006, Georgia reported to the United Nations that Russia is a not a "facilitator in the settlement of conflict" and does not "exercise the impartiality which is an inherent part of this status" 18. Georgia likewise informed the OSCE in September 2006 that "the Russian Federation is a side in conflicts, and not an impartial facilitator" 19. Also in 2006, Georgia's Ministry of Foreign Affairs publicly stated that the "Russian side's strong assertions that it is not a party to the conflict, are 15 RPO, para. 1.29.

In the last few years, the U.S. Supreme Court has issued several high-profile opinions that refer to international and foreign law, 1 igniting a heated debate among the justices, legal scholars, politicians, 2 and commentators regarding the proper use of international and foreign law in Supreme Court jurisprudence. Justice Scalia, usually joined by Justice Thomas and Chief Justice Rehnquist, has led the fight against the use of foreign and, to a lesser extent, international law as a basis for constitutional decision-making. Justices Breyer, Ginsberg, Kennedy, O'Connor, Souter, Stevens, and White have asserted that international and foreign law have relevance to their work and that it is not inappropriate to refer to such sources in their decision-making. 3

President Stephen Verosta). 7. "To watch over the rights and interests of their subjects … is the great object for which Consuls are deputed by their sovereigns. .. ." The Bello Corrunes, 19 U.S. 152, 168 (1821); "Consuls shall, if the local authority arrest or prosecutes. .. take the necessary steps to have the [nationals] so arrested treated with humanity, defended and tried impartially." Mali v. Keeper of the Common Jail (Wildenhus's Case), 120 U.S. 1, 4 (1887). 8. United Nations Conference on Consular Relations, supra note 5, at ¶ 57 (Statement by President Stephen Verosta). 9. See http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&id=219&chapter=3&lang =en (last visited May 12, 2011). 10. See id. The Vienna Convention is thus a part of the "supreme Law of the Land" under the U.S. Constitution. U.S. CONST. art. VI. 11. VCCR, supra note 2, at art. 5. 19. Id. at art. 37(a). 20. Id. at art. 37(b).

The Cuban legal system is a unique blend of many historical influences and political theories. With the reestablishment of diplomatic relations between the United States and Cuba in 2015 and the easing of travel restrictions between the countries, the number of U.S. attorneys and law students visiting Cuba has grown exponentially. Interest in the Cuban legal system has likewise increased dramatically, but little current information about the Cuban legal system is available in English. 2 This article provides an overview of the structure of the Cuban government and its legal system that will be useful to lawyers and law students in preparing to visit or do business in Cuba. It also provides background regarding the profession of law in Cuba, including information regarding the legal education system. Finally, the article provides brief summaries of a few selected areas of law to give a general sense of Cuban civil and criminal law and procedure and draws some comparisons between the U.S. and Cuban legal systems. I. Cuban Legal Culture and Civil Law The Cuban legal system reflects three major periods of Cuban history. The modern history of Cuba began when Christopher Columbus claimed the island for Spain in 1492. 3 Cuba remained a Spanish colony for most of its history until the United States militarily occupied the island in 1899 after assisting the Cubans in their war of independence against Spain, historically known as the Spanish-American War of 1898. 4 The United States' military occupation of Cuba continued until 1902. 5 Reflecting its Spanish colonial past, Cuba is a civil law state that utilizes written codes rather than looking to precedent as a primary source of law. As discussed in more detail below, criminal procedure utilizes an inquisitorial system like that of Spain and France. 6 The next major period in modern Cuban history is the Anglo-American period from 1899 to 1959. Even after Cuba finally achieved independence in 1902, its independence was tempered by economic dependence and by the often-exercised power of intervention by the United States under the terms of the Platt Amendment of 1901. 7 The United States supervised initial elections in Cuba after independence, but was disappointed by the strength of the independence movement. 8 As a result, the

The title of this Agora and the first question it poses both ask whether treaties are in decline. With respect to multilateral treaties to which the United States is a party, the answer is a clear yes.According to the U.S. State Department’s Treaties in Force database, the United States became a party to a record number of 105 multilateral treaties between 1990 and 1999. As set forth in Graph A below, during the period 2000–2009, the number of multilateral treaties the United States joined dropped to just 62, the lowest number since the 1960s. The preliminary data from the first part of this decade beginning in 2010 suggests that this downward trend continues, but it is still too early in the decade to draw any definitive conclusions.

This article reports on selected developments during 2014 before the International Court of Justice, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, and various international criminal courts and tribunals. I. International Court of Justice During 2014, the International Court of Justice ("ICJ") issued judgments in two contentious cases and one order regarding a request for preliminary measures. Five new cases were filed with the ICJ in 2014: two maritime delimitation cases and three cases on nuclear disarmament. A. Maritime Dispute (Peru v. Chile) On January 27, 2014, the ICJ issued its judgment in the Maritime Dispute between Peru and Chile.' Peru had asked the ICJ "to determine the course of the boundary between the maritime zones of the two States in accordance with international law ... and to adjudge and declare that Peru possesses exclusive sovereign rights in the maritime area situated within the limit of 200 nautical miles from its coast but outside Chile's exclusive economic zone or continental shelf." 2 Chile asked the ICJ to dismiss Peru's claims and to declare that "the respective maritime zone entitlements of Chile and Peru have been fully delimited by agreement" following a stated boundary and that Peru was not entitled to any maritime zone south of that area. 3 In a complex opinion, the ICJ examined the claims and agreed upon a single maritime boundary between Chile and Peru. 4 The ICJ defined the course of the maritime boundary between Chile and Peru without fixing its precise