Political engagement across state lines has become a noteworthy development in pivotal federal el... more Political engagement across state lines has become a noteworthy development in pivotal federal elections like Maine’s 2020 U.S. Senate race, state-level races, and campaign finance law as a whole. Today, despite various efforts by states to legislate restrictions on out-of-state individual campaign contributions, only Hawaii maintains such laws. In the aftermath of the recent Ninth Circuit ruling in Thompson v. Hebdon and the proliferation of campaign contributions by out-of-state donors in recent federal and state elections, smaller swing states in the United States are at a crossroads. They can remain “separate polities” or continue to transform into “platforms for national political struggle” for out-of-state residents. This article, therefore, seeks to analyze the latest developments in campaign finance laws pertaining to state residency-based limits, especially in swing states. While smaller, swing states may disproportionately impact the national political landscape, the prospect of increased out-of-state fundraising could allow citizens of larger, inelastic states to heavily impact those races and guide the disproportionate influence of citizens in those smaller states through data analysis and a concerted effort.
Handbook of International Investment Law and Policy, 2020
This article is reprinted from Volume 35, Issue 3, of the Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolutio... more This article is reprinted from Volume 35, Issue 3, of the Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution. See George J. Somi, Bilcon v. Canada: A New Paradigm for Causation in Investor-State Arbitration?, 35 OHIO ST. J. ON DISP. RESOL. (forthcoming 2020).
Generally, investment tribunals have historically treated the issue of causation superficially and without “clarity as to the steps of the reasoning that are being employed in order to establish causation.” The international legal landscape, however, has been ripe for a consensus as the increasing complexity of interstate and state-investor relationships and the rising damages claims present even higher stakes as to determining how the harm originates. Recently, some international investment tribunals and litigants have started to focus on the issue of causation, treating causation as its own separate “step” and as separate from the determination of “liability” and the calculation of “quantum.” On January 10, 2019, when the arbitral tribunal in Bilcon v. Canada rendered its Award on Damages, it established a high burden for a claimant to meet in order to establish a causal link that demonstrating that a respondent’s liability primarily led to the claimant’s injuries. The Bilcon decision not only clarifies for future international arbitral panels how causation is to be situated between the breach and quantum inquiries, but it also demonstrates how this high threshold test, grounded in the Chorzów and Genocide cases, situates the issue of lost profits within the causation inquiry. Consequently, Bilcon may provide a primer on causation analysis for future North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Chapter Eleven tribunals. Part I of this chapter will explore how Bilcon clarifies and situates the causation analysis – an emerging subject that has befuddled some arbitral tribunals – between the issues of breach and quantum. Next, Part II will demonstrate how Bilcon places upon claimants a high burden of causality, based on the Chorzów and Genocide cases, while utilizing the doctrine of factual causation to determine quantum. Finally, Part III will proceed to contextualize the issue of lost profits within this causality analysis by comparing the Bilcon majority’s decision with that of the concurrence. This Part will assess the strengths and weaknesses of the arbitrators’ approach to lost profits.
Recommended Citation: George Somi, Syria under Pinheiro: Reformulating Syrian Domestic Law for De... more Recommended Citation: George Somi, Syria under Pinheiro: Reformulating Syrian Domestic Law for Decentralized Reconstruction, 43 Brook. J. Int'l L. 717 (2018).
Available at: https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/bjil/vol43/iss2/16
According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, since 2011, the Syrian conflict has generated roughly 5.4 million refugees, while approximately 6.5 million people are internally displaced within the country, making it the largest internally displaced population in the world. Rebuilding Syria’s infrastructure, homes, and businesses will be an immense task, with cost estimates ranging between $250–$350 billion USD. The Syrian government and the international community have already started to contemplate postwar reconstruction and even wartime reconstruction, despite the ongoing fighting. This Note operates under the assumption that the Syrian government of President Bashar al-Assad will, at a minimum, remain in charge of at least what has been termed “Useful Syria.” Furthermore, it recognizes that reconstruction is a process that begins during war and that the notion that Syria will be able to implement a grand, centralized reconstruction project after the war’s cessation is an unrealistic paradigm. It is imperative, then, that policymakers, negotiators, and lawmakers representing Syria’s warring parties debate and negotiate existing Syrian domestic law, which appears likely to persist in some form, in order to anticipate and accommodate the rights of displaced Syrians and Syrian refugees.
A proper investigation of the obstacles to Syrian refugees’ achievement of appropriate post-conflict relief and housing restitution necessitates an understanding of the flaws in Housing, Land, and Property rights in prewar Syria. Rapid urbanization and the proliferation of informal housing spurred by neoliberal government policies led to massive discontent in the country.
This Note analyzes the Principles on Housing and Property Restitution for Refugees and Displaced Persons (“Pinheiro Principles”) and argues that while they provide valuable contributions to an increased understanding of the needs of post-conflict societies, room may be allotted to tailor a more context-specific approach to remedying the rights of displaced Syrian persons and refugees. This Note proceeds to analyze and prescribe amendments and additions to existing Syrian domestic law so that it better conforms to the end goals of the Pinheiro Principles. Syria’s Local Administrative Law, Legislative Decree Law 107, if amended to democratize the institution of the Syrian governorship, could be an effective starting point that presents decentralization as a pivotal tool to empower sustainable reconstruction efforts for refugees and displaced persons. Its incorporation, alongside an amended version of Syria’s Public-Private Partnership Law, Legislative Decree Law 5, could safeguard against abuses directed against refugees’ and displaced persons’ rights under the Pinheiro Principles, strengthen ordinary Syrians’ voices in the deliberations concerning their country’s bottom-up reconstruction, and enhance and strengthen demoralized and underdeveloped local Syrian institutions.
Generally, investment tribunals have historically treated the issue of causation superficially an... more Generally, investment tribunals have historically treated the issue of causation superficially and without “clarity as to the steps of the reasoning that are being employed in order to establish causation.” The international legal landscape, however, has been ripe for a consensus as the increasing complexity of interstate and state-investor relationships and the rising damages claims present even higher stakes as to determining how the harm originates. Recently, some international investment tribunals and litigants have started to focus on the issue of causation, treating causation as its own separate “step” and as separate from the determination of “liability” and the calculation of “quantum.” On January 10, 2019, when the arbitral tribunal in Bilcon v. Canada rendered its Award on Damages, it established a high burden for a claimant to meet in order to establish a causal link that demonstrating that a respondent’s liability primarily led to the claimant’s injuries. The Bilcon decision not only clarifies for future international arbitral panels how causation is to be situated between the breach and quantum inquiries, but it also demonstrates how this high threshold test, grounded in the Chorzów and Genocide cases, situates the issue of lost profits within the causation inquiry. Consequently, Bilcon may provide a primer on causation analysis for future North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Chapter Eleven tribunals. Part I of this Article will explore how Bilcon clarifies and situates the causation analysis—an emerging subject that has befuddled some arbitral tribunals—between the issues of breach and quantum. Next, Part II will demonstrate how Bilcon places upon claimants a high burden of causality, based on the Chorzów and Genocide cases, while utilizing the doctrine of factual causation to determine quantum. Finally, Part III will proceed to contextualize the issue of lost profits within this causality analysis by comparing the Bilcon majority’s decision with that of the concurrence. This Part will assess the strengths and weaknesses of the arbitrators’ approach to lost profits.
Political engagement across state lines has become a noteworthy development in pivotal federal el... more Political engagement across state lines has become a noteworthy development in pivotal federal elections like Maine’s 2020 U.S. Senate race, state-level races, and campaign finance law as a whole. Today, despite various efforts by states to legislate restrictions on out-of-state individual campaign contributions, only Hawaii maintains such laws. In the aftermath of the recent Ninth Circuit ruling in Thompson v. Hebdon and the proliferation of campaign contributions by out-of-state donors in recent federal and state elections, smaller swing states in the United States are at a crossroads. They can remain “separate polities” or continue to transform into “platforms for national political struggle” for out-of-state residents. This article, therefore, seeks to analyze the latest developments in campaign finance laws pertaining to state residency-based limits, especially in swing states. While smaller, swing states may disproportionately impact the national political landscape, the prospect of increased out-of-state fundraising could allow citizens of larger, inelastic states to heavily impact those races and guide the disproportionate influence of citizens in those smaller states through data analysis and a concerted effort.
Handbook of International Investment Law and Policy, 2020
This article is reprinted from Volume 35, Issue 3, of the Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolutio... more This article is reprinted from Volume 35, Issue 3, of the Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution. See George J. Somi, Bilcon v. Canada: A New Paradigm for Causation in Investor-State Arbitration?, 35 OHIO ST. J. ON DISP. RESOL. (forthcoming 2020).
Generally, investment tribunals have historically treated the issue of causation superficially and without “clarity as to the steps of the reasoning that are being employed in order to establish causation.” The international legal landscape, however, has been ripe for a consensus as the increasing complexity of interstate and state-investor relationships and the rising damages claims present even higher stakes as to determining how the harm originates. Recently, some international investment tribunals and litigants have started to focus on the issue of causation, treating causation as its own separate “step” and as separate from the determination of “liability” and the calculation of “quantum.” On January 10, 2019, when the arbitral tribunal in Bilcon v. Canada rendered its Award on Damages, it established a high burden for a claimant to meet in order to establish a causal link that demonstrating that a respondent’s liability primarily led to the claimant’s injuries. The Bilcon decision not only clarifies for future international arbitral panels how causation is to be situated between the breach and quantum inquiries, but it also demonstrates how this high threshold test, grounded in the Chorzów and Genocide cases, situates the issue of lost profits within the causation inquiry. Consequently, Bilcon may provide a primer on causation analysis for future North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Chapter Eleven tribunals. Part I of this chapter will explore how Bilcon clarifies and situates the causation analysis – an emerging subject that has befuddled some arbitral tribunals – between the issues of breach and quantum. Next, Part II will demonstrate how Bilcon places upon claimants a high burden of causality, based on the Chorzów and Genocide cases, while utilizing the doctrine of factual causation to determine quantum. Finally, Part III will proceed to contextualize the issue of lost profits within this causality analysis by comparing the Bilcon majority’s decision with that of the concurrence. This Part will assess the strengths and weaknesses of the arbitrators’ approach to lost profits.
Recommended Citation: George Somi, Syria under Pinheiro: Reformulating Syrian Domestic Law for De... more Recommended Citation: George Somi, Syria under Pinheiro: Reformulating Syrian Domestic Law for Decentralized Reconstruction, 43 Brook. J. Int'l L. 717 (2018).
Available at: https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/bjil/vol43/iss2/16
According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, since 2011, the Syrian conflict has generated roughly 5.4 million refugees, while approximately 6.5 million people are internally displaced within the country, making it the largest internally displaced population in the world. Rebuilding Syria’s infrastructure, homes, and businesses will be an immense task, with cost estimates ranging between $250–$350 billion USD. The Syrian government and the international community have already started to contemplate postwar reconstruction and even wartime reconstruction, despite the ongoing fighting. This Note operates under the assumption that the Syrian government of President Bashar al-Assad will, at a minimum, remain in charge of at least what has been termed “Useful Syria.” Furthermore, it recognizes that reconstruction is a process that begins during war and that the notion that Syria will be able to implement a grand, centralized reconstruction project after the war’s cessation is an unrealistic paradigm. It is imperative, then, that policymakers, negotiators, and lawmakers representing Syria’s warring parties debate and negotiate existing Syrian domestic law, which appears likely to persist in some form, in order to anticipate and accommodate the rights of displaced Syrians and Syrian refugees.
A proper investigation of the obstacles to Syrian refugees’ achievement of appropriate post-conflict relief and housing restitution necessitates an understanding of the flaws in Housing, Land, and Property rights in prewar Syria. Rapid urbanization and the proliferation of informal housing spurred by neoliberal government policies led to massive discontent in the country.
This Note analyzes the Principles on Housing and Property Restitution for Refugees and Displaced Persons (“Pinheiro Principles”) and argues that while they provide valuable contributions to an increased understanding of the needs of post-conflict societies, room may be allotted to tailor a more context-specific approach to remedying the rights of displaced Syrian persons and refugees. This Note proceeds to analyze and prescribe amendments and additions to existing Syrian domestic law so that it better conforms to the end goals of the Pinheiro Principles. Syria’s Local Administrative Law, Legislative Decree Law 107, if amended to democratize the institution of the Syrian governorship, could be an effective starting point that presents decentralization as a pivotal tool to empower sustainable reconstruction efforts for refugees and displaced persons. Its incorporation, alongside an amended version of Syria’s Public-Private Partnership Law, Legislative Decree Law 5, could safeguard against abuses directed against refugees’ and displaced persons’ rights under the Pinheiro Principles, strengthen ordinary Syrians’ voices in the deliberations concerning their country’s bottom-up reconstruction, and enhance and strengthen demoralized and underdeveloped local Syrian institutions.
Generally, investment tribunals have historically treated the issue of causation superficially an... more Generally, investment tribunals have historically treated the issue of causation superficially and without “clarity as to the steps of the reasoning that are being employed in order to establish causation.” The international legal landscape, however, has been ripe for a consensus as the increasing complexity of interstate and state-investor relationships and the rising damages claims present even higher stakes as to determining how the harm originates. Recently, some international investment tribunals and litigants have started to focus on the issue of causation, treating causation as its own separate “step” and as separate from the determination of “liability” and the calculation of “quantum.” On January 10, 2019, when the arbitral tribunal in Bilcon v. Canada rendered its Award on Damages, it established a high burden for a claimant to meet in order to establish a causal link that demonstrating that a respondent’s liability primarily led to the claimant’s injuries. The Bilcon decision not only clarifies for future international arbitral panels how causation is to be situated between the breach and quantum inquiries, but it also demonstrates how this high threshold test, grounded in the Chorzów and Genocide cases, situates the issue of lost profits within the causation inquiry. Consequently, Bilcon may provide a primer on causation analysis for future North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Chapter Eleven tribunals. Part I of this Article will explore how Bilcon clarifies and situates the causation analysis—an emerging subject that has befuddled some arbitral tribunals—between the issues of breach and quantum. Next, Part II will demonstrate how Bilcon places upon claimants a high burden of causality, based on the Chorzów and Genocide cases, while utilizing the doctrine of factual causation to determine quantum. Finally, Part III will proceed to contextualize the issue of lost profits within this causality analysis by comparing the Bilcon majority’s decision with that of the concurrence. This Part will assess the strengths and weaknesses of the arbitrators’ approach to lost profits.
Uploads
Papers by George Somi
Generally, investment tribunals have historically treated the issue of causation superficially and without “clarity as to the steps of the reasoning that are being employed in order to establish causation.” The international legal landscape, however, has been ripe for a consensus as the increasing complexity of interstate and state-investor relationships and the rising damages claims present even higher stakes as to determining how the harm originates. Recently, some international investment tribunals and litigants have started to focus on the issue of causation, treating causation as its own separate “step” and as separate from the determination of “liability” and the calculation of “quantum.” On January 10, 2019, when the arbitral tribunal in Bilcon v. Canada rendered its Award on Damages, it established a high burden for a claimant to meet in order to establish a causal link that demonstrating that a respondent’s liability primarily led to the claimant’s injuries. The Bilcon decision not only clarifies for future international arbitral panels how causation is to be situated between the breach and quantum inquiries, but it also demonstrates how this high threshold test, grounded in the Chorzów and Genocide cases, situates the issue of lost profits within the causation inquiry. Consequently, Bilcon may provide a primer on causation analysis for future North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Chapter Eleven tribunals. Part I of this chapter will explore how Bilcon clarifies and situates the causation analysis – an emerging subject that has befuddled some arbitral tribunals – between the issues of breach and quantum. Next, Part II will demonstrate how Bilcon places upon claimants a high burden of causality, based on the Chorzów and Genocide cases, while utilizing the doctrine of factual causation to determine quantum. Finally, Part III will proceed to contextualize the issue of lost profits within this causality analysis by comparing the Bilcon majority’s decision with that of the concurrence. This Part will assess the strengths and weaknesses of the arbitrators’ approach to lost profits.
Available at: https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/bjil/vol43/iss2/16
According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, since 2011, the Syrian conflict has generated roughly 5.4 million refugees, while approximately 6.5 million people are internally displaced within the country, making it the largest internally displaced population in the world. Rebuilding Syria’s infrastructure, homes, and businesses will be an immense task, with cost estimates ranging between $250–$350 billion USD. The Syrian government and the international community have already started to contemplate postwar reconstruction and even wartime reconstruction, despite the ongoing fighting. This Note operates under the assumption that the Syrian government of President Bashar al-Assad will, at a minimum, remain in charge of at least what has been termed “Useful Syria.” Furthermore, it recognizes that reconstruction is a process that begins during war and that the notion that Syria will be able to implement a grand, centralized reconstruction project after the war’s cessation is an unrealistic paradigm. It is imperative, then, that policymakers, negotiators, and lawmakers representing Syria’s warring parties debate and negotiate existing Syrian domestic law, which appears likely to persist in some form, in order to anticipate and accommodate the rights of displaced Syrians and Syrian refugees.
A proper investigation of the obstacles to Syrian refugees’ achievement of appropriate post-conflict relief and housing restitution necessitates an understanding of the flaws in Housing, Land, and Property rights in prewar Syria. Rapid urbanization and the proliferation of informal housing spurred by neoliberal government policies led to massive discontent in the country.
This Note analyzes the Principles on Housing and Property Restitution for Refugees and Displaced Persons (“Pinheiro Principles”) and argues that while they provide valuable contributions to an increased understanding of the needs of post-conflict societies, room may be allotted to tailor a more context-specific approach to remedying the rights of displaced Syrian persons and refugees. This Note proceeds to analyze and prescribe amendments and additions to existing Syrian domestic law so that it better conforms to the end goals of the Pinheiro Principles. Syria’s Local Administrative Law, Legislative Decree Law 107, if amended to democratize the institution of the Syrian governorship, could be an effective starting point that presents decentralization as a pivotal tool to empower sustainable reconstruction efforts for refugees and displaced persons. Its incorporation, alongside an amended version of Syria’s Public-Private Partnership Law, Legislative Decree Law 5, could safeguard against abuses directed against refugees’ and displaced persons’ rights under the Pinheiro Principles, strengthen ordinary Syrians’ voices in the deliberations concerning their country’s bottom-up reconstruction, and enhance and strengthen demoralized and underdeveloped local Syrian institutions.
Drafts by George Somi
Generally, investment tribunals have historically treated the issue of causation superficially and without “clarity as to the steps of the reasoning that are being employed in order to establish causation.” The international legal landscape, however, has been ripe for a consensus as the increasing complexity of interstate and state-investor relationships and the rising damages claims present even higher stakes as to determining how the harm originates. Recently, some international investment tribunals and litigants have started to focus on the issue of causation, treating causation as its own separate “step” and as separate from the determination of “liability” and the calculation of “quantum.” On January 10, 2019, when the arbitral tribunal in Bilcon v. Canada rendered its Award on Damages, it established a high burden for a claimant to meet in order to establish a causal link that demonstrating that a respondent’s liability primarily led to the claimant’s injuries. The Bilcon decision not only clarifies for future international arbitral panels how causation is to be situated between the breach and quantum inquiries, but it also demonstrates how this high threshold test, grounded in the Chorzów and Genocide cases, situates the issue of lost profits within the causation inquiry. Consequently, Bilcon may provide a primer on causation analysis for future North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Chapter Eleven tribunals. Part I of this chapter will explore how Bilcon clarifies and situates the causation analysis – an emerging subject that has befuddled some arbitral tribunals – between the issues of breach and quantum. Next, Part II will demonstrate how Bilcon places upon claimants a high burden of causality, based on the Chorzów and Genocide cases, while utilizing the doctrine of factual causation to determine quantum. Finally, Part III will proceed to contextualize the issue of lost profits within this causality analysis by comparing the Bilcon majority’s decision with that of the concurrence. This Part will assess the strengths and weaknesses of the arbitrators’ approach to lost profits.
Available at: https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/bjil/vol43/iss2/16
According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, since 2011, the Syrian conflict has generated roughly 5.4 million refugees, while approximately 6.5 million people are internally displaced within the country, making it the largest internally displaced population in the world. Rebuilding Syria’s infrastructure, homes, and businesses will be an immense task, with cost estimates ranging between $250–$350 billion USD. The Syrian government and the international community have already started to contemplate postwar reconstruction and even wartime reconstruction, despite the ongoing fighting. This Note operates under the assumption that the Syrian government of President Bashar al-Assad will, at a minimum, remain in charge of at least what has been termed “Useful Syria.” Furthermore, it recognizes that reconstruction is a process that begins during war and that the notion that Syria will be able to implement a grand, centralized reconstruction project after the war’s cessation is an unrealistic paradigm. It is imperative, then, that policymakers, negotiators, and lawmakers representing Syria’s warring parties debate and negotiate existing Syrian domestic law, which appears likely to persist in some form, in order to anticipate and accommodate the rights of displaced Syrians and Syrian refugees.
A proper investigation of the obstacles to Syrian refugees’ achievement of appropriate post-conflict relief and housing restitution necessitates an understanding of the flaws in Housing, Land, and Property rights in prewar Syria. Rapid urbanization and the proliferation of informal housing spurred by neoliberal government policies led to massive discontent in the country.
This Note analyzes the Principles on Housing and Property Restitution for Refugees and Displaced Persons (“Pinheiro Principles”) and argues that while they provide valuable contributions to an increased understanding of the needs of post-conflict societies, room may be allotted to tailor a more context-specific approach to remedying the rights of displaced Syrian persons and refugees. This Note proceeds to analyze and prescribe amendments and additions to existing Syrian domestic law so that it better conforms to the end goals of the Pinheiro Principles. Syria’s Local Administrative Law, Legislative Decree Law 107, if amended to democratize the institution of the Syrian governorship, could be an effective starting point that presents decentralization as a pivotal tool to empower sustainable reconstruction efforts for refugees and displaced persons. Its incorporation, alongside an amended version of Syria’s Public-Private Partnership Law, Legislative Decree Law 5, could safeguard against abuses directed against refugees’ and displaced persons’ rights under the Pinheiro Principles, strengthen ordinary Syrians’ voices in the deliberations concerning their country’s bottom-up reconstruction, and enhance and strengthen demoralized and underdeveloped local Syrian institutions.