Shifting Interpretation in International Court of Justice’s Decision in the Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America: A Deliberate Step?

Iran and the United States (US) have resorted to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on five occasions to settle their disputes. The latest dispute was initiated by Iran and pertains to US’s decision of withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) agreement and re-imposition of sanctions on Iran, including its nationals and companies. In this brief critique, the authors have analysed the preliminary objections and the ICJ’s approach in deciding the dispute. The authors have noticed that the ICJ digressed from its earlier decisions which involved the Treaty of Amity 1955 between Iran and the US. It is also to be noted that the ICJ has not substantiated its deviation with analytical observation. Also, it is opined that although the international adjudication lacks a system of precedent, it is the sacrosanct duty of the ICJ to establish a coherent jurisprudence in the interest of justice, which the ICJ has consciously neglected to achieve in this present dispute.

     

CTS Corporation v. Waldburger: Tempest in a Teapot or the End of Toxic Torts As We Know It?

42 USC § 9658 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act imposes a “discovery rule” on state law actions for personal injuries and property damage caused or contributed to by exposure to a hazardous substance, pollutants, or contaminants. In CTS Corporation v. Waldburger, 134 S. Ct. 2175, 2181 (2014), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that section 9658 does not preempt statutes of repose, which establish absolute limits on the rights of plaintiffs to bring civil actions, notwithstanding any “discovery rule.” This article explores the potential impact of the Court's decision in Waldburger.     

Center for Biological Diversity v U. S. Forest Service: A New Type of Claim or Just Another Step in the Chain of Causation?1

Abstract

This article discusses what it means to “contribute” to waste disposal as that term is used in section 7002 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. More specifically, the article examines whether the US Forest Service can violate section 7002 by not regulating hunting. Among the issues addressed are whether one can contribute to waste disposal passively, whether one can contribute to waste disposal without taking any action that addresses waste disposal and the extent to which the statutory term “contribute” is analogous to the common law concept of causation.