Topic 1

Accusations of foreign interference in domestic affairs was a dominant theme throughout the 2010s. This was no less true in the Persian Gulf. Beginning in 2013, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, and Bahrain charged neighboring Qatar with meddling in their internal affairs and other infractions to their sovereignty. But what began as a quiet disagreement among allies burst onto global headlines when in 2017 the four countries abruptly terminated their diplomatic and economic relations with Qatar.

Since the start of the Trump administration, the federal courts have heard numerous challenges to a variety of government-imposed legal restrictions relating to refugees and asylum seekers. This Insight focuses on three specific and interrelated changes to the U.S.

I.     Introduction

Introduction

On January 14, 2019, U.S. President Donald Trump signed into law the Elie Wiesel Genocide and Atrocity Prevention Act of 2018. The United States initially signed the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide at its unveiling in 1948, but did not take the mandated step (Article V) of established the federal crime of genocide until the Proxmire Act in 1988.

As chemical-intensive industries have grown, environmental contamination and human health degradation from chemical pollutants have heavily intensified, prompting global environmental concern.[1] In particular, plastic waste has emerged as one of the most problematic aspects of the rising wave of global chemical pollution.

Introduction

On December 13, 2018, parties to the conflict in Yemen came together in Stockholm, Sweden, and agreed to a series of undertakings that raised hopes for a peaceful settlement of the conflict that began in 2015 and has resulted in an unprecedented humanitarian crisis and allegations that war crimes, crimes against humanity, and human rights abuses were committed by all sides.[1]

Introduction 

On February 27, 2019, the Supreme Court issued an opinion in Jam v. International Finance Corp.,[1] a case of critical importance for international organizations. The question presented in Jam was whether U.S. law affords international organizations absolute immunity from suit in the United States, or whether international organizations instead are entitled to only the more limited or "restrictive" immunity that applies to foreign sovereigns under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.