The Roundtable
Welcome to the Roundtable, a forum for incisive commentary and analysis
on cases and developments in law and the legal system.
on cases and developments in law and the legal system.
 By Pratama Tambunan
Pratama is an exchange student through the IGSP Program interested in international disputes and environmental law. On July 3, 2023, the High Court of England and Wales took an unfamiliar step in applying the well-known public policy exception. [1] This exception, enshrined in Section 103 of the Arbitration Act 1996, aligns itself with the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (“NY Convention”) and is rarely applied by English Courts. It essentially provides a mechanism to refuse the enforcement of a foreign arbitral award on the grounds that it conflicts with certain rules of public policy. However, what was fascinating in this case was the manner in which the Court came into their opinion. Uniquely, when deciding the case, the court rejected the enforcement of a US arbitration award against a UK consumer by citing a violation of crucial provisions within the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (“CRA”) and the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (“FSMA”) as the basis of public policy.
0 Comments
 Image Source: https://libreshot.com/cctv-camera-on-modern-building/ By Alexandra Kerrigan
Aly Kerrigan is a second-year student at the University of Pennsylvania’s College of Arts and Sciences majoring in urban studies. Amid escalating concerns regarding racial justice in recent years, police system reform has emerged as one of the most salient topics in politics. Several competing visions for the future of policing have emerged within the United States—with some cities adopting an abolition approach, others opting to defund their police systems, and many maintaining or increasing their police presence. American politicians can glean valuable insights by examining the routes taken by foreign cities that have similarly been urged to reform their police systems. In response to a 2013 terrorist attack, Hyderabad, India, is one of such cities rethinking its policing efforts. Within the last decade, Hyderabad has transformed its police system into a technologically advanced surveillance network, yielding mixed reviews from the public.  By Catherine Tang
Catherine Tang is a freshman at the University of Pennsylvania majoring in Health and Societies with a concentration in Health Policy & Law. Despite its first human diagnosis in the 1930s, Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) continues to remain a global health crisis nearly a century later. In the U.S. alone, there were 32,100 estimated new HIV infections in 2021 with an infection rate of 11.5 (per 100,000 people) [1]. Fortunately, due to modern scientific advances, it is possible to prevent infection. Treatments like pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) can reduce the risk of contracting HIV by 99% [2].  Image Source: Salarnu, Ben Franklin, Founder of U Penn, April 23, 2011, Flickr. Accessed January 16, 2024. https://www.flickr.com/photos/solarnu/5645779989. By Samantha Graines
Samantha Graines is a first-year student at the University of Pennsylvania’s College of Arts and Sciences studying Politics, Philosophy, and Economics. On Penn’s campus and other universities across the nation, students have been taking to marching, rallying, and protesting as a form of activism over the past few months in light of the Hamas-Israel war. These nationwide protests have spurred heated conversations about freedom of speech, hate speech, and their implications to resurface. In light of the rise of public hate speech, it has become evident that government officials and university administrators need to clearly establish the distinction between hate speech and freedom of speech, while simultaneously condemning hate speech and the violence it can incite.  Source: The Lorax (1972) “I am the Lorax, I speak for the trees. I speak for the trees, for the trees have no tongues.” By Michael Merolla
Michael Merolla is a first-year student at the University of Pennsylvania’s College of Arts and Sciences studying Political Science. Locus standi, commonly known as legal standing, is the right of a person or group to be heard in court. [1] The concept of “standing” is relatively simple in theory. In order to bring a lawsuit in a court, a party must meet four conditions: interest, injury, causation, and redressability. First, a plaintiff must have a legally recognizable interest in the case. Second, the plaintiff must have suffered an injury or infringement upon their person or rights. Third, the alleged injury must have been caused by the named defendant. Last, a favorable court decision must be able to redress, or alleviate, the injury. However, the concept of legal standing becomes convoluted in the context of environmental law. In America, the environment lacks the right to stand as its own entity. As the global climate crisis worsens, the legal world may be the last resort to deliver the decisive action needed and neglected by political and economic forces for much too long. [2] The question must be asked: Who will speak for the trees in the court of law?  Source: The Washington Post via Getty Images File By Paula Vekker
Paula Vekker is a Sophomore at the University of Pennsylvania majoring in Political Science with a concentration in American Politics. The conflict of opinion between pro-life and pro-choice groups is unwavering and has only been exacerbated after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. On October 12, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a request by anti-abortion activists to have more than $2 million in damages they were ordered to pay Planned Parenthood dismissed.  By Catherine Tang
Catherine Tang is a freshman at the University of Pennsylvania majoring in Health and Societies with a concentration in Health Policy & Law. In 2008, a black man from Louisiana was charged with a felony for intentionally exposing his partner to AIDS despite not having it. Instead, the man was diagnosed with HIV and has been receiving consistent medical care since. [1] In 2010, an HIV-positive protester in Maryland was given five years in prison for second-degree assault because he spit on a police officer. [2] From 2008 to 2013, at least 180 people living with HIV (PLHIV) have been arrested or charged under HIV criminalization laws. [3] |
|
|
