Putin rechtfertigt seinen Krieg mit kruden Geschichtstheorien. Er ist entweder das Opfer seiner eigenen Propaganda oder er weiß, dass es genug einfache Menschen gibt, die sich mit Geschichtsmythen manipulieren lassen. Wie dem auch sei, ich habe mit Wolfgang Mueller, seines Zeichens Professor für Osteuropäische Geschichte an der Universität Wien. über die reale Geschichte der Ukraine und Russlands gesprochen: von der Nationenbildung bis hin zur Krim-Schenkung und den angeblichen Versprechen, die NATO nicht in Richtung Osten auszudehnen.
Instituts-Website von Wolfgang Mueller
Quellen:
]]>For more information about the case, Dinner Table Action v. Schneider, visit: https://equalcitizens.us/against_superpacs/
Become a Patreon subscriber: https://www.patreon.com/EqualCitizens
Music: Roundpine by Blue Dot Sessions; Noe Noe by Blue Dot Sessions; Vengeful by Blue Dot Sessions
Post-production: Josh Elstro of Elstro Production
Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
]]>We thank you for listening to our show today, but we realize some folks like their information in video form. If that’s you, we’ve got ya. Our guest’s website: chinnlaw.com has videos on rules for life & advice and family law basics. And PODCASTS too!
Are you “vintage”? If you remember the 70’s or the 80’s or you’re an old soul who loves a vintage feel, we’ve got something to interest you. We’ve got a SHOP tab where you can purchase our old E TV logo shirts, Public Media is Punk mugs, or a Read, Listen, Think, Repeat, MPB tote bag. There’s tons of merch, as the kids say, on hats, tumblers, and Neighborhoodies from mpbonline.org
In Legal Terms, the show where we break down the law, explain how it works, and help make it a little less intimidating for everyday Mississippians hosted by attorney Adam Kilgore. legalterms@mbponline.org
If you enjoyed listening to this podcast, please consider contributing to MPB: https://donate.mpbfoundation.org/mspb/podcast
Today’s Legal Terms on In Legal Terms are: Collaborative, Participation Agreement, Interest-Based Negotiation
You can listen LIVE to us from the MPB Public Media app or from MPBonline.org/radio
Thursdays, following our over-the-air broadcast, you can hear Next Stop Mississippi on MPB Think Radio at 4pm Central.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
]]>---
The American war with Iran began with ambitious goals, including preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon and potentially bringing about regime change. But the conflict may well be leading to a very different outcome, according to Stanford Law School's Allen Weiner, a scholar of international and human rights law and former State Department lawyer. Just prior to the recent collapse of the tenuous cease fire, Weiner joined podcast host Professor Pam Karlan to discuss how the conflict is arguably strengthening Iran’s most repressive factions while putting economic and diplomatic pressure on the United States.
Weiner traces how the conflict grew out of the collapse of the 2015 nuclear deal, asks whether the new agreement with Iran amounts to a weaker version of that accord, and considers how ceasefires and shifting legal rationales have allowed the administration to sidestep Congress and keep the War Powers clock from running out.
Connect:
Chapters
00:00:00 Introduction
00:02:09 Back to the JCPOA—The 2015 Iran Nuclear Deal
00:04:23 From "worst deal ever" to a weaker one
00:04:51 Two rounds of strikes
00:07:11 Regime change that wasn't
00:08:40 The Strait of Hormuz and the global economy
00:09:49 Emboldened by Venezuela
00:11:33 Israel in, NATO out
00:12:27 The new MOU
00:14:31 Israel left off the page
00:17:38 Free transit, for now
00:19:06 Treaty or political commitment?
00:21:36 The War Powers loophole
00:24:26 Can Congress actually enforce the War Powers Act?
00:28:12 Conclusion
Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
]]>Angesichts des einjährigen Jubiläums des Gutachtens sprechen wir in dieser Folge mit Christina Voigt von der University of Oslo, die unter anderem als leitende Rechtsberaterin für die Internationale Union zur Bewahrung der Natur (IUCN) an diesem IGH-Verfahren beteiligt war, über die rechtliche Tragweite und Bedeutung des Gutachtens sowie die (potenziellen) Auswirkungen auf einzelne Staaten und auf die internationale Klimapolitik.
Inhalt
Weiterführende Informationen
Moderation: Nils Witte
Redaktion: Luise Hoffbauer, Laura Stettner und Nils Witte
Postproduktion: Erwin Eisenhardt, DGVN-Arbeitskreis Nachhaltigkeit und Klimagerechtigkeit
]]>Become a Patreon subscriber: https://www.patreon.com/EqualCitizens
Music: Roundpine by Blue Dot Sessions; Noe Noe by Blue Dot Sessions; Vengeful by Blue Dot Sessions
Post-production: Josh Elstro of Elstro Production
Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
]]>Bernita Ferrero-Waldner war Diplomatin, österreichische Außenministerin und EU-Kommissarin. Sie war bei entscheidenden Momenten hautnah dabei: den Anschlägen vom 11. September, dem Irakkrieg, den Verhandlungen mit Russland und dem Iran während der 2000er-Jahre, dem HIV-Schauprozess in Libyen oder der "Orangenen Revolution" in der Ukraine. Ich habe mit ihr über ihre Reise in den Iran, ihre Gespräche mit Männern wie Wladimir Putin oder Muammer al-Gaddafi, feministische Außenpolitik und vieles mehr gesprochen.
Podcast unterstützen: https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/ralphjanik
Benita Ferrero-Waldner, Benita: Wo ein Wille, da ein Weg. Erfahrungen einer Europäerin und Kosmopolitin Benita Ferrero-Waldner auf der Website des österreichischen Parlaments Wikipedia-Eintrag von Benita-Ferrero Waldner
Links und Audio-Mitschnitte
In this episode of The Declaration at 250, Michael McConnell introduces Randy Barnett, the Patrick Hotung Professor of Constitutional Law at the Georgetown University Law Center and Faculty Director of the Georgetown Center for the Constitution alongside Eugene Volokh, the Thomas M. Siebel Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution (Stanford), and the Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law Emeritus (and Distinguished Research Professor) at UCLA School of Law.
Barnett and Volokh share respect for the Declaration’s importance but diverge on what that importance does in law. Barnett sees the Declaration as the “ground and foundation of future government,” supplying binding premises about “just powers” and limiting even broad state “police power” claims that risk subverting rights. Volokh counters that the Declaration resembles a political platform and persuasive rhetoric—valuable for context and values, but too general and historically contingent to function as enforceable law without tethering to more specific legal texts.
Connect:
Chapters
[00:00:26] Chapter 1: Framing Question: Is the Declaration “law” if courts can’t directly enforce it?
Host Michael McConnell opens by contrasting Justice Barrett and Justice Scalia’s view—Declaration as ideals, not law—with Randy Barnett’s claim that the Declaration functions as foundational law shaping constitutional meaning.
[00:01:54] Chapter 2: Setting the Stage: Why Barnett and Volokh, and why this debate now?
McConnell introduces Barnett and Volokh, highlighting their originalist and civil-libertarian influence and teeing up the central question: “Is the Declaration our law?”
[00:06:11] Chapter 3: Barnett’s Case-in-Chief: How did Salmon P. Chase use the Declaration as law in anti-slavery litigation?
Barnett argues the Declaration supplied a liberty baseline in 19th-century practice—especially in the Matilda and Van Zandt cases—supporting “clear statement” rules and strict construction against liberty-restricting interpretations.
[00:37:38] Chapter 4: Volokh’s Challenge: What is the Declaration—and what isn’t it?
Volokh contends the Declaration is best understood as a political platform/announcement with legal significance as an independence claim, but not as governing law; it can guide interpretation mainly when reinforced by constitutional provisions like the Ninth Amendment.
[00:56:04] Chapter 5: Barnett’s Rebuttal: Can the Declaration shape doctrine without giving judges a blank check?
Barnett responds that “law” is broader than judicially enforceable rules, arguing the Declaration legitimately informs burdens of justification and doctrines (due process meaning, presumptions of liberty vs. constitutionality) while remaining constrained by legal method and natural-rights theory.
Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
]]>Become a Patreon subscriber: https://www.patreon.com/EqualCitizens
Music: Roundpine by Blue Dot Sessions; Noe Noe by Blue Dot Sessions; Vengeful by Blue Dot Sessions
Post-production: Josh Elstro of Elstro Production
Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
]]>There were many excellent applications for the Yorke Prize this year, and the Degree Committee decided to make 5 awards. Very many congratulations to all those who won a prize, and also to all those who successfully completed their PhD (a great achievement) even if they did not win a prize. The depth and quality of the...
Become a Patreon subscriber: https://www.patreon.com/EqualCitizens
Music: Roundpine by Blue Dot Sessions; Noe Noe by Blue Dot Sessions; Vengeful by Blue Dot Sessions
Post-production: Josh Elstro of Elstro Production
Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
]]>Events:
07/16/26 Hal and Mal's: The Walk In 5-7pm, Jackson MS
07/18/26 Museum of Muslim Cultures 10-4, Jackson MS
Today’s Legal Terms on In Legal Terms are: Suffrage, Election Administration, Civic Engagement
Everyone likes a short cut. And if it’s a cute short cut that’s even better. Yall vote dot ms is a cute shortcut to access the website of the Mississippi Secretary of State’s office where our election information can be found. There you can learn about absentee voting, verify your registration information, learn where your polling place is, view a sample ballot, and more. Promote the Vote 2026 program will be announced August 3rd from the MS Secretary of State’s Office. We’ll have a 2026 through 2028 election guide on the podcast information for this show.
2026 Mississippi Voter Information Guide from the MS Secretary of State's Office
Reminder! There will be two special elections on November 3rd:
House District 70 (Hinds County): Vacated due to the passing of Representative William “Bo” Brown (D).House District 77 (Rankin and Simpson Counties): Vacated due to the passing of Representative Price Wallace
How can you help Mississippi during election season? Money always helps! You could give to a group that promotes civic engagement that you have investigated such as Mississippi Votes, the League of Women Voters, Nonprofit Vote, or our guests Y VOTE with Mississippi United. You could give your time: volunteer to help with an organization. You could get paid to help! Sign up to be a poll worker from the Mississippi Secretary of State’s Poll Worker Portal.
In Legal Terms, the show where we break down the law, explain how it works, and help make it a little less intimidating for everyday Mississippians hosted by attorney Adam Kilgore. legalterms@mbponline.org
If you enjoyed listening to this podcast, please consider contributing to MPB: https://donate.mpbfoundation.org/mspb/podcast
You can listen LIVE to us from the MPB Public Media app or from MPBonline.org/radio
Thursdays, following our over-the-air broadcast, you can hear Next Stop Mississippi on MPB Think Radio at 4pm Central.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
]]>Become a Patreon subscriber: https://www.patreon.com/EqualCitizens
Music: Roundpine by Blue Dot Sessions; Noe Noe by Blue Dot Sessions; Vengeful by Blue Dot Sessions
Post-production: Josh Elstro of Elstro Production
Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
]]>Bolick traces a two-way influence between the Declaration and early state charters, pointing to founding-era texts like Virginia’s 1776 Declaration of Rights as a roadmap for Jefferson’s phrasing—and noting that later state constitutions continued to incorporate Declaration principles such as equality, popular sovereignty, and inalienable rights. He then connects those ideas to modern doctrine, arguing that state courts can treat natural-rights provisions as meaningful constraints (or interpretive “prisms”) rather than mere preambles, with recent state supreme court decisions illustrating how the Declaration’s ideals can translate into concrete protections today.
Connect:
Chapters:
[00:00:26] Chapter 1 — McConnell’s framing: the “hidden” constitutional story in state charters
The host introduces how state constitutions borrow explicitly from the Declaration and why that matters for modern rights protection.
[00:05:59] Chapter 2 — Bolick’s thesis: an “enduring symbiosis” between the Declaration and state constitutions
Bolick argues the Declaration’s influence on state constitutional text and interpretation is deeper and more direct than its influence on the U.S. Constitution.
[00:10:46] Chapter 3 — Origins and transmission: Virginia’s 1776 rights language and state constitution “laboratories”
Bolick explains the two-way borrowing between early state constitutions and the Declaration, including George Mason’s Virginia Declaration of Rights.
[00:27:57] Chapter 4 — From principles to doctrine: natural-rights clauses as enforceable limits (with cases)
Bolick lays out how courts have used natural-rights provisions as substantive protections or interpretive tools, citing key state cases and modern disputes.
[00:46:34] Chapter 5 — Ford’s recorded response + Bolick rebuttal: state power, natural rights, and the limits of the frame
Ford praises state constitutionalism but complicates the natural-rights narrative; Bolick responds, emphasizing both self-government and enforceable individual rights.
Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
]]>Inhalt
Weiterführende Informationen
Moderation: Natalia Rudenko
Redaktion: Leonardo Pereira & DGVN-Arbeitskreis Nachhaltigkeit und Klimagerechtigkeit
Postproduktion: Erwin Eisenhardt, DGVN-Arbeitskreis Nachhaltigkeit und Klimagerechtigkeit
]]>Cambridge University Press has published Volume 2 of the Cambridge History of International Law, entitled International Law in Asia , edited by Dr Maria Adele Carrai and Professor Surabhi Ranganathan (King's). Volume II of The Cambridge History of International Law breaks the mould of Eurocentric histories in the field by exploring international law in Asia from antiquity to decolonisation. Its twenty-six chapters span a vast geography, covering both the landmass and the oceans; offering accounts of statecraft and diplomacy, war and trade; marriage and gift-giving; treaty-making and dispute settlement; ideas of the human and 'the other'; and entanglements of political authority with mercantile, corporate and religious orders. The chapters introduce readers to a diverse cast of characters, from scholars, scientists, geographers, mapmakers; to traders, merchants, shipowners and entrepreneurs; and to women, revolutionaries, pirates, labourers, and monks. The volume explains leading historiographical trends, ponders the challenges of writing Asian histories of international law, highlights available materials and methods, and showcases the conceptual purchase of Asian histories for thinking about international law. Current University of Cambridge staff and student members can access the ebook via Cambridge Core . For more information about the book, please refer to the CUP website . For information about publications by Professor Ranganathan, please refer to her Faculty profile .
On 8–9 July the Faculty hosted a symposium on the Constitutional Architecture of EU Values. The symposium brought together leading scholars and practitioners from the Court of Justice of the European Union, University of Cambridge, the Max Planck Institute, Humboldt University of Berlin, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, Leiden University, University of Madrid, University of Glasgow, King's College London, University of Warwick, and the University of Copenhagen. The symposium was organised by Dr Mohamed Moussa and was generously funded by the Centre for European Legal Studies . The various sessions of the symposium were chaired by members of the Faculty of Law including: Professor Catherine Barnard , Professor Albertina Albors-Llorens , Dr Emilija Leinarte and Dr Sophie Turenne . For more information, you can refer to the full programme , and a gallery of photographs is also available.
If you’re interested in learning about other new laws in Mississippi, have we got some information for you – our June 18th podcast with Clarion Ledger Reporter Bea Anuchi discussed some other new laws. She was also a guest on @Issue on MPB News July 6th.
Our laws are made by lawmakers. Some of them were at the Neshoba County Fair Recently. Our MPB News reporters were there and reported on what was said. We’ve curated those videos and articles on this show’s podcast information for you.
In Legal Terms, the show where we break down the law, explain how it works, and help make it a little less intimidating for everyday Mississippians hosted by attorney Adam Kilgore. legalterms@mbponline.org
If you enjoyed listening to this podcast, please consider contributing to MPB: https://donate.mpbfoundation.org/mspb/podcast
Today’s Legal Terms on In Legal Terms are:
You can listen LIVE to us from the MPB Public Media app or from MPBonline.org/radio
Thursdays, following our over-the-air broadcast, you can hear Next Stop Mississippi on MPB Think Radio at 4pm Central.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
]]>"What keeps a judiciary resilient under pressure?" That question brought senior judges, legal scholars and political scientists together at King's College, Cambridge, on 6-7 July for a two-day workshop entitled 'The European Judiciary in Times of Crisis: Old and New Challenges'. Held under the Chatham House Rule, it examined how courts respond to democratic erosion, and how institutional, constitutional and judicial resilience might be strengthened. The opening address was given by Judge Marko Bošnjak of the Court of Justice of the European Union, formerly President of the European Court of Human Rights. Other participants included Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, former Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, and senior judges from some of Europe's highest courts, alongside leading scholars in the field. The workshop was organised by Dr Sophie Turenne (Assistant Professor of Comparative Law and Fellow of King's College), and built on the ELI–Mount Scopus European Standards of Judicial Independence. It was supported by the Centre for European Legal Studies , King's College, and the Centre for Public Law . The workshop was held under the auspices of the European Law Institute , and formed part of the activities of the EuroJudge network.
We are delighted to announced that the Sir Anthony Hart Doctoral Paper Prize was awarded to two Cambridge PhD students, Giorgia Bucaria (St John's) and Declan Noble (Sidney Sussex), at the British Legal History Conference 2026 at the University of Nottingham last week. Giorgia's paper discussed the English law of incorporeal rights in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. Her paper explored how a statutory intervention in 1285 (the Statute of Westminster II, ch 25) changed how these rights were protected in royal courts and conceptualised by medieval lawmen. It also demonstrated how royal justices would often try to remedy gaps in the common law of incorporeal rights through a creative process of interpretation, and how this process was stunted by well-established doctrines on the nature of incorporeal rights. Declan's presentation concerned the common law's supervision of local lawmaking in the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries. He demonstrated that over the course of the sixteenth century it came to be established as a general rule that ordinances made for the "common good" could be passed by majority, as opposed to by unanimous assent or by a select body of lawmakers. This is an important example of how judges and lawyers in the period reduced complex political questions to matters of doctrine. The Faculty congratulates Giorgia and Declan on this achievement.
Responding to Cuéllar, Larry Kramer—former Stanford Law dean, a leading scholar of democratic constitutionalism, and now president of the London School of Economics—adds a grounding historical frame: in 1776, the Declaration was shaped as much by law as by philosophy. Kramer argues the grievances were understood as claims that Britain had violated the colonies’ constitutional rights under the British customary constitution, which helps explain why the Declaration’s “structural” ideas are often implicit rather than spelled out as a blueprint.
Together, Cuéllar and Kramer show how the Declaration operates in two registers: a practical indictment of governmental failure and a foundational text later generations repeatedly reinterpret to justify (or resist) evolving structures of American governance. Their exchange highlights a central tension that persists—between universal promises and the administrative choices that determine how, and for whom, those promises are implemented.
Connect:
Chapters:
[00:00:26] Chapter 1 — Framing question: Is the Declaration also a “blueprint for government”?
Host Michael McConnell sets up the episode’s core premise and introduces guests Mariano-Florentino “Tino” Cuéllar and Larry Kramer to explore the Declaration’s structural dimensions.
[00:05:21] Chapter 2 — Cuéllar’s thesis: “Text vs. territory” and the Declaration as state-building
Cuéllar argues the Declaration is not just a creed; it catalogs governance failures under George III and implies the need for a sovereign that can function at home and abroad.
[00:06:04] Chapter 3 — The Freedom Train as a case study in ideals meeting administration (1947–48)
Using the racially integrated Freedom Train—and its refusal to stop in segregated cities—Cuéllar spotlights the friction between universal principles and on-the-ground governance.
[00:13:07] Chapter 4 — 1890–1950: expansion of the administrative state and contested equality
Cuéllar walks through key moments (Du Bois/Niagara Movement, Wilson at Independence Hall, Becker vs. Coolidge, FDR’s “Second Bill of Rights,” Ho Chi Minh quoting Jefferson) to show how the Declaration structures recurring fights over equality, borders, and state capacity.
[00:28:51] Chapter 5 — Kramer’s response: the Declaration’s legal-constitutional origins and how texts evolve
Kramer argues the Declaration was fundamentally a legal brief grounded in the British customary constitution; its grievances alleged constitutional violations, and later generations repurpose founding texts to frame new disputes.
Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
]]>---
The Fourteenth Amendment opens with a simple constitutional promise: that anyone born in the United States is a citizen. In a closely divided Supreme Court decision, that understanding of birthright citizenship is once again tested through competing readings of text, history, and precedent.
In this episode of Stanford Legal, Professor Fred Smith, a leading scholar of the federal courts, joins Pam Karlan to examine the Court’s ruling in Trump v. Barbara and the history behind the Citizenship Clause. The discussion traces the Clause to Dred Scott v. Sandford, which denied citizenship to Black Americans, and to the Reconstruction-era effort to overturn it, as well as United States v. Wong Kim Ark, long understood to affirm birthright citizenship for those born on U.S. soil.
The discussion highlights deeper disagreements over how that history should shape constitutional meaning today. Smith and Karlan explore tensions between originalist approaches, reliance on precedent, and questions about congressional authority over citizenship. At stake is not only the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, but the broader question of who the Constitution recognizes as part of the American political community—and who gets to decide.
Links:
Connect:
Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
]]>
Dr Wærp is a postdoctoral researcher at the FAU Center for Human Rights Erlangen-Nuremberg (CHREN), focusing on the digitalisation of EU air border controls and its human rights implications. She has a PhD in migration studies from the Department of Global Political Studies at Malmö University, where she wrote her dissertation on the European Border and Coast Guard Agency’s (Frontex) production of a securitised border knowledge. Her research interests include irregularized migration, securitisation, and EU border controls. Through her research, she strives to have a positive societal impact by challenging dominating discourses and practices and questioning the taken-for-granted.
Sources:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4ZcImVVsa0
https://migrationnetwork.un.org/hub/migration-digitalization
https://books.google.de/books/about/Eichmann_in_Jerusalem.html?id=jsDtAAAAMAAJ&redir_esc=y
https://www.bmi.bund.de/SharedDocs/pressemitteilungen/EN/2024/09/binnengrenzkontrollen_en.html
https://www.bmi.bund.de/SharedDocs/pressemitteilungen/EN/2024/09/binnengrenzkontrollen_en.html
https://english.marechaussee.nl/topics/t/temporary-reintroduction-of-border-control
]]>Unterhalten haben wir uns dafür mit Wibke Timmermann, deren Forschungsschwerpunkte im Internationalen Strafrecht auf den Speech Crimes liegen. Sie war am Internationalen Strafgerichtshof für Ruanda tätig. Sie ist Co-Herausgeberin des im Juli 2026 erscheinenden Buches „A Philosophical Approach to War Crimes Trials“, das die Perspektive auf das Internationale Strafrecht um eine philosophische Dimension erweitert.
Eine automatische Transkription der Folge findest du hier auf dem Völkerrechtsblog. Für die Richtigkeit der automatischen Transkription übernehmen wir keine Gewähr.
Wir sind gespannt auf eure Rückmeldungen! Lob, Anmerkungen und Kritik sind herzlich willkommen an podcast@voelkerrechtsblog.org. Abonniert unseren Podcast via RSS, über Spotify oder überall dort, wo es Podcasts gibt. Es gibt die Möglichkeit, auf diesen Plattformen den Völkerrechtspodcast zu bewerten, wir freuen uns über 5 Sterne!
Hintergrundinformationen:
Rachel Horan und Jolana Makraiová, Understanding Hate Speech Within the Context of International Criminal Law – Final Report, International Nuremberg Principles Academy (2024).
Wibke Kristin Timmermann, Incitement in international criminal law, International Review of the Red Cross, Volume 88, Number 864 (2006).
Richard Ashby Wilson und Matthew Gillett, The Hartford Guidelines on Speech Crimes in International Criminal Law, Faculty Articles and Papers 633 (2020).
Richard Ashby Wilson, Incitement on Trial: Prosecuting International Speech Crimes, Cambridge University Press (2017).
Verwandte Folgen:
Folge 25: Putin vor Gericht: Mit welchen völkerstrafrechtlichen Mitteln?
Folge 36: Gender-Based Crimes: Wo steht das Völkerstrafrecht heute?
Folge 51: Transitional Justice auf dem Prüfstand
Moderation: Manuel Klein & Daniela Rau
Grundlagen: Rouven Diekjobst
Interview: Dr. Wibke Timmermann, LL.M. (Genf) & Manuel Klein
Schnitt: Daniela Rau
Credits: Nuremberg Trial Day 218 (1946) Hans Fritzsche Judgment (Lawrence), RobertHJacksonCenter, youtube.com, abgerufen am 26.06.2026, Minute 00:00 – 00:40.
]]>
---
The Supreme Court has wrapped up a consequential term, issuing decisions that could shape executive power, constitutional rights, and the balance between the branches of government for years to come. Rulings on birthright citizenship, independent federal agencies, voting rights, transgender athletes, and Fourth Amendment digital privacy all landed within weeks of one another, offering a rare, wide-angle view of where the Court is headed.
In this episode, Professor Jeff Fisher joins Pam Karlan to unpack the term's biggest rulings. Fisher and Karlan co-direct the Stanford Supreme Court Litigation Clinic, and are among the nation's leading experts on Supreme Court litigation and constitutional law, regularly briefing and arguing cases before the Court, giving them a close vantage point on its work.
The discussion traces how the Court is navigating open clashes with President Trump even as it advances long-standing goals of the conservative legal movement, and examines the Court's growing use of history and tradition as a tool of constitutional interpretation. Fisher and Karlan also discuss disagreements among the justices and consider how recent decisions may be emboldening the executive branch.
Links:
Connect:
Chapters
00:00:00 Introduction
00:00:57 How to understand this Supreme Court term
00:03:12 A divided Court with rising tensions
00:04:35 Digital privacy and the Fourth Amendment
00:07:35 The Court and the democratic process
00:09:07 Race-conscious law and disparate impact
00:11:09 Election rules, fraud claims, and voting rights
00:14:56 Birthright citizenship and the limits of originalism
00:16:36 History, tradition, and judicial reasoning
00:18:39 Presidential power and independent agencies
00:23:08 The future of the unitary executive theory
00:25:31 Trump, the shadow docket, and executive authority
00:26:08 Immigration, presidential rhetoric, and Court deference
00:28:17 Presidential facts, tweets, and legal reality
00:30:48 Transgender rights and the law of school sports
00:32:23 Why context matters in Supreme Court decisions
00:35:47 Conclusion
Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
]]>At noon Wednesday, July 1, Brother Rogers presents “Lafayette Visits Mississippi as the 'Guest of the Nation'” as part of the History Is Lunch series. In connection with America250, Rogers examines the Marquis de Lafayette’s 1825 visit to Natchez during his farewell tour, highlighting his role as a Revolutionary War hero. This program takes in the Craig H. Neilsen Auditorium of the Two Mississippi Museums.
In Legal Terms, the show where we break down the law, explain how it works, and help make it a little less intimidating for everyday Mississippians hosted by attorney Adam Kilgore. legalterms@mbponline.org
If you enjoyed listening to this podcast, please consider contributing to MPB: https://donate.mpbfoundation.org/mspb/podcast
On July 4th you can listen to United in Song, Mississippi Celebrates America 250 on MPB Think Radio. It’s the audio compilation from the recent concert held in the Mississippi Coliseum. The two chances to catch the concert are Saturday at 1pm and 8pm. It will be broadcast on MPB TV later this summer.
If you need more patriotic celebrations stick with MPB. Our TV channel will show: A Capitol 4th on Friday the 3rd, a 46-year holiday tradition at the U.S Capitol, with all-star musical and patriotic performances by pop, country, R&B, Broadway, classical and gospel artists, and more! Also, America Made in Virginia is a star-filled tribute to America’s Semi quin centennial, LIVE from revolutionary Colonial Williamsburg, VA on July 4! Both at 7pm.
You can listen LIVE to us from the MPB Public Media app or from MPBonline.org/radio
Thursdays, following our over-the-air broadcast, you can hear Next Stop Mississippi on MPB Think Radio at 4pm Central.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
]]>Minow traces possible roots of this obligation in natural law and the “law of nations,” social contract ideas, and religious traditions that shaped the founders’ moral vocabulary—where obedience to rulers was often understood as conditional on legitimacy and higher law. She also raises the thorny question of who counted as “the people” at the founding (noting exclusions such as enslaved people and many Native persons), and how later movements—from abolition to global self-determination struggles—have invoked the Declaration’s language to justify resistance. Jenny Martinez extends the inquiry by emphasizing the Declaration’s closing mutual pledge—“our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor”—as a concrete act that binds a community and helps explain how the document generates enduring civic obligations, not only to oppose tyranny but to carry forward the promise of equality across generations.
Connect:
Chapters:
[00:00:26] Chapter 1 — The Declaration’s “duty” to resist tyranny (Series setup)
Michael McConnell frames the episode around the Declaration’s claim of a duty—not just a right—to throw off despotism.
[00:03:31] Chapter 2 — Minow’s close read: why “duty” changes everything
Martha Minow zeroes in on the fourth sentence and explains why duty is not synonymous with right.
[00:05:43] Chapter 3 — Where the duty might come from: Locke, social contract, religion
Minow traces intellectual and religious sources, including Locke and Samuel Langdon’s 1775 sermon after Lexington and Concord.
[00:08:56] Chapter 4 — Who is “the people,” and who is duty owed to?
Minow questions who was included/excluded, then connects duty to universal law, human rights, and global self-determination movements.
[00:26:41] Chapter 5 — Martinez: duties, limits on revolution, and the “mutual pledge”
Jenny Martinez contrasts civic duty traditions and argues the Declaration’s lasting obligation is the mutual pledge to uphold its promises over time.
Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
]]>Hart Publishing (an imprint of Bloomsbury) has published Reimagining Employment Dispute Resolution and Enforcement by Professor Catherine Barnard , Professor of European, and Sarah Fraser Butlin KC, Affiliated Lecturer. This major new open-access book offers a comprehensive blueprint to overhaul the UK’s creaking employment tribunal system, which currently leaves some claimants waiting up to five years for a full hearing. The book draws on a large-scale empirical study, including a survey of over 200 practitioners, to examine the acute problems facing workplace conflict resolution. Its publication was launched at the Employment Lawyers Association (ELA) annual conference in May. The authors argue that the current framework is broken, marked by extensive delays and significant financial and human costs. A primary driver of the backlog is the rising volume of legally complex, document-heavy discrimination and whistleblowing claims, which now constitute up to 70 per cent of all cases received by tribunals. Furthermore, the phased introduction of the new Employment Rights Act is expected to increase tribunal caseloads by up to a third over the coming year. Current University of Cambridge staff and student members can access the ebook via iDiscover. For more information, please refer to the Bloomsbury website . For information about publications by Professor Barnard and Ms Fraser Butlin, please refer to their Faculty profiles .
Für einen besseren Überblick über diese komplexe Gemengelage sprechen Steve und Patrick mit Dr. Lena Herbst, Postdoktorandin im Projekt International Cybersecurity am Institut für Friedensforschung und Sicherheitspolitik an der Universität Hamburg (IFSH) über die Rolle der UN im Bereich der Informationssicherheit.
Inhalt
Weiterführende Informationen
Redaktion & Moderation: Steve Biedermann, Vorstandsmitglied des DGVN-Landesverbands Sachsen, Sachsen Anhalt und Thüringen & Dr. Patrick Rosenow, Leitender Redakteur der Zeitschrift VEREINTE NATIONEN
Postproduktion: mucks audio: Die Audio und Podcast Agentur
]]>Whether you're a law student considering a clerkship, a practicing attorney looking to pivot your career, or simply curious about the inner workings of the judicial system, this episode provides valuable insights into the responsibilities, benefits, and pedigree of federal judicial clerkships.
Tune in to "Emphasis Added" on your favorite podcast streaming app or visit the Houston Law Review's website for more engaging content on legal issues and the legal profession. Don't forget to follow us on social media for updates on new episodes and legal discussions.
To get a mailing or electronic subscription to the Houston Law Review click here.
For more Emphasis Added content, follow us on Instagram and check out our video content on YouTube!
We hear a lot about the horrors of the war in Ukraine but what does it mean for the day to day delivery of justice? Yevhen Synelnykov, a judge at the Ukrainian Supreme Court, was given permission to visit the UK (fighting age men are not generally allowed to leave the country) to talk to the judiciary in London. Clive...
Shownotes:
Rechtsgutachten der GFF: „Ist die AfD verfassungswidrig?” https://freiheitsrechte.org/uploads/publications/Demokratie/GFF_AfD-Gutachten.pdf
„Mit Feminismus gegen Rechtsextremismus“ – Zeitschrift des Deutschen Juristinnenbundes 2/2024 https://www.inlibra.com/de/document/view/detail/uuid/f7cbcd63-9809-34d0-9d71-de29447d26b2
Feministische Fundstücke:
zdf Aspekte: „Der Kampf der Frauen” https://www.zdf.de/play/reportagen/aspekte-106/kampf-frauen-scham-hass-femizid-100
Virginia Woolf: „Ein Zimmer für sich allein” https://www.fischerverlage.de/buch/virginia-woolf-ein-zimmer-fuer-sich-allein-9783596907397
]]>Dieses Mal habe ich einen besonders hochkarätigen Gast bei Recht politisch: Christoph Heusgen war unter anderem (!) von 2005 bis 2017 außen- und sicherheitspolitischer Berater von Angela Merkel und später Leiter der Münchner Sicherheitskonferenz. Da hat es nicht an Gesprächsstoff gefehlt: es geht um die letzte Wahl der neuen Mitglieder im UNO-Sicherheitsrat, seine Zeit als Präsident des Sicherheitsrats, Russland, Putin und seinen Hund, die Ukraine, Trump und so vieles mehr, was ein deutscher Diplomat mit jahrzehntelanger Erfahrung so alles erlebt hat und heute denkt.
Podcast unterstützen: https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/ralphjanik
Links/Quellen:
In Legal Terms, the show where we break down the law, explain how it works, and help make it a little less intimidating for everyday Mississippians hosted by attorney Adam Kilgore. legalterms@mbponline.org
If you enjoyed listening to this podcast, please consider contributing to MPB: https://donate.mpbfoundation.org/mspb/podcast
Today’s Legal Terms on In Legal Terms are: Workers' Compensation, Maximum Medical Improvement (MMI), Compensable Injury
Do you want to learn more about personal injury incidents and cases? ForThePeople.com, the website of the firm of Morgan & Morgan where our guest is a partner has information such as what is a personal injury lawsuit, how much is my case worth, and why some cases get turned down.
When you do need information, I like to go straight to the source. Who is that for Workers’ Compensation? It’s Mississippi Workers' Compensation Commission. Their website has information for injured workers, employers, medical & insurance providers, attorneys, and a FAQ and resources section.
You can listen LIVE to us from the MPB Public Media app or from MPBonline.org/radio
Thursdays, following our over-the-air broadcast, you can hear Next Stop Mississippi on MPB Think Radio at 4pm Central.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
]]>Im Gespräch geht es zudem auch um das Amt der Jugenddelegierten, die strukturellen Voraussetzungen für Jugendbeteiligung und die Möglichkeit, junge Stimmen in den UN hörbar zu machen.
Inhalte
Weiterführende Links
Moderation: Sophie Fasshauer und Leonie Petzoldt
Redaktion: Leonie Petzoldt und Sophie Fasshauer
Postproduktion: Erwin Eisenhardt, DGVN Arbeitskreis Nachhaltigkeit und Klimagerechtigkeit
]]>The Faculty has distributed Volume 17 Number 3 of the University of Cambridge Faculty of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series on SSRN . This issue includes the following articles: Marie-Claire Cordonier Segger, Markus Gehring, Ted Gleason & Matheus Garcia: Climate and Investment Law Nexus Reimagined -Beyond ISDS, Obligations and Instruments to Avoid and to Defend ( 5/2026 ) Mohamed Moussa: When Values Clash: A Federal Perspective ( 6/2026 ) Catherine Barnard & Fiona Costello: British Citizenship via the EU Settlement Scheme: Some Socio-Legal Reflections ( 7/2026 ) Brian R. Cheffins, Bobby V. Reddy & Kim Willey: Reviving the Public Company: Canadian Lessons for the U.K.? ( 9/2026 ) Interested readers can browse the Working Paper Series at SSRN , or sign up to subscribe to distributions of the the e-journal.
---
Artificial intelligence is rapidly reshaping the economy, but two Stanford Law alumni argue that existing tax frameworks are failing to capture—or fairly distribute—the value it generates. Jeremy Bearer-Friend, JD '14, a professor at George Washington University Law School, and Sarah Polcz, JSM '12, JSD '20, a professor at UC Davis School of Law, join co-host Professor Richard Thompson Ford to discuss a proposal that would require leading AI companies to pay a portion of their taxes in equity rather than cash, with those shares placed into a public trust, and their work with U.S. Senate members to make this happen.
The conversation explores a central question: If AI was built on vast amounts of human-generated text, images, and creative work, who is entitled to share in the wealth it produces? Bearer-Friend and Polcz connect their proposal to broader concerns about wealth concentration and whether the gains from AI will flow to a narrow class of tech executives and investors—or to the public at large.
The episode also examines how an equity-based tax could work in practice, including questions of governance, political insulation, and the mechanics of a sovereign wealth fund, and what it would mean to give the public a direct stake in the companies shaping the future of artificial intelligence.
Links:
Connect:
(00:00:00) A Tax Paid in Stock
(00:02:14) IP, Inequality, and the AI Boom
(00:05:56) Why the Public Deserves an Equity Stake
(00:11:58) How the Tax Would Actually Work—Stock, Rates, and Governance
(00:16:59) Sanders, Trump, and a Race to Co-opt the Idea
(00:21:06) Objections, Safeguards, and the Road Ahead
Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
]]>In this episode, co-hosts Amanda Rossini Martins and Büşra Cebeci speak with Anna Karolina Chimiak, whose work has been closely grounded in accompanying families of the disappeared since 2016. Drawing on both practice and research, Anna reflects on how families of the disappeared have placed documentation at the core of their strategies in a context marked by state-criminal collusion and the lack of effective institutional responses.
Zooming in on grassroots initiatives, the conversation highlights how families have stepped in to fill profound institutional gaps. In a context where violence is ongoing and state responses remain limited, fragmented, and ineffective, families have developed their own grassroots justice efforts by organising searches for the disappeared, mobilising collectively, advocating for policy reform, and documenting both the disappearance and the lives of their loved ones.
As Anna explains, these documentation practices are multifaceted: they range from personal archives and community databases to search flyers, memorialisation initiatives, and artistic expressions. Documentation takes many forms.
“Families document to generate the information that institutions failed to produce and to build the evidence needed for search, for truth and for justice processes. But their objectives go far beyond that. […] Documentation is not only a technical activity, but also an act of resistance, of care, and of collective organisation.”
These practices also sustain memory, challenge official narratives, and make visible patterns of violence that might otherwise remain hidden. Through documentation, they build evidence and push for accountability beyond national borders. At the same time, as Anna notes:
“Families of the disappeared in Mexico rarely invoke the language of transitional justice explicitly. Instead, they mobilise narratives grounded in its core pillars: truth, justice, memory, non-recurrence, and reparation, adapting these frameworks to a shifting and often adverse context that they face.”
In doing so, families are not only responding to the crisis; they are actively reshaping what justice looks like in a context where violence persists and formal transitional processes remain limited. Their work expands the boundaries of transitional justice, grounding it in lived experience and everyday practices of love and care.
]]>A team of students from the Faculty has been successful in winning the 18th Frankfurt Investment Arbitration Moot Court final on 12 June. The team in Frankfurt comprised Esmée Cadogan (Trinity), Nick Warrier (Churchill), and Harry Staddon (Corpus), and coach Jonathan Teo (Jesus). They were supported throughout their preparation by Wilfred Ong (St Edmund's) and coach Titus Soh (Hughes Hall). After 4 days of mooting against a field of 32 other teams, the team emerged victorious. In an additional accolade, Esmée was awarded The Best Advocate of the Final and will therefore receive the Aurelius Cotta Scholarship for the Arbitration Academy in Paris. Responding to the win, Esmée said: "Winning the Frankfurt Investment Arbitration Moot with the Cambridge team was an incredibly rewarding experience, and I was delighted to be awarded the Best Advocate Prize. It gave me the chance to develop legal research, written advocacy and oral advocacy skills in a demanding international context, and showed me how valuable international mooting can be as a complement to academic study. Preparing written and oral submissions required us to think carefully about legal authority, structure and persuasion, while also engaging with an area of law beyond the ordinary undergraduate curriculum. I am very grateful to my teammates, whose hard work and collaboration made the experience so enjoyable, and I hope Cambridge students will continue to have opportunities to take part in competitions of this kind." The Frankfurt Investment Arbitration Moot Court is the oldest and most prestigious student competition in the area of investment protection law. Its focus is on the oral presentation of legal arguments before an arbitral tribunal composed of specialists in the field during a one week final event which takes place in June of every year. The competition is unique in that it combines the law of investment protection, one of the most modern and fastest developing areas of international law, with the history of international law and of international trade.
Connect:
Chapters:
[00:00:00] Welcome & series launch (Karlan + McConnell)
Pam Karlan introduces the special episode; Michael McConnell launches The Declaration at 250 and the project’s guiding question.
[00:00:54] Framing the episode: What does democracy need to flourish?
McConnell previews the episode’s focus on democratic flourishing, featuring Condoleezza Rice with response from historian David Kennedy.
[00:02:04] Rice: The Declaration ends tyranny; democracy is the harder next step
Rice argues the Declaration is fundamentally revolutionary—overthrowing the old—raising the problem of how revolutions become democracies.
[00:06:05] Rice: America’s conditions, near-failures, and why separation of powers matters
Rice describes the U.S. “luck,” the near-collapse under the Articles and the Civil War, and the Constitution’s durability through distributed power.
[00:11:37] Rice: Civil rights, law, and a “second founding” (1964–65)
Drawing on personal experience and movement strategy, Rice emphasizes institutional change—litigation, amendments, and landmark legislation—as democracy’s engine.
[00:20:00] Rice: Institutions vs. culture—lessons from Russia, Afghanistan, Tunisia, Poland, Kenya, Hungary
Rice rejects “DNA for democracy” explanations and shows how executive strength, civil society, and institutional legitimacy shape success or failure.
[00:32:33] Kennedy: Equality’s evolving meaning—and the civil society trust crisis
Kennedy traces equality from Jefferson to the 14th Amendment and warns that declining trust and civic know-how signal weakening civil society.
[00:42:52] Kennedy’s question: “Spirit of constitutionalism,” plus depersonalization (social media/suburbanization)
Rice defines constitutionalism as lived civic practice beyond paper rights; both discuss forces eroding community and shared institutions before closing.
Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
]]>For decades, the standard method for comparing legal systems around the world has been under fire. But what if the problem isn’t the method itself, but how we’ve been using it?
On this episode of the Lawcast, Randall Stephenson argues that instead of abandoning our old tools, we need to completely rethink them. By drawing on everything from ancient philosophy to quantum physics, he reimagines law not as a static museum of rules, but as a dynamic, living web of relationships. Get ready for a fascinating conversation on how we view global law.
Find out more:
]]>Im Gespräch geht es um Verantwortung, Klimafinanzierung und die Machtverhältnisse in internationalen Klimaverhandlungen. Außerdem sprechen wir darüber, warum Klimaschutz oft als Belastung dargestellt wird, welche Interessen den Ausstieg aus fossilen Energien bremsen und weshalb reiche Länder stärker in die Pflicht genommen werden müssen.
Inhalt
Weiterführende Links
Moderation: Sophie Fasshauer
Redaktion: Leonardo Pereira & DGVN-Arbeitskreis Nachhaltigkeit und Klimagerechtigkeit
Postproduktion: Erwin Eisenhardt, DGVN Arbeitskreis Nachhaltigkeit und Klimagerechtigkeit
]]>If you enjoyed listening to this podcast, please consider contributing to MPB: https://donate.mpbfoundation.org/mspb/podcast
Today’s Legal Terms on In Legal Terms are: Sine Die, Conference Committee, Effective Date
Who’s your state representative and who’s your state senator? If you don’t know you can go to legislature dot ms dot gov There’s a legislative district map where you can enter your address, and the map will zoom to that area, you can click on your district and see a photo or your representative and learn your district number. From the main page you can navigate to take a virtual tour of the Capitol and watch videos of committee sessions.
Where can you get some Mississippi legislative news between sessions? MPB News produces @Issue. Monday’s broadcast / podcast talked with the co-chair for the select committee on school consolidation. Listen to that interview and discussion or watch it from mpbonline dot org
You can listen LIVE to us from the MPB Public Media app or from MPBonline.org/radio
Thursdays, following our over-the-air broadcast, you can hear Next Stop Mississippi on MPB Think Radio at 4pm Central.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
]]>00:00:58 — The big themes the series will test: democracy, critiques, duties, and constitutional influence
A preview of the agenda: what makes democracies flourish, modern challenges to founding principles, rights versus duties, and the Declaration’s impact on state constitutions and government structure.
00:01:19 — The forward-looking questions: law, AI, and America’s “promissory note”
The trailer highlights upcoming debates over whether the Declaration is law, how it applies to artificial intelligence, and its continuing moral force from Lincoln to MLK.
Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
]]>The Faculty of Law is delighted to announce the re-launch of its online course, Exploring Law: Studying Law at University . The course will re-start on 13 July 2026. Learners can register for the course immediately, and at any time before 24 August 2026. Over 15,000 learners have enrolled on the course since it was first launched in 2021. We look forward to welcoming many more over the coming months: the course is being offered twice a year, beginning in the last week in January and the third week in July. About the Exploring Law course Exploring Law is an innovative, open-access online course, designed primarily for 16 to 18-year-olds who are considering whether to study law at a university in the UK. It is free for anyone to access and complete. Learners who enrol on the course for free have full access to the course for six weeks; the six course modules become available on a weekly basis, and learners can work through each module, as it becomes available, at their own pace. The course is a key outreach initiative for the Faculty of Law, intended to help any student, whatever their background, and whatever their particular university aspirations. Further information about the course and registration can be found from the Faculty of Law’s Exploring Law webpage .
Die Straße von Hormuz, die russische Schattenflotte oder die US-amerikanischen Angriffe auf angebliche "Drogenboote": Das Seerecht war in den letzten Monaten in aller Munde. Grund genug, mit einer ausgewiesenen Expertin auf diesem Gebiet über diese und allgemeinere Themen zu sprechen: das Recht auf friedliche Durchfahrt, den Seegerichtshof, die Rechte von Binnenstaaten, das Flaggenprinzip, das Betreiben von Casinos auf offener See, die Grenzen auf den Weltmeeren, die Frage, was ein Meer überhaupt ist und vieles mehr.
Podcast unterstützen: https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/ralphjanik
Professorin Matz-Lück auf der Website der Uni Kiel Recht politisch-Folge mit Nele Matz-Lück zu den Rechtsstreitigkeiten im Mittelmeer (2020)
Audio-Mitschnitte:
weiterführende Literatur/Quellen:
In this episode, Justina Uriburu (University of Manchester) is joined by Jorge Viñuales (Harold Samuel Chair of Law and Environmental Policy at the University of Cambridge) and Sergio Puig (Chair in International Economic Law at the European University Institute and Evo DeConcini Professor of Law at the University of Arizona).
]]>In Legal Terms, the show where we break down the law, explain how it works, and help make it a little less intimidating for everyday Mississippians hosted by attorney Adam Kilgore. legalterms@mbponline.org
If you enjoyed listening to this podcast, please consider contributing to MPB: https://donate.mpbfoundation.org/mspb/podcast
Today’s Legal Terms on In Legal Terms are: civics, civic duty, rule of law
MPB has local call in shows every weekday where you can ask an expert about money, health, gardening, and more. We’re the legal show!
You can listen LIVE to us from the MPB Public Media app or from MPBonline.org/radio
What are our civic duties? According to Arizona State Center for American Civics duties include such as voting, paying taxes, casting educated votes, serving on juries, defending the country in the armed forces, and participating in civic organizations.
One of our civic duties is to defend our country in the armed forces. We’ve done a couple of broadcasts about that. If you’d like to learn a little bit about military and the law check out one of our In Legal Terms podcasts from September 9 or February 4th both from 2025.
Another civic duty is to serve on juries. We’ve done a couple of broadcasts on that. May 28th 2024 and May 15th 2018.
You can listen LIVE to us from the MPB Public Media app or from MPBonline.org/radio
Thursdays, following our over-the-air broadcast, you can hear Next Stop Mississippi on MPB Think Radio at 4pm Central.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
]]>---
The birthright citizenship case and immigration raids have drawn headlines and national attention, but Lucas Guttentag, who teaches immigration law at Stanford and Yale law schools, says some of the Trump administration’s most consequential immigration changes are unfolding with far less public scrutiny.
Guttentag, one of the nation’s leading immigration law experts and founder of the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project, joins host Professor Pamela Karlan for a wide-ranging conversation about current American immigration policies. Guttentag discusses his time in the Biden administration and compares policies in the first Trump administration with those of the second. He also focuses on the Immigration Policy Tracking Project, an effort he launched in 2017 with law students to document every Trump administration immigration policy, implementation memo, directive, and related legal challenge. The tracker, he explains, is designed to make visible what can otherwise be hard to see: hundreds of policy changes that, taken together, are reshaping the immigration system.
The episode examines what these changes mean for immigration courts, bond hearings, temporary protected status, green card applications, and the lawyers challenging the administration in court. One of Guttentag’s central points is that immigration is a civil system, not a criminal one, and the distinction matters for anyone trying to understand what is happening now.
Links:
Connect:
(00:00:00) The Immigration Policy Tracking Project
(00:07:33) The Dismantling of the Immigration Court System
(00:12:15) "Public Spectacle and Private Terror" — Tactics of Fear
(00:17:32) Asylum, TPS, and the Racial Undercurrent
(00:21:51) The Courts Push Back
(00:29:22) What a Rebuilt Immigration System Would Look Like
Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
]]>A sandwich lunch for lecture attendees will be held from 12.30 pm in the Old Library on all days.
Lecture 1: 1 pm Monday 8 June - 'International Law Immunities - Do we need them?'
Lecture 2: 1 pm Tuesday 9 June - 'Immunities and Prosecutions for International Crimes in Foreign Domestic Courts'
Lecture 3: 1 pm Wednesday 10 June - 'Immunities and International Criminal Tribunals'
]]>Im Gespräch geht es um die politischen Ursachen von Hunger, die Rolle globaler Ungleichheit und warum weltweit zwar genug Nahrung produziert wird, aber dennoch Millionen Menschen keinen sicheren Zugang zu ihr haben. Außerdem sprechen wir über die Auswirkungen von Kriegen, Klimakrise und globalen Handelsstrukturen sowie darüber, wo humanitäre Hilfe an ihre Grenzen stößt – und warum langfristige Ernährungssicherheit mehr braucht als kurzfristige Nothilfe.
Inhalt
Weiterführende Informationen
Moderation: Natalia Rudenko
Redaktion: Leonardo Pereira & DGVN Arbeitskreis Nachhaltigkeit und Klimagerechtigkeit
Postproduktion: Erwin Eisenhardt, DGVN Arbeitskreis Nachhaltigkeit und Klimagerechtigkeit
]]>A sandwich lunch for lecture attendees will be held from 12.30 pm in the Old Library on all days.
Lecture 1: 1 pm Monday 8 June - 'International Law Immunities - Do we need them?'
Lecture 2: 1 pm Tuesday 9 June - 'Immunities and Prosecutions for International Crimes in Foreign Domestic Courts'
Lecture 3: 1 pm Wednesday 10 June - 'Immunities and International Criminal Tribunals'
]]>A sandwich lunch for lecture attendees will be held from 12.30 pm in the Old Library on all days.
Lecture 2: 1 pm Tuesday 9 June - 'Immunities and Prosecutions for International Crimes in Foreign Domestic Courts'
Lecture 3: 1 pm Wednesday 10 June - 'Immunities and International Criminal Tribunals'
]]>In this week’s episode, we take a step back and do some introspection. Here to discuss whether you should trust Yale, and other elite universities, more than Jalen Brunson in the fourth quarter is friend and colleague Sarath Sanga, Professor of Law at Yale Law School and Co-Director of the Yale Law School Center for the Study of Corporate Law. Sanga joins us to discuss both his new article, A Theory of Trust in Institutions, co-authored by Yehonatan Givati, and the recent Report by the Yale Committee on Trust in Higher Education, of which Sanga was a member.
Sanga kicks off the episode by explaining his view of why higher education is hemorrhaging public trust. Sanga argues that universities, and other institutions, pre-commit to doing specific things, and they lose trust whenever they stray from this initial commitment. Sam questions whether universities are now, and always have been, finishing schools for elites and, if so, whether it makes sense to talk about institutions like Yale having a mandate. And David brings up a variety of counterexamples that call into question whether an institution going against its mandate, such as when a university fields varsity sports teams, actually decreases trust in the real world. We hope you enjoy!
Referenced Readings
A Theory of Trust in Institutions, by Sarath Sanga and Yehonatan Givati
Report of the Yale Committee on Trust in Higher Education, by Yale University
"Shut Up and Dribble", by Ian Ayres
A Running List of Nominations for the Canon of American Legal Thought (1975-2025)
A Matter of Interpretation, by Antonin Scalia [Grove]
“A Neo-Federalist View of Article III”, by Akhil Reed Amar [Grove]
“The Anticanon”, by Jamal Greene [Grove]
The Economic Structure of Corporate Law, by Frank Easterbrook and Daniel Fischel [Macey]
“The Costs of Employment Segregation: Evidence from the Federal Government Under Woodrow Wilson”, by Abhay Aneja and Guo Xu [Sanga]
This episode is all about how Yale, and other elite institutions, are losing public trust. As Yale Law School insiders, what’s your best solution for making YLS more trustworthy?
Sam: I’m very suspicious of law schools, especially ours-why shouldn’t everyone else be?
David: I’m not sure that there is one quick trick in a polarized country, unless we can ensure that none of our graduates ever have an opinion that anyone of any political party ever disagrees with. That said, the best plan is to focus on what we’re good at, teaching brilliant students (like Daniel Browning, our out-going EP and all-around superstar!) and producing a broad range of excellent and rigorous scholarship.