Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

Issue Number

Latest documents

• Leaving Doesn't Mean Living: Analyzing the Case of Angela Vaughn, Criminalized Survivors of Gender-based Violence, and International Human Rights Law
• Repairing the American Education System Through Labor Reform: How German and French Works Councils Can Provide a Framework for Empowering Teacher's Unions
• Table of Contents
• Assemblies of Parties to Multilateral Treaties and Their Normative Authority
• One Image, One Thousand Words? Discussing the Outer Limits of Resorting to Visual Digital Evidence in Cases Involving International Crimes
• Jurisdictional Rule "x" in the Conflict of Laws: Challenges of Policy and Security in Internet Torts With Business Implications
• Not Our Cup of Tea: Why the Sec Must Regulate Spacs Differently Than the United Kingdom
• What We Talk About When We Talk About Killer Robots: the Prospects of an Autonomous Weapons Treaty
• Constitutional Human Duties
• The Growth Triangle of Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia

Featured documents

• Off With Their Heads! How China's Controversial Human Head-transplant Procedure Exceeds the Parameters of International Ethical Standards in Human Experimentation
• Choice-of-law Agreements in International Contracts
• Remedial Secession: What the Law Should Have Done, from Katanga to Kosovo
• Recognition of Palestinian Statehood: a Clarification of the Interests of the Concerned Parties
• Protecting the Right to Food in the Era of Covid-19 and Beyond
• Jurisdictional Rule "x" in the Conflict of Laws: Challenges of Policy and Security in Internet Torts With Business Implications
• Constitutionalism in the Land of the Peaceful Thunder Dragon: the Kingdom of Bhutan's Marbury Moment
• Academic Espionage: How International Trade Law Can Protect Higher Education
• How Did They Become Law?: a Jurisprudential Inquiry About the Outcome Principles of Historic United Nations Environmental Conferences
• Maryland v. King and the Road Already Traveled: How the United Kingdom Tried—and Failed—to Balance State Interests With Privacy Rights