ࡱ> Z\Y ?bjbjVV 4R<<j =777KKK84K/87777777:<777@0L7 777 7 35@jEK`4770/8v46== ==,55j==776D D77 /8== : Research Plan and Presentation This 7-10 page assignment will allow you to focus on a topic of your choice involving international, foreign and/or comparative law. Your topic can be on whatever you like, and you can absolutely kill two birds with one stone by choosing a topic that you will be writing a paper on for another class If you have no topic in mind, you could use a legal issue that you have encountered in the past, or make one up Ideally, the topic you choose will be able to apply itself in both foreign and international law Example: If I were doing this project, I would make up a hypothetical airline that wanted to begin service from the US to Ireland. I would therefore need to be aware of any international treaties, agreements, and organizations that dealt with air travel, as well as local laws regulating air travel in both Ireland and the European Union. [You dont have to consider US law for this project unless youre feeling adventurous] You will be required to complete a comprehensive description of your research process and an annotated bibliography of the sources used. Your plan must include the following: A paragraph explaining either the thesis you will be writing about or the legal problem involved A comprehensive dialogue detailing the process in which you went about collecting information on this topic, including descriptions of any problems you ran into and how you resolved them. An informal tone is preferred (i.e., I wasnt sure whether to look in UST or Kavass) as it helps me better understand your thought process and will demonstrate to me whether or not you learned anything! An annotated bibliography listing all of the sources you have compiled on your topic. Note that it doesnt have to list EVERYTHING ever written on the topic; it is up to you to determine which are the most ESSENTIAL and IMPORTANT sources to include. Include your reasoning on why you chose to include each source in the annotation. You will then prepare a presentation (approximately 10 minutes long) on your topic to be delivered to the class during the final two weeks of our course. The point of this is to share topic-specific information with your classmates, as many of them may be interested in your topic. Think of it as a show and tell sessionpowerpoint slides are optional, but please spend some time demonstrating the sources and explaining how they tie into the practical application of your topic Please also prepare a brief (one-page) handout of your top 5 sources for the topic. **** Topics must be decided on and discussed with me by February 3. **** SAMPLE HYPO & FIRST SECTION OF AN EXCELLENT RESEARCH PLAN This is the first section from one of last year's student's Research Plans. I thought it was excellent because: it very explicitly outlined the student's thought process and research process in going through the different sources the student consulted a number of different legitimate sources within the area, even if not all of them produced entirely relevant results the student shows understanding of mistakes made in the research process and corrects them the student footnotes all relevant sources for the annotated bibliography, which is represented here as an endnote (i.e., all the footnotes are listed at the end of the Plan under the heading "Annotated Bibliography" instead of on each page) Libel law and the UK I am representing a magazine publisher based in NY, Joey, who happens to have dual citizenship (he is also an Irish citizen), being sued in the UK by private party who claims he was defamed in an article published in Joeys magazine. While there are no subscribers to the print magazine in the UK, the magazine can also be accessed via the internet. The magazine has its largest audience in the U.S., but also gets many internet hits from the UK. My client wants to know whether he can get the action dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. And if not, what should his next step be? What international and domestic concerns does Joey need to be aware of? I. Public International Law U.S. Sources I started with customary law of the U.S. I went to the State.gov website to see if the U.S. had a policy position on foreign libel claims. Browsing by topic, I searched speech, free, defamation, libel first amendment- nothing. I did a text search for defamation and came across a recent newsletter by the Bureau of International Affairs, which described the UNs effort in advancing a resolution to ban speech that might prove offensive to religion groups and the U.S.s opposition to this resolution as an infringement on ones right to free speech. While not on point with my clients case, the U.S. seemed more protective of speech than the U.N. (and possibly other jurisdictions). There was also a link to a speech by the U.S. addressed to the UN Human Rights Council. I then searched under Human Rights Council in the drop-down box- to see if any other recent positions were posted, I did a text search of defamation and came across a speech delivered by legal adviser, U.S. Dept of State. I did another search defamation and came across a few digests and ctrl f searched 2007-2008 but nothing relevant to private libel suit, only references to religious defamation. Straying off course a bit, I went back to the state.gov site: chose policy issues- democracy and human rights- and found a sub-topic Press Freedom. There I found a speech/posting by Secretary Clinton dated May 1st clearly outlining the U.S. position on encouraging free speech. I still did not have a strong source stating the position of the U.S, so I went to the Digest of U.S. Practice in International Law  and looked through the past three years; using ctrl F libel or defamation but the documents were not very helpful: 2007-08 only discussed religious defamation; while 2006 only discussed U.S.s encouragement of Cambodia repealing criminal defamation from their Criminal Code. I went into the American Law Reporter on Heinonline and searched the vol. 31 ALI Rep. 2008-09, and tried to text search defamation, libel, etc., but realized that the text search function was not very helpful and did not see a table of index so I thought this source would be more useful if I had a citation. I googled ALI and went to ali.org where I searched libel and found a number of docs pertaining to reciprocity of enforcement of international judgments, including a Hague Conference addressing this specific issue. I clicked on the Memorandum which was outdated but did provide several conventions/treaties in relation to enforcement of judgments. I went back to Heinonline and chose Resources- Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States and found the section cited in the memo, I continued to read through 481 and found Foreign Country Practices in subsection 6, and continued into 482 describing grounds for refusing enforcement of foreign judgment. This was all very helpful in understanding the U.S. position on enforcement of foreign judgments. I also wanted to explore recent Senate or Congressional discussions regarding the area of libel so I went to GPOaccess.org and searched all documents for libel and the search resulted in nine hits; I briefly looked into each one, finding most were off-topic, but one report entitled Recognition of Foreign Defamation Judgments was perfectly on point with my topic- it discussed the differences in defamation law in UK and U.S. and the need for a uniform standard concerning enforcement of foreign defamation judgments. This provided some great sources which will be addressed infra Sections V & IX. The Report explained that State law governs the enforcement of foreign judgments, which I had previously learned from the Restatement (Third), and certain states, including NY and Illinois, have recently enacted statutes prohibiting enforcement of a foreign defamation judgment that contravene ones right to free speech. The Report also stated that Europeans do not enjoy the same protection, as British libel judgments are easily enforceable against assets throughout European Union (except Denmark). However, there was no supporting law cited, but I eventually found support, infra Section VII.      Eileen Chamberlain Donahoe, Ambassador, U.S. Permanent Representative to the Human Rights Council, Combating Defamation of Religions: US Explanation of Vote, Address Before the United Nations Human Rights Council, 13th Session (Mar. 25, 2010), available at HYPERLINK "http://geneva.usmission.gov/2010/03/25/combatting-defamation-of-religions-u-s-explanation-of-vote/"http://geneva.usmission.gov/2010/03/25/combatting-defamation-of-religions-u-s-explanation-of-vote/. This was a good starting ground to point the policy position of the U.S. in relation to freedom of expression, indicating that the U.S. is more protective of free speech than other countries. It also indicated there was a subgroup of the UN which deals with free speech.  Harold Hongju Koh, Legal Adviser,U.S. Dept of State, The Obama Administration and Intl Law, Address Before the Annual Meeting of the American Society of International Law (Mar. 25, 2010), available at HYPERLINK "http://geneva.usmission.gov/2010/04/01/obama-administration-international-law/"http://geneva.usmission.gov/2010/04/01/obama-administration-international-law/ (explaining the U.S.s opposition to initiatives that weaken protections on freedom of expression, in particular, the push of some Human Rights Council Members to ban speech that defames religions, such as the Danish cartoons, through a resolution). This was helpful in understanding the U.S.s position, but not relevant to my topic.  U.S. Dept of State, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, Secretary Clinton posting, dated May 1, 2010, Press Freedom, available at http://www.state.gov/g/drl/press/index.htm (We will work in partnership with non-governmental organizations and directly with members of the media. And we will stand with those courageous men and women who face persecution for exercising and defending the right of media freedom."). This resource was not very helpful to my particular research focus, but it was a current posting that re-enforced the U.S.s commitment to protecting free speech.  Digest of U.S. Practice in International Law, HYPERLINK "http://www.state.gov/s/l/c8183.htm"http://www.state.gov/s/l/c8183.htm. My specific topic was not covered within the past few years, however, the Digest is a good source for determining the official State Department's view of international law. It provides a historical record of the views and practices of the Government of the United States in public and private international law, it is published annually, and available online.  American Law Inst., Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments: Analysis and Proposed Federal Statute, available at HYPERLINK "http://www.ali.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=publications.ppage&node_id=82"http://www.ali.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=publications.ppage&node_id=82. It was originally expected that this projectwould take the form of legislation implementing the General Convention on International Jurisdiction and the Effects of Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters drafted by The Hague Conference on Private International Law. Because of the Convention's uncertain outcome, however, a proposed federal statute independent of the Convention was drafted. This was a great resource, as it provided leads regarding enforcement of foreign judgments and also mentioned the Hague Conference, which I research below.  Memorandum from Professor Andreas F. Lowenfeld et al. to the Council on Proposal for Project on Jurisdiction and Judgments Convention (Nov. 30, 1998). This was a great resource as it explained a proposal modeled after Brussels Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (1968) in force among the European Community, the proposed Hague Convention that also deal with enforcement of foreign judgments, the effect of Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 US 64 (1938), which recognizes enforcement of foreign-country judgments as a matter of state law, and mentioned the Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States 481, cmt. A. The memo also led me to a number of great resources that helped me gain a better understanding of this concept (See supra Section VII and infra note 7).  See Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States 481, cmt. A. (1987). This recognized the states jurisdiction in enforcement foreign judgments unless the decision raises questions under the U.S. Const. (i.e. intrusion into foreign affairs of the U.S. or denial of due process)); cf. Id. 482 (laying out the grounds for non-recognition of foreign judgments); id. 482(d) (stating a judgment may not be recognized if the cause of action on which the judgment was based, or the judgment itself, is repugnant to the public policy of the United States or of the State where recognition is sought). This was a great resource for foreign relations and from it I was able to ascertain that a foreign judgment could be denied in the U.S. if it is contrary to our First Amendment.  H.R Rep. No. 111-154, at 1, 4-5 (2009) (recommending the passage of Bill H.R. 2765 to amend title 28, U.S.C. to prohibit recognition and enforcement of foreign defamation judgments and certain foreign judgments against the providers of interactive computer services). This resource discussed the rationale for proposing the non-recognition of judgments and also provided the current position of the U.S. in relation to UK libel law.  N.Y. CPLR 5304(b)(8) (McKinneys 2008) (New York) (prohibiting a court from enforcing a foreign defamation judgment unless the foreign forum provides at least as much protection for freedom of speech and press as does the First Amendment). This was a local resource from which I was able to determine that my client, a New Yorker, would be protected from the enforcement of a judgment that is antipathetic to our constitutional rights.  Supra note 8, at 4 n.17.  %) S x y cdP'(289:FϻϻϗϻϬrjZh_h_5CJ OJQJaJ h_OJQJ"hDFhDF5CJOJQJ\aJh{u5CJOJQJ\aJh eh e5CJOJQJaJhDFhDF5hDFhDFCJOJQJaJ hDFhDFh{u5CJOJQJaJhDFhDF5CJOJQJaJhDF5CJOJQJaJ%hDFhDF5>*CJ$OJQJ\aJ$" M  S y dP9$a$gdDF & FdgdDFm$ & FdgdDFm$ & FdgdDFm$ & FdgdDFm$gdDF$a$gd_FGtu456K }EF3!4!!!,"""#˴{{o{{{{`J`*jhih_0JB*CJUaJph%%%hih_B*CJaJph%%%hih_CJH*aJ!jhih_0JCJUaJhih_5>*CJ\aJhih_5CJ\aJhih_CJaJhih_5>*CJaJh_6CJaJh_h_6CJaJh_5>*CJaJh_h_5CJ OJQJaJ h_5CJ OJQJaJ 9tu]C56KL^!#h(LL]L^L`gd_$LL]L^L`a$gd_L]Lgd_ & FL]Lgd_ LL]L^Lgd_$LL]L^La$gd_##$$$$%%%%O'P'((U(Z([(h(i(j(k(m(n(p(q(s(t(w(x(y(zrnrnrnrn[Oh_h_5CJaJ$jh_h_0J5CJUaJhkjhkUh_hDFOJQJ h_h_h_h_0J56CJaJ!h_h_0J5>*䴳a$0䴳a05C0䴳5C䴳5>*䴳((((((((((((++.0259%<=????? 7$8$H$gd_gd_gd_gdDFgd_y(()\)^)n)z){)|)))M*N*O*^+_+`+a++, ,,,-,.,,,,,,).+.,.-..z0{0|0000ʶʩʶoogjh_U!jhih_0JCJUaJhih_CJaJh_h_CJaJ$jh_h_0J5CJUaJh_h_0JCJaJh_h_0JCJaJ h_h_jh_h_Uh_h_0J5>*䴳5C05C'0000012222222222637333335556688889999994:7:8:;:::%<&<'<ܼܫܑܼ܅ܑܑܑܼyܑܑܑܼh-+Ch_5CJaJh_h_5CJaJhih_>*CJaJh_h_5>*CJaJ h_h_5B*CJaJph%%%!jhih_0JCJUaJhih_B*CJaJph%%%hih_CJaJhih_0JCJaJjh_Uh_,'<<======>???????賨h_hDFOJQJhkhih_>*CJaJh_CJaJ!jhih_0JCJUaJhih_CJ\aJhih_CJaJhih_0JCJaJ21h:pq^/ =!"#$% ^ 666666666vvvvvvvvv666666>66666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666H666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666662 0@P`p2( 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p8XV~_HmH nH sH tH @`@ q^NormalCJ_HaJmH sH tH BB q^ Heading 1$@&5CJ\aJ:: q^ Heading 2$@&5\:: q^ Heading 3$@&6]FF q^ Heading 4 $@&a$ 5:>*CJDA`D Default Paragraph FontRiR 0 Table Normal4 l4a (k ( 0No List 6U@6 q^ Hyperlink >*B*phV@V q^ List Paragraphd^CJOJQJaJ8B8 q^ Body Text 5\aJ*W@!* _Strong5\H+@2H _ Endnote TextCJPJaJnHtHFAF _Endnote Text Char PJnHtH>*@Q> _Endnote ReferenceH*B^@bB _ Normal (Web)dd[$\$PK![Content_Types].xmlj0Eжr(΢Iw},-j4 wP-t#bΙ{UTU^hd}㨫)*1P' ^W0)T9<l#$yi};~@(Hu* Dנz/0ǰ $ X3aZ,D0j~3߶b~i>3\`?/[G\!-Rk.sԻ..a濭?PK!֧6 _rels/.relsj0 }Q%v/C/}(h"O = C?hv=Ʌ%[xp{۵_Pѣ<1H0ORBdJE4b$q_6LR7`0̞O,En7Lib/SeеPK!kytheme/theme/themeManager.xml M @}w7c(EbˮCAǠҟ7՛K Y, e.|,H,lxɴIsQ}#Ր ֵ+!,^$j=GW)E+& 8PK!Ptheme/theme/theme1.xmlYOo6w toc'vuر-MniP@I}úama[إ4:lЯGRX^6؊>$ !)O^rC$y@/yH*񄴽)޵߻UDb`}"qۋJחX^)I`nEp)liV[]1M<OP6r=zgbIguSebORD۫qu gZo~ٺlAplxpT0+[}`jzAV2Fi@qv֬5\|ʜ̭NleXdsjcs7f W+Ն7`g ȘJj|h(KD- dXiJ؇(x$( :;˹! I_TS 1?E??ZBΪmU/?~xY'y5g&΋/ɋ>GMGeD3Vq%'#q$8K)fw9:ĵ x}rxwr:\TZaG*y8IjbRc|XŻǿI u3KGnD1NIBs RuK>V.EL+M2#'fi ~V vl{u8zH *:(W☕ ~JTe\O*tHGHY}KNP*ݾ˦TѼ9/#A7qZ$*c?qUnwN%Oi4 =3ڗP 1Pm \\9Mؓ2aD];Yt\[x]}Wr|]g- eW )6-rCSj id DЇAΜIqbJ#x꺃 6k#ASh&ʌt(Q%p%m&]caSl=X\P1Mh9MVdDAaVB[݈fJíP|8 քAV^f Hn- "d>znNJ ة>b&2vKyϼD:,AGm\nziÙ.uχYC6OMf3or$5NHT[XF64T,ќM0E)`#5XY`פ;%1U٥m;R>QD DcpU'&LE/pm%]8firS4d 7y\`JnίI R3U~7+׸#m qBiDi*L69mY&iHE=(K&N!V.KeLDĕ{D vEꦚdeNƟe(MN9ߜR6&3(a/DUz<{ˊYȳV)9Z[4^n5!J?Q3eBoCM m<.vpIYfZY_p[=al-Y}Nc͙ŋ4vfavl'SA8|*u{-ߟ0%M07%<ҍPK! ѐ'theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsM 0wooӺ&݈Э5 6?$Q ,.aic21h:qm@RN;d`o7gK(M&$R(.1r'JЊT8V"AȻHu}|$b{P8g/]QAsم(#L[PK-![Content_Types].xmlPK-!֧6 +_rels/.relsPK-!kytheme/theme/themeManager.xmlPK-!Ptheme/theme/theme1.xmlPK-! ѐ' theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsPK] E3O 7 8 c!<?7R  F#y(0'<? "$&'(9h(?!#%s`3bm  ?XXXXL# AA@0(  B S  ?(,,,,+l,*l*,+* *lg+gg,glggg,glggg,glggg ,g lg g g ,glgg,glggg,glgg rr  **^^^^~~M(M(**>1>128282335555667      !"#$%&' tt  ..bbbbQ(Q( * *K1K12;2;2335555667  !"#$%&'8*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsCity9 *urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsStateB'*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagscountry-region9(*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsplace !('(''('('('('('('('('('('('(''( (''('(   j l m o p r s u w h#n#o#r#--_0b0R1U175 6 |j l m o p r s u w &&5);)-G.W1a155777333333339 i 7m ~x`WD<= `w$WTQT)C$T7m < nUY ^`OJQJo(v ^`OJQJo(o p^p`OJQJo( @ ^@ `OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(o ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(o P^P`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(^`OJQJ^Jo(o p^p`OJQJo( @ ^@ `OJQJo(^`OJQJ^Jo(o ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(^`OJQJ^Jo(o P^P`OJQJo(h^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh ^ `OJQJo(hHh\ ^\ `OJQJ^Jo(hHoh,^,`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hH ^`OJQJo(^`OJQJ^Jo(o p^p`OJQJo( @ ^@ `OJQJo(^`OJQJ^Jo(o ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(^`OJQJ^Jo(o P^P`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(o pp^p`OJQJo( @ @ ^@ `OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(o ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(o PP^P`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(o pp^p`OJQJo( @ @ ^@ `OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(o ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(o PP^P`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(o pp^p`OJQJo( @ @ ^@ `OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(o ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(o PP^P`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(o pp^p`OJQJo( @ @ ^@ `OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(o ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(o PP^P`OJQJo(< nT)CTm7m$W`W<=                                                                        N/Nuy N6m>$[ 8aQuV">@*(q,``%2 += ffffffffffffZI;9N6l +=ZI;9>@@UtShm>$[``@U ffffffffffff8a*(q,tShQuV"l I^q%2NuLzLzI^q$Y O8 B lkL`M_ x AY\D&K66K+@U%Y?'Zh^oPc e?fm!mzwtchK8 ;L.{uKDF5j l @7@UnknownG* Times New Roman5Symbol3. * Arial7.{ @Calibri;SimSun[SO;Wingdings?= * Courier NewA BCambria Math"qh-&-&gs::!20Z Z 3QHX  $P+@U2!xx Fordham University School of LawFordhamaashea,        Oh+'0 $0 P \ h t$Fordham University School of LawFordham Normal.dotmaashea2Microsoft Office Word@F#@Rt@@jE@jE՜.+,D՜.+,` hp  Fordham School of Law:Z  !Fordham University School of Law TitleX 8@ _PID_HLINKSAm Fhttp://www.ali.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=publications.ppage&node_id=82d6#http://www.state.gov/s/l/c8183.htm8zOhttp://geneva.usmission.gov/2010/04/01/obama-administration-international-law/fachttp://geneva.usmission.gov/2010/03/25/combatting-defamation-of-religions-u-s-explanation-of-vote/  !"#$%&'()+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHJKLMNOPRSTUVWX[Root Entry F0*jE]1Table*i=WordDocument4RSummaryInformation(IDocumentSummaryInformation8QCompObjy  F'Microsoft Office Word 97-2003 Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q