http://hdl.handle.net/10150/679952 2026-05-17T18:48:12Z http://hdl.handle.net/10150/679957 International Online Gambling: A New Business Evolving Beyond State Regulations Groszek, Jacob International online gambling sites are becoming increasingly prominent in the lives of those living in the United States, reaching across the country in ways land-based casinos and sports betting never have. These sites circumnavigate the patchwork, state-based gambling regulations of the United States and other nations, causing lost tax revenue and harm to the personal well-being of players. The international nature of these online gambling sites suggests that the Federal Government has more authority on this issue than it has so far exercised. Federal and comparable international policies; technological and methodological advancements in identification; self-exclusion; and the recent TikTok ban provide possible frameworks for better enforcement of regulations of international online gambling sites. This Note demonstrates the shortcomings of state-based gambling regulations when it comes to enforcing such regulations on international online gambling sites. The issue is broad in scope, and the patchwork nature of the states’ regulations on gambling requires flexible solutions for their enforcement. Ultimately, the Federal Government is the most apt to employ various international policies, as well as technological and methodological solutions for gambling regulation enforcement. Because international online gambling is such a new business, it is important to approach these issues now, explore the extent of federal and state powers over them, and employ solutions before international online gambling explodes into a much greater problem. 2026-01-01T00:00:00Z http://hdl.handle.net/10150/679956 Cross-Border Commitments: U.S.-Mexico Cooperation on the Rights and Protection of Migrant Children Marshall, Madison Child migration at the U.S.-Mexican border has reached historic levels, with tens of thousands of children arriving each year. Despite this surge, both the United States and Mexico continue to prioritize enforcement and border security to combat drug trafficking and crime over the protection of children, risking basic humanitarian rights and care violations. This Note argues that the United States and Mexico’s current bilateral approach to immigration policy and enforcement is so overly focused on combating drugs and crime that it neglects essential protection procedures and accountability measures for most migrants, including children. This Note looks beyond domestic law and enforcement mechanisms and instead calls for a shift in the countries’ bilateral immigration approach to center the protection of children and human rights, using existing legal frameworks and international conventions as a guide. By reframing the migration policy analysis to focus on bilateral cooperation and accountability, this Note offers a new perspective on how child migrant protections can be meaningfully realized. 2026-01-01T00:00:00Z http://hdl.handle.net/10150/679955 The Illusion of Generosity: Comparing the Effectiveness of Opt-In and Opt-Out Organ Donation Systems in the United States and Belgium Rahman, Alison Well-intentioned illusions remain shallow, no matter how many oases appear promised in the distance. After the first successful heart transplantation occurred in 1967, opt-in and opt-out consent legislation erupted with the promise to increase donations. Despite the revolution of policies in the United States and Belgium, the resulting systems have failed to meet the demand of organ shortages. Examining consent legislation alone will not quench the ever-rising cries for scarce resources; presuming generosity will increase if governments change how people can donate ignores the messy business of grief, doubt, and the very human instinct to hold on. The law may assume the body’s availability, but the heart—both literal and metaphorical—remains stubbornly unclaimed. 2026-01-01T00:00:00Z http://hdl.handle.net/10150/679954 Value Chain Sovereignty Sourgens, Frederic Gilles We have a “Leviathan” problem. Great powers are rewriting the current rules-based global order. Their core argument draws on “sovereignty.” They do not mean “sovereignty” as codified in the U.N. Charter. Instead, their version of sovereignty is “imperial”: it is absolute and legally unreviewable. In this article, I provide a theoretical assessment of imperial sovereignty and identify its unique rapaciousness, extending beyond even its colonial precursors. I argue that there is a structural reason for its emergence: imperial sovereignty reacts to, and grows out of, the post-Cold-War Washington consensus and its complex integration of global value chains away from traditional sovereignty control. I provide an alternative to imperial sovereignty that can make sense of current reality and constructively reharness the idea of sovereignty. The key move I make is to reinvigorate the old legal principle of neighborliness and its cognate idea of correlative rights. I argue that integrated global value chains constitute a global resource community. This frame can address the core globalization concerns fueling imperial sovereignty: globalization erodes traditional sovereignty and thus deprives states of critical regulatory power over shared resources. Correlative rights re-empower States to exercise value-chain-wide jurisdiction to capture their share of benefits from the value chain. Yet, this right is limited by the correlative rights of their peers to safeguard the value chain community as such and compete back within it. These correlative rights are legally ascertainable and have been ascertained in the common law of property. They therefore can reinvigorate neighborliness as a crucial safety valve to manage increasingly fierce inter-State competition. This safety valve is critical for any realist to deescalate worsening geopolitical tensions between nuclear powers. 2026-01-01T00:00:00Z