The Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law is published three times annually by the students of the James E. Rogers College of Law at the University of Arizona. The Journal publishes articles on a wide variety of international and comparative law topics in order to provide a forum for debate on current issues affecting international legal development including international and comparative law issues and tribal/indigenous peoples law.

The Journal has three major goals: to provide an opportunity for all members to publish articles on international and comparative law topics, to serve the publication needs of the Arizona Bar Association with respect to international law, and to provide practitioners, judges, and governmental bodies with a central source of information on international topics that increasingly arise in practice.


Visit the Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law website for more information.

Collections in this community

Recent Submissions

  • Exploring Algorithmic Governance in International Trade Law: An Analysis of the United States, European Union, and China [Note]

    Pan, Qiuyi (The University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law (Tucson, AZ), 2024)
    This Note aims to explore a new global framework for governing algorithms under international trade law. Algorithms are instructions for solving a problem or completing a task based on the past data collected from the users of applications operated by transnational big tech companies. Using the implied adverse effects of algorithms (e.g., people being unaware that their choices and decisions will be driven by an inaccessible algorithmic system) and the trend of algorithmic governance in different jurisdictions, this Note aims to compare the actions taken by the United States, China, and the European Union, about how they react to the algorithmic era, and how they regulate the use of algorithms conducted by covered entities and develop an international framework for the global governance on algorithms. There are commonalities and differences among the actions taken by the United States, China, and the EU. There is a prevalent legislative trend to regulate algorithmic tools by mandating transparency and accountability to prevent adverse effects for personal information possessors. Based on the analysis of synthesizing the differences, this Note sees a possibility to explore a global framework for algorithmic governance and provides two directions on global governance on the algorithms which consists of strengthening the global collaboration and setting up a relevant multilateral treaty.
  • Winning is Secondary: Secondary Boycotts in the United States and Denmark [Note]

    McCarthy, Jack (The University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law (Tucson, AZ), 2024)
    The Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 removed some of labor’s most effective tools for collective bargaining without providing any alternatives. Among other tools, the Act made secondary boycotts illegal and allowed employers to recover damages caused by secondary boycotts. This Note will show how effective these secondary boycotts can be internationally and discuss how the lack of clarity in the American law prevents workers from engaging in constitutionally protected speech. Many argue that the current law is in place to prevent industrial strife from affecting third-party employers. The current law, however, places too powerful of a thumb on the scale in favor of management and effectively chills labor organizations’ speech out of fear of a lawsuit over one misstep. This Note explores how Denmark regulates secondary boycotts in an effort to provide an alternative way of thinking about this powerful tool of labor and considers potential next steps to improve existing American law.
  • Saad eí Data: Formalizing the Indigenous Data Sovereignty Movement Within the Navajo National Legal System, A Comparison to the Māori's Data Governance Model [Note]

    Kee, Shania L. (The University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law (Tucson, AZ), 2024)
    This Note attempts to determine how tribal governments such as the Navajo Nation can exercise greater control over and protect their Nation’s data from external entities. Tribal Nations or Indigenous Nations can exercise their political and cultural sovereignty by utilizing both Indigenous Data Sovereignty (IDSov) and Indigenous Data Governance (IDGov). This Note will examine the Māori’s application of IDSov within their own culturally-specific IDGov framework. Then, there will be an overview of the existing mechanisms available within the Navajo Nation legal system that govern data and the fundamental principles embedded in the culture of the Diné (Navajo) people. Finally, this Note will discuss recommendations that the Navajo Nation can incorporate into its legal system using the Māori’s example of its own data governance model and tools as a template. Overall, the goal of this Note is to demonstrate the legal mechanisms available to the Navajo Nation to implement its own set of data sovereignty principles aligning with its own traditional values, similar to the Māori in Aotearoa (New Zealand).
  • Constitutional Amendments Contrary to Constitutionalism: The Political Nature of Unconstitutional Constitutional Amendment in Japan [Article]

    Yokodaido, Satoshi (The University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law (Tucson, AZ), 2024)
    Constitutional law scholars in Japan have acknowledged the limitations of power to amend the Constitution since before the enactment of the Constitution of Japan in 1946. They argue that there are some “cores” that cannot be changed, even if pursuant to the prescribed procedure in the Constitution. However, they deny judicial scrutiny of when a constitutional amendment exceeds its limits. In this sense, the argument about unconstitutional constitutional amendments in Japan tends to be political, not legal, in nature. One of the “cores” of the Japanese Constitution is constitutionalism. Many constitutional law scholars have recently criticized attempts at constitutional amendment by Prime Minister Shinzō Abe’s administration and the Liberal Democratic Party as “contrary to constitutionalism” and/or a “crisis of constitutionalism.” This article analyzes the meaning of that criticism and points out that it does not always mean the proposed amendment is an unconstitutional constitutional amendment: they sometimes use these narratives because the content of the proposed amendment is problematic, and sometimes amending the Constitution is unnecessary. The article argues that the reason for such a loose usage of the concept of constitutionalism stems from political motivation: the goal is to maximize the political effect of holding up constitutional amendments by taking advantage of the vague concept of constitutionalism. This article claims that scholars should abstain from overusing the concept of constitutionalism and crisis narratives and clarify what constitutes a legally unconstitutional constitutional amendment in Japan.
  • Legally Sufficient: The Compatibility of Puerto Rico's Post-1952 Status and Modern Principles of International Law [Article]

    Rios-Collazo, Carlos E. (The University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law (Tucson, AZ), 2024)
    Autonomy and sovereignty are typically associated with colonization issues. The alleged absence of both factors in Puerto Rico’s territorial condition raises the question of whether changing the island’s status is legally required to end a colonial arrangement that would otherwise allow the United States to defy normative standards of international law. To settle the colonial question, this article demonstrates how Puerto Rico has been a decolonized territory since the 1950s. The findings stemmed from a fact-based model set on five events advancing the evolution of Puerto Rico’s legal condition. To validate the results, the study tested the end product(s) of Puerto Rico’s legal evolution against decolonization standards established under international law. A confirmatory analysis of relevant jurisprudence enhanced validation with decisions resolving popularized misconceptions about the status quo. Consequently, changes to Puerto Rico’s legal condition are not mandatory because the status quo concurs with international law.
  • Table of Contents

    The University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law (Tucson, AZ), 2024
  • Title Page

    The University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law (Tucson, AZ), 2024
  • Editorial Foreword

    Rysenbry, Elliot (The University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law (Tucson, AZ), 2024)