This article reads Filipino director Lino Brocka's film Orapronobis (1989) as a commentary on the 1987 Philippine Constitution, a post-dictatorship document which the director helped draft as a member of the Philippine Constitutional Commission. Using a ‘law and film’ approach, the article argues that the film visualises law's limit concepts such as the state of exception, hostis generis humani, and constituent power. The film depicts the failure of words to control the political world that results in a dystopian constitutional order where human rights monsters and revolutionaries contend. Through an exploration of law's limit concepts, Brocka's Orapronobis represents the limits of Philippine constitutionalism.

Suppose that state A attacks state D without warrant. The ensuing military conflict threatens international peace and security. State D (I assume) has a justification for defending itself by means of military force. Do third parties have a justification for intervening in that conflict by such means? To international public lawyers, the well-rehearsed and obvious answer is “yes.” Threats to international peace and security provide one of two exceptions to the legal and moral prohibition (as set out in Article 2[4] of the UN Charter) on using force as a means for resolving interstate disputes. Just war theorists are not as verdictive. Compared to the ethics of humanitarian intervention and the ethics of national self-defense, the ethics of third-party military involvement in interstate conflicts remains underdeveloped in contemporary just war theory. This essay begins to fill that gap. I argue that to defend such interventions is tantamount to defending preventive military force, deterrent military force, and the resort to force in more cases than standardly thought. I then provide an account and limited defense of the deterrence argument. I show that deterrence is morally justified in relatively few cases and examine two problems with the argument: deterrence failures and the level of uncertainty under which leaders who use deterrent force operate. I conclude that we should take seriously the possibility that nonintervention, construed as the rejection of the direct use of military force, is the morally correct response to the most serious threats to international peace and security.

Khirbet Al-Sheikh Humaid is found 615 m above sea level in the central highlands of Palestine, northwest of the city of Nablus. During rescue excavations carried out at the site, part of a male human skull with a tooth attached was discovered. Accelerator mass spectrometry radiocarbon (AMS 14C) dating and stable isotope analysis were performed on the tooth at the Hertelendi Laboratory in Debrecen, Hungary. Dating revealed the individual had lived in the time frame 900–1030 AD, which is within the Abbasid period (750–1258 AD). Dietary analysis gave information on the daily life of the inhabitants of the settlement, showing local agriculture provided a diet of legumes and vegetables.

This article proposes that Horace's Epodes and Ovid's Metamorphoses open with significant acrostics that comprise the first two letters, in some cases forming syllables, of successive lines: IB-AM/IAMB (Epod. 1.1–2) and IN-CO-(H)AS (Met. 1.1–3). Each acrostic, it will be argued, tees up programmatic concerns vital to the work it opens: generic identity and the interrelation of form and content (Epodes), etymology and monumentality (Metamorphoses). Moreover, as befits their placement at the head of collections, both acrostics negotiate the challenge of literary commencement. The introduction reviews recent developments in acrostic studies and discusses important predecessors and parallels for Horace's and Ovid's ‘two-letter’ and syllabic acrostics. Two subsequent sections examine the acrostics singly, and a conclusion compares the dialogues that these acrostics open between author and reader, underscoring the welcome challenge which Ovid's acrostic offers to the prevailing scholarly view that this form of wordplay is a strictly visual affair.

This article by Ian Hunter, which has been adapted from his BIALL Conference presentation at the Belfast Europa Hotel, examines increasing the visibility of law firm library and information services in terms of what should be done and what should not be done. Or, as Ian puts it: “Is saying yes to everything really the right thing to do?”

This Note explores an alarming, decades-old trend that has received renewed attention from enforcement agencies and the media: nursing homes suing family members and friends ("relatives") for residents’ unpaid bills. As justification, nursing homes point to “responsible party” clauses within admission agreements signed by relatives during the admission process. Undeterred by the 1987 Federal Nursing Home Reform Act’s (FNHRA) prohibition on requiring relatives to act as financial guarantors in exchange for residents’ admission, nursing homes use carefully worded “responsible party” clauses to obtain virtually the same result: relatives’ total liability for residents’ unpaid balances. Relatives are frequently caught off-guard by these lawsuits; many who sign admission agreements do so without a proper understanding of the potential liability they are assuming and have limited (if any) access to residents’ assets. This problem is aggravated by several aspects of the admission process that disadvantage relatives, such as the stressful and emotional nature of admission, the complicated language in admission agreements, and the inadequate—at times, misleading—guidance provided by nursing homes. This Note examines the tension between the FNHRA’s financial protections for relatives and nursing homes’ admission practices and use of “responsible party” clauses. Furthermore, this Note proposes solutions aimed at better informing relatives of the legal risks associated with “responsible party” clauses.

When using dyadic data (i.e., data indexed by pairs of units), researchers typically assume a linear model, estimate it using Ordinary Least Squares, and conduct inference using “dyadic-robust” variance estimators. The latter assumes that dyads are uncorrelated if they do not share a common unit (e.g., if the same individual is not present in both pairs of data). We show that this assumption does not hold in many empirical applications because indirect links may exist due to network connections, generating correlated outcomes. Hence, “dyadic-robust” estimators can be biased in such situations. We develop a consistent variance estimator for such contexts by leveraging results in network statistics. Our estimator has good finite-sample properties in simulations, while allowing for decay in spillover effects. We illustrate our message with an application to politicians’ voting behavior when they are seating neighbors in the European Parliament.

The papers in this cluster—and sound studies more broadly—attune our ears to hearing and listening, to paying attention to that “other” important sense of modernity: the aural or sonic that so often is asked to play second fiddle to the visual. The challenge of sound studies, Jonathan Sterne reminds us, “is to think across sounds, to consider sonic phenomena in relationship to one another—as types of sonic phenomena rather than as things-in-themselves—whether they be music, voices, listening, media, buildings, performances, or another other path into sonic life.”

ChatGPT launched in November 2022, triggering a global debate on the use of artificial intelligence (AI). A debate on AI-enabled lethal autonomous weapon systems (LAWS) has been underway far longer. Two sides have emerged: one in favor and one opposed to an international law ban on LAWS. This essay explains the position of advocates of a ban without attempting to persuade opponents. Supporters of a ban believe LAWS are already unlawful and immoral to use without the need of a new treaty or protocol. They nevertheless seek an express prohibition to educate and publicize the threats these weapons pose. Foremost among their concerns is the “black box” problem. Programmers cannot know what a computer operating a weapons system empowered with AI will “learn” from the algorithm they use. They cannot know at the time of deployment if the system will comply with the prohibition on the use of force or the human right to life that applies in both war and peace. Even if they could, mechanized killing affronts human dignity. Ban supporters have long known that “AI models are not safe and no one knows how to reliably make them safe” or morally acceptable in taking human life.