UCLA Journal of International Law and Foreign Affairs

The arsenic contamination crisis in Bangladesh has emerged as one of the most pressing public health emergencies of our time, as labeled by the World Health Organization (WHO). With nearly half of the country’s tube wells tainted by arsenic, this crisis has resulted in widespread health complications such as cancer and cardiovascular diseases. Despite efforts by international intergovernmental organizations like United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) to provide alternative water sources to Bangladesh, a substantial segment of the population—approximately 13 percent according to recent UNICEF surveys—continues to rely on contaminated water. This persistent reliance underscores the urgent need for comprehensive intervention strategies to mitigate health risks and safeguard the Bangladeshi population. In response, this article advocates for a human rights-based approach to addressing the arsenic contamination crisis in Bangladesh ,emphasizing empowerment and the recognition of human rights for affected individuals and groups. Collaborative efforts between the governments of India and Bangladesh, international intergovernmental organizations, and civil society actors are deemed essential to address the root causes of water contamination in the Ganges basin and prioritize the health and well-being of affected individuals and populations. Through sustainable and equitable solutions such as water treatment facilities and education campaigns, India and Bangladesh can mitigate the immediate impacts of this public health emergency and uphold the rights of all individuals and communities involved.

Judicial review is undergoing an unprecedented crisis in several regions of the world. It is criticized for its politicization related to its purpose, effects, and how judges are appointed, as well as the power of obstruction it holds over the law. Questions about the compatibility of judicial review with democracy are not new, but they have rarely been as sensitive. The problem lies not in these legitimate questions, but from their political instrumentalization and their transformation into an electoral promise: that of restoring sovereignty to the people and protecting its identity by removing any obstacles that could hinder the adoption of measures to which citizens consented at the time of the election or that enjoy strong support among the population. It is in this type of discourse, which plays on the opposition between the people and the elites, that the justifications for bypassing the constitutional judge are found, as the judge is the one who blocks public decision-making and thus hinders the exercise of sovereignty. The purpose of this Article is to analyze, through concrete examples (Canada, the United States, Hungary, Israel, Poland), how this distrust towards the judiciary oper-ates in both illiberal and liberal democracies and to construct a critical discourse to identify possible solutions.

The invasion of Ukraine by Russia in 2022 constituted an egregious violation of one of the fundamental principles of international law: the prohibition of the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, enshrined in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter. This violation capacitates Ukraine to rightfully invoke the right of collective self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter. This Article finds that some of the criteria to invoke and exercise this right have been fulfilled, and the rest can also be fulfilled – allowing other countries to lawfully engage in Ukraine’s collective self-defense. Additionally, the Article argues that despite claiming to aid in Ukraine’s individual self-defense, through the significant military aid and logistical support amounting to the use of force provided to Ukraine, the assisting States are already indirectly practicing the right of collective self-defense, albeit without formally invoking it.

This article examines the enduring legacy of Brown v. Board of Education within a global framework, emphasizing its profound role in advancing racial justice and educational equity. By juxtaposing the struggles of African Americans in the United States and the Roma in Europe, the article highlights the necessity of an integrated approach that combines legal advocacy, grassroots activism, and international cooperation. It explores the transnational migration of legal norms and strategies, uncovering the dynamics of adaptation and contestation across different socio-legal landscapes. Furthermore, the article addresses the challenges of transforming legal victories into substantive social change, demonstrating the complex relationships between legal systems, societal norms, and political dynamics. Recognizing the persistent educational disparities faced by marginalized communities worldwide, it advocates for a holistic approach that merges legal reform, policy innovation, and community mobilization to advance racial justice and educational equity globally. By advocating for a nuanced understanding of legal activism within a broader strategy for social transformation, the article highlights the essential role of a comprehensive approach in promoting racial justice and educational equity worldwide.

Beginning in 1998, the United States Congress has slowly assembled a Title 18 statutory scheme to criminally prosecute perpetrators of atrocity crimes. These crimes range from the commission of genocide, war crimes, torture, female genital mutilation, and the employment of child soldiers. In the thirty-six years that have followed, the United States has only won two convictions under the scheme—with the second coming in April 2024. The United States has not advanced charges under various statutes, including for genocide, female genital mutilation, and the use of child soldiers. Nonetheless, between December 2023 and December 2024, Attorney General Merrick Garland announced new war crimes and torture charges against Russian and Syrian nationals, including the first war crimes charges in U.S. history.

Critics of the U.S. approach to atrocity crimes prosecutions are legion. Yet, this Article argues that their focus—largely ons tatutory lacunae and issues of interpretation—miss a larger point. The United States currently possesses the tools, expertise, and legal capacity to prosecute a far greater number of atrocity perpetrators. The problem lies not in the statutes themselves but in the administrative apparatus that the executive branch has erected to investigate potential atrocity criminals.

This Article will examine the current atrocity crimes architecture in the United States to identify a number of limitations. It will then deploy salient features of the French and German approaches to investigating atrocity crimes to identify areas of reform. Finally, the Article will conclude by offering three recommendations to improve the U.S. atrocity crimes model. These recommendations will center on clarifying the interagency roles within the Human Rights Violators and War Crimes Center, strengthening information sharing with internal and external U.S. government stakeholders, and rolling back a complex system of agency prior approvals that hamstring efficient prosecutions and create bottlenecks.