The Syrian Accountability Project (SAP) has released the white paper, “The 2022 Winter Olympics and Genocide: A History of Enabling Atrocities and the Path Forward.” The paper recognizes the genocide occurring in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region against the Uyghur people, documents the history of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) enabling the violation of human rights and the perpetuating of genocide, tracks the legal framework for holding complicit parties accountable, and identifies possible actions states and private entities may take to avoid complicity.
In summary, the paper indicates that “Most directly, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) is responsible for the genocide of the Uyghur people. Forced concentration camps, disappearances, and slave labor put the responsibility squarely on the shoulders of the PRC. However, the PRC does not shoulder responsibility for this atrocity alone.”
The paper was researched and written by 11 Syracuse University College of Law students along with students from the University of Michigan School of Law, Suffolk University, and the University of Washington in St. Louis under the direction of SAP founder and project leader David M. Crane L’80, Former Chief Prosecutor, Special Court of Sierra Leone and professor at the College of Law.
The Syrian Accountability Project (SAP) is a student organization founded at Syracuse University College of Law and expanded to the University of Michigan College of Law. SAP is affiliated with the Global Accountability Network (GAN). The entirety of the report is that of SAP alone, and is not reflective of the views of Syracuse University or its College of Law. For more information, visit https://syrianaccountabilityproject.syr.edu/.
Syracuse University College of Law has announced that College of Law alumnus and Fixt Founder and corporate executive Luke Cooper L’01 will serve as its Commencement Speaker on May 6, 2022. Cooper is presently CEO of Latimer Ventures, a Partner at San Francisco-based Preface Ventures, and 2022 Visiting Scholar at the University of Maryland Baltimore, which encompasses Maryland’s Law School, Medical School, and other graduate programs.
“Luke has been a strategic planner, technology innovator, and product developer for more than 20 years,” says Dean Craig M. Boise. “We are honored to welcome him back to Syracuse University and look forward to hearing about his entrepreneurial successes and how his law degree from the College of Law and personal life experiences have shaped his leadership style and professional pursuits.”
In a 2020 Stories Book article, Cooper credits Syracuse Law with developing skills in critical thinking, analytical reasoning, and advocacy that have fueled his successes. Importantly, Cooper is passionate about building diverse and inclusive work cultures and lifting up Black entrepreneurs.
Cooper, who built and sold his first cyber startup to CACI in 2011, founded the device support platform Fixt, which he sold to Assurant in 2020. He is only the second Black tech entrepreneur to see a company through to a successful exit in Baltimore, MD. He serves on the Board of Trustees of the University of Maryland Baltimore Foundation and has been appointed by Gov. Larry Hogan to serve on the Board of Directors of Maryland’s TEDCO.
Cooper’s upcoming memoir—Mud to Magic: A Black Tech Entrepreneur’s Inspiring Journey (2022)—will tell his life story and share his powerful message, that showing up as your most authentic self will drive the best outcomes.
National Public Radio recently interviewed Renci “Mercy” Xie LL.M. ‘20 and currently a doctoral candidate in the S.J.D. program for the story, “China excels at the Paralympics, but its disabled citizens are fighting for access.” Xie, who is focusing her degree on disability law, recounts the hurdles she faced growing up with a disability in China.
The College of Law’s first cohort of Doctor of Juridical Science in Law (S.J.D.) students and their academic pursuits are profiled in the Syracuse University story, “Elevating Law Research”.
Learn how Renci “Mercy” Xie LL.M. ’20, Ricardo Pereira LL.M. ’18, Jawad Salman LL.M. ’18, and Yohannes Zewale LL.M. ’19 have come from around the world to the College of Law to complete their Doctor of Juridical Science in Law degrees, focusing on employment discrimination class actions, tax law, and disability law.
COVID-19 has impacted every area of our lives. COVID-19 may have accelerated the incorporation of unmanned aerial vehicles, otherwise known as drones, into our daily lives. Examples include law enforcement activities, assisting in search and rescue operations, inspecting pipelines and infrastructure, photographing real estate, surveying land, disaster assistance, news gathering, and recreational.
Even though the benefits of drone integration seem palpable and extensive, concerns that drone technology may impact and erode privacy and property right have yet to be resolved in the United States. Drones are authorized via remote control by a pilot on the ground and are generally restricted from operating beyond the pilot’s line of sight, over people, above 400 feet, and within certain distances of an airport.
In “Geospatial World,” Mukesh Sharma reports that drone use during the pandemic has been widespread in parts of China and Europe where drones fitted with loudspeakers broadcast coronavirus-related messages and information. The Chinese government deployed drones with infrared cameras to read people’s temperature as they stood on apartment balconies. Some governments deployed drones to enforce COVID-19 restrictions such as forbidden social gatherings that fueled infection dissemination. In the United States and abroad, drones have been used to deliver medical supplies, household goods, and food.
Drone involvement in containing the virus through benign utilitarian missions has contributed to a positive image. Arguably, pre-pandemic drone apprehension is dissipating as drone pervasiveness in the public’s consciousness has increased during lock-downs.
However, many worry that drone proliferation is starting to erode some historical rights. For instance, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has stated that 49 U.S.C grants them the right to create comprehensive regulations for “the use of the navigable airspace … to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of [that] airspace.” (Unmanned Aircraft Systems: Current Jurisdictional, Property, and Privacy Legal Issues Regarding the Commercial and Recreational Use of Drones, GAO U.S. Government Accountability Office, Sept. 2020). In the GAO report, the Department of Transportation has clarified that the term “navigable airspace” “… includes zero feet (‘the blades of grass’) as the minimum altitude of flight for UAS.”
This understanding clashes with property rights in airspace. Under ancient common law doctrine, property rights in airspace extended to the periphery of the universe (GAO Report). In the 1946 landmark United States v. Causby decision, the U.S. Supreme Court analyzed the concept of ownership of airspace above private property. The Court concluded that landowners have “exclusive control of the immediate reaches of the enveloping atmosphere,” and that they own “at least as much of the space above the ground as they can occupy or use in connection with the land.”
Under the authority to control the navigable airspace, the FAA has granted drones freedom of operation from the ground and up to 400 feet. This authorization, some claim, is incongruent with landowners’ property rights in airspace. To initiate a discussion and bring some uniformity about “the states’ ability to take action against operators of drones who violate existing trespass, privacy and negligence laws,” the Uniform Law Commission (ULC) took the lead in drafting the “Uniform Tort Law Relating to Drones Act” (GAO Report).
According to Brian Wynne and Gary Shapiro in New Approach to State Drone Laws Balances Privacy and Innovation article, stakeholders flatly rejected the first 2018 version because it presented a “one-sided, unworkable, 200-foot ‘line in the sky’ approach.” The 2019 version has not fared much better. While proponents of this Act perceive it as a compromise between the rights of landowners’ property rights and the drone industry, vociferous critics see is a “radical departure” from current property rights (GAO Report).
While the debate rages in the U.S., other nations, whose views on privacy and property rights differ radically from ours, are moving forward with the development and utilization of drone technology. As a result, these countries are amassing and mining vast amounts of data from their citizens. Some claim that the exploitation of these data allows these countries to make extraordinary scientific leaps, which the United States cannot realize under current notions of privacy and property rights (In the Age of AI, Frontline film, Dec. 2019).
As the pandemic slowly retreats and we emerge from a penumbra of uncertainty, some anticipate a more benign attitude toward drone technology will emerge. A new outlook could enable proponents and opponents to arrive at legislation that makes sense in an increasingly technological world. Three companies (Amazon, UPS, and Wing from Google) have obtained special permissions to deliver beyond visual line of sight. Amazon was granted two patents covering a technology to provide surveillance services via drones, with a “virtual fence” around the property being surveilled.
Balancing privacy and property rights with the social and economic benefits that drones bring is a difficult task. But it must be done because drones are here to stay, whether we like them or not.
Congratulations to 2Ls Penny Quinteros and Margaret Santandreu, winners of the 2020 Bond, Schoeneck & King Alternative Dispute Resolution (BSK ADR) Competition. More than 70 watched the final on Zoom, with Quinteros and Santandreu prevailing over the team of 3L Kylie Mason and Shannon Wagner.
For their final case, argued on Oct. 22, 2020, students negotiated the validity of a sales agreement for a horse, Beautiful Pegasus, after he was stolen from the farm where he was being cared for prior to delivery. Teams had to identify who would be held liable for the theft, and they advocated for a full reimbursement or specific performance.
Third year, second year, LL.M., and JDinteractive online law degree program students took part in the competition. At the final, Mason was named Best Advocate, while Quinteros becomes the first JDinteractive student to win a College of Law intracollegiate advocacy competition.
“Despite the challenges that a virtual competition brings, students put their creativity to the test and vigorously advocated for their clients,” says 3L Frances M. Rivera Reyes, BSK ADR Negotiation Competition Director. “Without a doubt, we have some incredibly talented advocates in our school.”
Final judges were The Hon. Joanne F. Alper ’72, a retired judge for the Circuit Court of the Seventh Circuit of Virginia; James L. Sonneborn, of Bousquet Holstein PLLC; and Brian Butler L’96, a managing member for Bond, Schoeneck & King PLLC.
The team of 3Ls Alex Eaton and Tyler Jefferies, arguing for the defense, won the 43rd Annual Lionel O. Grossman Trial Competition held virtually on March 25, 2021. Jeffries also won Best Advocate. The prosecution team of 2Ls Will Hendon and Nate Kelder were the other finalists for this Travis H.D. Lewin Advocacy Honor Society (AHS) intramural competition, held virtually for the first time in its history.
The Hon. Glenn T. Suddaby L’85, US District Court Judge for the Northern District of New York, was the presiding judge for the final round. The Hon. Rodney Thompson L’93 and the Hon. Bernadette Roman-Clark L’89 joined Judge Suddaby on the bench.
The teams argued the case of District of Orangeville v. Logan Dunn. “This was a double homicide charge where two little girls were killed in a house fire, believed to be started by the defendant, the girl’s adopted father who never wanted children,” explains 3L Joseph Tantillo, AHS Executive Director. “The defense prevailed in proving the innocence of their client, in particular by an excellent cross-examination of the prosecution’s expert witness, which demonstrated the flaws in her fire investigation techniques.”
Tantillo continues, “Trial is the most difficult type of advocacy to perform over Zoom, and our competitors did a wonderful job. The final was one of the best we’ve seen in years, and the judges echoed that sentiment. Congratulations to the winners and thank you to everyone who made the competition a great success.”
Praising the student advocates at the end of the competition, Judge Suddaby said, “I’ve been doing this a long time, since law school. I’ve judged a lot of moot court competitions; the four of you are four of the best I’ve ever seen. Those were the two best opening statements in a moot court competition since I’ve been doing this … I’m just so impressed with all of you; you have a great future ahead of you.”
