Keewhan Sim

In this paper, we seek to resolve the apparent tension in the Gold clause cases where two opposing legal conclusions on constitutionality of the Joint Resolution invalidating Gold clauses ultimately lead to identical outcomes. Through analysis of the case and commentaries, we demonstrate that this tension can be resolved by understanding that (i) the court’s ruling on the constitutionality of the Joint Resolution was not a decisive factor in the outcome of either Gold Clause cases. Rather, (ii) interpreting the outcome of the cases as a result of the court’s implicit application of pragmatic approaches under the extraordinary economic circumstances produced under the context of Great Depression and the New Deal allows for a clear and coherent understanding of the reasoning behind the convergence of outcome in the Gold Clause cases despite the apparent divergence in the constitutional conclusion in the two cases

As the climate crisis intensifies, global climate protests have surged, met by a corresponding rise in criminal prosecutions of activists. This paper explores the shifting judicial landscape where courts struggle to reconcile traditional criminal law with the unprecedented nature of environmental emergency and the protected right to freedom of expression. Despite growing recognition of these rights by international bodies—including the UN and regional human rights courts—national jurisdictions exhibit significant inconsistencies in their legal reasoning. To address the scarcity of comparative literature on this phenomenon, this study conducts a multi-jurisdictional analysis of recent criminal jurisprudence (2018–2024) across France, South Korea, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The research specifically examines how courts in these five states balance the limitations of freedom of expression and assembly against the application of the necessity defense. By analyzing cases ranging from infrastructure blockades to symbolic property damage, the study identifies how statutory provisions, judicial perceptions of climate urgency, and the "efficacy" of protest actions shape the boundaries of legality. The findings reveal a fragmented global picture where the degree of disruption and the public/private nature of the target remain decisive, yet inconsistent, factors in determining the criminal liability of climate activists.

Over the last 15 years, scholarship has increasingly recognized that North Korean Refugee (NKR) women navigate a unique matrix of oppression shaped by the intersection of gender, class, state violence, and human trafficking. While women now comprise the overwhelming majority of the NKR population—representing 72.1% of refugees in South Korea as of 2024 and reaching a peak of 89% of annual arrivals—current research suffers from a significant geographical and conceptual bias. Most studies focus on the accessible population in South Korea, largely overlooking the estimated 100,000 NKR women currently in China, most of whom are victims of trafficking. Furthermore, existing literature remains fragmented, offering specialized insights into isolated domains of experience without an integrated framework. This paper addresses these gaps by proposing an integrated typology of intersectionalities specifically for NKR women trafficked into China. Utilizing a revised application of Kimberlé Crenshaw’s intersectionality framework, the study categorizes these experiences into structural and representational dimensions. By mapping these margins, this research identifies critical imbalances in current scholarship and illuminates the inter-dimensional relationships between labor exploitation, sexual violence, and self-representation. While political intersectionality is identified as a necessary third pillar, it is excluded from the current framework due to a systemic lack of data and organized political advocacy in the region. Ultimately, this paper provides a foundational mapping tool to guide future empirical research toward the most opaque and under-researched dimensions of the NKR women’s crisis.

This paper investigates the dynamic effects of interstate bank mergers by large banks on local MSAlevel market concentration in the United States following the Riegle-Neal Act (IBBEA) of 1994. Using a staggered event study difference-in-differences model as well as the Sun and Abraham (2020) estimator, we analyze deposit and bank merger data from 1994 to 2006 to derive estimates of the causal effect of interstate market-extension mergers by large banks. Our results reveal that there is likely no causal effect of interstate bank mergers by large banks on local structural market competition. However, the study finds strong suggestive evidence that overall market competition may increase immediately following the interstate merger event due to consumer exit and weak suggestive evidence that consolidation among dominant deposit market players may increase following the merger. These results largely validate the current approach in banking antitrust enforcement of the Department of Justice that focuses on a static approach to market concentration while providing additional insights in terms of top-heavy concentrations that may follow after interstate mergers.

In this article, we seek to resolve the issue that existing models of juridicity fail to fully account for the extent to which international arbitration constitutes a transnational and autonomous legal order either by wholly denying transnational juridicity of international arbitration despite evidence from arbitrators’ practice or wholly affirming it despite obvious shortcomings and incongruence in legal theory and judicial practice. In doing so, we propose that the concept of juridicity must be understood as composed of two distinct elements: subjective and objective. By defining subjective and objective juridicity, we argue that transnational subjective juridicity among arbitrators shapes the international arbitration practice, but is limited by the lack of consensus on objective juridicity among courts and scholars. This division helps us understand the extent to which international arbitration today constitutes a transnational and autonomous legal order and locate the remaining questions that need to be answered.