Creighton International and Comparative Law Journal

Permanent URI for this collection


The Creighton International and Comparative Law Journal (CICLJ) is a legal journal specializing in international law. CICLJ was founded in 2010, and published its first edition in the spring of 2011. The CICLJ will cover a broad array of international law issues in an innovative publishing format.

The CICLJ publishes articles, perspectives and commentary from academics, legal practitioners, and Creighton University students. It serves as a forum for debate and exploration within the area of international law. For its student members, the CICLJ serves to refine research skills, polish critical thinking, and establish the ability to create a well-researched article.

The CICLJ is published exclusively in electronic sources. We believe this format will be the preferred method for publishing legal journals in the future, as it allows for both easier reading and a richer reading environment. The CICLJ is accessible through this webpage, Westlaw, and Lexis-Nexis. Articles are published in multiple formats for both ease of use and ease of research.

On behalf of the editors, we thank you for your interest in our journal.

Browse by Issue


Recent Submissions

Now showing 1 - 5 of 104
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Global Criminal Justice Applied to the War in Ukraine: A Legal Framework for U.S.-Led International Ad Hoc Tribunals
    (Creighton University School of Law, 2024) Trinidad, Patrick S.
    The present study focuses on U.S.-led efforts to create an ad hoc international tribunal for the War in Ukraine. The aim of this paper was to outline three main requirements that must be met for such a tribunal to be formed: U.S. legal authority, international legal authority, and Ukrainian constitutional authority. This paper explored the power of the U.S. Executive Branch in foreign affairs, legal frameworks from the Nuremberg Trials, and the Ukrainian Constitution in order to better understand how an international ad hoc tribunal can be implemented in Ukraine. As a result, it was determined that the U.S. President possesses high levels of authority regarding the creation of ad hoc tribunals; legal frameworks from the Nuremberg Trials can be applied to an international ad hoc tribunal for the War in Ukraine; and such a tribunal can be established while respecting the constitutional sovereignty of Ukraine.
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Recognizing the Reality of Bad Actors: Afghanistan and the Taliban
    (Creighton University School of Law, 2023) Linge, Daniela
    To force the Taliban to recognize human rights and enact equal rights to women, the international community holds recognition, and the ability to participate in the international community, for ransom.
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Knowledge Protection: A Comparative Study of the Foundations and Development of Intellectual Property Rights Under Islamic Law, the English Common Law, and the Chinese Legal System
    (Creighton University School of Law, 2023) Kameli, Mohammad Reza
    This Article compares the development of intellectual property laws in three legal systems: Islamic law, the English Common Law, and the Chinese legal system.
  • No Thumbnail Available
    The Artemis Accords: Interpretation and Assessment in Light of Existing Law
    (Creighton University School of Law, 2023) Renshaw, Samantha J.
    The Artemis Accords claim to reinforce and implement the Outer Space treaty by encompassing established international norms into a modern political agreement.
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Administering Post-COVID Inoculations to Prevent Pandemic
    (Creighton University School of Law, 2022) Melling, Christopher F.
    In December 2019, a novel coronavirus appeared in Wuhan, China. While it remains disputed whether the virus began in a wet market or a laboratory, it is undisputed that it spread rapidly. COVID-19 has now infected over 500 million people worldwide. China and the World Health Organization (“WHO”) should have been better prepared for this virus after past outbreaks, particularly Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (“SARS”) in 2002. Three years after SARS, the WHO revised its International Health Regulations (“IHR”) to demand more accountability from member states. However, these improvements did not prevent China’s delayed reporting or lead to better health standards in its wet markets. In short, China breached Articles 6 and 7 of the IHR and violated the right to health under customary international law. As a result, states could theoretically hold China accountable. But legal mechanisms like settlement, an International Court of Justice decision, or countermeasures will not help prevent another pandemic. Instead, states must encourage changes to the WHO’s informational and financial structure, demand a WHO compliance and accountability committee, amend the IHR to include a settlement provision, and improve state internal health laws. These changes will reinforce global health jurisprudence, which will help prevent or mitigate the next pandemic.