English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Several cases in the past few years,1 in addition to growing antiMuslim sentiment in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, have sparked a wave of debates over the role of foreign and international law in many of the states’ legislatures.2 In an effort to ban the application of Sharia law, almost half of the states have proposed legislation containing blanket prohibitions against the application of foreign or international law by state courts.3 Although most of the bills and proposed constitutional amendments have died in committees or have failed adoption,4 the impulsive reaction of legislatures to draft this type of legislation demonstrates a distrust and misunderstanding about the relationship between domestic law and international and foreign law.5 Beginning in 2010, legislators across the United States proposed bills and/or constitutional amendments limiting the application and

The Impact of “Anti-Sharia” Legislation on Arbitration and Why Judge Nielsen in Florida Got It Right