Matching Items (13)

132738-Thumbnail Image.png

Hate in America and Across the Pond: Analysis of Case Law and the Emerging Differences in Free Speech Rights across Two Western Societies

Description

Normally, the United States and most of Europe are grouped into the same category as “Western countries”, yet their ideological differences have become larger in the last 50 years, especially

Normally, the United States and most of Europe are grouped into the same category as “Western countries”, yet their ideological differences have become larger in the last 50 years, especially in regards to free speech/expression protections. This raises the possibility that extremely broad free speech/expression protections aren’t intrinsic values of a Western society, but are instead an American experiment that was gradually adopted by Western Europe. Analyzing historical documents from both Europe and the United States, this becomes much more of a probability than a possibility and would help explain the recent differences in case law regarding free speech rights in American and European jurisprudence. Furthermore, Europe is also experiencing a potential threat to social stability in the form of massive, sudden demographic shifts, something that America has not experienced on nearly the same scale. Due to the heightened sensitivity towards hateful expression resulting from such a demographic shift, governmental action in the form of restrictions on racially, religiously, and ethnically charged forms of expressions may be deemed necessary in order to preserve social cohesion. Often throughout history, governments have deemed it necessary to limit free expression/speech and the spread of information in order to prevent any threat to its ability to rule, regardless of whether or not said government is tyrannical or democratized. Although not a direct threat to power, in a representative democracy social unrest created by increased division in the populace rooted in the spread of hateful ideology is nonetheless still a threat to those who depend on social harmony in order to govern in a representative democracy. In analyzing these two possible reasons for emerging differences and considering supporting textual and historical evidence, it becomes much clearer as to what the differences in case law and fundamental beliefs regarding the extent of free speech protections are attributable to.

Contributors

Agent

Created

Date Created
  • 2019-05

134686-Thumbnail Image.png

Geopolitics of the South China Sea: How Territory, Territoriality, and Sovereignty Reflect China's Ambitions

Description

The disputes in the South China Sea involve overlapping territorial claims from multiple nations and have grown increasingly contentious over the past decade. The area is rich in natural resources

The disputes in the South China Sea involve overlapping territorial claims from multiple nations and have grown increasingly contentious over the past decade. The area is rich in natural resources and is strategically significant regarding international trade and military capabilities. Due to the significance of the area, the competing claims have global ramifications and the conflict involves actors beyond the region. This paper examines the geopolitical factors involved in the disputes and how they shape states' actions in relation to the South China Sea. Specifically, this paper will show how China's actions in the South China Sea reflect both the geography of the region, and also its political ambitions in the region and international community. The states' claims contend the territory, territoriality, and sovereignty of islands in the South China Sea, and are based on both international law and historical evidence illustrated in the case between the Philippines and China in the Scarborough Shoal. It demonstrates China's tactics for managing competing claims, its increasing military capabilities, and the uncertainty of resolutions to the conflict. The mechanisms for the resolution of the territorial disputes in the South China Sea are shown to be largely ineffective given the differing basis of claims over the South China Sea states have. International institutions, such as United Nations tribunals, and other nations without direct claims in the South China Sea, such as the United States, have interests in the conflict related to the peaceful resolution of disputes between nations, while also influencing states' actions. This paper reviews the concepts of geopolitics and how China's strategy in the South China Sea reflects both critical and classical geopolitics and its objective of regional hegemony.

Contributors

Agent

Created

Date Created
  • 2016-12

134227-Thumbnail Image.png

Global Perspectives on Juvenile Justice: Implementing A Restorative Approach

Description

This thesis is the culmination of the Barrett Honors Intercontinental Study Award. For this scholarship, I created a comparative legal study of the approaches to juvenile justice in Norway, Germany,

This thesis is the culmination of the Barrett Honors Intercontinental Study Award. For this scholarship, I created a comparative legal study of the approaches to juvenile justice in Norway, Germany, Malawi, and Japan, focusing on their compliance with international norms of restorative justice practices advanced by the United Nations (UN) in the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). Before commencing my comparative study, I traveled to Switzerland and Belgium to speak with restorative justice theorists at the UN and the International Juvenile Justice Observatory about the enduring relevancy of the CRC and international juvenile justice efforts. In the process, I examined how these international norms of restorative justice come to be incorporated in domestic legal systems. From this, I gained an understanding of the reasons some countries successfully adapt international norms while others struggle to uphold even the most basic human rights. My goal throughout this process has been to cull best practices for international norm creation and domestic norm implementation from this research, and further study how best to promote restorative juvenile justice in countries that do not meet international standards, beginning with the United States. For the purpose of this thesis, I will focus my analysis on Norway and Malawi.

Contributors

Agent

Created

Date Created
  • 2017-05

131365-Thumbnail Image.png

Close as Lips and Teeth: How China Refuses Obligations to North Korean Refugees

Description

The North Korean refugee crisis is a long-standing political issue that has persisted since the Korean War, resulting in thousands of North Koreans fleeing each year. However, despite its persistent

The North Korean refugee crisis is a long-standing political issue that has persisted since the Korean War, resulting in thousands of North Koreans fleeing each year. However, despite its persistent nature, both the Chinese government and the international community have failed to alleviate systematic migratory issues resulting from Chinese policy towards the refugees. This essay aims to analyze Chinese policy towards the North Korean refugee crisis, specifically through its categorization of North Koreans as “economic migrants” rather than refugees. After reviewing both the conditions within North Korea that cause refugee flight and the pathways of escape through China, the paper shows that China is violating multiple parts of international refugee law as set up by the 1951 Refugee Convention, such as issues of non-refoulement and discrimination. Additionally, I argue that North Koreans are refugees in the traditional definition and refugees sur place. Similarly, this paper discusses the historical and political reasoning for Chinese policy towards refugees in the context of its economic and security relationship with the North Korean state, as well as the implications of the relationships for North Korean refugees. From this, the resilient nature of the crisis is established, as well as the notable security obstacles that must be navigated and incorporated in any feasible solutions. Finally, this paper proposes possible solutions to the crisis, such as moving away from “defector” terminology, linking international policy to refugee outcomes, structuring refugee law around global burden-sharing rather than regional prioritizations, and expanding the definition of refugee to more accurately reflect causes of displacement in Asia.

Contributors

Agent

Created

Date Created
  • 2020-05

148376-Thumbnail Image.png

International Water Rights: The Case of Palestine

Description

In 2021, Palestine will have been under official Israeli occupation for 54 years. As conflict persists between the two populations, it is becoming increasingly difficult to imagine a peaceful resolution.

In 2021, Palestine will have been under official Israeli occupation for 54 years. As conflict persists between the two populations, it is becoming increasingly difficult to imagine a peaceful resolution. As international legal bodies have failed to bring an end to the occupation, the Israeli government continues to carry out extensive violations of human rights against the Palestinians. One significant consequence of the occupation has been the Palestinians’ lack of access to safe and reliable water, a problem that is continuing to worsen as a result of climate change and years of over-utilization of shared, regional water resources. Since the occupation started, international organizations have not only affirmed the general human right to water but have overseen several peace agreements between Israel and Palestine that have included stipulations on water. Despite these measures, neither water access nor quality has improved and, over time, has worsened. This paper will look at why international law has failed to improve conditions for Palestinians and will outline the implications of the water crisis on a potential solution between Israel and Palestine.

Contributors

Agent

Created

Date Created
  • 2021-05

132325-Thumbnail Image.png

Asylum in the United States and the European Union: Legal and Systemic Challenges from a Decade of Deterrence Policy

Description

Over the past decade, the United States and the European Union have adopted major changes to asylum policy and enforcement, specifically the increase of deterrence policies contrary to international asylum

Over the past decade, the United States and the European Union have adopted major changes to asylum policy and enforcement, specifically the increase of deterrence policies contrary to international asylum norms. The goal of this has been to reduce the pull factors towards the US and EU. Deterrence policies have largely been characterized by two main strategies: (1) deterrence at the border through stricter regulations and detention policies, and (2) deterrence through the creation of formal buffer zone countries between the asylum seekers’ countries of origin and the ultimate country of destination. These policies have been instituted in response to the spike in Central American asylum seekers at the US/Mexico border and Syrian asylum seekers at the Greece/Turkey border at the entrance of the EU. This paper compares these two separate geographic areas––the US and EU––due to their roles in the development of international law, their roles in the development and management of these crises, and the similar increase of asylum seekers in 2014-15. This paper also details the severity of the conditions in the asylee-sending areas––Central America and Syria––which are major “push factors” driving the crises. Finally, this paper explores the novel use of Mexico and Turkey as formal buffer zones by the United Staes and the European Union, respectively. The increase of deterrence policies culminating in the creation of formal buffer zones countries violates key principles of international asylum law, namely non-refoulement. These buffer zones must be redesigned proactively to better suit the realities of asylum in the 21st century.

Contributors

Agent

Created

Date Created
  • 2019-05

132676-Thumbnail Image.png

Socio-legal Frameworks: An Anthropological Analysis of Sociocultural Influences on Proposed Arrangements for International Administration of the Arctic

Description

The legal infrastructures of nations are built on sociocultural attitudes regarding the function, purpose, appropriate sources, and means of conceptualizing law. The discipline of legal anthropology aims to study conceptions

The legal infrastructures of nations are built on sociocultural attitudes regarding the function, purpose, appropriate sources, and means of conceptualizing law. The discipline of legal anthropology aims to study conceptions of law cross-culturally. This study aims to understand the systems of social attitudes toward law which serve in constructing the socio-legal frameworks on which legal traditions and the types of legal institutions they beget are based. This examination is made through a case study of the ongoing formation of intergovernmental administrative infrastructure in the Arctic, through the lenses of three of its most influential stakeholders. By analyzing the actions of the governments of Canada, the United States, and the Russian Federation in regards to ratification of multilateral administrative instruments, such as the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, rationales surrounding the implementation of a bilateral treaty to ameliorate Arctic disputes, as well as other tactics used to resolve said disputes, this study hopes to understand how sociocultural attitudes drive the formation of legal institutions. Analysis of the sociocultural attitudes which inform domestic and intergovernmental legal institutions will be done through historical examination of the legal traditions that underpin the standing legal institutions of each of these three states. This examination has demonstrated that Canada and the United States, which are members of the common law legal tradition, that prioritizes use of established precedent in legal decision making, appear more reticent to ratify measures of international law in the Arctic, which do not have substantial precedent. Meanwhile, the Russian Federation, which is rooted in the civil law tradition, which primarily utilizes direct application of legislative enactments and legal scholarship as its means of determining legal action, has ratified and implemented measures on the solely principles of international law in the Arctic more readily.

Contributors

Created

Date Created
  • 2019-05

149878-Thumbnail Image.png

Applicability of the laws of occupation to the 2008 conflict in Gaza

Description

On December 27, 2008, Israel began a military campaign codenamed Operation Cast Lead with an aerial bombardment of the Gaza Strip. On January 3, 2009, Israel expanded its aerial assault

On December 27, 2008, Israel began a military campaign codenamed Operation Cast Lead with an aerial bombardment of the Gaza Strip. On January 3, 2009, Israel expanded its aerial assault with a ground invasion. Military operations continued until January 18, 2009, when Israel implemented a unilateral cease fire and withdrew its forces. When the hostilities had ended, between 1,166 and 1,440 Palestinians had been killed as a result of Israeli attacks, two-thirds of whom are estimated to be civilians. Ensuing allegations of international human rights (IHR) and international humanitarian law (IHL) violations were widespread. Amidst these claims, the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) commissioned a fact-finding team, headed by South African jurist Richard Goldstone, to investigate whether the laws of war were infringed upon. Their findings, published in a document known colloquially as the Goldstone Report, allege a number of breaches of the laws of occupation, yet give a cursory treatment to the preliminary question of the applicability of this legal regime. This paper seeks to more comprehensively assess whether Gaza could be considered occupied territory for the purposes of international humanitarian law during Operation Cast Lead. In doing so, this paper focuses on exactly what triggers and terminates the laws of occupation`s application, rather than the rights and duties derived from the laws of occupation. This paper proceeds with a brief discussion of the history of the Gaza occupation, including Israel`s unilateral evacuation of ground troops and settlements from within Gaza in 2005, a historic event that sparked renewed debate over Israel`s status as an Occupying Power vis-à-vis Gaza. The following section traces the development of the laws of occupation in instruments of IHL. The next section considers the relevant international case law on occupation. The following section synthesizes the various criteria from the IHL treaty and case law for determining the existence of a situation of occupation, and considers their application to the Gaza Strip during Operation Cast Lead. The concluding section argues that Israel maintained the status of Occupying Power during Operation Cast Lead, and discusses the legal implications of such a determination.

Contributors

Agent

Created

Date Created
  • 2011

152523-Thumbnail Image.png

The lore of the laws of war: textual constructions of archetypal identities in the War on Terrorism

Description

Since 9/11 a wide range of violent practices including indefinite detention, torture, and targeted killing have been employed by the United States and the "international community" against "international terrorism." Modern

Since 9/11 a wide range of violent practices including indefinite detention, torture, and targeted killing have been employed by the United States and the "international community" against "international terrorism." Modern laws of war are portrayed as the bright line that distinguishes the "international community" from "unlawful combatants." The threat posed by unlawful combatants has been portrayed as so exceptionally grave that the international community is justified in the transgression of those very laws of war that constitute the distinction between "us" and "them." In consequence the efficacy of modern laws of war to provide humanitarian protections has been cast into doubt and many characterize humanitarian laws of war as obsolete. Existing work on the politics of exception and the exclusion of Guantánamo Bay detainees from US federal law does not frame the problem of the exception in terms of international law. Though many consider the prerequisites for politics of exception absent in the international system, I argue that a dispersed notion of sovereignty and constructivist approaches to law resolve obstacles to considering the exception at the level of the state system. I explore system level exceptional politics through a critical reading of modern laws of war. Rejecting essentialist historical narratives, I first conduct a genealogical study of laws of war from ancient Greece through the Middle Ages. I then conduct a critical reading of three texts from the War on Terrorism; Barack Obama's 2009 Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech, John Brennan's "The Ethics and Efficacy of the President's Counterterrorism Strategy," and Medea Benjamin's interruption of John Brennan. I argue that modern narratives of war law venerate codification and textually privilege a "mystical" figure of modern law. This figure empowers a universalized "international community" as law's privileged agent. Violence employed by this archetypal community, even when outside the law, is rendered ethically pure and historically necessary. In consequence modern humanitarian law as a bright line always permits excluded archetypal identities and vast powers of violence are mobilized by the "international community" against discrete individual human bodies who are identified with this excluded archetype, or who simply find themselves in the way.

Contributors

Agent

Created

Date Created
  • 2014

151221-Thumbnail Image.png

Can Kelsen's legal positivism account for international regime change?

Description

In this discussion I will state fundamental principles of Kelsen's Legal Positivism in International Law and explain four problems with his theory. I will then propose two suggestions in the

In this discussion I will state fundamental principles of Kelsen's Legal Positivism in International Law and explain four problems with his theory. I will then propose two suggestions in the light of which Kelsen's theory is modified in this discussion and explain how these two suggestions address the four problems and help the theory account for regime change. Finally, I will address possible objections to the view advanced in this discussion.

Contributors

Agent

Created

Date Created
  • 2012