IntLawGrrls |
- Congratulations to Diane!
- Dispatch from Oslo
- All in the Family?
- The Creation of International Law
- 'Nuff said
- On August 6
| Posted: 06 Aug 2010 05:20 PM PDT  I am pleased to report that today in San Francisco, IntLawGrrls' founder Diane Marie Amann (center) received the 2010 Mayre Rasmussen Award for the Advancement of Women in International Law at the American Bar Association annual meeting. We've posted previously on the details of the award here. It was an honor to be there, along with IntLawGrrl Connie de la Vega (right).As Diane would say, "Heartfelt congratulations!"  |
| Posted: 06 Aug 2010 08:54 AM PDT  As Beth van Schaack posted earlier today, the University of Oslo is currently hosting The Creation of International Law: An Exploration of Normative Innovation, Contextual Application, and Interpretation in a Time of Flux. This two day conference brings together acclaimed women scholars from around the world to explore challenges relating to the creation and elaboration of international law. Catharine MacKinnon (left) began the conference with a brilliant keynote address focusing on the trajectory of the crime of rape from its conceptual origin as a crime against an individual into a gender-based crime into an international crime. She gave a brilliant exposition of the reflexive relationship between conceptions of gender in domestic and international law. Organized by Prof. Cecilia Bailliet, an IntLawGrrls guest/alumna, the conference has been a showcase for IntLawGrrl talent.IntLawGrrls Fiona de Londras, Karima Bennoune and Beth van Schaack presented papers today on varying aspects of international criminal law. On tomorrow's roster are IntLawGrrls Hari M. Osofsky and me, Rebecca Bratspies, both speaking about international environmental law. The papers from the conference will be published.  |
| Posted: 06 Aug 2010 03:16 AM PDT  Last month, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights issued a groundbreaking decision finding that some aspects of U.S. immigration law violate the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man. Specifically, the Commission held that provisions requiring mandatory deportation of a non-citizen convicted of an "aggravated felony" violate the right to family life, the rights of the child, the right to a fair trial, and the right to due process. The European Court of Human Rights and the UN Human Rights Committee have grounded their jurisprudence in similar cases on the right to family life, so this decision may expand the scope of human rights protections for non-citizens in the Americas.While the grounding of the right to fair immigration proceedings in the right to family life and the rights of the child narrows the scope of protection, it is also, symbolically, a powerful description of the harms inflicted by harsh deportation policies. One of the petitioners in this case, Wayne Smith, moved to the United States from Trinidad and Tobago at the age 10 and had been a lawful permanent resident since 1974. Smith is married to a US citizen who survived breast cancer but lost her health insurance; they have a US citizen daughter. He and his wife owned a small business that employed over 15 people (most of whom were recovering drug addicts). Smith pled guilty to a non-violent drug offense (cocaine possession and attempted distribution) in 1990 (before such a crime was a deportable offense). He was denied a humanitarian waiver and deported in 1998; he returned in 1999 and challenged his deportation order based on a 2001 Supreme Court decision that may have made him eligible for a humanitarian waiver. He lost this challenge, and was deported again; in the meantime, his wife and child struggle to cover basic living expenses. Among other arguments before the IACHR, the US government asserted its sovereign right under international law to expel criminal aliens; that the right to family life under Articles V and VI of the American Declaration protects only against state action that intends to harm family life, not secondary consequences of lawful, reasonable state actions (sound familiar?); and my personal favorite -- that because the United States is not party to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, prior IACHR analysis (pertaining to a party to the CRC) on the rights of the child with respect to their parent's deportation proceeding was not relevant. The IACHR was not buying any of this. It found that the United States' sovereign rights of expulsion are not absolute, but are subject to a balancing test, drawing from elements laid out by the ECHR and UNHRC, including the strength of family ties, the duration of residence, the hardship of deportation to the family, and the nature and severity of the criminal offense (including age at the time of commission, time span of the offense, and subsequent rehabilitation). While the balancing test is to be applied flexibly, the IACHR emphasized strongly the importance of the best interest of the minor child. The IACHR also rejected the "intent to harm family life" limitation suggested by the US government, and noted that the American Declaration protects against foreseeable consequences that flow from state action. Because the petitioners had no opportunity to a present humanitarian defense to deportation or to have rights to family considered and because the best interests of their US citizen children were not considered by the decision maker, the IACHR found a violation of Articles V (right to private and family life), VI (right to family life), and VII (rights of the child) of the American Declaration. Notably, the Commission held that heightened due process protections apply in immigration proceedings that include the sanction of deportation, and that the petitioners' deportations violated Article XXVI (right to a fair trial) and XVII (right to an effective remedy) of the American Declaration. The IACHR recommended that the U.S. allow petitioners to return, reopen their deportation proceedings, and present humanitarian defenses, as well as to allow the immigration judge to weigh these defenses. Finally, the Commission suggested that the U.S implement laws to protect non-citizen residents' right to family life. Now those would be some solid family values.  |
| The Creation of International Law Posted: 06 Aug 2010 03:02 AM PDT  Greetings from Oslo, where a number of IntLawGrrls (members, guests, and alumnae) are participating in a conference organized by Cecilia Baillet and others at the University of Oslo Faculty of Law on The Creation of International Law: An Exploration of Normative Innovation, Contextual Application, and Interpretation in a Time of Flux.Speakers include the following women in international law (IntLawGrrls have a * next to their names): ►  Sumudu Atapattu (above left) - University of Wisconsin ► * Karima Bennoune (left) Rutgers School of Law, Newark► * Rebecca M. Bratspies (right, in black) - CUNY School of Law ► Catherine Brölmann (below, in blue) - University of Amsterdam  ►* Doris Buss - Carleton University ► Rosemary Byrne (right, with scarf) - Trinity College Dublin ► Christine Byron - Cardiff Law School (below left, in purple)  ►* Hilary Charlesworth (below, in white) - Australian National  University► *Fiona de Londras (below) - University College Dublin   ► Katherine Del Mar (below right) - University of Geneva ► Janet Dine - Queen Mary University School of Law► Malgosia Fitzmaurice - Queen Mary University of London School of Law  ► *Marjorie Florestal (right) - McGeorge School of Law► Anne Hellum - University of Oslo ► Ingunn Ikdahl - University of Oslo ► Agnieszka Jachec-Neale (below right, in front of window) - School of Oriental and Asian Studies ► Edda Kristjansdottir - Amsterdam Law School ► Catharine MacKinnon - Harvard Law School/U. Michigan Law School  ► Claudia Martin - AU Washington College of Law► *Fionnuala Ni Aoláin - U. Minnesota School of Law  ► Phoebe Okawa (right) - Queen Mary University School of Law► *Hari M. Osofsky - U. Minnesota School of Law ► Inger Johanne Sand - University of Oslo ► Kirsten Sandberg (below right, in green) - University of Oslo ► Birgit Schlütter - Norwegian Center for Human Rights  ► Beate Sjåfjell (left) - European Corporate Governance Institute► Hitomi Takemura - NUI Galway & Kyusha International University ►  * Beth Van Schaack - Santa Clara University School of Law► Maria Varaki - PhD candidate, NUI Galway; Irish Centre for Human Rights Stay tuned for additional postings from the conference.  |
| Posted: 06 Aug 2010 01:15 AM PDT (Taking context-optional note of thought-provoking quotes)
 |
| Posted: 06 Aug 2010 12:03 AM PDT  On this day in ...... 1890 (120 years ago today), at New York's Auburn prison (left), in an "awful spectacle" that the next-day New York Times proclaimed "FAR WORSE THAN HANGING," convicted murderer William Kemmler became the 1st person ever executed by electrocution. (credit for 1901 photo) Two jolts of electricity -- the 1st lasting 17 seconds, the 2d much longer -- were required to complete the grisly event detailed in The Times. The execution took place after the failure of bids to declare the electric chair unconstitutional.  |
| You are subscribed to email updates from IntLawGrrls To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
IntLawGrrls Part 1
IntLawGrrls Part 1
IntLawGrrls Part 1
Tags: IntLawGrrls, IntLawGrrls watch online, full IntLawGrrls video, IntLawGrrls download, IntLawGrrls torrent, free IntLawGrrls, IntLawGrrls megavideo, IntLawGrrls full, IntLawGrrls eng sub
0 comments:
Post a Comment