556 research outputs found
Sort by
The Dilemma of Piratical Ransoms: Should They Be Paid Or Not: On the Human Rights of Kidnapped Seamen and Their Families
Get PDF
Beyond Aristotle: Alternative Rhetorics and the Conflict over the U.S. Law Professor Persona(e)
Get PDFPrior research has sketched out a picture in which, at least since 1960 and continuing to the present, advocates of the differing personae, or roles, of the U.S. law professor have been sharply divided over such personae. Lawyers have advocated two major personae for the law professor to perform. One major persona is that of the scholar, who is a full-time teacher, researcher, and sometimes public servant, but who often has limited practical experience. The other major persona is that of the practitioner, who has a substantial number of years of practice at the bar and is prepared for hands-on lawyering instruction. At stake in this communication is the future of the central figure in the education of prospective lawyers. Unfortunately, the lawyers who have constructed these personae generally have employed traditional Aristotelian rhetoric, or persuasion, a process that has contributed to much rhetorical clash and little rhetorical understanding. This article maintains that alternative rhetorics offer new possibilities to help improve the conflict over the persona(e) of the U.S. law professor. To expand upon this perspective, the article begins with a discussion of invitational rhetoric, both defining invitational rhetoric and illustrating how invitational rhetoric can be helpful for lawyers presently involved in the conflict over the rhetorical construction of the law professor persona(e). The article then continues with a discussion of cooperative rhetoric, defining cooperative rhetoric as invitational rhetoric informs it, outlining the form of alternative dispute resolution known as collaborative law as a precedent for the implementation of cooperative rhetoric in the legal field, and illustrating how cooperative rhetoric can work in the conflict over the ideal law professor persona(e)
Achieving Reproductive Justice in the International Surrogacy Market
Get PDFMen and women are increasingly seeking surrogacy arrangements outside of their home country, mainly due to legal restrictions or the high cost of surrogacy in their home countries. Global surrogacy raises numerous issues including the economic status of women involved in surrogacy arrangements, poverty, issues related to what motherhood means and how women from different ethnic, socioeconomic, class, and national backgrounds interact in the global surrogacy market. This essay analyzes whether reproductive justice exists in the current international surrogacy market. Reproductive justice refers to the normative concept that all women, regardless of their ethnic, racial, national, social, or economic backgrounds, should be able to make healthy decisions about their bodies and their families. Rather than using a traditional lens of analyzing assisted reproductive technologies and surrogacy using the tools of liberal feminism (such as focusing on a woman’s individual autonomy), the reproductive justice framework goes beyond the individual woman. The framework acknowledges that each woman is part of a family and community, and aims to support policies that aid entire families and communities in order to support these women. The reproductive justice framework “integrate[s] the concepts of reproductive rights, social justice and human rights.” Reproductive justice proponents aim to “achieve the complete physical, mental, spiritual, political, social, and economic well-being of women and girls, based on the full achievement and protection of women\u27s human rights.” The reproductive justice movement aims to address reproductive concerns faced by women outside of mainstream feminist thought, such as poor women, women of color, and lesbians. Reproductive justice moves away from the language of choice and autonomy because “the ‘right to choose’ means very little when women are powerless.” Additionally, taking cues from sociologist France Winddance Twine, I analyze surrogacy as a form of stratified reproduction. This refers to the concept that certain physical and social reproductive tasks vary based on class, race, ethnic, and global hierarchies. This essay attempts to follow the reproductive justice movement’s example of linking domestic reproductive justice to the global women\u27s movement. In this essay, I briefly introduce some leader countries in the international surrogacy market. I then explore whether reproductive justice is being achieved in the current marketplace. I introduce the reader to sociology literature on reproductive justice in the surrogacy market and briefly provide such suggestions about how law may be used as a tool to achieve such reproductive justice
Men and women are increasingly seeking surrogacy arrangements outside of their home country, mainly due to legal restrictions or the high cost of surrogacy in their home countries. Global surrogacy raises numerous issues including the economic status of women involved in surrogacy arrangements, poverty, issues related to what motherhood means and how women from different ethnic, socioeconomic, class, and national backgrounds interact in the global surrogacy market. This essay analyzes whether reproductive justice exists in the current international surrogacy market. Reproductive justice refers to the normative concept that all women, regardless of their ethnic, racial, national, social, or economic backgrounds, should be able to make healthy decisions about their bodies and their families. Rather than using a traditional lens of analyzing assisted reproductive technologies and surrogacy using the tools of liberal feminism (such as focusing on a woman’s individual autonomy), the reproductive justice framework goes beyond the individual woman. The framework acknowledges that each woman is part of a family and community, and aims to support policies that aid entire families and communities in order to support these women. The reproductive justice framework “integrate[s] the concepts of reproductive rights, social justice and human rights.” Reproductive justice proponents aim to “achieve the complete physical, mental, spiritual, political, social, and economic well-being of women and girls, based on the full achievement and protection of women\u27s human rights.” The reproductive justice movement aims to address reproductive concerns faced by women outside of mainstream feminist thought, such as poor women, women of color, and lesbians. Reproductive justice moves away from the language of choice and autonomy because “the ‘right to choose’ means very little when women are powerless.” Additionally, taking cues from sociologist France Winddance Twine, I analyze surrogacy as a form of stratified reproduction. This refers to the concept that certain physical and social reproductive tasks vary based on class, race, ethnic, and global hierarchies
Florida\u27s UCC Filing System: How a Design Overhaul Could Lead to More Certainty in Filing and Searching for Financing Statements
Get PDF
Is a Taking Something Lost or Something Gained? Contrasting the Loss/Gain Focus of Takings Cases in the United States and Australia
Get PDFQualified Immunity: Protecting All but the Plainly Incompetent (and Maybe Some of Them, Too)
Get PDFPublic officials can be more certain than ever before that qualified immunity will shield them from suits for money damages even if their actions violate the constitutional rights of another. In the October 2011 Term the Supreme Court granted qualified immunity to government officials in four significant cases and denied it to none. Troublesome aspects of the Supreme Court’s current approach include (1) the failure to clarify important Constitutional questions; and (2) the blurring of the distinction between absolute and qualified immunity for all practical purposes by assuring state officials that they can be certain of the shield from liability. The article does not contend that any specific state officials are plainly incompetent, but the concern is that all governmental actors will be protected -- even in extreme cases -- so long as their behavior is “not entirely unreasonable”. For those who are concerned about the protection of individual rights, these times are tough. The direction that the Court is now taking is clear, and it favors those who do the work of the government, not the average citizen