16885 research outputs found
Sort by
Pure Privacy
Get PDFn 1890, Samuel Warren and Louis Brandeis began a storied legal tradition of trying to conceptualize privacy. Since that time, privacy\u27s appeal has grown beyond those authors\u27 wildest expectations, but its essence remains elusive. One of the rare points of agreement in boisterous academic privacy debates is that there is no consensus on what privacy means.
The modern trend is to embrace the ambiguity. Unable to settle on boundaries, scholars welcome a broad array of interests into an expanding theoretical framework. As a result, privacy is invoked in debates about COVID-19 contact tracing, police body cameras, marriage equality, facial recognition, access to contraception, loud neighbors, telemarketing calls, and on and on. This pluralistic turn has made privacy popular, but this popularity comes at a cost. Lacking precision, ubiquitous invocations of privacy tend to cloud rather than clarify, raising the temperature of academic and policy debates while generating little light.
This Article proposes a baseline definition of privacy to anchor legal discourse. The definition responds to privacy skeptics by identifying a core of pure privacy that can and should be protected. But it also pushes back on privacy pluralists by insisting on the need for precision. In a post-pandemic world, policymakers face powerful temptations to override longstanding privacy protections and countervailing pressures to abandon lifesaving policies in the face of vigorous privacy objections. Precisely identifying what is at stake in these debates can help to clarify the difficult choices that will shape the future
Human Rights Due Diligence
Get PDFDue diligence is a well-recognized, deliberately flexible standard in international law. It has been introduced to complement the system of state responsibility and the international liability framework of commitments. The latter has provided more detail to the understanding of due diligence. Together, these two systems allow for a comprehensive reading and implementation of due diligence in international law.
Two international legal regimes dictate due diligence requirements: the law on international liability and that of the law of state responsibility. These two regimes have been the focus of the United Nations\u27 (UN) International Law Commission (ILC) since 1947, resulting in two respective distinct work streams.
[...]
The role of the ILC is to further the understanding and implementation of international law. While any detailed discussion on the nature, scope, and sources of international law goes far beyond the scope of this Paper, it is worth noting that the idea behind the foundation of the ILC was the understanding, shared by all UN member states, that there is indeed a system of internationally shared values, reflected in universally accepted and adopted norms. Such a normative framework has priority over national laws and regulations. Its core principles can be found in the UNC) -- an international treaty which laid the foundation for the United Nations as an international organization. This founding document is often referred to as the constitution of international law and, indeed, of the international community of states. The basic principles of international law, which lie at the core of international cooperation and legal order, provide context for the argument that has been reiterated in Chapter I of the UNC. They include, for example, the principle of sovereign equality, prohibition on the use of force, and due respect for fundamental rights of the individual (generally referred to as human rights law), which is discussed in more detail below.
The work of the ILC complements that of the UN Security Council and, more significantly, of the International Court of Justice. While non-binding, ILC reports, documents, and draft articles serve as a reiteration of the basic principles of international law as reflected by the UNC. ILC experts review a variety of sources of international law, including universal, regional, and bilateral treaty practice; customary law; judicial decisions; and academic writings to summarize current progress of international law for the practical application by relevant UN bodies. For international and constitutional law scholars, these are a trustworthy and reliable resource for analyzing and summarizing diverse legal practices based on various legal norms and principles.
For the purpose of this Paper, we shall look at the ILC work concerning state responsibility, reflecting the normative standard of Articles 2, 4, and 51, as well as Chapters VI and VII of the UNC.
This abstract has been adapted from the author\u27s introduction
Ballots in an Unfamiliar Language and Other Things That Make No Sense: Interpreting How the Voting Rights Act Undermines Constitutional Rights for Voters with Limited English Proficiency
Get PDFThis Note will argue that the current federal scheme for determining the baseline resources that a state must provide to voters with limited English proficiency is unconstitutional. Specifically, the Voting Rights Act neglects to require adequate translation and interpretation services for many voters with limited English proficiency. Such failure to adequately support this group of citizens throughout the election process effectively excludes them from the democratic process and deprives them of their constitutional right to vote. Whether this group of voters has access to translated materials currently hinges on the language they speak, their nationality, and their geographic location; the scheme set forth in the Voting Rights Act, therefore, deprives these citizens of their right to equal protection under the law.
Part I will provide background information, including a closer look at the non- English speaking population in the United States. It will also examine the various ways that the federal and state governments have succeeded in expanding -- or have failed to expand -- voting rights for citizens who speak a language besides English, including relevant provisions of the Voting Rights Act. Part II will explain the remaining barriers to access and the problems with the current language assistance system laid out in the Voting Rights Act. Part III will assess whether the minority language provisions of the Voting Rights Act violate the Equal Protection Clause, using both the Anderson-Burdick test and a more traditional equal protection analysis. Part IV will recommend solutions that could expand access to language resources, while also considering potential counter-arguments and challenges that may stand in the way of implementing lasting change.
This abstract has been adapted from the author\u27s introduction
USAID Office of the General Counsel in Washington, D.C.
No full textThis summer, I will work with the USAID Office of the General Counsel, which provides legal advice and guidance for the agency’s global operations
United States Institute of Peace in Washington, D.C.
No full textThis summer, I will be working with the Justice and Security Dialogue team to contribute to peace-building and conflict resolution efforts in West Africa. USIP works closely with local communities in order to foster stability and strengthen the Rule of Law
