4328 research outputs found
Sort by
The French Veil Ban: A Transnational Legal Feminist Approach
Get PDFAfter the gruesome terrorist attack that killed eighty-four people in Nice, many beach towns in France began to ban Muslim women from wearing the “burkini” on beaches. The burkini, which was created by an Australian designer, is modest swimwear that covers the body and hair. The Nice attack occurred on the heels of a series of attacks in France. The timing of the French burkini ban suggests it was targeting Muslims due to the anger over the attacks. The argument that burkinis are not hygienic is a fig leaf for other more pernicious justifications. Others argue that religious garb generally contravenes the French vision of secularism. Another line of attack against the burkini relates to gender equality. For example, the French Prime Minister argues that the burkini reinforces the “enslavement of women.
The Silencing of Senator Warren
No full textThe press coverage of Senator Elizabeth Warren’s silencing under Senate Rule XIX was colorful, but sadly shallow. Much more daunting than a one-cycle news bite or a catchy hashtag, the incident in fact revealed that today’s narrow Republican Senate majority is poised to use procedure to subjugate the minority Democrats to an extreme.
In the news bite version of the story, the Warren silencing was simply a clash of personalities against a background of quaint Senate rules that date to times when the chamber functioned as a “club” of distinguished gentlemen who used aristocratic norms of address.
Warren was silenced after she read aloud from a letter by Coretta Scott King, who had harsh words about Attorney General Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), whom she called a racist in her 1986 letter. Republican Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) brought out the rarely used Senate Rule XIX to silence Warren. In his words: “She was warned. She was given an explanation. Nevertheless, she persisted.
A Court Pure and Unsullied: Justice in the Justice Trial at Nuremberg
Get PDFIn the immediate aftermath of World War II, the common understanding was that the Nazi regime had been maintained by a combination of instruments of terror, such as the Gestapo, the SS, and concentration camps, combined with a sophisticated propaganda campaign. Modern historiography, however, has revealed the critical importance of the judiciary, the Justice Ministry, and the legal profession to maintaining the stability of the regime.
As an example, although the number of persons confined to concentration camps from 1933 to 1934 rose to as many as 100,000 people, most were quickly released. The number of concentration camp inmates thereafter fell to 4,000–5,000 persons at any given time during the 1930s. However, the number of political prisoners sentenced by the civilian courts had risen to 23,000 by the mid-1930s. What is most striking about this phenomenon is that most judges and lawyers in 1933 were not in fact members of the Nazi Party, and, as the Nazi regime lasted only for twelve years (1933– 1945), the great majority of the legal profession up to the very end of the regime had been trained prior to the Nazi accession to power.
As the legal profession loomed large in the operation of the regime, it also loomed large in the post-war war crime trials at Nuremberg. Five of the twenty-two defendants in the International Military Tribunal (IMT), were lawyers, including: Ernst Kaltenbrunner, the head of the Reich Security Office (the Gestapo, the SD, and the concentration camps); Hans Frank, general counsel to the Nazi Party, and later head of the Government General of Poland; Arthur Seyss-Inquart, who as chancellor of Austria for a short time, signed the agreement by which Austria was annexed by Germany, and later was head of the occupation of the Netherlands; Wilhelm Frick, who was Minister of the Interior until 1943 when he became the governor of the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia (now the Czech Republic), from 1943 to 1945;11 and Constantin Von Neurath, Foreign Minister of Germany from 1932–1938, and governor of the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia from 1939 to 1943. All five of the IMT lawyer defendants were convicted of war crimes and crimes against humanity
Recent Development: Colvin v. State: Not Polling the Jury Foreperson Individually After Announcing the Jury\u27s Verdict is a Procedural Error, Which Does Not Rise to the Level of a Cognizable Claim Under Maryland Rule 4-345(a)
Get PDFThe Court of Appeals of Maryland held that a motion to correct an illegal sentence can only be granted if the error is based on substantive law. Colvin v. State, 450 Md. 718, 728, 150 A.3d 850, 856 (2016). Not polling the jury foreperson after she announced the jury\u27s verdicts was a procedural error, and thus not one of the limited exceptions to correct an illegal sentence under Maryland Rule 4-345(a). Id. at 726-27, 150 A.3d at 855-56. In 1989, Roderick Colvin ( Colvin ) was tried before a jury in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City on numerous charges, including murder and attempted murder. After jury deliberations, the foreperson announced the verdicts for the jury on each charge, finding Colvin guilty of all charges except for the first-degree murder charge. At defense counsel\u27s request, the clerk polled each juror but failed to individually poll the foreperson. The clerk then hearkened the verdicts and asked if all jurors agreed, to which all jurors, including the foreperson, responded in the affirmative
Science as Speech
Get PDFIn April 2015, researchers in China reported the successful genetic editing of human embryos using a new technology that promised to make gene editing easier and more effective than ever before. In the United States, the announcement drew immediate calls to regulate or prohibitoutright any use of this technology to alter human embryos, even for purely research purposes. The fervent response to the Chinese announcement was, in one respect, unexceptional. Proposals to regulate or prohibit scientific research following a new breakthrough occur with substantial frequency. Innovations in cloning technology and embryonic stem cell research have prompted similar outcries, and even resulted in legislative action. Meanwhile, the U.S. government instituted a funding “pause” on certain infectious-disease research while it contemplated whether researchers should even be permitted to complete such work.Regulations such as these often seek to prevent researchers from discovering information and, consequently, can limit discourse on important matters of public concern. This Article argues that such de facto censorship implicates the First Amendment, and that constitutional scrutiny is necessary whenever the government regulates scientific inquiry in an effort to suppress knowledgeproduction. This Article establishes a framework for assessing whether and when legislatures cross the constitutional line by regulating scientific experimentation. Applying this framework in a variety of contexts, from gene editing and human cloning to infectious-disease research, this Article also identifies both constitutionally sound and constitutionally suspect purposes for which government actors have regulated scientific research
University of Baltimore Journal of International Law, Volume 5, Issue 2 (2017-2018) Front Matter
Get PDFTHE CONTINUUM OF STATE SOVEREIGNTY: A Commentary on African Elections
Get PDFTwenty-six African States hold elections between 2016 and 2017. More basic than campaign rhetoric and ethnocentric political jockeying, the state in Africa is ripe for a deeper engagement with notions of state sovereignty that are more relevant for this century as the African state seeks to exercise its core functions, protect its interests within its own geographic boundaries, and care for all of the people it seeks to govern. The intentional structuring of such a dialogue must be guided to secure the cornerstones of individual liberty and participatory democracy – two basic protective functions that uniquely belong to the nation-state. The functional components for the design of such a new social contract will need to be very different from the intra-State ethnocentric dynamics that regrettably continue to dominate Africa. A continuum for sovereignty that is unique to the African nation-state context, not one that mirrors Westphalian notions or reflects remnants of a postcolonial era, will be outlined here. This continuum of sovereignty incorporates a framework of liberty designed to bridge definitions of the nation state from the last century with new roles of sovereignty demanded in this century. It is the framework of liberty that by necessity also includes the principles of human dignity and mutual benefit, anchors a new functional definition of sovereignty measured in terms of how a state cares for its people, and designs an enterprise of law from within a broader civil society comprised of economic traders
The District Court Re-Entry Project (DCREP): Connecting Baltimore City residents with job opportunities and educational training programs through the Judiciary
Get PDF
The Purpose of International Law Is to Advance Justice -- and International Law Has No Value Unless It Does So
Get PDFThe central topic of this year’s annual meeting of the American Society of International Law has been “What International Law Values,” restated more forcefully in the title of this panel, “The Value and Purpose of International Law.” Notice the underlying assumption: that international law has value and serves some useful purpose. This premise is important because it supplies the basis on which international law seeks to secure our obedience and respect. We have no reason to obey or respect international law unless international law has some value or serves some useful purpose. This leads us to consider what this value and purpose might be. Which values and what purpose does international law exist to serve? Or, more important, which values and purpose would international law have to serve or advance if it were to deserve our obedience or respect? The answer can be given in one word: justice. Justice is the value that justifies or could justify international law, and justice is the purpose that international law properly seeks to serve and protect