Introduction

This paper will take a broad view of human rights abuses in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) member states and attempt to determine if there is a possible solution to the non-interventionist makeup of the ASEAN. Furthermore, this paper will give an overview of human rights abuses in a few of the more prominent ASEAN member states, the worldview that is used by those member states to rationalize the suppression of the fundamental rights of their citizens and the implementation of a human rights mechanism in the region.The paper will explore the language of the ASEAN Charter as compared with the UN Charter in Section I.  Section II will look at four member states, Thailand, Cambodia, Vietnam and Indonesia. Each of these states has varying degrees of human rights abuse and political, ethnic or religious repression and oppression. Section III will ask about how international aid is disbursed to the ASEAN member states[1] and will seek to determine if aid from international corporations and from lenders such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) is dependent on proof of compliance with international human rights norms. Section IV will briefly discuss what attempts have been made by ASEAN member states to come into some level of compliance with international human rights norms. Section V will discuss the current development and implementation of an ASEAN court of human rights. Finally, Section VI discusses the notion of how Western aid organizations and investment groups (such as trans-national corporations and the IMF) can require measureable compliance with international human rights norms for the disbursement of dollars into the ASEAN economy. Would such a requirement infringe too deeply on the sovereignty of individual ASEAN members, and is it too late for those member states to withdraw from their obligations to such Western powers?

Download full PDF to continue reading

Introduction

Sabrina was seven months pregnant with her first child when St. Vincent’s Hospital in New York City closed its doors at the end of April, 2010. Little did she know, even though she was planning a home birth with a licensed midwife, the hospital closure meant she would be forced to change her birthing plans. In New York, up until the end of July, 2010, as in most states in the United States, a licensed midwife was required to have a written practice agreement with an obstetrician or a hospital if she was going to practice outside of a hospital setting. St. Vincent’s was the only hospital that “backed” home birth midwives in New York. As such, Sabrina’s midwife, along with six of the other thirteen home birth midwives in New York, was no longer legally able to practice. With two months to her due date, decisions needed to be made: should Sabrina continue with her birth plans, risking that her midwife might get “caught” practicing without the necessary written practice agreement? Should she acquiesce and have a hospital birth despite her desire to give birth at home? Or, should she risk birthing at home without a midwife? None of these options are particularly desirable.  And, they all result in reproductive oppression.[1]

The purpose of this paper is to explore the reproductive justice impact of the regulatory requirement that certified nurse-midwives (CNMs) have written practice agreements (WPAs) with obstetricians or hospitals in order to practice home birth. I begin this paper with some background – an overview of the state legislation relating to WPAs, a brief look at home birth in America, and a general introduction to Reproductive Justice Theory. In the model of Reproductive Justice, I will then look at the interests of the parties who are key to this issue: the state, midwives, parents, physicians and hospitals, and the pharmaceutical industry. Following this, I will review the case law that relates to a parent’s right to choose where and how to birth. I will then turn to how the legislation creates reproductive oppression. Finally, this paper will examine two options for working toward reproductive justice in this area: attacking legislation on legal grounds and working for legislative change.

Download full PDF to continue reading

Introduction

Forensic science is defined as the use of science to answer legal questions. Drastic reforms are needed in the field of forensic science to ensure that the administration of justice is unbiased and accurate. Forensic science has proved to be a vital component of our criminal justice system for decades. In fact, popular crime dramas like CSI: Crime Scene Investigation and its progeny give the impression that forensic science is flawless. These dramatizations portray the science as unimpeachable and the analysts as arms of law enforcement with boundless resources who are able to process massive amounts of evidence with breathtaking speed and unflappable precision. In reality, nothing could be further from the truth. As such, it is imperative that we not overlook the critical need for reform that exists within the criminal justice system. The independence of these findings and the accuracy of the results are critical to ensuring that forensic science is a tool that can be used for generations to come. The power of the forensic science in a legal context is limitless and the technological advances that are taking place nationwide, particularly in the area of DNA testing, have allowed law enforcement to convict the guilty and exonerate the innocent.

In fact, in North Carolina alone there have been seven individuals set free as a result of post-conviction DNA testing. Great power comes from these scientific tools and it is imperative that we ensure that the best and brightest minds in the scientific community are using proven scientific methodology when the integrity of the criminal justice system hangs in the balance. This paper will highlight several problem areas that exist with the practice and use of forensic science and will provide some practical solutions to ensure this vital investigative and legal tool is utilized to its highest level of effectiveness.

Download full PDF to continue reading

I. Introduction to Mexican Drug-War Asylum Applicants

Narcotic and drug cartel related violence has escalated at an alarming rate over the past few years, and the Mexican government has been unable to curtail the violence with as many as 10,000 deaths attributed to the drug-war conflict since January 2007. Corruption at nearly every level of the Mexican government and the deep infusion of drug cartels throughout the country have prevented the Mexican government from making substantial headway into curbing the violence. As the violence has escalated throughout the U.S.-Mexican borderlands, Mexican refugees continue to cross into the U.S., hopeful that they will be granted asylum. In recent months, the influx of Mexican asylees has grown to include journalists covering drug-war related crimes. The circumstances surrounding the plight of most Mexican refugees fleeing the recent and escalating violence causes them to be poorly served by current United States asylum law.

The difficulty for Mexican asylum seekers fleeing violence related to the drug war lies in the limits of current protected grounds for asylum eligibility under federal law, which must be shown as a impetus for the persecution. Among the five available classifications, most of these Mexican asylum applicants will likely seek to demonstrate that they should be granted asylum under the protected ground of particular social group. In additions to establishing membership in a particular social group the asylees must demonstrate a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of membership in that group. Unfortunately, these asylum applicants encounter an overall trend in the administrative immigration courts and circuit courts of appeals to limit the breadth and applicability of the particular social group classification. A more lenient, yet reasonable interpretation that expands the scope of this protected ground would allow Mexican asylees escaping drug-cartel violence to be more readily granted asylum. The broader interpretation that exists in the Ninth Circuit should be uniformly adopted.

Download full PDF to continue reading

1. Reproductive Justice
Seeking Reproductive Justice: Written Practice Agreements and [the lack of] Home Birth Choice
-Leandra Carrasco

2. Immigration Law
“Particular Social Group” Classification: A Case For Mexican Drug-Violence Asylees
-Leticia A. Corona

3. International Human Rights Law
Non-Intervention, Regional Stability and the ASEAN Court of Human Rights
-Ben Petok

4. Death Penalty Law
Combating the “CSI Effect”: An Analysis of Forensic Science in North Carolina
-George C. Kourtsounis

5. Race and the Law
Racial Implications of an Expanding DNA Database
-Brec Cooke
(author is currently completing a new version of this article and it will be available when completed)