Washington University Global Studies Law Review最新文献

{"title":"'Your Old Road is/Rapidly Agin': International Human Rights Standards and Their Impact on Forensic Psychologists, the Practice of Forensic Psychology, and the Conditions of Institutionalization of Persons with Mental Disabilities","authors":"M. Perlin","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2887608","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2887608","url":null,"abstract":"An earlier version of this paper was presented as the Lynn Stuart Weiss lecture at the American Psychological Association yearly conference, sponsored by the American Psychology-Law Society and the American Psychology Foundation, August 2016, Denver, Colorado.For years, considerations of the relationship between international human rights standards and the work of forensic psychologists have focused on the role of organized psychology in prisoner abuse at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghirab. That issue has been widely discussed and debated, and these discussions show no sign of abating. But there has been virtually no attention given to another issue of international human rights, one that grows in importance each year: how the treatment (especially, the institutional treatment) of persons with mental and intellectual disabilities violates international human rights law, and the silence of organized forensic psychology in the face of this mistreatment. This issue has become even more pointed in recent years, following the ratification of the United Nations’ Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Organized forensic psychology has remained largely silent about the potential significance of this Convention and about how it demands that we rethink the way we institutionalize persons – often in brutal and barbaric conditions – around the world. In many parts of the world, circumstances are bleak: services are provided in segregated settings that cut people off from society, often for life; persons are arbitrarily detained from society and committed to institutions without any modicum of due process; individuals are denied the ability to make choices about their lives when they are put under plenary guardianship; there is a wide-spread denial of appropriate medical care or basic hygiene in psychiatric facilities, individuals are subject to powerful and often-dangerous psychotropic medications without adequate standards, and there is virtually no human rights oversight and enforcement mechanisms to protect against the broad range of institutional abuse. Although there is a robust literature developing – interestingly, mostly in Australia and New Zealand, but little in the US – about how such institutional conditions violate the international human rights of this population, virtually nothing has been written about how organized forensic psychology has been silent about these abuses.In this paper, I (1) discuss the relevant international human rights law that applies to these questions, (2) examine the current state of conditions in institutions worldwide, (3) argue why forensic psychology needs to become more aggressively involved in this area, and (4) offer some suggestions as to how this situation can be ameliorated.","PeriodicalId":325439,"journal":{"name":"Washington University Global Studies Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-12-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124286655","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Can the United States Impose Trade Sanctions on China for Currency Manipulation","authors":"D. Chow","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2840756","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2840756","url":null,"abstract":"Anti-China critics argue that the People’s Republic of China (PRC or China) engages in a long-standing and intentional pattern of currency manipulation that artificially devalues the Chinese currency, the Renminbi (RMB or “people’s currency”) versus the U.S. dollar. The devaluation of the RMB makes Chinese goods less expensive to the U.S. consumer as consumers need to exchange fewer dollars for the same amount of RMB used to purchase Chinese goods. The devaluation of the Chinese currency means that China exports more inexpensive goods to the United States and the United States exports fewer to China. This pattern leads to an increase in the U.S. trade deficit with China, which has already reached a massive $365.7 billion in 2015, by the far the largest U.S. trade deficit with any individual trading partner. A trade deficit of this size has many negative consequences for the United States, such as closed factories, lost jobs, and stagnant wages. China’s currency manipulation is another instance, according to the anti-China critics, of how China conducts international trade to the detriment of the United States. One anti-China critic, a prominent politician running for high political office in 2016, promises to impose punitive tariffs of 45% on all Chinese imports to offset the effects of China’s currency manipulation. Should such a measure become enacted, it would cause shock waves around the world and could possibly plunge the world into a costly trade war between the United States and China with ramifications for every corner of the globe. This article examines the main arguments that China’s currency manipulation justifies the U.S. imposition of trade sanctions. A detailed legal analysis reveals that China’s currency manipulation violates no legal obligations under the WTO. As a result, the United States cannot lawfully impose trade sanctions on China consistent with the WTO. To continue make this argument when it is not legally viable is risky and even dangerous. It is now time to move beyond such inflammatory arguments that do not present a viable legal remedy against China. The article then argues that a different set of strategies is needed to deal with China’s sharp tactics in international trade as exemplified in the United States’ recent strategy in creating mega-free trade agreements such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership.","PeriodicalId":325439,"journal":{"name":"Washington University Global Studies Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121716964","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The Nuremberg Trial, Seventy Years Later","authors":"L. Sadat","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2791774","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2791774","url":null,"abstract":"The trial of the major German war criminals by the International Military Tribunal is universally recognized as a pivotal juncture in the development of international criminal law. Seventy years on, what can be learnt from that experience? This essay examines the Nuremberg Principles and their legacy in national and international law in the seven decades since they took place. It first examines the Nuremberg trials themselves along with the important role played by Robert H. Jackson, chief prosecutor for the United States, before turning to the impact of the trials on the development of international law, national case law of individual states and the establishment of the ad hoc international criminal tribunals. It then examines two modern challenges to the Nuremberg legacy: firstly, the unfinished business of codifying and enforcing the Nuremberg principles themselves, including the need for a new global convention on crimes against humanity and universal ratification of the ICC Statute: and. secondly the challenges posed by the noncompliance of states with the Nuremberg Principles, particularly with respect to the unlawful use of force and the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Finally, the essay concludes that: (1) international justice does not need to be perfect to work; (2) international criminal trials are not the only way to ensure accountability; and (3) both the Nuremberg trials themselves and the subsequent establishment of the International Criminal Court have had long-lasting and extraordinary effects on the modern world.","PeriodicalId":325439,"journal":{"name":"Washington University Global Studies Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-06-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124434844","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"What Investigative Resources Does the International Criminal Court Need to Succeed?: A Gravity-Based Approach","authors":"S. Ford","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2733700","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2733700","url":null,"abstract":"The crimes typically investigated by the International Criminal Court (ICC) are at least as grave and complex as the most serious mass atrocity crimes investigated by states. Yet a comparison of the investigative resources available to the ICC and the investigative resources committed to domestic investigations of mass atrocities shows that national governments are willing to devote vastly more resources to domestic investigations. There is also a stark difference in the way states talk about national and international investigations. The rhetoric of national responses to mass atrocities usually involves a commitment to “make every effort,” “pursue every lead,” and “use all means at our disposal” to bring those responsible to justice. In contrast, while most states are generally supportive of the idea of the ICC, their rhetoric often changes dramatically when it comes to discussions about funding the Court. Some of the states that have been most supportive of the Court in their public statements have vigorously opposed attempts to increase the ICC’s budget to adequately fund its investigations.This Article draws three principal conclusions from its analysis. First and most importantly, the ICC is enormously under-resourced compared to domestic mass atrocity investigations. Second, this lack of resources is at least partly to blame for some of the difficulties the ICC has encountered. The ICC would probably be more successful if it had more resources. Third and finally, some of the ICC’s strongest supporters, like Britain and France, are being hypocritical and discriminatory by opposing any increase in the ICC’s investigative capacity while simultaneously devoting nearly unlimited resources to their own domestic mass atrocity investigations.","PeriodicalId":325439,"journal":{"name":"Washington University Global Studies Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-02-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133141543","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The International Criminal Court’s Gravity Jurisprudence at Ten","authors":"Margaret M. deGuzman","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2428779","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2428779","url":null,"abstract":"This Essay, prepared for a symposium on “The International Criminal Court at Ten,” analyzes the ICC’s early jurisprudence on the gravity threshold for admissibility in Article 17 of the Rome Statute. It argues that the threshold, while useful in garnering support for ratification of the Rome Statute, now seems destined to play a minor role in determining the ICC’s reach. While there are multiple possible explanations for this development, an important doctrinal cause identified in the jurisprudence is that the gravity threshold for admissibility is in tension with the Rome Statute’s provisions regarding jurisdiction. At least with regard to the admissibility of cases (as opposed to “situations”), the judges have concluded that interpreting the gravity threshold to exclude certain types of defendants or crimes from the Court’s reach would amount to an impermissible revision of the Court’s jurisdiction. To avoid this outcome, the judges have developed a flexible multi-factor approach to the gravity threshold that enables them to justify admitting virtually any case within the Court’s jurisdiction. The Essay concludes by arguing that, in light of the tension between admissibility and jurisdiction, the judges are right to relegate the gravity threshold to a minor role in determining the cases the Court adjudicates. To the extent the judges seek to limit the ICC’s reach, they should do so by interpreting the Court’s jurisdictional provisions directly rather than through the back door of admissibility.","PeriodicalId":325439,"journal":{"name":"Washington University Global Studies Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130020227","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Expanding Judiciaries: India and the Rise of the Good Governance Court","authors":"N. Robinson","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1126364","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1126364","url":null,"abstract":"The Indian Supreme Court has rightly been pointed to as an example of a global trend in the increase in the power of courts. This article argues that it is the mandate for a controlled revolution laid out in the Indian Constitution, combined with the shortcomings of India's representative institutions and the Supreme Court’s relatively unique institutional structure, which has led the Court to enlarge its role. The article examines the Court’s basic structure doctrine and right to life jurisprudence, which exemplify this expanded mission, and argues that the Court justified this jurisprudence not only with a wide reading of the Indian Constitution, but also with an appeal to broad, almost metaphysical, principles of civilization or good governance. The Court's interventions have not been without critics (who raise accountability, capacity, competency, and constitutional legitimacy concerns), but the Court’s wide-reaching jurisprudence has proved remarkably stable. The article finishes by examining parallel interventions in other parts of the world that suggest India's experience is part of and helps explain a larger global phenomenon of the rise of rule through good governance courts.","PeriodicalId":325439,"journal":{"name":"Washington University Global Studies Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-04-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121282713","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"21. Jewish Law from out of the Depths: Tragic Choices in the Holocaust","authors":"Samuel J. Levine","doi":"10.1515/9781618116581-006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/9781618116581-006","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":325439,"journal":{"name":"Washington University Global Studies Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2011-10-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124876198","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Thinking Like a Lawyer Abroad: Putting Justice into Legal Reasoning","authors":"James R. Maxeiner","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1640878","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1640878","url":null,"abstract":"Americans are taking new interest in legal reasoning. Thinking Like a Lawyer: A New Introduction to Legal Reasoning by Professor Frederick Schauer suggests why. According to Schauer, American legal methods often require decision-makers “to do something other than the right thing.” There has got to be a better way.Now comes a book that offers Americans opportunities to look into a world where legal methods help decision-makers do the right thing. According to Reinhard Zippelius in his newly published Introduction to German Legal Methods, German legal methods help decision makers resolve legal problems “in a just and equitable manner.”This article set outs what good legal methods do: help decide legal problems justly. It poses the puzzle: why does Schauer say legal methods challenge rather than support doing the right thing, when Zippelius does not? Relying on Schauer himself, it suggests an answer: neglect of legislation and law application and fixation on appellate law-making. It shows how German legal methods as described by Zippelius help decision makers to do the right thing.","PeriodicalId":325439,"journal":{"name":"Washington University Global Studies Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2011-07-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"117007718","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Explaining State Commitment to the International Criminal Court: Strong Enforcement Mechanisms as a Credible Threat","authors":"Y. Dutton","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1884442","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1884442","url":null,"abstract":"This article examines the puzzle of state commitment to the International Criminal Court. It asks why some 100 states would join an international human rights treaty like the ICC treaty which has relatively strong enforcement mechanisms to punish bad and noncompliant behavior. After all, by joining the ICC, states agree that an independent prosecutor may try the state’s own nationals for mass atrocities should the ICC conclude the state is unwilling or unable to do so domestically. Thus, although states regularly join the many international human rights treaties that only require states to self-report compliance, I theorize that states will view the ICC’s enforcement mechanisms as a credible threat and will be more likely to commit only if calculations about the ability to comply with treaty terms show that commitment will not lead to a significant sovereignty loss. In this case, states should consider (1) the strength of the anticipated enforcement mechanism and (2) the state’s ability to comply with the terms of the ICC treaty. I test this argument empirically and find support for the credible threat theory. In contrast to prior studies empirically examining state commitment to international human rights treaties, I find that states with poorer human rights practices are less likely than states with good practices to commit to the ICC. I conclude that although this means that member states tend to have relatively good human rights practices, the ICC and its relatively strong enforcement mechanisms can still positively influence state behavior. Indeed, the ICC is uniquely situated to improve international cooperation on human rights matters since it has been designed so that commitment requires compliance. All states that have joined the court – including those with poor practices – will have to comply or face sovereignty losses.","PeriodicalId":325439,"journal":{"name":"Washington University Global Studies Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2011-07-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124395205","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The Inter-American Human Rights System: An Effective Institution for Regional Rights Protection?","authors":"Lea Shaver","doi":"10.31228/osf.io/x7tke","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31228/osf.io/x7tke","url":null,"abstract":"The Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights are charged with protecting human rights in the Western Hemisphere. This Article explains the workings of this regional human rights system, examining its history, composition, functions, jurisdiction, procedure, jurisprudence, and enforcement. The Article also evaluates the system's historical and current effectiveness. Particular attention is given to the disconnect between the system's success with the region's Latin-American nations and its rejection by Anglo-American States, as well as to the potential to use the system to improve human rights in Cuba.","PeriodicalId":325439,"journal":{"name":"Washington University Global Studies Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2009-07-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126980873","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}