American Equal Protection and Global Convergence

Commentators have noted that equal protection doctrine is in a state of transformation. The nature of that transformation, however, is poorly understood. This Article offers a clearer view of the change underway. This Article is the first to reveal and synthesize three major trajectories along which the U.S. Supreme Court has begun to move. First, the Court has begun to blur the line that it previously drew between facial discrimination and disparate impact. Second, the Court has begun to collapse its previously established tiered standards for reviewing discrimination. These two trajectories combine to produce a third trajectory of change: by blurring the distinction between facial discrimination and disparate impact, and by collapsing tiered review, the United States’ equal protection doctrine is converging with equality jurisprudence from peer jurisdictions abroad. After describing these changes, we argue that the collective wisdom of foreign jurisdictions should serve as persuasive authority encouraging the United States to continue along its current trajectories of doctrinal reform. We contend that foreign jurisdictions have served as laboratories of doctrinal innovation from which the United States could learn

Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Discrimination

In Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Discrimination Holning Lau offers an incisive review of the conceptual questions that arise as legal systems around the world grapple with whether and how to protect people against sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination. Readership: All interested in LGBT rights (i.e., SOGI rights). This audience ranges from students to seasoned LGBT rights experts who specialize in a particular country/region and are seeking to learn about other parts of the world

Rethinking the Persistent Objector Doctrine in International Human Rights Law

This Comment, which proceeds in five parts, critically assesses the persistent objector doctrine and concludes that the doctrine\u27s application to human rights should be restricted. Part II provides background on the persistent objector doctrine-its mechanics, its functional purposes, and its history. Part III provides background on human rights law. It discusses the inherent tension between human rights law\u27s assumption of universality and the doctrine of persistent objector. Part IV analyzes the applicability of the persistent objector doctrine to international human rights law. It looks specifically at the doctrine\u27s two primary functions: preserving the role of consent and promoting foreseeability. In its analysis, Part IV argues that neither of these two functions would be unduly jeopardized by restricting the doctrine\u27s applicability in the human rights context. Thus, to preserve the universality of human rights law, application of the doctrine should be restricted. Accordingly, Part V proposes an alternative construction of the persistent objector doctrine, in which states may only invoke the doctrine as a defense against human rights violations when the ripeness of relevant customary international law is at issue