Roper v. Simmons and Our Constitution in International Equipoise

In Roper v. Simmons, the Court unequivocally affirms the use of comparative constitutionalism to interpret the Eighth Amendment. It does not, however, provide an obvious theoretical basis to justify the practice. This Article searches for a theory to explain the comparativism in Roper using the theories advanced in the author\u27s previous scholarship. It concludes that of the colorable candidates, natural law constitutionalism is the most plausible explanation, with the attendant problems associated therewith. The Article concludes with an analysis of the possible ramifications of the Court\u27s comparative approach, suggesting that it may be pursuing a Constitution that is in international equipoise, with international values distributed liberally throughout our jurisprudence to ensure foreign and domestic equilibrium. comparative, constitution, international, roper, simmons, lawrence, death penalty, eighth amendment, constitutional comparativis

Roper v. Simmons and Our Constitution in International Equipoise

In Roper v. Simmons, the Court unequivocally affirms the use of comparative constitutionalism to interpret the Eighth Amendment. It does not, however, provide an obvious theoretical basis to justify the practice. This Article searches for a theory to explain the comparativism in Roper using the theories advanced in the author\u27s previous scholarship. It concludes that of the colorable candidates, natural law constitutionalism is the most plausible explanation, with the attendant problems associated therewith. The Article concludes with an analysis of the possible ramifications of the Court\u27s comparative approach, suggesting that it may be pursuing a Constitution that is in international equipoise, with international values distributed liberally throughout our jurisprudence to ensure foreign and domestic equilibrium. comparative, constitution, international, roper, simmons, lawrence, death penalty, eighth amendment, constitutional comparativis

Resolving Indigenous Claims To Self-Determination

The right of self-determination is vitally important to indigenous peoples. Self-determination is closely linked to cultural survival, economic development, and the realization of other basic human rights

Can You Hear Me Now?: Private Communication, National Security, and the Human Rights Disconnect

This Article addresses the question whether global human rights law adequately protects private communications of individuals from state and non-state actor eavesdropping, data collection, and data mining engaged in for national security purposes. It concludes that human rights protection is lacking and needs to be reformed if what are apparently current public expectations about privacy are to be adequately met. Not all persons are protected from extraterritorial infringement of their privacy interests, and there is a well-recognized test regarding who is entitled to extraterritorial protection that precludes protection for most persons. Further, the human right to private communication is not absolute. For those who have such a right, significant and far-reaching limitations exist that will often assure the propriety of various forms of national security intrusion, especially in contexts of self-defense and war

The Sioux\u27s Suits: Global Law and the Dakota Access Pipeline

The Sioux Tribe’s lawsuits and protests against the Dakota Access Pipelines (DAPL) received an incredible amount of international attention in ways that many Indigenous peoples’ protests have not. This article argues that attention exists because the Sioux Tribe has been at the epicenter of the Indigenous peoples’ rights movement in international law. Accordingly, they have invoked or claimed international human rights—particularly free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC)— to complicate, and perhaps destabilize, the DAPL’s development. However, the importance of their activism is not merely in claiming human rights. Based upon a global map of law that involves multiple and overlapping legalities, this article tracks the Sioux Tribe’s activism according to the problem-solving approach. Accordingly, the Sioux Tribe is advancing a different model of legality, one that is not based on a top-down command and control authority. This article reveals a complex, global network of intercommunal Indigenous peoples and nonstate actors by tracing the historical trajectory of the Sioux Tribe, its opposition to the DAPL, its role in the Indigenous peoples’ rights movement, and the novel extra-national legalities the Sioux Tribe is helping to formalize

Internationalizing the right to know: conceptualizations of access to information in human rights law

Currently there exists a global movement promoting institutional transparency and freedom of information legislation. Conceptualizing access to government-held information as a human right is one of the latest developments in this global trend promoting access to information. The purpose of this dissertation is to identify and analyze the various conceptualizations being used to promote access to government information as a human right. This dissertation also assesses the strength and weaknesses of each conceptualization and assesses which conceptualization holds the greatest promise for ensuring the broadest right of access to information. Conceptualizations were identified by examining international human rights law (particularly human rights treaties), normative arguments of international inter-governmental organizations (particularly the United Nations), and nongovernmental organizations. Four conceptualizations were identified: the freedom-of-expression conceptualization, which bases a right to information on the right to freedom of expression; the information-privacy conceptualization, which bases a right to information on the right to privacy; the right-to-a-healthy environment conceptualization, which links information rights to a right to a healthy environment; and the right-to-truth conceptualization, which bases a right to information on individual and societal rights to know about serious human rights abuses

Le développement normatif et institutionnel relatif aux peuples autochtones en droit international au regard des fondements de leurs revendications politiques : le droit à l'autodétermination comme théorie unificatrice?

Le présent mémoire se consacre à la question des revendications normatives des peuples autochtones en droit international. On y constate que la reconnaissance de ces dernières représente un défi important autant pour les institutions internationales que pour la philosophie libérale qui en constitue le fondement. Cette reconnaissance sera graduellement admise par les institutions internationales majeures préoccupées par les droits humains. Un corpus normatif international spécifique et exclusif aux autochtones sera ainsi développé pour répondre à leurs aspirations et besoins. La définition de l’identité autochtone permet d’exposer cette particularité de traitement des autochtones en droit international. Elle se fonde sur deux axes. Le premier est culturel, suggérant une différence autochtone fondée sur une conception holistique du monde, laquelle est intimement liée au territoire. Le deuxième axe est historique; il fait appel à une longue présence sur un lieu, parfois qualifiée d’immémoriale, en tous les cas antérieure au contact avec un envahisseur qui mènera à leur situation actuelle de marginalisation. Ces fondements identitaires se trouvent à la source des justifications des revendications normatives autochtones. Cependant, ces fondements posent des problèmes de qualification difficiles à concilier avec la diversité des bénéficiaires des droits des autochtones. Ils entraînent également des difficultés importantes au regard de la théorie politique, laquelle s’efforce de réconcilier les revendications autochtones avec le libéralisme et les structures politiques actuelles. Une réconciliation entre les peuples autochtones et les États soulève en effet de délicates questions de légitimité et de justice. Afin d’éviter les pièges d’une autochtonie confinée dans un paradigme culturel et historique, S. J. Anaya propose le concept d’autodétermination comme fondement unique des revendications autochtones. Ce concept doit cependant lui-même faire face à un défi de conciliation avec les structures politiques existantes. Nous verrons que s’il permet de poser les jalons d’une nouvelle relation politique, le droit à l’autodétermination des peuples autochtones semble cependant incapable de dépasser les fondements de la culture et de l’histoire inhérents à l’identité autochtone.This essay is dedicated to the issue of the normative claims of indigenous peoples in international law. It exposes the significant challenge that the recognition of these normative claims represent for both international institutions and the liberal philosophy which is at its foundation. This recognition will be gradually accepted by major international institutions concerned with human rights. An international body of standards specifically dedicated to aboriginal aspirations and needs will thus be developed. The definition of indigenous identity exposes the justifications for a particular treatment of indigenous peoples in international law. It is based on two axes. The first one is cultural, suggesting a difference based on a holistic view that aboriginals have of the world which is intimately linked to land. The second axis is historical, supposing a long territorial presence, sometimes referred to as immemorial, which is prior to a contact with an invader that will eventually lead to their marginalization. These foundations of indigenous identity are at the source of the justification of indigenous normative claims. However, these foundations pose problems of characterization which are difficult to reconcile with the diversity of indigenous rights beneficiaries. They also pose significant difficulties in terms of political theory, which seeks to reconcile aboriginal claims with liberalism and contemporary political structures. Undeniably, reconciliation between indigenous peoples and states raises difficult questions of legitimacy and justice. To avoid the risks of an «indigeneity» trapped in a cultural-historical paradigm, S. J. Anaya proposes the concept of self-determination as the sole basis of aboriginal claims. This concept, however, must itself meet a challenge of reconciliation with the existing political structures. We shall see that even if it does help to lay the basis for a new political relationship, the right to self-determination of indigenous peoples seems unable to overcome the foundations of culture and history associated with aboriginal identity