Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: As critics of Rawls have suggested, his original position argument has been enhanced by assumptions external to his theory, which were largely derived from 18th century Kantian beliefs. In this paper, I propose an alternative set of assumptions, based on Saramago’s Blindness, which remain within the formalistic conditions of the original position but provide an updated look at its formation and dynamics, at the rationality of maximin choices, and at the relation between choices made behind a veil of ignorance and the obligation to enforce them once the veil of ignorance is lifted.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: Immediately following the September 11th attacks, Pat Robertson's 700 Club program focused on the events and issues from its Evangelical Christian perspective. One key theme called for solidarity and strong support of Isreal and its hardline policies in the fight against terroris. An ethnographic content analysis reveals an agenda supporting complete Israeli control of occupied lands in order to fulfill Christian apocalyptic scriptures and enable the Second Coming of Christ.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: In recent years international organizations in general, and the United Nations in particular, have come to be placed under greater critical scrutiny, as reflected in the UN reports on the failure to prevent the 1993 genocide in Rwanda and the July 1995 genocide in Srebrenica. In a move that would have been difficult to imagine twenty years ago, the International Law Association devoted one of its research Committees to study the ?Accountability of International Organizations.? However, the possibilities of using international and national structures to bring international organizations to account for their actions are limited when compared to such possibilities exiting with respect to states. As far as the law is concerned, whether and to what extent international organizations are subject to national and international law is relatively unclear; moreover, no standing international court or tribunal enjoys jurisdiction to hear complaints brought directly against international organizations, and such complaints are usually barred on the domestic level due to the enjoyment of privileges and immunities.In the absence of effective remedies against international organizations directly, attempts have been made to sue the member states, such as the cases brought to the International Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights concerning the 1999 NATO bombing campaign of the then FRY. However, the view of most international lawyers is that since the act of an international organization is performed by a distinct legal person, member states of the organization cannot incur legal liability for that act by virtue of their membership of the organization. In consequence, there is no general possibility for conceiving state responsibility in relation to the acts of international organizations; special provision has to be made for this, for example in organizations? constituent instruments.This paper revisits the traditional rejection of a general possibility for state responsibility in relation to the acts of an international organization on the basis that the acts in question are performed by a distinct legal person. It argues that even if such responsibility on this basis might indeed be doubtful, responsibility on other bases might be tenable. Ideas for such alternative bases are drawn from the application of principles of state responsibility developed in the context of the acts of other states to the acts of international organizations, and suggestions made in a series of recent judgments from the European Convention of Human Rights system.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: This article considers whether state tort statutes that impinge upon constitutional rights can be challenged in federal court. This is a crucial issue for the vindication of reproductive rights, because there has been a recent spate of state tort legislation attacking abortion rights. In essence, these new state tort laws makes doctors liable for unlimited damages to women who receive abortion services for the provision of a legal, consensual, and medically proper procedure. The purpose and effect of the law is to ban abortions by making it infeasible for doctors to provide abortions due to the threat of strict tort liability.

The Fifth Circuit, along with other federal courts that have considered challenges to anti-abortion tort legislation, held that plaintiffs could not bring a pre-enforcement challenge to these anti-abortion tort laws in federal court because they are “privately” enforced. Courts addressing this issue have refused to recognize that these anti-abortion tort statutes are written to be self-enforcing. A self-enforcing tort statute blurs the line between traditionally “public” laws, i.e., criminal or regulatory laws, and “private” tort laws.

To address the unique problems raised by these tort statutes, this article proposes a new method for testing the constitutionality of privately enforced tort legislation in federal court. This paper argues that it is the responsibility of federal courts to prevent state legislatures from cloaking their policy decisions against fundamental constitutional rights in the veil of private rights of action.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: I present an epistemic critique of Rawls? deduction of the principles of justice. I argue that the fact that normative political theories are embedded in an evolving theoretical knowledge takes away the hope for deductivity.