This Note will explore the role of language in asylum claims and specifically how and why language discrimination can serve as a predominate indicator of persecution on the basis of nationality by examining language rights in relation to identity, nationality, and power dynamics. Overall, this Note aims to persuade the refugee regime to pay more attention to language discrimination, because even if it doesn’t amount to persecution by itself, language may be the canary for escalating social tensions.
The increase in forced evictions of Roma communities in the European Union is cause for alarm. In Romania, the Member State with the largest Roma population, they are part of a consistent practice of racial segregation and social exclusion. The discriminatory intent of forced evictions and the lack of domestic procedural safeguards constitute a violation of the country’s international and regional treaty obligations. However, despite a recent influx of cases that reveal the influence of prejudice over the relevant state action, the European Court of Human Rights has failed to resolve the matter. This Note proposes a new legal framework for the Court to adopt in its adjudication of cases concerning forced evictions of vulnerable minorities.
This Article surveys the development of constitutional obscenity jurisprudence in the United States, Canada, India, and Japan. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, each of these jurisdictions imposed restrictive Victorian standards of sexual morality on literature and the arts. In the second half of the twentieth century, their constitutional courts began seriously considering free expression claims brought by artists and writers prosecuted for obscenity. These courts have all struggled with a central paradox. Obscenity law criminalizes speech because it is offensive, but freedom of speech is an empty concept if it does not include the freedom to offend. This Article concludes that while obscenity law evidently does little to protect public morality or prevent harm, it can be a dangerous weapon in the hands of groups seeking to enforce political, social, and cultural conformity.
Public and Private International Law in International Courts and Tribunals: Evidence of an Inescapable Interaction
Public international law and private international law have traditionally been perceived as being distinct and unrelated. The practice of international courts and tribunals shows that in reality both fields are interdependent, complementary and mutually supportive. The present contribution highlights how the International Court of Justice and tribunals dealing with investment arbitration and commercial arbitration have developed a pragmatic body of case-law that has allowed public international law and private international law to nurture each other.
People are as mobile as they ever were in our globalized world. Yet the movement of people across borders lacks global regulation, leaving many people unprotected in irregular and dire situations and some States concerned that their borders have become irrelevant. And international mobility—the movement of individuals across borders for any length of time as visitors, students, tourists, labor migrants, entrepreneurs, long-term residents, family members, asylum seekers, or refugees—has no common definition or legal framework. Download [111.47...
Undocumented or Irregular Migrant Workers under the Model International Mobility Convention: Rights and RegularizationBy: Diego Acosta
This paper argues in favor of a rethinking of how the status of migrants in an irregular situation is tackled. The New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants mentions numerous times the need to facilitate and ensure safe, orderly and regular migration. It is laws, however, which create irregularity. In particular, when such laws are applied at the border, migration often becomes unsafe and disorderly as proven by the hundreds of individuals dying when trying to cross borders each year. Download [42.91...