International Law
Human Rights in the United States: Domestic Application of International Human Rights Law
As we approach the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, lawyers and advocates across the United States are increasingly using international human rights language, standards, and mechanisms in their domestic rights work in the United States. A lively panel discussion examined this growing movement, exploring current efforts to bridge the divide between civil rights and human rights in the U.S. domestic context. Panelists also discussed opportunities and challenges for the future of human rights in the United States. The panel addressed human rights strategies on a range of issues, including reproductive rights, health care, counter-terrorism, immigration, and racial discrimination. This panel features several contributing authors of a three-volume book project entitled Bringing Human Rights Home (Praeger Perspectives 2008).
The panel featured:
- Ajamu Baraka, Executive Director, U.S. Human Rights Network
- Wendy Patten, Senior Policy Analyst, The Open Society Institute
- Leonard Rubenstein, President, Physicians for Human Rights; and Jennings Randolph Senior Fellow, United States Institute of Peace
- Cynthia Soohoo, Director, Domestic Legal Program, Center for Reproductive Rights
- Moderator, Elizabeth Andersen, Executive Director, American Society of International Law
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
American Society of International Law
2223 Massachusetts Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20008
Human Rights At Home: A Domestic Policy Blueprint for the New Administration
On Thursday, October 30, ACS released Human Rights at Home: A Domestic Policy Blueprint for the New Administration, authored by Professor Catherine Powell of Fordham Law School, and co-hosted, along with the Center for American Progress and The Opportunity Agenda, a panel discussion of the Blueprint and the issues it raises. The Blueprint lays out a series of recommendations for ensuring that the next Administration will honor the United States' commitment to human rights not only overseas but at home, in U.S. domestic policy. It points to the relevance of human rights principles to domestic issues such as: inequalities in access to housing, education, jobs, and health care; the application of the death penalty; and the prohibition of torture. Professor Powell argues that by enhancing attention to human rights at home -- by, for example, revitalizing an executive branch Interagency Working Group on Human Rights and establishing a national Human Rights Commission -- the United States will be in a stronger position both to secure justice at home and to bolster the nation's moral authority to lead other nations by example. The panel, featuring prominent human rights experts, discussed the Blueprint recommendations and their implications, and also presented new polling data on how the public and U.S. policymakers view human rights.
The panel featured:
- Alan Jenkins, Executive Director, The Opportunity Agenda
- Harold Hongju Koh, Dean of Yale Law School and Gerard C. and Bernice Latrobe Smith Professor of International Law
- Catherine Powell, Associate Professor of Law, Fordham Law School
- Moderator, Bill Schulz, Senior Fellow, Center for American Progress
The Convention on Racial Discrimination: What Does It Means for U.S. Policy?
ACS hosted a briefing examining the ongoing discussion about, and potential federal legislative implication of, United States compliance with an international agreement on racial discrimination. The agreement is known as the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD). Panelists at May 9, 2008 briefing, including experts who participated in the recent proceedings in Geneva, described CERD and the CERD compliance process, discuss the CERD Committee's findings and recommendations, and explored the role that Congress could play to address U.S. compliance with CERD.
Transcript of "The State Secrets Privilege: Time for Reform?"
On April 4, 2008, ACS hosted a panel discussion of the state secrets privilege in light of executive assertions of the privilege and congressional consideration of legislation to statutorily define the privilege. Experts from a variety of perspectives explored issues Congress should consider as it weighs bipartisan reform legislation, including whether the state secrets privilege is being properly invoked and the appropriate balance of national security concerns with meaningful access to justice.
The panel featured:
- Justin Florence, Fellow, Georgetown Center for National Security and Law
- Aziz Huq, Director of the Liberty and National Security Project, Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law
- Richard Samp, Chief Counsel, Washington Legal Foundation
- Michael Vatis, Partner, Steptoe & Johnson LLP; formerly Director of the National Infrastructure Protection Center at the FBI and Special Counsel at the Department of Defense
- Ben Wizner, Staff Attorney, American Civil Liberties Union
- Moderator Jonathan Turley, Professor of Law, The George Washington University School of Law
Video of the event is available here.
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| 2008-04-07 ACS State Secrets Privilege.doc | 297 KB |
International and Foreign Law Sources: Siren Song for U.S. Judges?
Chimène I. Keitner
In International and Foreign Law Sources: Siren Song for U.S. Judges?, University of California, Hastings College of the Law Associate Professor Chimène I. Keitner, addresses the growing debate over the use of foreign and international law sources by U.S. judges engaged in constitutional adjudication. She begins by summarizing the attitudes towards international law sources exhibited by individual justices in the American legal system, noting that "one's opinion about the potential relevance of foreign and international law sources . . . depends in no small part on one's view of the role of judges in a constitutional democracy." Professor Keitner then examines the public opposition to the citation of foreign law sources in Lawrence v. Texas and Roper v. Simmons, which manifested itself in proposed legislation that would constrain how judges could interpret cases and prohibit the consideration of international law sources. Finally, Professor Keitner identifies three principled objections to the use of foreign and international law sources in constitutional adjudication, and responds to each in turn. Professor Keitner concludes, "Participating in international judicial dialogue should be viewed as a means of strengthening, not weakening, our commitment to the democratic values embodied in the U.S. Constitution."
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| Keitner ACS issue brief.pdf | 286.94 KB |
.png){kind=icon}
