Some basic questionsHere is the opening of our book proposal.
Citizens from theparticipating countries with human rights complaints who have beenunable to find a remedy in their national courts may petition theEuropean Court of Human Rights. Complaints by governments about humanrights violations in another participating country are also permitted,but are rarely made. If the Court agrees to hear a complaint, itinvestigates and adjudicates it. Before issuing a judgment, the Courtattempts to mediate the dispute. If conciliation fails, the Courtwill issue a judgment with supporting judicial opinions and impose aremedy. Through this process a large body of international humanrights jurisprudence has developed (Jacobs and White 1996; Janis, Kayand Bradley 1995). The Court currently has a very large backlog ofcases. In 2004 reforms were implemented to address this problem (seethe 2004 amendment, Protocol 14). Before the end of 2019 the Committee of Ministers will evaluate whether the reforms adopted ensure sustainable functioning of the Court or whether additional measures need to be taken.
Lewis as a Medievalist - Masako Takagi
19—Cliff—Bill at bottomhurt—Lottie looking overthe top—calls to him to be patient—gets lariat from Bill’ssaddle—lowers down—Bill puts under arms—she pulls him partway up—tired—stops to spit on her hands—Bill drops to bottomagain—dies.
The Constitution recognizes no “absolute” rights. A Justice of the Supreme Court observed years ago that “The Bill of Rights is not a suicide pact.” Instead, the First Amendment is a reaffirmation of certain long-observed civil freedoms, and it is not a guarantee that citizens will go unpunished however outrageous their words, publications, street conduct, or mode of addressing public officials. The original, and in many ways the most important, purpose of freedom of speech and press is that it affords citizens an opportunity to criticize government—favorably and unfavorably—and to hold public officials accountable for their actions. It thus serves to keep the public informed and encourages the free exchange of ideas.
And we did it all on note cards and typewriters.
Should human rights be defined in terms of serving some sort ofpolitical function? Instead of seeing human rights as groundedin some sort of independently existing moral reality, a theorist mightsee them as the norms of a highly useful political practice thathumans have constructed or evolved. Such a view would see the idea ofhuman rights as playing various political roles at the national andinternational levels and as serving thereby to protect urgent human ornational interests. These political roles might include providingstandards for international evaluations of how governments treat theirpeople and as helping to specify when use of economic sanctions ormilitary intervention is permissible. There are powerful advocates ofthis sort of view (see Rawls 1999 and Beitz 2009; see also the entryon ). These theorists would add tothe four defining elements above some set of political roles orfunctions. This view may be plausible for the verysalient international human rights that have emerged ininternational law and politics in the last fifty years. But humanrights can exist and function in contexts not involving internationalscrutiny and intervention such as a world with only onestate. Imagine, for example, that an asteroid strike had killedeveryone in all countries except New Zealand, leaving it the onlystate in existence. Surely the idea of human rights as well as manydimensions of human rights practice could continue in New Zealand,even though there would be no international relations, law, orpolitics (for an argument of this sort see Tasioulas 2012). And if afew people were discovered to have survived in Iceland and were livingwithout a government or state, New Zealanders would know that humanrights governed how these people should be treated even though theywere stateless. How deeply the idea of human rights must be rooted ininternational law and practice should not be settled by definitionalfiat. We can allow, however, that the sorts of political functionsthat Rawls and Beitz describe are typically served byinternational human rights today.
Noah and Didactic Abuses - Jane Tolmie [.pdf]
The Fifth Amendment’s due process requirement was originally a procedural right that referred to methods of law enforcement. If a person was to be deprived of his life, liberty or property, such a deprivation had to conform to the common law standards of “due process.” The Amendment required a procedure, as Daniel Webster once put it, that “hears before it condemns, proceeds upon inquiries, and renders judgment only after a trial” in which the basic principles of justice have been observed.
How vndirstande am I?' - Sebastian James Langdell
Here again the Bill of Rights reaffirms venerable protections for persons accused of crimes. The Amendment guarantees jury trial in criminal cases; the right of the accused “to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation”; also the rights to confront witnesses, to obtain witnesses through the arm of the law, and to have lawyers’ help.