Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Keyword
-
- Terrorism (2)
- Attorney's fees (1)
- Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Award Act (1)
- Convention (1)
- Ethics (1)
-
- Euthanasia (1)
- Evisceration (1)
- Executive (1)
- Extradition (1)
- Foreign affairs (1)
- Foreign policy (1)
- George Kennan (1)
- Human rights (1)
- Human rights norms (1)
- International (1)
- International human rights (1)
- International human rights agreements (1)
- International relations (1)
- Judiciary (1)
- Jurisdiction (1)
- Karen Ann Quinlan (1)
- Legalistic-moralistic (1)
- Medical treatment (1)
- Moral obligation (1)
- Morality (1)
- New York Law School (1)
- Offense (1)
- Political (1)
- Refugee resettlement (1)
- Separation of powers (1)
Articles 1 - 8 of 8
Full-Text Articles in Law
The Refugee Demonstration Project, Joint Committee On Refugee Resettlement
The Refugee Demonstration Project, Joint Committee On Refugee Resettlement
California Joint Committees
No abstract provided.
The Dialectic Of Rights And Politics: Perspectives From The Women's Movement, Elizabeth M. Schneider
The Dialectic Of Rights And Politics: Perspectives From The Women's Movement, Elizabeth M. Schneider
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
Ethics And The Settlement Of Civil Rights Cases: Can Attorneys Keep Their Virtue And Their Fees?, Lloyd B. Snyder
Ethics And The Settlement Of Civil Rights Cases: Can Attorneys Keep Their Virtue And Their Fees?, Lloyd B. Snyder
Law Faculty Articles and Essays
The Civil Rights Attorneys' Fees Award Act of 1976 authorizes an award of fees to the prevailing party in a civil rights action. The United State Supreme Court, in Evans v. Jeff D., has interpreted the Fees Act to authorize the parties in a civil rights action to negotiate settlement of fees and merits jointly. The Court did not determine whether joint fees-merits negotiation is ethical. The author of this article contends that joint negotiation is ethical. He further contends that it is ethical for plaintiff's attorney to reject an offer of settlement if the offer is coupled with a …
The Evisceration Of The Political Offense Exception To Extradition, Christopher L. Blakesley
The Evisceration Of The Political Offense Exception To Extradition, Christopher L. Blakesley
Scholarly Works
The Supplementary Convention to the Extradition Treaty between the Government of the United States of American and the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, was signed on June 25, 1985, and transmitted to the U.S. Senate on July 17, 1985. This article will focus on the portion of the supplementary treaty which effectively eliminates the political offense exception, and on the statement made by the Legal Adviser to the Department of State, the honorable Judge Abraham D. Sofaer, made in favor of the Supplementary Treaty, on August 1, 1985. This article suggests that approval of …
Aggressive Smugness: The United States And International Human Rights, Bryant G. Garth
Aggressive Smugness: The United States And International Human Rights, Bryant G. Garth
Articles by Maurer Faculty
No abstract provided.
Kennan And Human Rights, Gordon A. Christenson
Kennan And Human Rights, Gordon A. Christenson
Faculty Articles and Other Publications
This essay seeks understanding of his view of normative thinking in foreign policy, whether moral or legal, and the implications from the perspective of human rights in an unfriendly world. It criticizes his conceptual presuppositions to gain clarity, posing paradoxes and dilemmas regarding their normative quality within the present structure of international relations.
An Essay On Executive Branch Attempts To Eviscerate The Separation Of Powers, Christopher L. Blakesley
An Essay On Executive Branch Attempts To Eviscerate The Separation Of Powers, Christopher L. Blakesley
Scholarly Works
The Reagan Administration has been aggressively attempting to arrogate power to the Executive branch and to undermine the separation of powers in the realms of foreign affairs. To Chain the Dog of War shows that for decades the Executive branch has moved to appropriate Congress’ war powers. The Reagan Administration not only has continued that tradition, but also has attempted to erode the Judiciary’s power to decide questions of law and fact concerning human rights and liberty in international extradition cases involving political offenses. The underlying rationale for this shift has been that decisions to make war or to condemn …
Treatment Refusals For The Critically And Terminally Ill: Proposed Rules For The Family, The Physician, And The State, Stephen A. Newman
Treatment Refusals For The Critically And Terminally Ill: Proposed Rules For The Family, The Physician, And The State, Stephen A. Newman
Articles & Chapters
No abstract provided.