Law Commons^™

Agenda: Free, Prior And Informed Consent: Pathways For A New Millennium, University Of Colorado Boulder. Getches-Wilkinson Center For Natural Resources, Energy, And The Environment, University Of Colorado Boulder. School Of Law. American Indian Law Program

Free, Prior and Informed Consent: Pathways for a New Millennium (November 1)

Presented by the University of Colorado's American Indian Law Program and the Getches-Wilkinson Center for Natural Resources, Energy & the Environment.

The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), along with treaties, instruments, and decisions of international law, recognizes that indigenous peoples have the right to give "free, prior, and informed consent" to legislation and development affecting their lands, natural resources, and other interests, and to receive remedies for losses of property taken without such consent. With approximately 150 nations, including the United States, endorsing the UNDRIP, this requirement gives rise to emerging standards, obligations, and opportunities …

Indigenous Peoples’ Right Of Free Prior Informed Consent With Respect To Indigenous Lands, Territories And Resources (June 28, 2010), Indian Law Resource Center

Free, Prior and Informed Consent: Pathways for a New Millennium (November 1)

3 pages.

"June 28, 2010"

Indigenous Peoples’ Right Of Free Prior Informed Consent With Respect To Indigenous Lands, Territories And Resources (United Nations Workshop, 17-19 January 2005), Indian Law Resource Center

Free, Prior and Informed Consent: Pathways for a New Millennium (November 1)

3 pages.

U.N. Doc PFII/2004/WS.2/6

Free, Prior And Informed Consent: Ilo 169 And Undrip, Kelsey Peterson

Free, Prior and Informed Consent: Pathways for a New Millennium (November 1)

2 pages.

"Kelsey Peterson, American Indian Law Program Fellow, University of Colorado Law School Class of 2015"

Principles Of International Law For Multilateral Development Banks: The Obligation To Respect Human Rights, Robert T. Coulter, Leonardo A. Crippa, Emily Wann

Free, Prior and Informed Consent: Pathways for a New Millennium (November 1)

41 pages.

"January, 2009"

www.indianlaw.org

Book Review, Peter H. Huang

Publications

This review of Leo Katz's book, Why the Law is So Perverse, addresses three questions. First, does Katz draw the appropriate normative conclusions about legal perversities based on their connections to social choice theory? In other words, what are the legal ethics and professionalism implications of his book? Second, how does each of the legal perversities in the book follow from a particular social choice theory result? In other words, what is the precise theoretical connection between each of the legal perversities discussed and an impossibility theorem in social choice theory? Third, can we reinterpret our understanding of the …

Professionalism And The New Normal, Philip J. Weiser

Publications

No abstract provided.

Lawyering For Groups: The Case Of American Indian Tribal Attorneys, Kristen A. Carpenter, Eli Wald

Publications

Lawyering for groups, broadly defined as the legal representation of a client who is not an individual, is a significant and booming phenomenon. Encompassing the representation of governments, corporations, institutions, peoples, classes, communities, and causes, lawyering for groups is what many, if not most, lawyers do. And yet, the dominant theory of law practice--the Standard Conception, with its principles of zealous advocacy, nonaccountability, and professional role-based morality--and the rules of professional conduct that codify it, continue to be premised on the basic antiquated assumption that the paradigmatic client-attorney relationship is between an individual client and an individual attorney. The result …

Bad Briefs, Bad Law, Bad Markets: Documenting The Poor Quality Of Plaintiffs' Briefs, Its Impact On The Law, And The Market Failure It Reflects, Scott A. Moss

Publications

For a major field, employment discrimination suffers surprisingly low-quality plaintiffs' lawyering. This Article details a study of several hundred summary judgment briefs, finding as follows: (1) the vast majority of plaintiffs' briefs omit available caselaw rebutting key defense arguments, many falling far below basic professional standards with incoherent writing or no meaningful research; (2) low-quality briefs lose at over double the rate of good briefs; and (3) bad briefs skew caselaw evolution, because even controlling for win-loss rate, bad plaintiffs' briefs far more often yield decisions crediting debatable defenses. These findings are puzzling. In a major legal service market, how …