Jurists' Junction’s Post

"Delighted to announce the publication of my paper titled 'Formal and Substantive Equality' in the distinguished International Journal of Law, Management & Humanities. This research critically examines the nuances between formal and substantive equality within legal frameworks, offering valuable insights for contemporary discourse. Grateful for the collaborative efforts that facilitated this publication. Looking forward to advancing discussions on legal equality and its implications. #LegalScholarship #Equality #Publication #LawManagementHumanities"

Office of the Provost: Afro-descendant Institute of Human Rights Michael Wiggins Bey Greetings Brother Bey. Due to a change in law by the Organization of American States and its international court which has since ruled in favor of status and land recognition we are “Afrodescendants” in the eyes of the law. This does not mean that your tribe or any other Tribe, religion, organization or other entity cannot self-identify. What this means is that we can assert our new identity in the United States by Plebiscite, bring reparations cases in the international court, and legally control and make decisions on our economic infrastructure the area and cities in which we live. Consequently, we expect the Moors who understand “nationality” as well as those who want economic and legal freedom to understand the economic mathematics. For example Chilcago has a value of 832.9 Billion dollars and Detroit as burnt out as it is has a value of 269.53 Billion dollars. We now have a viable option as opposed to relying on good White people.

Office of the Provost: Afro-descendant Institute of Human Rights Michael Wiggins Bey Greetings Brother Bey. Due to a change in law by the Organization of American States and its international court which has since ruled in favor of status and land recognition we are “Afrodescendants” in the eyes of the law. This does not mean that your tribe or any other Tribe, religion, organization or other entity cannot self-identify. What this means is that we can assert or new identity in the United States by Plebiscite, bring reparations cases in the international court, and legally control and make decisions on our economic infrastructure the area and cities in which we live. Consequently, we expect the Moors who understand “nationality” as well as those who want economic and legal freedom to understand the economic mathematics. For example Chilcago has a value of 832.9 Billion dollars and Detroit as burnt out as it is has a value of 269.53 Billion dollars. We now have a viable option as opposed to relying on good White people. https://lnkd.in/ew4hCQZY

Excited to announce the publication of my latest article diving deep into the intricacies of Article 16 of the Constitution! Delving into its historical context, contemporary relevance, and potential implications, this piece sheds light on a crucial aspect of constitutional law. Join me in exploring the nuances and significance of Article 16, and let's ignite meaningful discussions on equality, justice, and the rule of law. This Article was published by LawFoyer Link for the article is - https://lnkd.in/gm2Awzfj #indianconstitution #Article16 #Rights #Constitution #Ruleoflaw #Equality

In this new blog for Opinio Juris, Marion Sandner and I argue that solidarity (and the corresponding individual responsibilities) is a precondition for the realisation of economic and social rights #ESCR

🚨🚨🚨 Thrilled to share my first academic article now published open access in the Australian Feminist Law Journal! ⚡️Queering the Rome Statute: Searching for the International Criminal Court’s Potential to Do Justice to Queer People ⚡️ Given the lack of engagements with queer narratives in the aftermath of mass atrocities, I examine the legal opportunities which the Rome Statute offers to protect queer people. I use a queer theoretical lens to critically examine those legal opportunities, keeping in mind that (international) law itself is an oppressive system. A tension emerges in the Rome Statute between using international criminal law for the benefit of queer advocacy and justice on the one hand, and becoming complicit in international law’s violences on the other. In particular, I take a closer look at the relationship between the ICC and carceralism from a queer abolitionist perspective. To navigate these questions, I argue to de-centre the ICC so as to support efforts of making the ICC more attuned to queer experiences but simultaneously look for alternatives that queer abolitionist (re)imaging creates. A special thanks to Barrie Sander for his guidance during the transition of this piece from thesis to article! And many thanks as well to Claerwen O'Hara for invaluable feedback on an earlier draft of this piece! https://lnkd.in/e9r6UQHF Taylor & Francis Group

A Uniform Civil Code (UCC) proposes a unified legal framework, replacing diverse religious-based personal laws. Advocates highlight equality and social cohesion, while critics cite cultural sensitivity and religious opposition. https://lnkd.in/g2pBJ74V

Professor Goodwin asserts "Even as judges and courts serve as important safeguards and guardians against state and federal enforcement of unjust, harmful, and unconstitutional laws and discriminatory policies, they too may be fallible, weak in judgement and character, personally and professionally indifferent to systemic injustice, or corruptible. As history demonstrates, judges may be complicit in perpetuating harms or furthering discrimination against vulnerable people, including racial minorities, women, individuals with disabilities, and people who identify as LGBTQ. In other words, judges may possess cognitive awareness of a past or present harm against a vulnerable group and yet refuse to intervene to avert the continuance of harm or discrimination. Judges may also refuse to acknowledge glaring injustices against vulnerable groups, denying appropriate relief related to past, ongoing, or future harms. Judges may inflict further harm through this purposeful inaction or silence. Ironically, legal scholarship generally sidesteps directly naming and developing theory to address these concerns. As noted by Professor Jerry Kang: “[T]here is no inherent reason to think that judges are immune from implicit biases.” Highly visible United States Supreme Court cases, such as Dred Scott v. Sandford, Buck v. Bell, Korematsu v. United States, Plessy v. Ferguson, and Bowers v. Hardwick, among others, clarify this point. Judges are not immune to complicit, implicit, or explicit biases in the adjudicative process. The judicial process may be corrupted by partisanship and affected by external political or associational pressures and influence. Even if the rule of law operates as a safety valve to protect rights, at times it too is leaky and unreliable. Moreover, while the scholarship on implicit and explicit biases remains important, too little has been expressed about judges' complicit biases. These biases may incline judges toward advancing particular principles or causes based on their religious, political, or other beliefs and affiliations. This may happen even if the result is or appears outcome determinative, infringes on established rights, or perpetuates discrimination."