Dear Friends,

I've not been posting as much since school has started back (my second of law school) and I've been busy getting things in order.

I'm a member of my law school's International and Comparative Law Journal, as as such, must select a topic on which to write my Note. A Note is a semester-plus-long undertaking and consists of a 75 to 110 page legal thesis on any international or comparative law topic of the student's choosing. But the student must present a novel thesis of some sort, i.e. advocate for something that hasn't quite been advanced before, and work it into an argument advanced by the Note. You cannot be "preempted" - in other words, after selecting (but before submitting) our topic and thesis, we must check various sources to ensure that no one has argued this specific point before. Some people get preempted while in the middle of writing the Note, which really stinks, but I digress...

Problem is, I am having one heck of a time determining what to write about. It needs to be something fairly specific so I'm not preempted, and I would prefer a topic with sources (newspapers, magazines, law review articles, etc.) primarily or substantially in English since I'm not multilingual.

A few topics I've considered are:
-Muslim immigrant communities in France and the interaction of Shari'a law as compared/opposed to French law in these communities (but what should the thesis be?)
-Advancing an argument that some specific aspect of Shari'a law is beneficial to/detrimental to the status of French Muslims, or even Muslims in modern Western nations in general, when enforced in these communities.
-Arguing that some aspect of Church law on the reporting of sexual misconduct/violations of the law is comparatively stricter than/less strict than/better than/poorer than the law of _Insert Nation's Name Here_ (nothing specific enough in mind)

Knowing this Forum to be a veritable fount of wisdom, I thought I'd inquire to see whether any of you have any suggestions or ideas for me. Any international legal topic is possible, as long as it's not preempted, but I'd like to choose a religious-affiliated and timely topic.

Any advice is welcome!

Alexis

Alexis,

Wow! Very interesting - but the prohibition associated with the topic having been argued previously is daunting. One has to wonder if there is really any such a thing in law as a totally novel question, absent those arising from advances in technology?

I guess one question that comes to mind is how widespread the application is of the prohibition? Does it encompass only topics argued at your school? (I'm guessing not, but one could hope) Assuming it encompasses reported cases, is it limited to those argued before courts of final jurisdiction? Or, are you required to shepardize and exclude any issue argued that has been reported?

Many years,

Neil

PS: I suppose - in rereading - that there is a 'bit' more breathing room b/c it's international law, but as many international cases aren't heard in international venues such as the Hague, and many (at least in the first instance) in courts well below the level of SCOTUS or its equivalents in other nations, there is still decidely limited room in which to trawl for topics.

OK, I have no idea of what y'all are not talking about - well kind'a but not really. Anyway, would this be international since Mrs. Clinton took it 'supposedly' to the United Nations, 'their so called case against Arizona?' She is trying to bring the rest of the world into our business. Ridiculous! Doubt that it has been argued before

Happy Liturgical New Year, Alexis!

I'm experiencing that pro-life ethics is having many ethical and legal challenges. May I suggest:

1. The regulation of fertilized eggs resulting from in vitro fertilization (IVF) or embryonic & fetal stem cell research.
2. The regulation of "snowflake" adoption, that is "adopting" an unwanted fertilized egg and bringing it to term by a mother who wants the child.
3. A visiting of "freedom of choice" and its comparison to the Dred Scott Decision of 1857(?) when the slave Dred Scott and his offspring was considered "chattel" (property of his owner)? Today an unborn baby is legally considered "property" of the mother...even the father has no rights. Perhaps "parental rights" of the father could be considered.
4. With regard to taxpayer funded medical research, why don't the funders (taxpayers) receive royalties on discoveries and products which were funded.

These are just off the cuff....I could probably come up with some more if you are interested. Or send me a pm.

Fr. Deacon Paul

Alexis:

Christ is in our midst!!

How about looking into the recent case in Belgium where the civil authorities swept into the Church's properties in search of records related to clerical abuse of minors and went so far as to bore into the crypts of dead bishops hoping to find records hidden with the dead?

The question should be the rights of religious organizations to be secure in their property and the right not to have unreasonable searches and seizures.

Bob

These are all wonderful ideas! Thank you all for your input.

Bob, I especially find your suggestion interesting. However, I'd like to try and stick with mostly sources in English (which is definitely restrictive in the international context).

Fr. Dcn. Paul, yours are as well, but the ones mentioned are mostly domestic issues, not necessarily international law (although it wouldn't take much to make them so).

For now, I believe I've settled on writing about the use of Shari'a courts in Britain. Since a law school student from Arizona Law last year preempted me on what I wanted to argue (that the decisions of these Shari'a courts should have no legally binding effect under the Arbitration Act), instead I believe I'll argue that the subject matter jurisdiction of these Shari'a courts should be limited in the way the Jewish Beth Din courts in Britain are, that is, the courts only decide matters of civil - and not criminal or family - law, but that these courts can and should still be able to legally bind voluntary parties who come to them to decide matters of civil law under Shari'a, subject to the review of a British court in accordance with the Arbitration Act.

As I said, I really would like to argue that these parallel court systems should simply be disposed of, but the Beth Din courts have been operating under the Arbitration Act and its precursor for well over 100 years in Britain, with little attention or protests. So, in theory it could work for the Muslims as well, and putting family law disputes outside of their legally-binding would seem to solve a lot of the issues that are currently worrying Brits, specifically, that Shari'a law is sexist and unequal in its treatment of women (among other complaints).

Alexis

You could try examining the experience of Hasidic Jews in New York, who employ rabbinical courts to adjudicate civil cases within their community. The rabbinical courts do not supersede civil courts, but if both sides agree to submit to their authority, then the rabbinical courts function in the same way as boards of arbitration (except, I think, their decisions are not binding--one party can always opt out if he doesn't like the decision, but there are extreme social pressures to submit).

This might be compared to what some European countries are trying to do with regard to Sharia within their Islamic communities. The main points of divergence would be the refusal of Muslim authorities to recognize the supremacy of the civil law, and their unwillingness to limit the reach of Sharia just to civil cases.

Stuart, very interesting. I have turned in my Note topic now, but I am planning on doing some research this weekend and, as I understand it, will certainly be allowed to tweak it within the parameters you mentioned if it turns out to be the wisest move. Of course I'll have to run a whole new preemption check, which takes a few hours, but that's the nature of the task, I guess.

Alexis

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Dear Logos,

Too bad this has just happened, but have you heard of President Obama inviting the UN to judge on Human Rights concerns with regards to the Federal Gov't's suit of the State of Arizona over their new immigration law? It was an internal matter and now he has made it an international matter. I don't know if that would of interested you at all. A few ways to argue it I imagine. But oh wells.

I'm curious though, since you are a law student, of your thoughts on this development and action of Obama. Not asking your opinion on the law, but making this internal matter international.

Good luck on your Note ? What is that btw, a Note? Well, good luck and God bless none the less.

Kyrie eleison,

Manuel

Manuel:

I think it's a subtle surrender of our national sovereignty to an agency that has members whose civil and human rights records are a laughing matter and their pretence at being on such a body an affront to the intelligence of all of us.

As for President Obama, he's made no secret of his misguided ideas that we ought to bow and kowtow to the international community. Witness his bowing to the King of Saudi Arabia. I don't think the man understands nonverbal communication and the implications for his actions being interpreted through other cultural lenses.

Bob

Manuel,

While I take a different view than Bob's as expressed in his second paragraph, I have not been following the developments of the issue surrounding the Arizona law closely enough to comment. Honestly, all summer I was working as a legal intern and watched almost no television, and in law school we discuss matters such as this so much that now, when I do have the free time to watch a little TV, I don't focus on the news. I check the NYT a couple times daily but only have time to skim articles. Therefore, I don't know much.

If President Obama invited the UN to judge the human rights element of the Arizona law, then that is, in my opinion, acceptable and to be expected, given that the President is an intelligent man and knows that the UN's stance would be more closely aligned with his own stances on the issue than that of those who support the law. As long as he is merely asking the opinion of the UN in order to bolster his own argument, well - that's politics, and there's nothing wrong with that. What would be wrong would be to give the impression that whatever the ruling of the UN (and we all know what it would be), that it is somehow authoritative in deciding the constitutionality of the legislation.

Anyway, that's my take without knowing anything more.

Alexis

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Thank you for both of your responses.

Kyrie eleison,

Manuel