Podcasts about international human rights clinic

Susan M. Akram, Clinical Professor and Director of the International Human Rights Clinic at Boston University School of Law, discusses a significant report she co-authored and published through the University Network for Human Rights. Titled "Apartheid in Israel: An Analysis of Israel's Laws and Policies and the Responsibilities of U.S. Academic and Other Institutions," the report presents a detailed legal analysis demonstrating how Israel's treatment of Palestinians meets the internationally recognized legal definition of apartheid. Building on this conclusion, the report goes further to explore the ethical and legal obligations of academic institutions in the United States when engaging with or supporting a state accused of committing the crime of apartheid. It underscores that, rather than facing punishment, students and others who protest these injustices should be afforded protection under the UN Declaration on the Rights of Human Rights Defenders.

Just over two years ago, Russian forces fired a missile that destroyed a museum complex in Ukraine. The attack decimated the home of 18th-century Ukrainian philosopher and poet Hryhorii Skovoroda. Hundreds of years after his death, Skovoroda is still an important national figure. Ukrainian universities bear his name, and he appears on the 500 hryvnia note. For many Ukrainians, the attack felt like it struck at the core of their identity. Damage to cultural heritage has deep impacts on the people who care about and depend on it. Attacks in Ukraine, Gaza, Yemen, and other areas affected by armed conflict reveal a pattern of harm from explosive weapons to cultural heritage and, by extension, to civilians. But now, a new legal framework could change how nations protect cultural heritage during war.  Joining the show to discuss the impact of explosive weapons on cultural heritage, and what States can do to address it, is Bonnie Docherty. Bonnie is a Senior Arms Advisor in the Crisis, Conflict and Arms Division of Human Rights Watch. She is also a lecturer on law at Harvard Law School's International Human Rights Clinic and Director of the Clinic's Armed Conflict and Civilian Protection Initiative. Show Notes: Bonnie Docherty (@bonnie_docherty) Paras Shah (@pshah518) Bonnie's Just Security article “Explosive Weapons Pose Threats to Cultural Heritage: States Have a Tool to Protect It” Just Security's International Humanitarian Law coverageJust Security's Protection of Civilians coverageJust Security's Civilian Harm coverageMusic: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

Haiti's crisis of gang violence and political dysfunction has been spiraling out of control. The number of reported homicides more than doubled last year to almost 4,800, and kidnappings soared to almost 2,500 cases. Sexual violence is rampant, and 313,000 Haitians have fled their homes.In recent weeks, the crisis has reached new heights. While de facto Prime Minister Ariel Henry was out of the country, the gangs took advantage and rampaged across the capital, Port-au-Prince. According to the United Nations, since the start of the year, the gangs have killed over 1,100 people and injured nearly 700 others. As the gangs roam freely, the United States and Caribbean countries – in a bloc called CARICOM – are trying to mediate a solution. The result thus far – though still unfolding – is that Henry has agreed to resign as soon as a transitional council of possibly 9 members is formed and an interim prime minister is chosen. But many questions remain about how that council and the interim prime minister will be appointed, which segments of Haitian society will be represented on it, and how a potential Kenyan-led international policing mission might go forward.Where does Haiti go from here?Joining the show to discuss the security situation in Haiti, and how policymakers in the region and around the world are addressing it, are Rosy Auguste Ducéna and Beatrice Lindstrom. Rosy is a human rights lawyer and Program Manager for the National Network for the Defense of Human Rights (RNDDH) in Haiti and has testified before the U.S. Congress. Bea is a Clinical Instructor and Lecturer on Law at Harvard Law School's International Human Rights Clinic. Prior to joining Harvard, she was the Legal Director of the Institute for Justice & Democracy in Haiti, which works to bring Haitian grassroots struggles for human rights to the international stage. Show Notes: Rosy Auguste Ducéna (@AugusteRosy)Beatrice Lindstrom (@BeaLindstrom)Viola Gienger (@ViolaGienger) Paras Shah (@pshah518)Bea's Just Security article “With Haiti on the Brink of Collapse, a Reckoning for US Policy on Haiti”Just Security's Haiti coverageJust Security's U.N. Security Council coverageMusic: “The Parade” by “Hey Pluto!” from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX)Music: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

Susan Akram, director of the International Human Rights Clinic at Boston University's School of Law, in discussion about the implications of the World Court ruling.

In conjunction with the movement to prevent the environmental impacts of armed conflict has come a growing recognition of the need to address the harm that has already occurred. Mine action, which aims to reduce the effects of landmines and explosive remnants of war (ERW), provides a valuable model for assisting victims of and remediating the environment contaminated by toxic remnants of war (TRW). In this post, part of the War, Law and the Environment blog series with the Conflict and Environment Observatory, Bonnie Docherty of Harvard Law School's International Human Rights Clinic and Human Rights Watch shows how mine action has influenced the positive obligations in the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) and argues that it should guide implementation of the TPNW and efforts to deal with TRW more broadly.

On today's episode, Mike Livermore speaks with Assistant Professor Camilo Sánchez, the Director of the University of Virginia School of Law's International Human Rights Clinic. Their conversation covers everything from Latin American history to the intersection of constitutional law and international law. These threads come together in the Guapinol Case, one of the clinic's major projects. In that matter, Professor Sánchez and his students collaborate with international organizations to advocate on behalf of a group of eight illegally-detained environmental defenders in Honduras. The conversation begins with Professor Sánchez talking about his background and what sparked his interest in international law (00:40 – 2:40). Professor Sánchez explains the importance of international law in the Latin American context, and describes how domestic politics and international law interact with each other in the region (2:45 – 10:35). The discussion examines the intersection of human rights and environmental law issues by looking at the work being done by UVA Law's International Human Rights Clinic in the Guapinol Case (10:45 – 29:00). Livermore and Sánchez discuss environmental rights in constitutional and international law. Professor Sánchez describes and summarizes three distinct approaches to this idea: philosophical, legal, and practical, and then explains how rights litigation has played a role in establishing norms that allow for distinct commercial and social interests to coexist (29:53 – 49:45). The conversation concludes with an affirmation of the importance of cooperation between legislatures and courts to ensure development that is sustainable and equitable (50:35 – 1:04:30). Professor Michael Livermore is the Edward F. Howrey Professor of Law at the University of Virginia School of Law. He is also the Director of the Program in Law, Communities and the Environment (PLACE), an interdisciplinary program based at UVA Law that examines the intersection of legal, environmental, and social concerns.

Legal Fellow Hannah Perls speaks with Aminta Ossom, a Clinical Instructor at Harvard Law's International Human Rights Clinic, where she focuses on equality, inclusion, and economic and social rights. They discuss how looking at environmental problems through a human rights lens can provide new insights and legal strategies for addressing environmental injustice in the United States and beyond. They also feature guest commentary from Tripti Poddar, a litigating attorney practicing in Delhi and Assam. She's also a consultant with legal empowerment organization called Nazdeek, based in Delhi, where she supports community-led advocacy and research on economic and social rights. For a full transcript of this episode please see here http://eelp.law.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/CleanLaw-60-Hannah-Aminta-Tripti-Human-Rights.pdf Links from the show: The Center for Economic and Social Rights' OPERA Framework https://www.cesr.org/opera-landing Nazdeek https://nazdeek.org/ Our Federal Environmental Justice Tracker https://eelp.law.harvard.edu/ejtracker/ Our Biden 100 Days Report https://eelp.law.harvard.edu/portfolios/environmental-governance/bidens-first-100-days-of-climate-action/ Our Biden/Harris Administration Tracker https://eelp.law.harvard.edu/portfolios/environmental-governance/biden-climate-environmental-tracker/

This webinar, co-organised with Boston University School of Law's International Human Rights Clinic, explored research outputs from their project on the challenges of statelessness in the region. To find out more about the project click here: https://www.bu.edu/law/current-students/jd-student-resources/experiential-learning/clinics/international-human-rights-clinic/ The understanding and regulation of who is and who is not a member of each state, and why communities have been rendered stateless, has long been a regional challenge and touches on some of the most fundamental concepts regarding nationality in the Middle East and North Africa. The webinar will explore trends such as the link between statelessness and displacement, children's rights, civil documentation and discrimination, highlighting region-wide advocacy initiatives that can fill in knowledge gaps on this issue and address statelessness challenges. Susan Akram directs the International Human Rights Clinic at Boston University's School of Law, in which she supervises students engaged in international advocacy in domestic, international, regional, and UN fora. Her research and publications focus on immigration, asylum, refugee, forced migration and human and civil rights issues, with an interest in the Middle East, the Arab, and Muslim world. Zahra Albarazi is a human rights lawyer and activist working in the field of statelessness. Zahra is co-director of the Syrian Legal Development Programme. Her particular interests are statelessness in the Middle East and North Africa and the impacts of statelessness and discriminatory nationality laws on women. Maysa Ayoub is the Associate Director of the Center for Migration and Refugee Studies at the American University in Cairo. She has over 15 years of research and teaching experiences in the field of migration and refugee studies. She researched and published in the field on issues related to asylum policies, livelihoods of refugees, and public opinion and media attitude towards refugees and immigrants. Lina Abou Habib is the Interim Director of the Asfari Institute for Civil Society and Citizenship at the American University of Beirut. . Lina Abou-Habib was previously the Executive Director of Women's Learning Partnership. She has worked extensively with the Royal Tropical Institute (KIT) and with several international and regional organisations in designing and managing programmes in the Middle East and North Africa region on issues related to gender and citizenship, economy, trade and gender and leadership. Bronwen Manby is a leading authority on nationality law and statelessness in Africa. She has written on a wide range of human rights issues in Africa, with particular interests in South Africa and Nigeria (especially the oil industry in the Niger Delta), and in continental developments in human rights law.

Dan Lazare, investigative journalist, author of "America's Undeclared War," joins us to discuss the latest news regarding Rudolph Giuliani. The DOJ searched the home and offices of the former NYC mayor, looking into his activities regarding the Ukraine-gate impeachment of former President Donald Trump. Giuliani's attorney argues that the DOJ has no case and that this is a politically motivated act.Caleb Maupin, journalist, and political analyst, joins us to discuss President Biden's speech to Congress. Biden focused on domestic politics as he pushed an aggressive agenda including major spending proposals for infrastructure and jobs. Also, he created some level of controversy when he referred to the January 6th incident at the capital as "the worst attack on our democracy since the Civil War."Scott Ritter, former UN weapon inspector in Iraq, joins us to discuss a new initiative called the "Foreign Malign Influence Center." Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines argues that this project will be working to address foreign efforts to sow discord and spread disinformation. Also, Scott Ritter's latest article argues that this new group is nothing more than an official cover for American intelligence interference in domestic politics. Alexander Mercouris, host of "The Alexander Mercouris Show" on YouTube, joins us to discuss far-right extremism in Ukraine. The German embassy and the main opposition party condemned the latest example of far right-wing extremists celebrating the legacy of Nazi support in the unstable Eastern European nation. Nationalists in Kiev held a rally on Wednesday evening to celebrate the SS Galicia, a World War 2 Nazi infantry division.John Burris, civil rights attorney, joins us to discuss police violence. A Department of Justice investigation has been opened into the killing of Ahmaud Arbery as a potential hate crime. Also, in an incident reminiscent of the George Floyd murder, police in California detained and kneeled on Mario Gonzalez for several minutes before his death. Law enforcement officials were responding to a call from an intoxicated person.Dan Kovalik, writer, author, and lawyer, joins us to discuss US/Russia relations. Russian officials have stated that relations with both the US and the European Union are at an all-time low. The Russian government will soon present a list of unfriendly countries and the US is guaranteed to be at the top of that list.Julie Varughese, solidarity network coordinator for the Black Alliance Committee for Peace, joins us to discuss Afghanistan. The Taliban will not attend the Istanbul peace summit as a protest against the US' failure to abide by the May 1st deadline for removing troops from the country. However, it is widely reported that they are asking Afghanistan officials for direct peace talks, sidestepping US and NATO intervention in the process.Dr. Jemima Pierre, associate professor of Black Studies and Anthropology at the University of California, Los Angeles, and editor of the "Black Agenda Review," joins us to discuss Haiti. 68 Democrats in the US House of Representatives have sent a letter to Secretary of State Antony Blinken, urging him to “make clear that the U.S. will not provide any support, financial or technical, to facilitate the proposed constitutional referendum, including through multilateral institutions.” Also, according to The Harvard Crimson, "Harvard Law School's International Human Rights Clinic published a report condemning state-sanctioned massacres in Haiti on Thursday."

The Federalist Society hosts Prof. Beth Van Schaack and Mr. John Bellinger for a discussion about the current treatment of Turkic Muslim civilians by the People's Republic of China ("PRC"), under a policy that the PRC describes as a counter-terrorism campaign but that others have described as a genocide. Prof. Van Schaack is the Acting Director of the International Human Rights Clinic at Stanford Law School, and previously served as the Deputy to the Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes Issues in the Office of Global Criminal Justice of the U.S. Department of State. Mr. Bellinger is a partner at Arnold & Porter, and previously served as Legal Adviser to the Department of State, as Senior Associate Counsel to the President, and as Legal Adviser to the National Security Council.Featuring: -- John B. Bellinger, III, Partner, Arnold & Porter-- Prof. Beth Van Schaack, Leah Kaplan Visiting Professor in Human Rights, Stanford Law School

As part of Duke Law's International Week, Aya Fujimura-Fanselow, Clinical Professor of Law and Supervising Attorney at the International Human Rights Clinic at Duke Law, moderated this discussion with Nanjala Nyabola, independent consultant and author,Digital Democracy, Analogue Politics: How the Internet Era is Transforming Kenya, and Maya Wang, China Senior Researcher, Human Rights Watch. This event is part of the Duke Law Human Rights in Practice series organized by the Center for International and Comparative Law and the International Human Rights Clinic. Co-sponsored by the Asian Pacific American Law Students Association; the Black Law Students Association; the Duke Human Rights Center at the Franklin Humanities Institute; the Duke Human Rights Center at the Kenan Institute for Ethics; the Human Rights Law Society; the International Law Society; the Latin American Law Students Association; the Middle East North African Law Students Association; the South Asian Law Student Association; and the Womxn of Color Collective. View transcript: https://law.duke.edu/transcripts/TRANSCIPT-Nanjala%20Nyabola%20%26%20Maya%20Wang%20_%20Digital%20Rights%20%26%20Discrimination.pdf

In this episode, Hafsa Mansoor, Seton Hall Law 3L, Center for Social Justice scholar, and student attorney at Seton Hall Immigrants' Rights and International Human Rights Clinic, discusses her paper, "Guilty Until Proven Guilty: Effective Bail Reform As A Human Rights Imperative," forthcoming in the Elon Law Journal in 2021. Ms. Mansoor discusses tragic stories that have arisen due to the use and preponderance of cash bail. She addresses the massive inequities connected to the use of risk based assessments, and discusses how cash bail systems disproportionately hurt minorities and the poor. Ms. Mansoor discusses recent, well-intended efforts at bail reform in New Jersey and the ways that it has failed. She then discusses how using a human rights lens to view access to justice as a human right could be used to reevaluated and reform bail throughout the country.This episode was hosted by Maybell Romero, assistant professor at Northern Illinois University College of Law. Romero is on Twitter at @MaybellRomero. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Evelyn and Hannah talk to Bonnie Docherty, the Associate Director of the International Human Rights Clinic at Harvard Law School, about being a leading lawyer in the humanitarian disarmament movement, winning the Nobel Peace Prize as part of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons and how individuals can create historic change.

On Monday, the Supreme Court issued a writ of certiorari, agreeing to hear arguments when the nine Justices reconvene in the fall on whether President Donald Trump's Executive Order 13769, entitled Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States, , or what the President himself has called a "travel ban" is constitutional. Yet, they also lifted a stay on certain aspects of Trump's travel ban, overriding several federal appeals court decisions blocking the order. The ruling means anyone coming to the U.S. from the six countries on the travel ban (Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen) will be forced to prove they have "bone-fide ties" to a local organization or citizen in order to gain entry until the final Supreme Court decision is handed down. According to Diala Shamas, a lecturer in law and a supervising attorney at Stanford Law School’s International Human Rights Clinic who works with Muslim communities in the United States, as well as refugees stranded abroad, the SCOTUS ruling on Trump's travel ban is proof that the judicial branch cannot be the kind of check on the President's agenda that many on the left were hoping for. Her op-ed “Lawyers alone can’t save us from Trump. The Supreme Court just proved it.” appeared in Tuesday's edition of the Washington Post. In this episode of "TrumpWatch," host Jesse Lent talks to Professor Shamas about what the Supreme Court decision will mean in the immediate term for people coming to America from the six countries included in the travel ban, why it signifies the problems with expecting lawyers to be able to provide cover from the President and what citizens can do to effectively resist the change in national immigration policy if the answer isn't in the courts.

On Monday, the Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments when the nine Justices reconvene in the fall on whether President Donald Trump's Executive Order 13769, entitled Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States, (what the President himself has called a travel ban) is constitutional. Yet, they also lifted a stay on certain aspects of Trump's travel ban, overriding several federal appeals court decisions blocking the order. The ruling means anyone coming to the US from the six banned countries, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen, will be forced to prove they have "bone-fide ties" to a local organization or citizen in order to gain entry until the final Supreme Court decision is handed down. According to Diala Shamas, a lecturer in law and a supervising attorney at Stanford Law School's International Human Rights Clinic who works with Muslim communities in the United States, the SCOTUS ruling on Trump's travel ban is proof that the judicial branch cannot be the check on the President's agenda that many on the left were hoping it would be. Her op-ed “Lawyers alone can't save us from Trump. The Supreme Court just proved it,” appeared in Tuesday's edition of the Washington Post. In this episode of TrumpWatch, Jesse talks to Professor Shamas about what the Supreme Court decision will mean in the immediate term, why it signifies the problems with expecting lawyers to be a bulwark against the President's agenda and what citizens can do to e resist the change in national immigration policy if the answer isn't in the courts.

On Monday, the Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments when the nine Justices reconvene in the fall on whether President Donald Trump's Executive Order 13769, entitled Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States, (what the President himself has called a travel ban) is constitutional. Yet, they also lifted a stay on certain aspects of Trump's travel ban, overriding several federal appeals court decisions blocking the order. The ruling means anyone coming to the US from the six banned countries, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen, will be forced to prove they have "bone-fide ties" to a local organization or citizen in order to gain entry until the final Supreme Court decision is handed down. According to Diala Shamas, a lecturer in law and a supervising attorney at Stanford Law School's International Human Rights Clinic who works with Muslim communities in the United States, the SCOTUS ruling on Trump's travel ban is proof that the judicial branch cannot be the check on the President's agenda that many on the left were hoping it would be. Her op-ed “Lawyers alone can't save us from Trump. The Supreme Court just proved it,” appeared in Tuesday's edition of the Washington Post. In this episode of TrumpWatch, Jesse talks to Professor Shamas about what the Supreme Court decision will mean in the immediate term, why it signifies the problems with expecting lawyers to be a bulwark against the President's agenda and what citizens can do to e resist the change in national immigration policy if the answer isn't in the courts.

This event is co-sponsored by the Human Rights Program at Harvard Law School and the Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University. This talk addresses a range of issues relating to digital incivility with en emphasis on cyber-violence. What are the most common negative behaviors online? How are these perceived and experienced by users? What is cyber-violence? Who does it target? What steps can be taken to prevent such behaviors? How should they be addressed once they've occurred? What challenges does the legal system face when dealing with cyber-violence related offenses? Professor Carrillo draws from the Cyber-Violence Project he co-directs at GW Law School to offer responses to these and related questions. About Arturo Arturo J. Carrillo is Professor of Law, Director of the International Human Rights Clinic, and Co-Director of the Global Internet Freedom & Human Rights Project at The George Washington University Law School. Before joining the faculty, Professor Carrillo served as the acting director of the Human Rights Clinic at Columbia Law School, where he was also Lecturer in Law and the Henkin Senior Fellow with Columbia’s Human Rights Institute. Prior to entering the academy in 2000, he worked as a legal advisor in the Human Rights Division of the United Nations Observer Mission to El Salvador (ONUSAL), as well as for non-governmental organizations in his native Colombia, where he also taught international law and human rights. From 2005 to 2010, Professor Carrillo was a senior advisor on human rights to the U.S. Agency on International Development (USAID) in Colombia. Professor Carrillo’s expertise is in public international law; Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) and human rights, especially Internet freedom; transitional justice; human rights and humanitarian law; and comparative clinical legal education. He is the author of a number of publications in English and Spanish on these topics. His recent article, "Having Your Cake and Eating It Too? Zero-rating, Net Neutrality and International Law," was published by the Stanford Technology Law Review (Fall 2016). As part of his clinical practice, Professor Carrillo has litigated extensively in U.S. courts and before regional human rights tribunals. Professor Carrillo received a BA from Princeton University, a JD from The George Washington University, and an LLM from Columbia University. For more info on this event visit: https://cyber.harvard.edu/node/99846

Human Rights Violations of Nicaraguan Indigenous and Afro-Caribbean Communities in the Expropriation of Their Ancestral Lands for the Development of an Environmentally Disastrous Canal Linking the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans through Nicaragua.Discussion with Professor Thomas Antkowiak on the development of the Nicaragua Canal which would link the Pacific and Atlantic oceans through Nicaragua and the concessions provided to the Chinese company HKND over the traditional lands of Afro-Caribbean communities without their informed consent and in denial of their human rights. We discuss their pending petition to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, indigenious rights as interepreted by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and their development in international law. Thomas teaches international public law and international human rights law at Seattle University's Law School. He is the Director of its Latin America Program and its International Human Rights Clinic and is currently arguing on behalf of Nicaragua's indigenous and Afro-Caribbean communities in various human rights fora, including submitting their petition to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. Thomas’s previous positions include being the Senior Attorney at the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of the Organization of American States and Director of the Access to Justice Program at the Due Process of Law Foundation.For More Info:International Human Rights Clinic joins fight to stop Nicaragua canal Rights, Resources, and Rhetoric: Indigenous Peoples and the Inter-American Court

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, HONOR CRIMES, AND IMMIGRANT WOMEN: THE COMMON FACTOR Domestic violence in the US, honor crimes in those “other” countries: are they really so different? And what can this mean for women who immigrate to the US and have experienced both?  What are the connections, what are the commonalities, and what are the realities for women of all cultures when it comes to victimization by intimate partners? Jessica Winegar says the 18,000 women killed by abusers in the US between 2003 and 2014 are no different from the women killed in the Middle East or South Asia. She is the Harold H. and Virginia Anderson Chair in Anthropology at Northwestern University. Her research specialization is in the Middle East, and she has written widely on issues of gender, Islam, and global politics.  Penny Venetis is Executive Vice President and Legal Director of Legal Momentum and as Clinical Professor of Law, and Director of the International Human Rights Clinic, at Rutgers, she specialized in civil rights and international human rights impact litigation. She instituted women’s rights projects in the Rutgers Law School clinics, developed human trafficking advocacy projects, and recruited and supervised pro bono attorneys from major law firms to work on the Clinic’s landmark cases. Join us as we discuss domestic violence, honor crimes, cultural similarities and differences, and the realities for women who are victimized. Call in to share your opinions and questions at 646-378-0430. Live at 11 am Pacific time, or go to the website and listen to all our archived programs whenever you like at www.blogtalkradio.com/3women3ways

As part of the anti-abortion movement's legislative campaign, seven states have passed bans on sex-selective abortion and many more are pending, including in Congress. Advocates of the bans argue that they are needed to prevent widespread elimination of female fetuses by Asians in the United States. They argue that the United States is contributing to the global pandemic of "missing women" and that sex-selective abortion must be banned to promote women's equality. Opponents of these bills point out that they are a "wolf in sheep's clothes" couched in the language of women's equality, but restricting women's autonomy and unfairly stigmatizing minorities. Students in the International Human Rights Clinic at the University of Chicago Law School have been working with economists and the National Asian Pacific Women's Forum to draft a report that will bring empirical data to bear on these policy debates. This panel was recorded on April 24, 2014 and was sponsored by: International Human Rights Clinic, Law Students for Reproductive Justice (LSRJ), Asian Pacific Law Students Association (APALSA), and South Asian Law Students Association (SALSA). Panelists included Sital Kalantry (UChicago Law), Sujatha Jesudason (University of California, San Francisco), Arindam Nandi (Center for Disease Dynamics, Economics and Policy), Alexander Persaud (University of Michigan), Kelsey Stricker (3L), Miriam Yeung (NAPAWF), and Brian Citro (UChicago Law).

As part of the anti-abortion movement's legislative campaign, seven states have passed bans on sex-selective abortion and many more are pending, including in Congress. Advocates of the bans argue that they are needed to prevent widespread elimination of female fetuses by Asians in the United States. They argue that the United States is contributing to the global pandemic of "missing women" and that sex-selective abortion must be banned to promote women's equality. Opponents of these bills point out that they are a "wolf in sheep's clothes" couched in the language of women's equality, but restricting women's autonomy and unfairly stigmatizing minorities. Students in the International Human Rights Clinic at the University of Chicago Law School have been working with economists and the National Asian Pacific Women's Forum to draft a report that will bring empirical data to bear on these policy debates. This panel was recorded on April 24, 2014 and was sponsored by: International Human Rights Clinic, Law Students for Reproductive Justice (LSRJ), Asian Pacific Law Students Association (APALSA), and South Asian Law Students Association (SALSA). Panelists included Sital Kalantry (UChicago Law), Sujatha Jesudason (University of California, San Francisco), Arindam Nandi (Center for Disease Dynamics, Economics and Policy), Alexander Persaud (University of Michigan), Kelsey Stricker (3L), Miriam Yeung (NAPAWF), and Brian Citro (UChicago Law).

Bonnie Docherty is a lecturer on law and senior clinical instructor at the International Human Rights Clinic at Harvard Law School. She is also a senior researcher in the Arms Division of Human Rights Watch. Docherty specializes in disarmament and international humanitarian law. She has done extensive field research on the civilian effects of war and has worked on the negotiation and implementation of multiple treaties. She has played an especially active role in the campaign against cluster munitions. More recently, she has been at the forefront of the emerging movement to ban fully autonomous weapons. Docherty has additional expertise in the field of human rights and the environment, focusing on the effects of mining and climate change. She received her J.D. from Harvard Law School and her A.B. from Harvard University.