FINAL EXAM
FINAL EXAM STUDY GUIDE
Same drill as the midterm; 60 minutes long, one longer essay and some shorter ones. Bring a bluebook and some writing utensils.
Here are some things to study:
The difference between Jus Ad Bellum and Jus in Bello, and what the basic tenets of each are in customary international law and treaty law
The four Geneva Conventions
Lemkin, the concept of Genocide, and the Genocide convention
The case for and against humanitarian intervention, in Rwanda and in general.
Why did the Bush Administration argue that Guantanamo Bay prisoners don't have Geneva convention protections?
Why didn't the International community intervene in Rwanda?
Why does the US oppose the ICC?
What are the key differences between the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials and modern international courts?
Explain when and how the ICC hears cases.
What are the primary options for combatting the use of torture by the US government?
What are the leading theories to explain the US use of torture in Latin America and elsewhere?
You should be prepared to discuss the rights of hte child and at least one other case from Brysk's book (in other words, either chapter 4 or 5)
Explain the concept of universal jurisdiction.
NO CLASS TODAY
Class cancelled today, 8/2. Sorry for the late notice. See you all tomorrow.
Some links on the UN treaty rights system.
Here is
a link to a document that tells you when each country signed and ratified the ICCPR.
Here is
a link to the declarations and reservations that countries have included with their ratification.
Midterm preparation
1) Please bring an exam book to the exam.
2) You will have 60 minutes, no more. THe exam will start precisely at 1:10, so be ready.
3) There will be a longer essay. It will address one or both the major philosophical issues from week two (the inclusion of social and economic rights, universalism vs. relativism). Be prepared to explain both sides, and identify arguments for both sides of these controversies).
The rest of the exam will include 4-8 more questions, worth a varying number of points. These questions will address material from all other areas of the course. At least one will require you to explain, in a paragraph, whether or not a particular incident is suitable for ATCA torts or not.
You should be able to explain the basics of treaty law, key legal terms such as "tort" and "jus cogens."
You don't need to memorize all 30 articles from the UDHR, but you should be familiar with them in general. If I ask a question about a specific article, I'll explain it. Same for the sections of the UN charter and the ICCPR you read.
You should be able to explain both what happened and why the Paquete Habana and Filartiga cases are significant.
Good luck!
Discussion announcements, no class 6/3
I've been unable to track down copies of the videos I was hoping to show on Monday, so we're going to cancel class. Have a nice long weekend, and I'll see you all on Wednesday, July 5th, refreshed and ready to learn about customary sources of international law. The readings for Wednesday/Thursday are correct in syllabus, and extend from page 55-74 in the course reader.
Feel free to use this thread to discuss the relativism/universalism debate. My questions for you:
What is the best argument for relativism? The best argument against it? Has anything in the course reading/lecture/discussion changed how you're likely to think about this issue?
6/26 and 6/27: The content of human rights
The readings for the first half of this week address the proper content and boundaries of human rights and related issues from a philosophical perspective.
A few questions to think about for tomorrow's discussion (and feel free to begin the discussion, or add your own, in comments below).
Holmes and Sunstein on the one hand and Kelley on the other have rather different perspectives on the 'costs' associated with social and economic rights. Which argument is more successful?
What are some of the problems with the distinction between positive and negative rights, as traditionally conceived? What useful purpose does this distinction serve, if any? (How does Shue's argument undermine this distinction?)
Shue argues that traditionally uncontroversial rights about "security" are important for similar reasons as what he calls "subsistence" rights. Why? What are the key premises in his argument? Is his argument successful? Which premises or assertions are problematic?
What are Cranston's main reasons for suspicion about the UDHR? What does he think the status of social and economic entitlements should be? Does this undermine their status as a right?
And finally a "metaquestion" not addressed in the readings per se:
How should we go about settling these questions, since there is no ultimate authority to appeal to in order to find out what human rights *really* are?
Up and running!
Welcome to the course blog for PS368/LSJ320.
Here is the first assignment, which was to be turned in Tuesday, but if you're late registering or didn't get the email, you can still do it:
Answer each of the following questions with a paragraph.
1) Imagine you were asked to construct a list of human rights. Give a
rough sketch of the items you'd consider most important to include. (Do
this before reading any of the readings for Tuesday)
2) Take a look at the US Bill of Rights, the Declaration of the Rights
of Man and Citizen, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Which
of these, if any, is closest to your vision?
3) Why do you think you came to the specific conclusions you did about
human rights? What factors lead to your choices about what to include and
what to exclude?
The second homework assignment, due on Monday, is to read through the UDHR (pp. 24-28 in Weissbrodt et al) and find something to disagree with. In other words, identify an article that enumerates a right you don't think belongs on the list of human rights, or something that should be a human right but doesn't appear on the list, or a right that is worded too narrowly, or a right that's not worded narrowly enough. In a few sentences/short paragraph, explain your thinking--why do you think the UDHR is in error?
There are five short readings for Monday/Tuesday, and they all deal with the theory of human rights; in particular, how expansive human rights should be. They are:
Maurice Cranston, "Human Rights, Real and Supposed"
Henry Shue, selection from Basic Rights
Jeremy Waldron, selection from "Liberal Rights: Two sides of the same Coin"
Cass Sunstein and Stephen Holmes, "The Cost of Rights"
David Kelley, "A life of one's own"
These readings are all in the course reader, comprising pages 1-23 in said course reader. The Kelley and Shue readings are not in the syllabus, but they are required. The course reader at Rams, on the ave, for the price of 24.98 plus tax. Another post will be up shortly on these readings.
I plan to post a syllabus copy soon, but I can't seem to get the necessary program to function at the moment. When I do I'll post that link here.
