Search

This article focuses on the advancements in and limitations of international criminal law to address the range of harms experienced by women in times of armed conflict. International criminal law is an important tool, but not the only relevant structure or institution that has a role to play in addressing the underlying conditions and causes that produce systematic violence for women. The long-term success of post-conflict reconstruction rests upon understanding and legally articulating what women truly perceive as generally harmful to them, and then remedying those harms in the broadest possible sense. In assessing the influence and value of international and domestic criminal accountability for violations experienced by women, it is also important that we acknowledge law's limits. Criminal accountability has both symbolic and practical importance, but it must be combined with policy-making focused on the deep inequalities and disadvantages experienced by women in order to fundamentally transform women' lives in post-conflict societies. Feminists should be suspicious when law only addresses a fraction of transgressive sexual acts and fails to engender equality and nullify discrimination. Both are central to changing women's lives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the transitional constitutional design in post-conflict communities and the ways government branches relate to one another. It offers preliminary proposals on how to make gender integral to constitutional drafting by providing positive examples. It focuses on the value and limitations of the constitutional structures on women and reflects on giving women rights through the constitutional mandates and implementation.

The article focuses on the theory of migration as the tendency of people to seek for greener pastures in other places and the laws that govern them. As stated, people who migrate are subject to the laws of the new territory and that they have to abide by them. It is noted that migrants become vulnerable to the laws implemented that they are at times not protected by them but are even exploited. Also noted is the discussion of the perspective of the exploiter and exploited on migration and the laws that govern them.

In the wake of President Trump's election, a growing number of local jurisdictions around the country have sought to disentangle their criminal justice apparatus from federal immigration enforcement efforts. These localities have embraced a series of reforms that attempt to ensure immigrants are not deported when they come into contact with the criminal justice system. The Trump administration has labeled these jurisdictions "sanctuary cities" and vowed to "end" them by, among other things, attempting to cut off their federal funding. This Article is a collaborative project authored by law professors specializing in the intersection between immigration and criminal law. In it, we set forth the central features of the Trump administration's mass deportation plans and its campaign to "crack down" on sanctuary cities. We then outline the diverse ways in which localities have sought to protect their residents by refusing to participate in the Trump immigration agenda. Such initiatives include declining to honor immigration detainers, precluding participation in joint operations with the federal government, and preventing immigration agents from accessing local jails. Finally, we analyze the legal and policy justifications that local jurisdictions have advanced. Our examination reveals important insights for how sanctuary cities are understood and preserved in the age of Trump. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]