The Living Death: Prosecuting Rape as Torture Under International Law [The Presentation]

By Dana P. Stanton
Dana Stanton is a 2013 summa cum laude graduate of Albany Law School. She did her undergraduate work in chemical engineering at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, and she worked as an engineer for General Electric in the Operations Management Leadership Program.
During law school, Dana was an associate editor on the Albany Law Review, and she interned with the Domestic Violence Prosecution Hybrid Clinic and the Family Violence Litigation Clinic, as well as with the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of New York and the New York State Office of the Attorney General's Environmental Protection Bureau.
Dana is now an associate at the law firm of McNamee, Lochner, Titus and Williams in Albany, NY.
This presentation was prepared for Professor Bonventre’s International Law of War and Crime Seminar. It is the companion to Ms. Stanton's paper of the same title that was published by ILS on Sept.16, 2013.

As was stated in the introduction to that companion paper:
The torture of men has traditionally been taken more seriously under international law than sexual violence against women.   As a consequence, wartime rape was not prosecuted in international tribunals until the late 1990s.
However, the physical and psychological harm to rape victims can be just as severe as the harm to torture victims. International tribunals have begun to bring rape within the realm of jus cogens norm by prosecuting rape as a form of torture.
This presentation outlines how rape was used as a weapon in war, why rape was not prosecuted as a war crime until recently, compares rape to torture, explores the sexual violence in Rwanda, the former Yugoslavia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and the significance of jus cogens for international rape prosecutions.

(click to enlarge slides)

___________________________

For the entire presentation, open HERE.
(It is then best to Download [by clicking on File] and then Open the downloaded power-point presentation.)

Motor Vehicle Emissions Standards in the United States and the European Union

Where Are They Now?

By Mark Apostolos
Mark Apostolos is a 2013 cum laude graduate of Albany Law School. He graduated from Muhlenberg College where he studied political science and minored in business administration. In law school, he was the Treasurer of the Health Law Society and a Senior Editor for the Government Law Review. He also worked as a research assistant for Professor Elizabeth Renuart, an intern at the Health Law Clinic, and a clerk for United States District Court Judge Mae A. D’Agostino. He was a summer associate at Sullivan Papain Block McGrath & Cannavo P.C. in New York City, where he currently is working.
Mark prepared this paper for Prof. Alexandra Harrington’s course in International Organizations, Fall of 2012.

Automobile emissions standards have long been regulated in the United States and other countries throughout the world. Although these countries all have had similar goals in mind, their laws and regulations have emitted dissimilar ways of addressing them. These differing regulations have run parallel with the auto manufactures' development and manufacture of different vehicles for diverse regions of the world.

This paper explores and traces the differences between the history and framework upon which the United States’ and the European Union’s emissions regulations systems work. The purpose is to determine whether these emissions regulations, with other concerns aside, have had an impact on the automobile industry in these two regions.
_____________________________
To read the paper, open HERE.

The Living Death: Prosecuting Rape as Torture Under International Law

Dana P. Stanton is a 2013 summa cum laude graduate of Albany Law School. She did her undergraduate work in chemical engineering at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, and she worked as an engineer for General Electric in the Operations Management Leadership Program.
During law school, Dana was an associate editor on the Albany Law Review, and she interned with the Domestic Violence Prosecution Hybrid Clinic and the Family Violence Litigation Clinic, as well as with the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of New York and the New York State Office of the Attorney General's Environmental Protection Bureau.
Dana is now an associate at the law firm of McNamee, Lochner, Titus and Williams in Albany, NY.
This paper was prepared for Professor Bonventre’s International Law of War and Crime Seminar.

The torture of men has traditionally been taken more seriously under international law than sexual violence against women.   As a consequence, wartime rape was not prosecuted in international tribunals until the late 1990s.
However, the physical and psychological harm to rape victims can be just as severe as the harm to torture victims. International tribunals have begun to bring rape within the realm of jus cogens norm by prosecuting rape as a form of torture.
Part I of the paper explains how rape was used as a weapon in war, and Part II discusses why rape was not prosecuted as a war crime until recently. Part III explains rape from the victims’ perspective and Part IV compares rape to torture. Parts V through VII explore the sexual violence in Rwanda, the former Yugoslavia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the jurisprudence arising therefrom. Finally, Part VIII discusses the significance of jus cogens for international rape prosecutions.

_____________________________

To read the paper, open HERE.

Redressing Indian Land Claims

Compensation for Takings Under the 5th Amendment

By Courtney Denette

Courtney Denette, a third-year student at Albany Law School, graduated magna cum laude from Binghamton University in 2010 where she majored in Philosophy and Politics & Law, and minored in studio art (painting). Prior to law school, she worked in the Enforcement Bureau of the New York State Liquor Authority and interned in the Legal Bureau there.

Last year, she served as a teaching assistant for Professor Bonventre in Criminal Law. Currently, she is the student Executive Editor of the Center for Judicial Process, an Associate Editor for the Albany Law Review, and a law clerk at the New York State Bar Association.

Courtney wrote this paper for Professor Robert Batson's course in Federal Indian Law.

Unfortunately, for many of the Indian tribes whose land was taken, a great deal of innocent Americans settled and built their lives on these lands. Hence, the tribal lands cannot be restored without displacing a large quantity of people who did not play a hand in the injustices of the past.

Therein lies the central problem with the solution of awarding damages to the Indians, rather than restoring their land. Most of the time, Indian culture is founded on connections to that particular parcel of land. Even the opportunity to purchase a new tract or a different reservation of land may seem inadequate.

This creates a dilemma, one that can never be solved perfectly. The best, fairest, and most feasible way for the United States to atone for stripping many tribes of their land is through continuing to allow the tribes to sue the United States, and for the United States to award damages for the taking of tribal land. This is rooted in the hope that the innocent Americans settled on once tribal land can continue to live there and that awarding damages to the tribes will allow them means to purchase land and begin to rebuild a semblance of the culture they once had.

The evolution to recognizing that just compensation should be paid in some instances proved slow and imperfect. But the concept of paying damages for the land, plus interest, represents a means to redress the years of wrongdoing towards the tribes. 

_____________________________

To read the paper, open HERE.