Law Enforcement, Policy Changing and One Gross Procedure

My second day of classes was great. I got a full night’s sleep, I had class (and it was amazing as always), lunch, then class again (less amazing, but helpful) and finally I had a long talk with my instructor during her office hours and from there I called it a day because I wanted to finish blogging and reading so I can sleep a little before night check. Today I was finding my rhythm; I can tell I am getting use to summer college life and I love every second.

Today I got a late start. I got up around 7:30 which felt amazing because I had a lot of sleep. I edited a 500 word paper I finished the night before and sent it in and I went to breakfast, but I didn’t eat much. I had an apple and a cup of coffee. I met up with two people from my class and we walked to our class.

My course book

I was there around 9:00 -- about an hour later than the day before. When class started today it was a great class, better than the one before because we went more in depth on how to enforce international law and the organs in the UN that perform that action. We also discussed derogations (in short it is when a state can’t comply with certain provisions in a treaty in times of an emergency) and we discussed a comment of the UK’s Prime Minister Theresa May where she said that in response to terrorism the UK would restrict  freedom of movement, deport suspected terrorists and increases prison sentencing. This really hit me because what she said seemed to me a massive step back for the UK when it comes to their reaction to terror and very counterproductive because America is doing similar things and has done similar things (like mass incarceration to combat crime and drug abuse for example) and it didn’t work and created more problems than it solved. I asked the instructor if she could actually do these things when its proven to be ineffective. She said that it might be brought up by NGOs and treaty monitoring bodies and can be a factor in derogation, but the instructor said that Theresa May would first have to notify the treaty body before she could derogate and then she would have to prove that terrorism is an emergency in the UK and that those certain provisions would have to be derogated in order to combat it. If Theresa May went through all that then she could do the things that she said even if they are proven to be ineffective.

The Security Council

Then we went on to talk about “soft law”. They are decisions by other human rights bodies and court. They are non-binding, but can be used to protect human rights even though they are non-binding and don’t have to be followed. I found it interesting I can draw parallels between domestic law and international law because I thought it would be different, but “soft law” is used in a similar way to case law in a criminal court case, but case law is binding and decisions in courts like the Supreme Court set a precedent for all lower courts when “soft law” doesn’t set any precedent. I thought it was interesting that something that a law a state doesn’t have to follow can greatly influence the decisions a state makes.

We then went over organs of the UN that There are many organs of the UN that enforce human rights. So many law enforcement organs that it would make this blog literally 9,000 words to go over them all or even the ones I found interesting (I found them all equally interesting). 

After that section we talked about symphysiotomy. It is a procedure done in situations where a C-section would normally occur. It is gross, skipping all the gruesome details, it's basically a procedure where the pelvis of a woman is widened by moving and breaking some bones. This was done in Ireland because it was believed that C-sections where a form of birth control, because it was believed you could only have a certain amount of children afterwards or none at all. This procedure, made it impossible for women to enjoy leisure activities such as walking, running or sports, work and it would cause chronic pain long after the procedure. We studied this how this procedure in was done without the woman's consent in Ireland in the early 1900s. Many women found out what happened to them decades later and tried to file for reparations, but it went nowhere and the Irish government took no measures to remedy the situation. When the instructor introduced this topic she gave a paper with questions and the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). We had a group talk where we had to find what provisions of CEDAW were violated, apply the law to the facts of the case and we had to consider what treaty bodies we might consider approaching. I was really excited, but we spent the time reading over the convention thoroughly and highlighting, but tomorrow we are going in depth and I took 3 pages of notes, so I am prepared.

I had lunch with Javaria and afterwards she wanted to go to the Cornell store, but it was pouring rain. When I thought that it couldn’t be any stronger, it got stronger -- and then the wind picked up. In short we were soaked and Javaria got her supplies, we found other people from our class and we walked as a group to the hall where we were going to have our TA sessions. We made it to the building again wet from rain, since we had time we decided to see the law school library which was massive. There were shelves upon shelves that lined two sides of the library and continued for a huge distance.

Our TA session was a recap of terms that we learned which was helpful because we learned a massive amount terms. Afterwards I went to my instructor’s office during her office hours. I asked her about all the universities she went to and what she liked and didn’t like. I asked her what made them unique. The universities probably change since when she went, but it was helpful. I also told her about my clubs at school such as the Gay Straight Alliance (GSA) and Black Student Union (BSU) and our desire to become more politically active and possibly influence legislation. She gave me a very detailed and articulate answer that was massively helpful. The most helpful advice she gave was to gather support from likeminded organizations that are fighting for the same thing and to talk to as many policy makers and influential people as I can. I found it useful because for some reason I thought I could influence policies with my clubs alone, that sounds silly to me now since she explained to me the entire process behind changing policies because it is long and a large undertaking. My instructor is amazing and I loved talking to her because she was a absolutely huge help in helping me plan what I am going to do next year with my clubs, school and community. I know this is a little cocky among other things, but expect great things.

 After that I just wanted to do all my reading for my class and finish my blog so I went to my dorm. Today was great. I learned so much and took A LOT of notes. I don’t want my experience at Cornell to end, but I also want to get home now so I can use everything I learned. I can’t wait for tomorrow’s class because we are having a guest speaker come talk about local law enforcement of human rights which exactly what I want to hear about. I just love Cornell.