TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: WHY WE DO WHAT WE DO—A FAMILY COURT REFLECTION

This article, adapted from the keynote address delivered at the Hofstra University School of Law Family Law Review Annual Banquet on March 24, 2011, focuses on the impact of the Family Law Review, the need to improve the stature of the family court, and shares excepts of letters written by members of the New York State Permanent Judicial Commission on Justice for Children regarding their passion for working in the fields of child welfare and in the family court.     

INTERNATIONAL PARENTAL CHILD ABDUCTION: WHY WE NEED TO EXPAND CUSTODY RIGHTS PROTECTED UNDER THE CHILD ABDUCTION CONVENTION

The Child Abduction Convention, an international treaty, protects custody rights internationally among its member states by providing a remedy of return in cases where a child was wrongfully removed in violation of a parent's custody right. There is no such remedy for the violation of a parent's access (or visitation) rights. A ne exeat clause in a child custody agreement restrains a custodial parent from removing a child from a predetermined jurisdiction (such as a particular country) and can be issued when there is a risk that the custodial parent might flee to another country with the child(ren). Currently there is a circuit split within the United States as to whether a ne exeat right coupled with the right of access should equal a protected custody right under the Convention. Most international courts protect the ne exeat right under the Convention; however some do not. A ne exeat right should convey a protected custody right for policy reasons. The beneficial implications of a ne exeat right creating a protected custody right under the Child Abduction Convention clearly outweigh the detriments. While there is no instant solution to the inconsistencies among various courts in interpreting the Child Abduction Conventions’ scope in regard to a ne exeat right, there are ways to resolve the problem. If consistency in judicial interpretation cannot be achieved, a movement needs to be initiated to create a protocol to the Child Abduction Convention to further explain the scope of custody rights and ne exeat rights under the Convention.     

HIGH TIMES FOR HATE CRIMES: EXPLAINING THE TEMPORAL CLUSTERING OF HATE‐MOTIVATED OFFENDING

This research explains the temporal clustering of hate crimes. It is hypothesized that many hate crimes are retaliatory in nature and tend to increase, sometimes dramatically, in the aftermath of an antecedent event that results in one group harboring a grievance against another. Three types of events are used to test and refine the argument: 1) contentious criminal trials involving interracial crimes, 2) lethal terrorist attacks, and 3) appellate court decisions concerning same‐sex marriage. The results from time‐series analyses indicate that contentious trial verdicts and lethal domestic terrorist attacks precede spikes in racially or religiously motivated hate crimes, whereas less evidence is found for antigay hate crimes after appellate court rulings that grant rights to same‐sex partners. The model put forth in this article complements prior work by explaining in part the timing of hate crime clusters.     

FITTING THE FORUM TO THE FAMILY FUSS

This article analyzes advantages and disadvantages of mediation, collaborative law, and cooperative law based on the parties' capabilities, attitudes about professional services, and assessments of and preferences about the risks of various procedures. Each of these procedures has virtues and there is great value in providing clients and practitioners with a choice of procedures. Under collaborative and cooperative law, lawyers and clients agree to focus exclusively on negotiation from the outset the case, typically using a problem-solving process. Collaborative law involves a written "disqualification agreement" between all the parties and their lawyers under which lawyers are disqualified from representing parties in litigation if either party chooses to litigate. Cooperative law is similar but does not use the disqualification agreement. Because most communities do not have lawyers offering cooperative law, collaborative law groups should encourage at least some of their members to offer clients the option of cooperative law.     

THE HUMAN RIGHT TO INFORMATION,THE ENVIRONMENT AND INFORMATION ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT: FROM THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION TO THE AARHUS CONVENTION

Citizen access to government-held information and the amelioration of environmental problems are considered statutory matters in the United States, but at the international level these are seen as fundamental human rights. In recent years two categories of human rights demanded by activists, the right to government information and the right to environmental protection, have converged into a new human right—the right to government information about the environment. The 1998 Aarhus Convention, binding in more than forty nations in Europe and Central Asia, is the first multilateral treaty to specifically denote a human right to government information about the environment. While the Aarhus Convention has some untested procedural difficulties and laborious bureaucratic requirements, the treaty can serve as a model for the world's nations at large, because citizen oversight of government actions toward the natural world is a powerful tool for those concerned about both the environment and government transparency.     

法治的两条道路

<正> 要做到十亿人口的国家人人注意遵守法律,依法办事,……根本的问题是……将法律交给广大人民掌握,使人民群众和干部知法、守法……我们最终说了算并不是因为我们一贯正确,而我们一贯正确仅仅是因为我们最终说了算。