Gale Encyclopedia Of American Law 3Rd Edition Volume 5 P35 pptx

era when it made significant changes in its views on the constitutional limits on government power. Hughes was born April 11, 1862, in Glen Falls, New York. Educated at Columbia Univer- sity Law School, he spent his twenties and thirties in private practice and teaching law at Columbia and Cornell Universities. His exper- tise was in COMMERCIAL LAW and by the time he was in his forties he had built a considerable reputation in that area. The New York state legislature chose him in 1905 to lead public investigations of the gas and electrical utilities in New York City and to probe the state’s insurance industry. His work not only resulted in groundbre aking regulatory plans, later highly influential across the United States, but also catapulted Hughes into a political career. He immediately ran for governor of New York and twice won election to that office as a politician known for independence of mind and commit- ment to administrative reform. In 1910 his second term as governor had not yet expired when he stepped down and accepted President William Howard Taft’s appointment to the Supreme Court. This move characterized the lifelong ten- sion between Hughes’s attractions to the legal and political spheres. He left public office to join the Court; later he would leave the Court to run for office again, then return to the Court as chief justice. In his nearly seven years on the Court as an associate justice, he displayed a flexibility of thought that led him to side at times with liberals and at times with the conservative majority. His most significant opinions turned on the issue o f federal power. In particular, these opinions weighed the extent to which the COMMERCE CLAUSE of the Constitu- tion gave the federal government authority to regulate the national economy. The opinions were delivered in the Minnesota and Shreveport Rate cases, in which the Court’s decisions laid the groundwork for the expansion of federal regulation in the ye ars to come (Simpson v. Shepard, 230 U.S. 352, 33 S. Ct. 729, 57 L. Ed. 1511 [1913]; Houston, East & West Texas Railway Co.v.UnitedStates,234 U.S. 342, 34 S. Ct. 833, 58 L. Ed. 1341 [1914]). Charles Evans Hughes 1862–1948 ❖ 1862 Born, Glen Falls, N.Y. 1884 Graduated from Columbia Law School, joined Wall St. firm of Hornblower, Carter and Chamberlin 1921–25 Served as secretary of state under Coolidge 1914–18 World War I 1948 Died, Osterville, Mass. 1861–65 U.S. Civil War 1930–41 Served as chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court 1939–45 World War II ▼▼ ▼▼ 19001900 19251925 1950 1950 18501850 18751875 ❖ ◆ 1905–06 Served as counsel to the New York Investigating Commission 1937 Wrote majority opinion upholding National Labor Relations Act (NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.) ◆ ◆ 1935 Supreme Court unanimously held the National Industrial Recovery Act unconstitutional (Schecter Poultry Corp. v. United States) 1907–10 Served as governor of New York 1910–16 Served as associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court ◆ 1916 Ran as Republican party candidate for president, lost by 23 electoral votes to Woodrow Wilson 1926–30 Served as judge on Permanent Court of Arbitration Charles Evans Hughes. PHOTOGRAPH BY HARRIS & EWING. COLLECTION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 328 HUGHES, CHARLES EVANS The middle years of Hughes’s career saw tumultuous change. In 1916 he stepped down from the Court to return to politics. Although he had not actively sought the Republican Party’s nomination for president, the party drafted him, and he reluctantly agreed to run against WOODROW WILSON. Despite a hard-fought campaign, Hughes lost the close election and returned to private practice. His respite from public service was brief. In 1921 President WARREN G. HARDING appointed Hughes secretary of state, a difficult position because of the challenges facing the United States in the after- math of WORLD WAR I: the war debt, reparations, the newly established Soviet Union, and espe- cially relations with East Asia. Naval disarma- ment ranked high among Hughes’s concerns. In 1921 and 1922 he organized the Washington Conference, which for nearly a decade curbed naval growth and brought stability to the western Pacific. The final chapter in Hughes’s career returned him to the Supreme Court. Hughes served as secretary of state to Har ding’s successor, CALVIN COOLIDGE, then resigned in 1925 to work in private practice. Between that and his next stint on the Court, he published a book-length work entitled The SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES : Its Foundation, Methods, and Achievements: An Interpretation (1928, reprinted 2000). In 1930 President HERBERT HOOVER nominated him for chief justice. Bitter oppo- nents voiced criticism of Hughes’s political career and his resignation but failed to block his appointment in a confirmation vote of 52– 26. At age 68, Hughes became the oldest man ever to be chose n chief justice. The Hughes Court sat during a controver- sial period in U.S. LEGAL HISTORY. The Depression years had brought misery and a radical federal response. President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s economic recovery plans, known collectively as the New Deal, met opposition in Congress and from the justices of the Court. Several pieces of New Deal legislation faced constitutional tests and failed. After unanimously holding unconstitutional the National Industrial Recovery Act (48 Stat. 195 [1933])inSchechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495, 55 S. Ct. 837, 79 L. Ed. 1570 (1935), the Court provoked a battle with the frustrated president. Roosevelt proposed an increase to the number of seats on the Court, hoping to then pack the Court with justices favorable to his views. Hughes wrote to the SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE in a move to help thwart Roosevelt’s plan. By taking a largely dim view of both federal and state regulatory power, the Hughes Court differed little from its conservative predecessors. In 1937 this changed dramatically. In upholding the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq., Hughes wrote a landmark opinion that greatly strengthened the labor movement ( NLRB V. JONES & LAUGHLIN STEEL CORP., 301 U.S. 1, 57 S. Ct. 615, 81 L. Ed. 893 [1937]). Also that year the Court upheld a state MINIMUM WAGE law, in West Coast Hotel v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379, 57 S. Ct. 578, 81 L. Ed. 703. The Parrish decision was a striking departure from rulings of previous decades. Only 15 years earlier, for example, the Court had refused to force employers of adult women to pay a minimum wage, viewing such a requirement as an unconstitutional infringe- ment of the liberty of contract. The 1937 decisions together have been called a constitutional revolution because they marked a great change in jurisprudence that liberalized the Court’s view of government power. When Hughes retired at last in 1941, at age 80, he had made a powerful impression on the law and on the Court. During his tenure as chief justice, he had shown the same flexibility of mind that marked his period as an associate justice: Siding alternately with liberal and conservative colleagues, he often cast the swing vote. He had clearly run the Court with a strong hand, not only in leading the discussion but frequently in persuading justices to vote with him. Justice FELIX FRANKFURTER, who served under Hughes, likened him to the conductor of an orchestra: “He took his seat at the center of the Court with a mastery, I suspect, unparalleled in the history of the Court.” Hughes died August 27, 1948, in Osterville, Massachusetts. Succeeding generations have compared his bold leadership to that of Chief Justice EARL WARREN, who headed the Court two decades later. FURTHER READINGS Hall, Timothy L. 2001. Supreme Court Justices: A Biographi- cal Dictionary. New York: Facts on File. Perkins, Dexter. 1978. Charles Evans Hughes and American Democratic Statesmanship. Westport, CT: Greenwood. Schwartz, Bernard. 1995. “Supreme Court Superstars: The Ten Greatest Justices.” Tulsa Law Journal 31 (fall). CROSS REFERENCES Labor Law; Labor Union; Supreme Court of the United States. WHEN WE LOSE THE RIGHT TO BE DIFFERENT , WE LOSE THE PRIVILEGE TO BE FREE . —CHARLES EVANS HUGHES GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION HUGHES, CHARLES EVANS 329 HUMAN RIGHTS Basic rights that fundamentally and inherently belong to each individual. HUMAN RIGHTS are freedoms established by custom or international agreement that impose standards of conduct on all nations. Human rights are distinct from civil liberties, which are freedoms established by the law of a particular state and applied by that state in its own jurisdiction. Specific human rights include the right to personal liberty and DUE PROCESS OF LAW;to freedom of thought, expression, RELIGION, organization, and movement; to freedom from discrimination on the basis of race, religion, age, language, and sex; to basic education; to employment; and to property. Human rights laws have been defined by international conventions, by treaties, and by organizations, particularly the UNITED NATIONS. These laws prohibit practices such as torture, SLAVERY,summary execution without trial, and arbitrary detention or exile. History Modern human rights law developed out of customs and theories that established the rights of the individual in relation to the state. These rights were expressed in legal terms in documents such as the English BILL OF RIGHTS of 1688, the U.S. DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE of 1776, the U.S. Bill of Rights added to the U.S. Constitution in 1789, and the French Declara- tion of the Rights of Man and the Citizen added to the French Cons titution in 1791. Human rights law also grew out of earlier systems of INTERNATIONAL LAW. These systems, developed largely during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, were predicated on the doctrine of national sovereignty, according to which each nation retains sole power over its internal affairs without interference from other nations. As a result, early international law involved only relations between nation-states and was not concerned with the ways in which states treated their own citizens. During the late nineteenth and early twenti- eth centuries, the notion of national sovereignty came under increasing challenge, and reformers began to press for international humanitarian standards. In special conferences such as the Hague Conference of 1899 and 1907, nations created laws governing the conduct of wars and handling of prisoners. Not until after WORLD WAR II (1939–45) did the international community create international treaties establishing human rights standards. The United Nations, created in 1945, took the lead in this effort. In its charter, or founding document, the United Nations developed objectives for worldwide human rights standards. It called for equal rights and self- determination for all peoples, as well as “universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion” (art. 55). The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the U.N. General Assembly in 1948, also became an important human rights document. To develop the U.N. Charter into an international code of human rights law, the international community created a number of multilateral human rights treaties. The two most significant of these are the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, both put into effect in 1976. These treaties forbid discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth, or other status. The two covenants, along with the U.N. Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and an accord called the Optional Protocol to the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1976), constitute a body of law that has been called the International Bill of Human Rights. The Covenant on Civil and Political Rights includes protections for the right to life, except after conviction for serious crime (art. 6); freedom from torture and other cruel and inhumane punishment (art. 7); freedom from slavery and prohibition from slave trade (art. 8); freedom from arbitrary arrest or detention (art. 9); humane treatment of prisoners (art. 10); freedom of movement and choice of residence (art. 12); legal standards, including equality before the law, fair hearings before an impartial tribunal, PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE, a prompt and fair trial, the RIGHT TO COUNSEL, and the right to review by a higher court; freedom of thought, conscience, and religion (art. 18); and freedom of association, including association in trade unions (art. 22). The Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights protects additional rights, many of which have yet to be realized in poorer GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 330 HUMAN RIGHTS countries. These include the right to work (art. 6); to just wages and safe working conditions (art. 7); to SOCIAL SECURITY and social insurance (art. 9); to a decent standard of living and freedom from hunger (art. 11); to universal basic education (art. 13); and to an enjoyment of the cultural life and scientific progress of the country. The international community has also adopted many other human rights treaties. These include the Convention on the Preven- tion and Punishment of the Crime of GENOCIDE (1948); the Convention on the Political Rights of Women (1953); the Convention to Suppress the Slave Trade and Slavery (revised 1953); the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment (1987); the Convention on the Rights of the Child (1990); and the Convention on Protection of the Rights of Migrant Workers (2003). In addition to worldwide human rights agreements, countries have also established regional conventions. These include the Euro- pean Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the Ameri- can Convention on Human Rights, and the African Charter on Human and People s’ Rights. The United States and Human Rights Although the United States was an active participant in the forma tion and implementa- tion of international human rights organizations and treaties following World War II, and although it ratified selected treaties such as the Convention to Suppress the Slave Trade and Slavery in 1967 and the Convention on the Political Rights of Women in 1976, it did not ratify any of the major rights treaties until 1988, when it approved the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Four years later it ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The U.S. Senate, which has authority to ratify all treaties, has been slow to review and approve human rights provisions, for a number of reasons. Senators have expressed concern about the effect of international treaties on U.S. domestic law. Article VI of the U.S. Constitu- tion provides, “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be t he supreme Law of the Land.” Treaties therefore stand as federal law, though they are not considered to be law if they conflict with the Constitution (Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1, 77 S. Ct. 1222, 1 L. Ed. 2d 1148 [1957]). Conservative senators blocked early ratification of human rights treat ies largely out of concern that the treaties would invalidate racial SEGREGATION laws that existed in the United States until the 1960s. Many human rights advocates claimed that these laws violated existing international treaties. Some senators argued that human rights should fall under domestic auth ority only and should not be subject to international negotiations. Others contended that ratification of human rights treaties would federalize areas of law be tter left to the states. Since the late 1960s such objections in the Senate have been overcome by attaching to treaties modifying terms called reservations, understandings, and declarations (RUDs). RUDs modify the treaties so that their effect on U.S. law will be acceptable to the two-thirds majority required for treaty ratification in the Senate. A reservation, for example, may state that the United States will not accept any element of a treaty found to be in conflict with the U.S. Constitution or existing laws, or that ratification will not federalize areas of law currently controlled by the states. The U.S. Congress has also enacted its own human rights legislation. Under the leadership of Representative Donald M. Fraser (D-Minn.) during the 1970s, the House Committee on Foreign Affairs added language to the Foreign Assistance Act of 1973 (22 U.S.C.A. § 2151 et seq.) that required the president to cancel military and economic assistance to any government that “engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights,” including torture and arbitrary detention without charges (§§ 2151n, 2304). This new legislation authorized the STATE DEPARTMENT to collect and analyze data on human rights violations. Congress has also passed laws that require cutting off or limiting aid to countries with significant human rights violations. In 1977 Congress gave human rights greater priority within the executive branch by creating a new State Department office, the Bureau on GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION HUMAN RIGHTS 331 Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs, headed by an assistant SECRETARY OF STATE (Pub. L. No. 95-105, 91 Stat. 846). In 1994, the administratio n of President BILL CLINTON renamed the office the Bureau for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. The bureau is charged with administering programs and policies to promote democratic institutions Torture N o government wants to admit that it has committed torture. Apart from international agreements that ban torture, such as the United Nation’s Convention Against Torture, the cruelty inherent in the act of torture can de- legitimize the officials who authorize it. Therefore, officials will do what they can to distinguish their interrogations from acts of torture. The Convention Against Torture defines it as “any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as [obtaining information or a confession, intimida- tion or coercion, or discrimination].” Defining what constitutes “severe pain or suffering” is what drove the torture debate over the U.S. interrogations of suspected terrorists during the administration of President GEORGE W. BUSH. A 50-page, 2002 memo from the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) about permissible interrogation tactics brought the Bush administration strong criticism after its release in 2004. The memo, written after the CIA requested legal advice following the SEPTEMBER 11, 2001, TERRORIST ATTACKS, addressed legally defensible methods of interrogation for al Qaeda terrorist suspects. Surprisingly, the memo said that the torture of suspected al Qaeda terrorist “may be justified” and that international laws against torture “may be unconstitutional if applied to interrogation” when used against suspected terrorists. The memo concluded that “certain acts may be cruel, inhuman, or degrading, but still not produce pain and suffering of the requisite intensity” to be classified as torture. The memo examined various aspects of the Convention Against Torture, as found in title 18, Sections 2340 P 2340A of the United States Code. The memo came in response to questions that arose during the interrogation in early 2002 of al Qaeda operations chief Abu Zubaida. The CIA was frustrated over its lack of progress with the interrogation and wanted to know how far it could legally go without violating the law. Neither the military nor the STATE DEPARTMENT was consulted for assistance in preparation or review of the memo. The memo stated that physical torture “must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, im- pairment of bodily function, or even death.” In other words, torture means “pain that is difficult to endure.” Accord- ing to the memo, in order for psychological methods of interrogation to rise to the level of torture, they must result in “significant psychological harm of a significant duration,” meaning the harm must last “months or even years.” According to the memo, “a DEFENDANT must specifically intend to cause prolonged mental harm” for the act(s) to be considered torture; “specific intent only to commit the predicate acts that give rise to prolonged mental harm” would not constitute torture. Moreover, if an interrogator “has a GOOD FAITH belief that his actions will not result in prolonged mental harm,” he will have valid defense against conviction for unlawful torture. Certain mind-altering drugs, which do not profoundly disrupt the senses or personality, would also be permitted in interrogation. Another section of the memo examined whether the Convention Against Torture “may be unconstitutional if applied to interrogations of enemy combatants pursuant to the President’s Commander-in-Chief powers.” The memo concluded that interrogators who engaged in torture could be pro- tected from criminal prosecution. After the memo was made public, administration officials maintained that the president consistently insisted that all methods of interrogation conform to U.S. and international laws and treaties. HUMAN RIGHTS observers blamed the document for leading to abuses against prisoners at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where suspected terrorists were detained. A December 2004 memo from the OLC superseded, in its entirety, the August 2002 memo. According to the new memo, “torture is abhorrent both to American laws and values and to international norms.” The new 17-page memo backed away from any claims in the August 2002 memo that the president might be legally justified in departing from U.S. law on torture in times of war and that there might exist some legally defensible ways around criminal charges for those who employ torture. According to the new memo, the August 2002 memo was wrong when it stated that only “excruciating and agonizing pain” consti- tuted torture. Moreover, the earlier memo was wrong when it said that criminal prosecution would be limited to cases where severe pain was imposed for its own sake,ratherthantoobtaininformation. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 332 HUMAN RIGHTS and respect for human rights and workers’ rights around the world. It also presents to Congress an annual report on the status of human rights all over the globe. Nongovernment Organizations AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL,theCENTER FOR CONSTITU- TIONAL RIGHTS , HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH, the Interna- tional Commiss ion of Jurists, and other The new memo stated that U.S. interrogators did not have a defense to allegations of torture by claiming that they were guided by national security reasons. Moreover, the memo prohibited telling a detainee that he could avoid torture only by cooperating. The memo also rejected the prior claim that torture is limited to physical suffering that involves severe physical pain or even death, but says it must be more than “mild and transitory” suffering. Mental suffering need not last months or years, as the original document claimed, and need not be permanent, but “must continue for a prolonged period of time.” The use of torture or what the Bush administration labeled “enhanced interrogation,” led to the dropping of charges against one detainee. In May 2008 the top official responsible for overseeing military trials of suspected terrorists held at the U. S. detention prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, dismissed the pending case against Mohammed al-Qahtani because he had been subjected to torture. According to Susan J. Crawford, convening authority of military commissions, interrogation techniques used against Qahtani were authorized at the time (2002), but “his treatment met the l egal definition of torture,” causing her to order war-crime charges against him dropped. A military report indicated that Qahtani was threatened with a military working dog, forced to wear a woman’s bra, had a thong placed on his head during interrogation, and was told that his mother and sister were “whores. ” At one point, a leash had been tied to his chains as he was led around a room, forced to perform dog tricks. Addition- ally, interrogation techniques included sustained isolation, sleep deprivation, and prolonged exposure to cold temperatures. However, it was the fact that Qahtani was hospitalized twice following interrogations that led Crawford to her conclusion. His diagnosis was bradycardia, a condition in which the heart rates slows to dangerously low levels, leading to heart failure and death. Bradycardia can be directly linked to cold body temperature and fatigue. In October 2006 Qahtani recanted a confession he said he had made after enduring such interrogation methods. Revelations that some terrorist suspects were water boarded many times also drew criticism. Water boarding is a technique involving the simulation of drowning. It involves binding a person to an inclined board, covering his or her head with cloth or cellophane, and pouring water repeatedly over the face and head. In some cases water actually enters the nose and mouth, but mostly, the sensation of water hitting the face (cloth or cellophane) causes a psychological reaction during which the brain processes information of drowning, which causes a gag reflex similar to choking. John Yoo, a lawyer with OLC, prepared a memo in 2003 for military interrogators that was similar to its 2002 memo for civilian interrogators. The memo approved of the use of water boarding, as well as head-slapping, sleep deprivation, and exposure to extreme temperatures. However, the OLC offi- cially rejected the “flawed reasoning” in the memo. Nevertheless, the Bush administration contended that the CIA’s water boarding against three top al Qaida detainees, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah, and Abd al-Rahim al- Nashiri was legal. The practice was ended in 2006. Congress passed the Detainee Treat- ment Act in 2005, requiring the DEPART- MENT OF DEFENSE to restrict interrogation methods to those set out in the Army Field Manual, which banned coercive interrogations. In 2007 President Bush issued an executive order narrowing the list of approved techniques for the CIA. Although that list of authorized techniques remained classified, intelligence officials stated that water boarding was not on the list of approved techniques but that President Bush could authorize it during an emergency. In December 2007 the CIA admitted that it had destroyed video tapes of the interrogations of some key Iraqi detainees. In 2008 the House Judiciary Committee conducted hearings into the meaning and parameters of torture, particularly as applied to detainees held outside the United States. When John Yoo was called to testify, he declared EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE. David Addington, former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, could not “recollect” matters of substance or interest. Former CIA director George Tenet testified that the value of water boarding and other “enhanced” methods of interrogation “far exceeded” any other method(s). Former attorney general JOHN ASHCROFT also testified that water boarding was not torture and that it had been approved by JUSTICE DEPARTMENT officials before being employed. All administration officials denied that any illegal “torture” was involved in military interrogations. When the administration of Barack Obama took office in 2009, it released internal papers showing the extent of interrogative techniques used during the Bush years. President Obama called this a “dark period” in U.S. history and vowed to end it and “move on.” To accomplish this objective, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that interrogators would not be prosecuted for their actions. It also became clear the administration had no interest in further investigations. FURTHER READINGS Levinson, Sanford, ed. 2006. Torture: A Collection. New York: Oxford Univ. Press. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION HUMAN RIGHTS 333 international human rights organizations close- ly monitor states’ complia nce with human rights standards. These groups also publicize rights violations and coordinate world public opinion against offending states. In many cases they induce governments to modify their policies to meet rights standards. Domestic human rights organizations such as the Vicaria de Solidaridad, in Chile, and the Free Legal Assistance Group of the Philippines also play a significant role as human rights watchdogs, often at great personal risk to their members. FURTHER READINGS Amnesty International Website. Available online at http:// www.amnesty.org (accessed July 31, 2009). Curry, Lynne. 2004. The Human Body on Trial: A Sourcebook with Cases, Laws, and Documents (on Trial). Indiana- polis: Hackett. Golove, David. 2002. “Human Rights Treaties and the U.S. Constitution.” DePaul Law Review 52 (winter). Kennedy, David. 2002. “The International Human Rights Movement: Part of the Problem?” Harvard Human Rights Journal 15 (spring). Available online at http:// www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/hrj/iss15/kennedy. shtml; website home page: http://www.law.harvard.edu (accessed July 31, 2009). State Department. “Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor.” Available online at http://www.state.gov/g/ dr; website home page: http://www.state.gov/ (accessed July 31, 2009). CROSS REFERENCES Civil Rights; Genocide; Nuremberg Trials; Tokyo Trial. HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH (HRW) investigates HUMAN RIGHTS abuses throughout the world, publishing its findings in books and reports every year. These activities often generate significant cover- age in local and international media. This publicity in turn prompts governments to change their policies and practices. In cases of extreme human rights abuses, HRW advocates for the withdr awal of military and economic support from governments that violate the rights of their people. In international conflicts and other crises, HRW provides current information about conflicts—focusing on the human rights situa- tion on the ground—while the conflicts or crises are underway. The purpose of HRW is to increase the price of human rights abuse, thereby helping to decrease the incidents of such abuses. HRW is the largest human rights organization based in the United States. HRW employs lawyers, journalists, academics, and country experts of many nationalities and diverse back- grounds, and often leverages the force of allied human rights organizations by joining forces with them to achieve shared human rights goals. As of February 2002, Human Rights Watch employed 189 permanent staff plus short-term fellows and consultants. Human Rights Watch is an independent, nongovernmental organization. It gains most of its support from contributions from private individuals and foundations worldwide. It accepts no government funds, directly or indirectly, from the United States or any other government. HRW is not an agency of the U.S. government, nor was it founded by the U.S. government. Although HRW frequently calls on the United States to support human rights in U.S. foreign policy, the organization also reports on human rights abuses inside the United States. HRW has made negative reports against the United States in areas such as prison conditions, police abuse, the detention of immigrants, and the imposition of the death penalty. HRW maintains its headquarters in New York. It also maintains offices in Brussels, Bujumbura, Freetown (Sierra Leone ), Kigali, Geneva, London, Los Angeles, Moscow, San Francisco, Santiago de Chile, Tashkent, Tbilisi, and Washington. Most HRW research is carried out by sending fact-finding teams into countries where there have been allegations of serio us human rights abuses. HRW examines the human rights practices of governments of all political stripes, of all geopolitical alignments, and of all ethnic and religious persuasions. HRW documents and denounces murders, disappearances, torture, arbitrary imprisonment, discrimination, and other abuses of internationally recognized human rights. Not only does HRW encompass the entire globe for its activities, but HRW is interested in enormously complex and diverse issues. For example, HRW follows developments worldwide in women’s rights, children’s rights, and the flow of arms to abusive forces. Other HRW projects include ACADEMIC FREEDOM, the human rights responsibilities of corporations, international justice, prisons, drugs, and refugees. The unique and independent nature of this GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 334 HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH international organization enables it to target any and all partie s to conflict. HRW pursues active investigations of human rights abuses in more than 70 countries. Its methods for obtaining human rights information has made it a credible source of information for individuals and governments concerned with human rights. To conduct research, Human Rights Watch sends members of its staff to interview people who have firsthand experience with alleged abuse. Researchers work with local activists and other specialists. Their findings are written up in reports. HRW rep orts categorize and describe human rights violations, detail probable causes for the abuses, and make recommendations for ways to end the abuses. HRW has published more than a thousand reports dealing with human rights issues in more than one hundred countries worldwide. HRW has used its investigations to examine human rights violations associated in the following cases: Taliban massacres in Afghanistan; trafficking of Thai women in Asia; RAPE in U.S. prisons; refugees in Sierra Leone; and conflicts in Indonesia, Macedonia, Colombia, Russia, and the Congo. Since its formation, HRW has focused mainly on upholding civil and political rights. HRW began in 1978 with the founding of its European division, Helsinki Watch (now Human Rights Watch/Helsinki). This was in response to a call for support from groups in Moscow, Warsaw, and Prague, which had been established to monitor compliance in Soviet Bloc countries with the human rights provisions of the landmark Helsinki accords. A few years later, the Reagan administration contended that human rights abuses by certain right-wing governments were more tolerable than those of left-wing governments. Thus, to counter charges of maintaining a double standard between the East and West, HRW formed Americas Watch (now Human Rights Watch/Americas). By 1987 HRW had developed a powerful set of techniques for pursuing its agenda: painstak- ing documentation of abuses and aggressive advocacy in the press and with governments, and it employed these techniqu es all over the world. Over time, the organization grew to cover other regions of the world. Eventually, all the “Watch” committees were united in 1988 to form Human Rights Watch. Between 1993 and 2003 HRW increasingly addressed economic, social, and cultural rights as well. It is particularly attuned to situations in which its methods of investigation and reporting are most effective. These include cases in which arbitrary or discriminatory governmental conduct lies behind an economic, social and cultural rights violation. In addition to governments, its work also addresses significant economic players and such international financial institutions as the WORLD BANK and multinational corporations such as General Electric. In the early 2000s, HRW comprises seven major divisi ons: Africa, the Americas, Arms, Asia, Children, Women, the Middle East and North Africa, and Europe and Central Asia. FURTHER READINGS Human Rights Watch. Available online at http://www.hrw. org/ (accessed July 31, 2009). Human Rights Watch World Report. 2001: Events of 2000 (November 1999–October 2000). New York: Human Rights Watch. Available online at http://www.hrw.org/ legacy/wr2k1/; website home page: http://www.hrw.org (accessed July 31, 2009). Iriye, Akira. 2004. Global Community: The Role of Interna- tional Organizations in the Making of the Contemporary World. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press. Pease, Kelly-Kate S. 2009. International Organizations: Perspectives on Governance in the Twenty-First Century. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Welch, Claude E., Jr., ed. 2000. NGOs and Human Rights: Promise and Performance. Philadelphia: Univ. of Pennsylvania. CROSS REFERENCE Human Rights. v HUME, DAVID David Hume was an eighteenth-century Scot- tish philosopher, historian, and social theorist who influenced the development of skepticism and empiricism, two schools of philosophical thought. Hume’s economic and political ideas influenced Adam Smith, the Scottish economist and theorist of modern capitalism, and JAMES MADISON , the American statesman who helped shape the republican form of government through his work on the U.S. Constitution. Hume was born August 25, 1711, in Chirnside, near Edinburgh, Scotland. He en- tered Edinburgh University when he was twelve. He left the university after several years of study and attempted to study law. He did not like the subject, and instead read widely in philosophy. In 1729 he suffered a nervous breakdown. After THE HEART OF MAN IS MADE TO RECONCILE CONTRADICTIONS. —DAVID HUME GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION HUME, DAVID 335 a prolonged recovery, he moved to France in 1734, where he wrote his first work, A Treatise on Human Nature. The book was not published until 1739 and was largely ignored. His next work, Essays, Moral and Political (1741), attracted favorable notice. Throughout the 1740s Hume’s religious skepticism doomed his chances for a professorship at Edinburgh University. He spent the decade as a tutor and then as secretary to a Scottish general. During this period he wrote several more works of philosophy, including An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals (1751). In 1752 he was made librarian of the Faculty of Advocates Library at Edinburgh. From 1754 to 1762, he published his monumental History of England, which for many years was considered the bas ic text of English history. This work brought him international fame. He later served as secretary to the British counsel in Paris. He died August 25, 1776, in Edinbu rgh. As a philosopher, Hume espoused a skeptical viewpoint, distrusting speculation. He believed that all knowledge comes from experience and that the mind contains nothing but a collection of perceptions, that all events are viewed and interpreted through the sensations of the mind. He attacked the principle of causality, which states that nothing can happen or exist without a cause. Hume was willing to admit that one event, or set of sense impressions, always precedes another, but he argued that this did not prove that the first event causes the second. A person can conclude that causality exists, but that conclusion is based on belief, not proof. There- fore, a person cannot expect the future to be similar to the past, because there is no rational basis for that expectation. Like his philosophical beliefs, Hume’s essays on politics and economics were influential in his time. Historians have concluded that James Madison read Hume’s Essays, Moral and Politi- cal and applied some of the ideas from this work while helping write the Constitution and The Federalist Papers. Hume was concerned about the formation of factions based on RELIGION, politics, and other common interests. He concluded that a democratic society needs to prevent factions, which ultimately undermine the government and lead to violence. Madison agreed that factions can divide government but came to the opposite conclu sion: the more factions the better. In Madison’s view more factions made it less likely that any one party or coalition of parties would be able to gain control of government and invade the rights of other citizens. The system of checks and balances contained in the Constitution was part of Madison’s plan for placing some limits on factions. FURTHER READINGS Allan, James. 1999. “To Exclude or Not to Exclude Improperly Obtained Evidence: Is a Humean Approach More Helpful?” Univ. of Tasmania Law Review 18 (October). Arkin, Marc M. 1995. “‘The Intractable Principle’: David Hume, James Madison, Religion, and the Tenth Federalist.” American Journal of Legal History 39. Mossner, Ernest Campbell. 2001. The Life of David Hume. New York: Oxford Univ. Press. Schmidt, Claudia M. 2004. David Hume: Reason in History. State College, PA: Pennsylvania State Univ. Press. Vermeule, Adrian. 2003. “Hume’s Second-Best Constitu- tionalism.” Univ. of Chicago Law Review 70, no. 4 (winter). CROSS REFERENCES Hobbes, Thomas; Jurisprudence; Locke, John. David Hume 1711–1776 ❖ ❖ 1711 Born, Chirnside, Scotland 1739 A Treatise on Human Nature published 1741 Essays, Moral and Political published 1767–68 Served as undersecretary of state 1776 Died, Edinburgh, Scotland ▼▼ ▼▼ 17001700 17501750 17751775 18001800 17251725 1775–83 American Revolution 1789 French Revolution ◆◆◆ 1751 An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals published ◆ ◆ 1752–63 Served as librarian on the Faculty of Advocates Library at Edinburgh 1754–62 Multi-volume set, History of England, published 1758 An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding published 1763–66 Served as secretary to the British counsel in Paris GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 336 HUME, DAVID v HUMPHREY, HUBERT HORATIO Hubert Horatio Humphrey served as a U.S. senator from Minnesota and as the thirty-eighth vice president of the United States. From his election to the U.S. Senate in 1948 to his death in 1978, Humphrey was the quintessential COLD WAR liberal. His unsuccessful presidential campaign in 1968 was weakened by his support of President Lyndon B. Johnson’s VIETNAM WAR policies. Humphrey was born in Wallace, South Dakota, on May 27, 1911. He grew up in Doland, South Dakota, where his father ran the local drugstore. He received a degree from the Denver College of Pharmacy in 1933 and helped run the family drugstore before entering the University of Minnesota. After graduating from the University of Minnesota in 1939, he earned a master’s degree from Louisiana State Univer- sity. He taught at the University of Minnesota, Louisiana State University, and Macalester College, in St. Paul, Minnesota, before joining the federal Works Progress Administration in Minnesota in 1941. Humphrey became a leader in Minnesota DEMOCRATIC PARTY politics during WORLD WAR II. After narrowly losing the Minneapolis mayoral election in 1943, he cemented his position in 1944 when he united the Minnesota Democratic and Farmer-Labor parties into the Democratic Farmer-Labor (DFL) party. The Farmer-Labor party had advocated more radical political policies in the 1930s and 1940s, and had gained national attention through Governor Floyd B. Olson, of Minnesota. In the 1930s Olson and the Farmer-Labor party had advocated more aggressive governmental intervention to deal with the Great Depression. Olson criticized President FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT for not doing enough to help the nation’s unemployed. By the mid-1940s the party had attracted many Communist-influenced members. In 1947 Humphrey and his allies forced the more radical Farmer-Labor members out of leadership positions and ultimately out of the DFL. On a national level, Humphrey helped form Americans for Democratic Action, a liberal organization that trumpeted its anti-Communist credentials. His political leadership paid quick divi- dends. In 1945 he was elected mayor of Minneapolis by more than 30,000 votes. He increased his margin of victory to 50,000 in his 1947 reelection campaign. As mayor he rooted out political graft and corruption and began to Hubert Horatio Humphrey 1911–1978 ❖ ◆ 1911 Born, Wallace, S. Dak. ◆ 1944 United the Minnesota Democratic and Farmer-Labor parties into the Democratic Farmer-Labor Party 1914–18 World War I 1978 Died, Waverly, Minn. 1961–73 Vietnam War 1939–45 World War II 1948–64 Served in U.S. Senate 1950–53 Korean War ▼▼ ▼▼ 19001900 19501950 19751975 19251925 1945–48 Served as mayor of Minneapolis ◆ ◆ 1968 Ran for president; lost to Richard Nixon 1964–68 Served as vice president of the United States under Johnson 1933 Graduated from the Denver College of Pharmacy 1941 Joined Works Progress Administration ❖ 1970–78 Served again in U.S. Senate 1960 Ran for president, but dropped out after Kennedy won Wisc. and W. Va. primaries ◆ Hubert H. Humphrey. LIBRARY OF CONGRESS GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION HUMPHREY, HUBERT HORATIO 337 . as undersecretary of state 1776 Died, Edinburgh, Scotland ▼▼ ▼▼ 17001700 1 750 1 750 17 751 7 75 18001800 17 251 7 25 17 75 83 American Revolution 1789 French Revolution ◆◆◆ 1 751 An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of. Died, Waverly, Minn. 1961–73 Vietnam War 1939– 45 World War II 1948–64 Served in U.S. Senate 1 950 53 Korean War ▼▼ ▼▼ 19001900 1 950 1 950 19 751 9 75 19 251 9 25 19 45 48 Served as mayor of Minneapolis ◆ ◆ 1968 Ran for. Department office, the Bureau on GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION HUMAN RIGHTS 331 Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs, headed by an assistant SECRETARY OF STATE (Pub. L. No. 95- 1 05,

Định dạng
Số trang	10
Dung lượng	431,4 KB