JURIST Supported by the University of Pittsburgh
PAPER CHASE ARCHIVEDigest RSS feedFull RSS feed
Serious law. Primary sources. Global perspective.
Listen to Paper Chase!


Legal news from Saturday, March 16, 2013




Syria military using banned cluster bombs against civilians: HRW
Peter Snyder on March 16, 2013 3:48 PM ET

Photo source or description
[JURIST] The Syrian regime is expanding its use of widely banned cluster bombs, according to a Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy website] report [text] released Saturday. According to the report, the Syrian military has used cluster munitions in 119 locations across Syria, dropping at least 156 bombs over the last six months and killings dozens of civilians. The use of these munitions is prohibited under to the Convention on Cluster Munitions (CCM) [text, PDF], which Syria has neither signed nor ratified, because of the potential harm they pose to civilians. The CCM bans the use, stockpiling, production and transfer of cluster bombs, weapons that break apart, releasing large numbers of smaller, self-contained explosives which spread out before detonating on impact. The HRW report is based on field investigations conducted after two cluster bomb attacks outside Homs and Aleppo killed 11 civilians and injured over 25, along with hundreds of Internet videos posted online by activists detailing similar attacks.

This is not the first HRW report calling attention to Syria using cluster munitions. In October HRW reported that the Syrian military was using cluster munitions [JURIST report] against opposition forces. In July HRW reported evidence of Soviet-made cluster munitions being used [JURIST report] in Syria. The Convention was initially agreed upon [JURIST report] by nations in May 2008 following 10 days of negotiations at the Dublin Diplomatic Conference on Cluster Munitions [official website] while the US, Russia and China each declined to sign it. In November 2010 the former UN Deputy Secretary-General Asha-Rose Migiro [UN profile] had urged more states to join the CCM at the First Meeting of States Parties [official website]. The CCM officially went into effect in August 2010, six month after the UN's announcement [JURIST reports], as binding international law with 107 countries having signed the treaty and 37 countries having ratified it.




Link | | subscribe | RSS feeds | latest newscast | archive | Facebook page


North Dakota lawmakers approve abortion restrictions
Peter Snyder on March 16, 2013 2:21 PM ET

Photo source or description
[JURIST] The North Dakota legislature passed two bills Friday that would place strict limits on abortion, banning non-emergency abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected and barring terminations sought because of genetic abnormalities. HB 1305 and HB 1456 [text, PDF] will go before [WP report] Governor Jack Dalrymple [official website] this week. If signed, HB 1456 would make it a felony for a doctor to perform an abortion after a fetal heartbeat is detectable, an event that occurs at its earliest five to six weeks after conception. HB 1305 would ban abortions performed, "for sex selection or genetic abnormalities." Both measures are expected to face legal challenges if signed by Dalrymple.

A number of states have passed restrictive abortion bills recently. Earlier this month the Arkansas legislature voted to override [JURIST report] Governor Mike Beebe's recent veto of the Arkansas Human Heartbeat Protection Act [Act 301, PDF], which bans abortions "of an unborn human individual whose heartbeat has been detected ... and is twelve (12) weeks or greater gestation." Six days earlier Arkansas lawmakers voted to override the governor's veto [JURIST reports] of the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act [HB 1037, PDF] which bans most abortions in the state 20 weeks after conception. That law made Arkansas the eighth US state to ban or restrict abortions after 20 weeks. Similar laws restricting reproductive rights [JURIST backgrounder] are currently facing legal challenges in Arizona and Georgia [JURIST reports].




Link | | subscribe | RSS feeds | latest newscast | archive | Facebook page


Maryland legislature approves bill banning death penalty
Julie Deisher on March 16, 2013 11:49 AM ET

Photo source or description
[JURIST] The Maryland House of Delegates on Friday voted 82-56 [House vote] to ban the death penalty in Maryland. Senate Bill 276 [text, PDF] seeks to repeal "the death penalty and all provisions relating to it," and will prescribe sentences of life imprisonment for individuals convicted of first degree murder. Prior to Senate Bill 276, Maryland's capital punishment laws were among the most restrictive in the country; Senate Bill 279 [text, PDF], which was signed into law in 2009, prevented a judge from imposing the death penalty unless one of three factors existed: DNA evidence, a videotaped confession, or a videotaped murder. Even before the restrictions were passed, Maryland had only executed five people since 1976. The bill has been sent to Governor Martin O'Malley [official website], who has pledged to sign it into law.

O'Malley announced in January that he would file legislation to repeal capital punishment [JURIST report] in Maryland, stating that the death penalty is expensive and ineffective. In 2008, the governor created [JURIST report] the Maryland Commission on Capital Punishment [official website] after an unsuccessful attempt [JURIST report] to repeal the death penalty in 2007. Outside of Maryland, Connecticut [JURIST report] became the seventeenth state to abolish the death penalty and the fifth to do so in the previous five years, which it did last April. New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, and Illinois [JURIST reports] have all recently eliminated the death penalty, while 33 states retain its use, according to the Death Penalty Information Center [advocacy website]. However, California voters declined to repeal the death penalty [JURIST report] on the most recent ballot, with 47 percent of voters supporting the repeal last November.




Link | | subscribe | RSS feeds | latest newscast | archive | Facebook page


Native American tribe approves measure recognizing same-sex marriage
Julie Deisher on March 16, 2013 10:39 AM ET

Photo source or description
[JURIST] Tribal Chairman Dexter McNamara [official profile] of the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians [official website], a northern Michigan Native American tribe, on Friday signed into law the Waganakising Odawak Statute 2013-003 [text, PDF], a measure approving same-sex marriage. The law repeals Waganakising Odawak Statute 2007-001 [text, PDF] which only permits marriage between one man and one woman. The newly enacted law permits same-sex marriage, so long as at least one member of the couple is a tribal citizen. However, Article I, Section 25 [text] of Michigan's state constitution bans the recognition of same-sex marriage for any purpose. Although the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) [text; JURIST news archive] authorizes states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in the states that allow them, federally-recognized Native American tribes are self-governing and are not bound by state laws. The tribe's new policy is likely to cause friction with the state if a same-sex couple leaves the reservation and tries to have tribal court orders enforced in state courts.

Issues surrounding same-sex marriage [JURIST backgrounder] remain controversial throughout the US. Later this month, the US Supreme Court will hear arguments in two cases related to same-sex marriage. In Hollingsworth v. Perry [docket; cert. petition, PDF], the court will examine the validity of Proposition 8 [JURIST news archive], a California referendum that revoked same-sex marriage rights. In United States v. Windsor [docket; cert. petition, PDF], the court will examine the constitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA. Same-sex marriage is currently legal in nine US states, as well as the District of Columbia. Earlier this month, the Colorado House of Representatives voted to legalize civil unions [JURIST report] for same-sex couples. Last month the Illinois senate approved [JURIST report] same-sex marriage legislation. In January the Rhode Island House of Representatives approved a similar bill [JURIST report].




Link | | subscribe | RSS feeds | latest newscast | archive | Facebook page

For more legal news check the Paper Chase Archive...


LATEST OP-ED

The War on Terror and the Need for Muslim Support
DOMESTIC
Faisal Kutty
Valparaiso University Law School

Get JURIST legal news delivered daily to your e-mail!

SYNDICATION

Add Paper Chase legal news to your RSS reader or personalized portal:
  • Add to Google
  • Add to My Yahoo!
  • Subscribe with Bloglines
  • Add to My AOL

E-MAIL

Subscribe to Paper Chase by e-mail. JURIST offers a free once-a-day digest [sample]. Enter your e-mail address below. After subscribing and being returned to this page, please check your e-mail for a confirmation message.


R|mail e-mails individual Paper Chase posts through the day. Enter your e-mail address below. After subscribing and being returned to this page, please check your e-mail for a confirmation message.

PUBLICATION

Join top US law schools, federal appeals courts, law firms and legal organizations by publishing Paper Chase legal news on your public website or intranet.

JURIST offers a news ticker and preformatted headline boxes updated in real time. Get the code.

Feedroll provides free Paper Chase news boxes with headlines or digests precisely tailored to your website's look and feel, with content updated every 15 minutes. Customize and get the code.

ABOUT

Paper Chase is JURIST's real-time legal news service, powered by a team of 30 law student reporters and editors led by law professor Bernard Hibbitts at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law. As an educational service, Paper Chase is dedicated to presenting important legal news and materials rapidly, objectively and intelligibly in an accessible, ad-free format.

CONTACT

Paper Chase welcomes comments, tips and URLs from readers. E-mail us at JURIST@jurist.org