"State Action and the Badges of Slavery". This paper analyses congressional debate on the Thirteenth Amendment as well as congressional debate and legislation shortly after the ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment and concludes that The Thirteenth Amendment was intended to protect a person from state action denying equal protection of the laws - an intent eventually codified in the Fourteenth Amendment. This paper is available in Zip format (48.7kb) or .doc format (184kb).
Refusal to Grant a Jewish Divorce as Infliction of Emotional Distress" In Jewish marital law, the husband possesses the sole discretion to initiate divorce. This paper proposes that a partial solution to the problem of refusal to grant a divorce may be found in tort law. Husbands or wives who vindictively refuse a Jewish divorce to their former spuse may be found liable for infliction of emotional distress. The author examines the validity of this argument both in terms of tort law and the constitutionality of applying tort law to a person’s refusal to engage in a religious divorce. This paper is available to downlaod in Zip format (50.4kb) .doc format (194kb) and can be read in html here.
Abortion and the Exceptions to the “No Duty To Aid” Rule This paper explores the relationship between a pregnant woman’s right to bodily autonomy and the argument that a fetus has a right to life. Though the American law rarely charges a person with a positive duty to act on behalf of another right-holder, it is argued that the pregnant woman-fetus relationship fits into several well established exceptions to this rule. Some extensions of the duty to aid in a parental context are explored. This paper can be downlaoded in Zip format (30.2kb) or .doc format (112kb).
Duress As a Defense to a Crime Against Humanity or War-Crimes Whose Underlying Offense is Murder: Prosecutor v. Erdemovic: A Questionable Direction for War-Crimes Jurisprudence. This paper reviews the decision of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (“ICTY”) in Prosecutor v. Drazen Erdemovic, which found that duress could not be asserted as an affirmative defense to a Crime Against Humanity where the underlying offense of that crime was murder. The author argues that the decision of the ICTY was incorrect, on several grounds. The author also discusses some implications of the Erdemovic case on the future of international prosecution of genocide, crimes against humanity, and related offenses. This paper is available for downlaod in
Zip format (37.5kb) or .doc format (143kb).