Archive for October, 2010
(June 22, 1936, ch. 688, Sec. 2, 49 Stat. 1570; June 28, 1938, ch.795, Sec. 1, 52 Stat. 1215; Aug. 18, 1941, ch. 377, Sec. 1, 55Stat. 638; July 26, 1947, ch. 343, title II, Sec. 205(a), 61 Stat.501; Aug. 4, 1954, ch. 656, Sec. 7, 68 Stat. 668.)AMENDMENTS1954 – Act Aug. 4, 1954, repealed provisions conferring authorityon the Department of Agriculture under the direction of theSecretary of Agriculture to make preliminary examinations andsurveys and to prosecute works of improvement for runoff andwaterflow retardation and soil erosion prevention on the watershedsof rivers and other waterways.1941 – Act Aug. 18, 1941, reenacted without change portion ofsection preceding semicolon.1938 – Act June 28, 1938, reenacted without change portion ofsection preceding semicolon.CHANGE OF NAMEDepartment of War designated Department of the Army and title ofSecretary of War changed to Secretary of the Army by section 205(a)of act July 26, 1947, ch. 343, title II, 61 Stat. 501. Section205(a) of act July 26, 1947, was repealed by section 53 of act Aug.10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 641. Section 1 of act Aug. 10, 1956,enacted “Title 10, Armed Forces” which in sections 3010 to 3013continued Department of the Army under administrative supervisionof Secretary of the Army.SAVINGS PROVISIONSection 7 of act Aug. 4, 1954, which amended this section byrepealing provisions relating to the Department of Agriculture,provides in part that: “(a) the authority of that Department ofAgriculture, under the direction of the Secretary, to prosecute theworks of improvement for runoff and waterflow retardation and soilerosion prevention authorized to be carried out by the Departmentby the act of December 22, 1944 (58 Stat. 887), as amended [section701a-1 of this title], and (b) the authority of the Secretary ofAgriculture to undertake emergency measures for runoff retardationand soil erosion prevention authorized to be carried out by section7 of the act of June 28, 1938 (52 Stat. 1215), as amended bysection 216 of the act of May 17, 1950 (64 Stat. 163) [section 701b-1 of this title], shall not be affected by the provisions of thissection.”RISK-BASED ANALYSIS METHODOLOGYPub. L. 104-303, title II, Sec. 202(h), Oct. 12, 1996, 110 Stat.3676, provided that:”(1) In general. – The Secretary shall enter into an agreementwith the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a study of theCorps of Engineers’ use of risk-based analysis for the evaluationof hydrology, hydraulics, and economics in flood damage reductionstudies. The study shall include -”(A) an evaluation of the impact of risk-based analysis onproject formulation, project economic justification, and minimumengineering and safety standards; and”(B) a review of studies conducted using risk-based analysis todetermine -”(i) the scientific validity of applying risk-based analysisin these studies; and”(ii) the impact of using risk-based analysis as it relatesto current policy and procedures of the Corps of Engineers.”(2) Report. – Not later than 18 months after the date of theenactment of this Act [Oct. 12, 1996], the Secretary shall submitto Congress a report on the results of the study under paragraph(1), as well as such recommendations as the Secretary considersappropriate.”(3) Limitation on use of methodology. – During the periodbeginning on the date of the enactment of this Act [Oct. 12, 1996]and ending 18 months after that date, if requested by a non-Federalinterest, the Secretary shall refrain from using any risk-basedtechnique required under the studies described in paragraph (1) forthe evaluation and design of a project.”(4) Authorization of appropriations. – There is authorized to beappropriated $250,000 to carry out this subsection.”",”33 U.S.C. no. 701b : US Code – Section 701B: Supervision of Secretary of the Army; reclamation projects unaffected
US Code – Subchapter XXXIII: San juan island national historical park Subchapter XXXIII
16 U.S.C. no. 669i : US Code – Section 669I: Rules and regulations Section 669I
The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to make rules andregulations for carrying out the provisions of this chapter.
(Sept. 2, 1937, ch. 899, Sec. 12, formerly Sec. 10, 50 Stat. 919;1939 Reorg. Plan No. II, Sec. 4(f), eff. July 1, 1939, 4 F.R. 2731,53 Stat. 1433; renumbered Sec. 12, Pub. L. 106-408, title I, Sec.112(1), Nov. 1, 2000, 114 Stat. 1766.)TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONSReorg. Plan No. II of 1939, set out in the Appendix to Title 5,Government Organization and Employees, transferred functions ofSecretary of Agriculture relating to conservation of wildlife,game, and migratory birds to Secretary of the Interior.
33 U.S.C. no. 702a-7 : US Code – Section 702A-7: Railroad and highway crossings over floodways
The United States shall construct, at its own cost, one railroadand one highway crossing over the Eudora Floodway and not to exceedthree railway and two highway crossings over the Morganza Floodway,and not to exceed one railway crossing (together with suitablephysical connections therewith) and one highway crossing over thefloodway west of the Atchafalaya River provided for in the modifiedproject: Provided, That equitable agreements can be made with therailroad and highway authorities concerned and that the appropriaterailroad or highway agencies agree to accept and maintain andoperate these crossings without cost to the United States: Providedfurther, That the railroads crossing the Morganza and WestAtchafalaya Floodways agree in consideration for the crossingsconstructed to waive all claims against the Government for anydamages that may occur by reason of overflows in the Morganza andWest Atchafalaya Floodways: And provided further, That otherrailway and highway damages shall be adjusted as provided for insection 702a-10 of this title.
(June 15, 1936, ch. 548, Sec. 7, 49 Stat. 1510.)
15 U.S.C. no. 1529 : US Code – Section 1529: Relinquishment of legislative jurisdiction over certain lands
15 U.S.C. no. 1529 : US Code – Section 1529: Relinquishment of legislative jurisdiction over certain lands Section 1529
Notwithstanding any other law, the Secretary of Commerce,whenever the Secretary considers it desirable, may relinquish to aState, or to a Commonwealth, territory, or possession of the UnitedStates, all or part of the legislative jurisdiction of the UnitedStates over lands or interests under the Secretary’s control inthat State, Commonwealth, territory, or possession. Relinquishmentof legislative jurisdiction under this section may be accomplished -(1) by filing with the Governor (or, if none exists, with thechief executive officer) of the State, Commonwealth, territory,or possession concerned a notice of relinquishment to take effectupon acceptance of the notice; or(2) as required by the laws of the State, Commonwealth,territory, or possession.
(Pub. L. 98-623, title IV, Sec. 406, Nov. 8, 1984, 98 Stat. 3409.)
15 U.S.C. no. 78dd-3 : US Code – Section 78DD-3: Prohibited foreign trade practices by persons other than issuers or domestic concerns
15 U.S.C. no. 78dd-3 : US Code – Section 78DD-3: Prohibited foreign trade practices by persons other than issuers or domestic concerns Section 78DD-3
(a) ProhibitionIt shall be unlawful for any person other than an issuer that issubject to section 78dd-1 of this title or a domestic concern (asdefined in section 78dd-2 of this title), or for any officer,director, employee, or agent of such person or any stockholderthereof acting on behalf of such person, while in the territory ofthe United States, corruptly to make use of the mails or any meansor instrumentality of interstate commerce or to do any other act infurtherance of an offer, payment, promise to pay, or authorizationof the payment of any money, or offer, gift, promise to give, orauthorization of the giving of anything of value to -(1) any foreign official for purposes of -(A)(i) influencing any act or decision of such foreignofficial in his official capacity, (ii) inducing such foreignofficial to do or omit to do any act in violation of the lawfulduty of such official, or (iii) securing any improperadvantage; or(B) inducing such foreign official to use his influence witha foreign government or instrumentality thereof to affect orinfluence any act or decision of such government orinstrumentality,in order to assist such person in obtaining or retaining businessfor or with, or directing business to, any person;(2) any foreign political party or official thereof or anycandidate for foreign political office for purposes of -(A)(i) influencing any act or decision of such party,official, or candidate in its or his official capacity, (ii)inducing such party, official, or candidate to do or omit to doan act in violation of the lawful duty of such party, official,or candidate, or (iii) securing any improper advantage; or(B) inducing such party, official, or candidate to use its orhis influence with a foreign government or instrumentalitythereof to affect or influence any act or decision of suchgovernment or instrumentality,in order to assist such person in obtaining or retaining businessfor or with, or directing business to, any person; or(3) any person, while knowing that all or a portion of suchmoney or thing of value will be offered, given, or promised,directly or indirectly, to any foreign official, to any foreignpolitical party or official thereof, or to any candidate forforeign political office, for purposes of -(A)(i) influencing any act or decision of such foreignofficial, political party, party official, or candidate in hisor its official capacity, (ii) inducing such foreign official,political party, party official, or candidate to do or omit todo any act in violation of the lawful duty of such foreignofficial, political party, party official, or candidate, or(iii) securing any improper advantage; or(B) inducing such foreign official, political party, partyofficial, or candidate to use his or its influence with aforeign government or instrumentality thereof to affect orinfluence any act or decision of such government orinstrumentality,in order to assist such person in obtaining or retaining businessfor or with, or directing business to, any person.(b) Exception for routine governmental actionSubsection (a) of this section shall not apply to anyfacilitating or expediting payment to a foreign official, politicalparty, or party official the purpose of which is to expedite or tosecure the performance of a routine governmental action by aforeign official, political party, or party official.(c) Affirmative defensesIt shall be an affirmative defense to actions under subsection(a) of this section that -(1) the payment, gift, offer, or promise of anything of valuethat was made, was lawful under the written laws and regulationsof the foreign official’s, political party’s, party official’s,or candidate’s country; or(2) the payment, gift, offer, or promise of anything of valuethat was made, was a reasonable and bona fide expenditure, suchas travel and lodging expenses, incurred by or on behalf of aforeign official, party, party official, or candidate and wasdirectly related to -(A) the promotion, demonstration, or explanation of productsor services; or(B) the execution or performance of a contract with a foreigngovernment or agency thereof.(d) Injunctive relief(1) When it appears to the Attorney General that any person towhich this section applies, or officer, director, employee, agent,or stockholder thereof, is engaged, or about to engage, in any actor practice constituting a violation of subsection (a) of thissection, the Attorney General may, in his discretion, bring a civilaction in an appropriate district court of the United States toenjoin such act or practice, and upon a proper showing, a permanentinjunction or a temporary restraining order shall be grantedwithout bond.(2) For the purpose of any civil investigation which, in theopinion of the Attorney General, is necessary and proper to enforcethis section, the Attorney General or his designee are empowered toadminister oaths and affirmations, subpoena witnesses, takeevidence, and require the production of any books, papers, or otherdocuments which the Attorney General deems relevant or material tosuch investigation. The attendance of witnesses and the productionof documentary evidence may be required from any place in theUnited States, or any territory, possession, or commonwealth of theUnited States, at any designated place of hearing.(3) In case of contumacy by, or refusal to obey a subpoena issuedto, any person, the Attorney General may invoke the aid of anycourt of the United States within the jurisdiction of which suchinvestigation or proceeding is carried on, or where such personresides or carries on business, in requiring the attendance andtestimony of witnesses and the production of books, papers, orother documents. Any such court may issue an order requiring suchperson to appear before the Attorney General or his designee, thereto produce records, if so ordered, or to give testimony touchingthe matter under investigation. Any failure to obey such order ofthe court may be punished by such court as a contempt thereof.(4) All process in any such case may be served in the judicialdistrict in which such person resides or may be found. The AttorneyGeneral may make such rules relating to civil investigations as maybe necessary or appropriate to implement the provisions of thissubsection.(e) Penalties(1)(A) Any juridical person that violates subsection (a) of thissection shall be fined not more than $2,000,000.(B) Any juridical person that violates subsection (a) of thissection shall be subject to a civil penalty of not more than$10,000 imposed in an action brought by the Attorney General.(2)(A) Any natural person who willfully violates subsection (a)of this section shall be fined not more than $100,000 or imprisonednot more than 5 years, or both.(B) Any natural person who violates subsection (a) of thissection shall be subject to a civil penalty of not more than$10,000 imposed in an action brought by the Attorney General.(3) Whenever a fine is imposed under paragraph (2) upon anyofficer, director, employee, agent, or stockholder of a person,such fine may not be paid, directly or indirectly, by such person.(f) DefinitionsFor purposes of this section:(1) The term “person”, when referring to an offender, means anynatural person other than a national of the United States (asdefined in section 1101 of title 8 (!1) or any corporation,partnership, association, joint-stock company, business trust,unincorporated organization, or sole proprietorship organizedunder the law of a foreign nation or a political subdivisionthereof.(2)(A) The term “foreign official” means any officer oremployee of a foreign government or any department, agency, orinstrumentality thereof, or of a public internationalorganization, or any person acting in an official capacity for oron behalf of any such government or department, agency, orinstrumentality, or for or on behalf of any such publicinternational organization.(B) For purposes of subparagraph (A), the term “publicinternational organization” means -(i) an organization that is designated by Executive orderpursuant to section 288 of title 22; or(ii) any other international organization that is designatedby the President by Executive order for the purposes of thissection, effective as of the date of publication of such orderin the Federal Register.(3)(A) A person’s state of mind is knowing, with respect toconduct, a circumstance or a result if -(i) such person is aware that such person is engaging in suchconduct, that such circumstance exists, or that such result issubstantially certain to occur; or(ii) such person has a firm belief that such circumstanceexists or that such result is substantially certain to occur.(B) When knowledge of the existence of a particularcircumstance is required for an offense, such knowledge isestablished if a person is aware of a high probability of theexistence of such circumstance, unless the person actuallybelieves that such circumstance does not exist.(4)(A) The term “routine governmental action” means only anaction which is ordinarily and commonly performed by a foreignofficial in -(i) obtaining permits, licenses, or other official documentsto qualify a person to do business in a foreign country;(ii) processing governmental papers, such as visas and workorders;(iii) providing police protection, mail pick-up and delivery,or scheduling inspections associated with contract performanceor inspections related to transit of goods across country;(iv) providing phone service, power and water supply, loadingand unloading cargo, or protecting perishable products orcommodities from deterioration; or(v) actions of a similar nature.(B) The term “routine governmental action” does not include anydecision by a foreign official whether, or on what terms, toaward new business to or to continue business with a particularparty, or any action taken by a foreign official involved in thedecision-making process to encourage a decision to award newbusiness to or continue business with a particular party.(5) The term “interstate commerce” means trade, commerce,transportation, or communication among the several States, orbetween any foreign country and any State or between any Stateand any place or ship outside thereof, and such term includes theintrastate use of -(A) a telephone or other interstate means of communication,or(B) any other interstate instrumentality.
(Pub. L. 95-213, title I, Sec. 104A, as added Pub. L. 105-366, Sec.4, Nov. 10, 1998, 112 Stat. 3306.)CODIFICATIONSection was enacted as part of Pub. L. 95-213, the ForeignCorrupt Practices Act of 1977, and not as part of act June 6, 1934,ch. 404, 48 Stat. 881, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, whichcomprises this chapter.(!1) So in original. A closing parenthesis probably should appear.
In Fiscal Year 2010, the U.S. Department of Justice recovered over $3.1 billion of America’s stolen money largely due to valiant whistleblowers and the federal False Claims Act, According to the Consumer Interest Group, Taxpayer’s Against Fraud.
Over 80 percent of all successful False Claims Act recoveries are brought to the government by whistleblowers and their lawyers, making the law the most important tool the U.S. Government has in the war against fraud
80 percent health:
Approximately 80 percent of all fraud recoveries under the False Claims Act occur in health care, but significant amounts of fraud are also found in defense, education, transportation, and the oil and gas industries.
28 State False Claims Acts:
In order to increase the amount of money coming back to them, and to initiate their own recoveries, 28 states and the District of Columbia have now passed their own versions of the federal False Claims Act.
A few significant qui tam cases for Fiscal Year 2010 include the following:
- Allergan - $600 M -($225 million to resolve civil allegations and a $375M criminal fine.) 9/1/2010 - Off-label marketing practices involving Botox
- AstraZeneca - $520 M- 4/27/2010 - Illegal marketing - anti-psychotic drug Seroquel
- Novartis Pharmaceuticals
$422.5 million ($237.5 M – Civil allegations and a $185 M criminal fine) 9/30/2010
Unapproved promotion of Trileptal
- Forest Laboratories - $313 M – ($149M -Civil claims, a $150M criminal fine, and $14 M forfeiture. 9/15/2010
Unlawful marketing - Levothroid and promoting Celexa and Lexapro for pediatric use
- Elan Corporation - $203.5 M - 7/15/2010 – improper marketing of Zonegran
- Teva Pharmaceuticals - $169 M - 7/26/2010 - Inflated prices reported to Medicaid
- WellCare Health Plans - $137.5 M- 8/9/2010 - Defrauded Medicare and Medicaid programs in several states
- Health Alliance of Greater Cincinnati and Christ Hospital - $108 M - 5/21/2010
Kickbacks to doctors in exchange for referring cardiac patients
Pepperdine School of Law alumnus Pierre Prosper (JD ’89) recently secured the freedom of a 71-year-old Iranian-American businessman who was unlawfully imprisoned in Iran for more than two years. Prosper, who has served as U.S. Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes Issues, negotiated with Iranian authorities for 14 months to secure the release of Reza Taghavi, a businessman from Orange County, California.
A patient recruiter for a Houston-based home health care company pleaded guilty to a $5.2 million Medicare fraud scheme.
Sammie Wilson, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit health care fraud. According to court documents, Family Healthcare Group (Family Group) was supposed to provide skilled nursing to Medicare beneficiaries. However, the owner hired Wilson and others to recruit Medicare beneficiaries for the purposes of filing false claims with Medicare.
Court documents show that Family Group used the Medicare beneficiary numbers to submit false claims to Medicare for skilled nursing. In return, Wilson was paid kickbacks for referring beneficiaries for services that she knew were not medically necessary and/or not rendered.
Fraud of any magnitude is not acceptable. Unfortunately, health care fraud, involving Medicare is too common. Concerned citizens with information pertaining to Medicare fraud, should report the fraud immediately. According to the recent numbers, more whistleblowers are stepping forward in reporting fraud.
In a qui tam claim, a whistleblower may be entitled to 15 - 30 percent- of what the government recovers which includes damages for the false bills, tripled, plus civil penalties of from $5,000 to $10,000 per false claim.
Click on the following link to read more from the DOJ on the Houston-area Patient Recruiter Pleads Guilty in a $5.2 Million Medicare Fraud Scheme
US Code – Subchapter VIII: Kings canyon national park Subchapter VIII
12 U.S.C. no. 5015 : US Code – Section 5015: Study and report on funds availability Section 5015
(a) StudyIn order to evaluate the implementation and the impact of thischapter, the Board shall conduct a study of -(1) the percentage of total checks cleared in which the papercheck is not returned to the paying bank;(2) the extent to which banks make funds available to consumersfor local and nonlocal checks prior to the expiration of maximumhold periods;(3) the length of time within which depositary banks learn ofthe nonpayment of local and nonlocal checks;(4) the increase or decrease in check-related losses over thestudy period; and(5) the appropriateness of the time periods and amount limitsapplicable under sections 4002 and 4003 of this title, as ineffect on October 28, 2003.(b) Report to CongressBefore the end of the 30-month period beginning on the effectivedate of this chapter, the Board shall submit a report to theCongress containing the results of the study conducted under thissection, together with recommendations for legislative action.
(Pub. L. 108-100, Sec. 16, Oct. 28, 2003, 117 Stat. 1190.)REFERENCES IN TEXTThis chapter, referred to in subsec. (a), was in the original”this Act”, meaning Pub. L. 108-100, Oct. 28, 2003, 117 Stat. 1177,which is classified generally to this chapter. For completeclassification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note setout under section 5001 of this title and Tables.The effective date of this chapter, referred to in subsec. (b),is at the end of the 12-month period beginning on Oct. 28, 2003,except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter, seesection 20 of Pub. L. 108-100, set out as an Effective Date noteunder section 5001 of this title.
15 U.S.C. no. 6307a : US Code – Section 6307A: Contract requirements Section 6307A
Within 2 years after May 26, 2000, the Association of BoxingCommissions (ABC) shall develop and shall approve by a vote of noless than a majority of its member State boxing commissioners,guidelines for minimum contractual provisions that should beincluded in bout agreements and boxing contracts. It is the senseof the Congress that State boxing commissions should follow theseABC guidelines.
(Pub. L. 104-272, Sec. 9, as added Pub. L. 106-210, Sec. 4(2), May26, 2000, 114 Stat. 322.)PRIOR PROVISIONSA prior section 9 of Pub. L. 104-272 was renumbered section 17and is classified to section 6308 of this title.
JUDICIARY IN DEPTH Sentencing Commission Hearings Continue Debate on Guidelines
Less than a month after officially going live, SNR Denton has landed a key role advising $6 billion Brazilian hedge fund Gavea Investimentos on the sale of a controlling stake to Highbridge Capital Management, the global alternative asset manager owned by JPMorgan Chase. The newly combined 1,400-lawyer firm won the lead role advising Gavea and its founder, Arminio Fraga. JPMorgan turned to longtime outside counsel Cahill Gordon & Reindel for legal advice on the acquisition of a 55 percent stake in Gavea.
Agencies and hirers need to be ready for new Agency Workers Regulations which come into force on 1 October 2011
Moving company’s suit against a school district for unjust enrichment barred
Wayne Moving & Storage of New Jersey, Inc. v. Sch. Dist. of Philadelphia, 09-3890, concerned a challenge to the district court’s grant of plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and an award of $830,071.18 plus interest, in plaintiff’s suit against a school district under a theory of unjust enrichment for unpaid moving services.
In reversing the judgment, the court remanded the matter as, plaintiff’s claim of unjust enrichment is barred by Section 508 of the Pennsylvania Public School Code, which applies to “contracts of any kind,” including those contracts implied by courts in unjust enrichment claims, and here, because the acts of the school district not in compliance with the provisions of Section 508 are rendered “void and unenforceable,” the school district cannot be bound under an implied contract of unjust enrichment. The court also held that the school district is not equitably estopped from relying on Section 508.
- Read the Third Circuit’s Full Decision in Wayne Moving & Storage of New Jersey, Inc. v. Sch. Dist. of Philadelphia, 09-3890
THE Chinese authorities’ condemnation of the Nobel committee’s selection of Liu Xiaobo, the jailed political activist, as the winner of the 2010 Peace Prize inadvertently illustrates why human rights are worth defending.
The authorities assert that no one has the right to interfere in China’s internal affairs. But they are wrong: international human rights law and standards are above the nation-state, and the world community has a duty to ensure they are respected.
The modern state system evolved from the idea of national sovereignty established by the Peace of Westphalia in 1648. At the time, sovereignty was assumed to be embodied in an autocratic ruler.
But ideas about sovereignty have changed over time. The American Declaration of Independence and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen replaced the control of the autocrat with the sovereignty of the people as the source of national power and legitimacy.
The idea of sovereignty changed again during the last century, as the world moved from nationalism to internationalism. The United Nations, founded in the wake of two disastrous world wars, committed member states to resolve disputes by peaceful means and defined the fundamental rights of all people in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The nation-state, the declaration said, would no longer have ultimate, unlimited power.
Today, universal human rights provide a check on arbitrary majorities around the world, whether they are democracies or not. A majority in a parliament cannot decide to harm the rights of a minority, nor vote for laws that undermine human rights. And even though China is not a constitutional democracy, it is a member of the United Nations, and it has amended its Constitution to comply with the Declaration of Human Rights.
However, Mr. Liu’s imprisonment is clear proof that China’s criminal law is not in line with its Constitution. He was convicted of “spreading rumors or slander or any other means to subvert the state power or overthrow the socialist system.” But in a world community based on universal human rights, it is not a government’s task to stamp out opinions and rumors. Governments are obliged to ensure the right to free expression — even if the speaker advocates a different social system.
These are rights that the Nobel committee has long upheld by honoring those who struggle to protect them with the Peace Prize, including Andrei Sakharov for his struggle against human rights abuses in the Soviet Union, and the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. for his fight for civil rights in the United States.
Not surprisingly, the Chinese government has harshly criticized the award, claiming that the Nobel committee unlawfully interfered with its internal affairs and humiliated it in the eyes of the international public. On the contrary, China should be proud that it has become powerful enough to be the subject of debate and criticism.
Interestingly, the Chinese government is not the only one to criticize the Nobel committee. Some people have said that giving the prize to Mr. Liu may actually worsen conditions for human-rights advocates in China.
But this argument is illogical: it leads to the conclusion that we best promote human rights by keeping quiet. If we keep quiet about China, who will be the next country to claim its right to silence and non-interference? This approach would put us on a path toward undermining the Universal Declaration and the basic tenets of human rights. We must not and cannot keep quiet. No country has a right to ignore its international obligations.
China has every reason to be proud of what it has achieved in the last 20 years. We want to see that progress continue, and that is why we awarded the Peace Prize to Mr. Liu. If China is to advance in harmony with other countries and become a key partner in upholding the values of the world community, it must first grant freedom of expression to all its citizens.
It is a tragedy that a man is being imprisoned for 11 years merely because he expressed his opinion. If we are to move toward the fraternity of nations of which Alfred Nobel spoke, then universal human rights must be our touchstone. Thorbjorn Jagland, Why We Gave Liu Xiaobo a Nobel, New York Times, Oct. 23, 2010.
For China nothing could be more alien. China did not participate in the construction or elaboration of this system. It has not been a major participant in the development of its sensibilities. and its culture. Chinese elites have not had the luxury of full membership in the Family of Nations for many centuries, nor has the current government been generally recognized as the legitimate organ of the state until very recently. Many of the current leadership, including tastemakers, academics and others, are the children of those who remember efforts to dismember China for the benefit of others. All of this was done quite lawfully (loosely understood in the context of international law, perhaps better understood as legitimately) using the very framework of international law that the Nobel Committee now deploys. It is true enough that the Nobel Committee references international law and international norm frameworks revolutionized by the development and institutionalization of post 1945 international institutions. But that is a subtle distinction to make where the effects of the application of international law feel like those of an earlier era.
For many years after market reform started in the early 1980s, the people and government of the People’s Republic waited impatiently for their first Nobel Prize to glorify their scientific and literary advancements. But the Nobel they wanted never came, and the Nobel Prize that came is not wanted – at least, not by the government. Twenty-one years after the Dalai Lama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, the Norwegian Nobel Committee announced this month that Liu Xiaobo was this year’s winner. Beijing officials reacted in a familiar and angry manner, denouncing the decision as a desecration of the Nobel spirit and putting human rights activists and China’s cyberspace under even tighter surveillance.
. . . . .
A remarkable man, Liu indisputably deserves the prize for his ceaseless struggle. for nonviolent democratic reform over the past two decades. His winning of the prize adds pressure on Beijing to stop its human rights violations. While I believe the combination of domestic and international pressure will eventually result in more political openness and respect for basic human rights, the democratic future of the People’s Republic resides in its people alone: they will have to want democracy, believe in democracy and act to advance democracy. Towards this goal, democracy advocates like Liu play an indispensable role by providing an impelling and practical vision of how a democratic polity will not impede, but advance, prosperity and stability in China. Critically, however, they must also demonstrate their patriotic bona fides, which naturally extend to some fundamental concerns about national sovereignty and territorial integrity with regard to Tibet and Taiwan.In today’s China, having foreign associations can create doubts about a person’s devotion to his or her country – a fact I am acutely aware of after being asked many times by my friends and family to reaffirm my loyalties. Such suspicion stems from the nation’s painful experience with Western and Japanese imperialism, which is frequently played up by the regime to shore up its legitimacy. True, the Communist Party itself relied heavily on Soviet assistance for decades, but their path to power is also stained with blood and violence. However, today’s democracy advocates, having no other choice but to resort to persuasion and activism, cannot ignore the charge that they are more beholden to their international supporters than to their own people.In this age of global connectedness, who is free of foreign influence? . . . . The notion of zhong ti xi yong (Chinese learning as the essence and Western learning for its usefulness) was popularised in the late 19th century, yet when it is promoted or sponsored by foreign organisations or governments, it takes on a different meaning and can have dangerous implications for those who advance it.Liu has been accused by the government and even some prodemocracy intellectuals of championing wholesale Westernisation in 1988 and refusing to back down from it. His alleged support for the Iraq war under the George W. Bush administration sent out another wrong message that, if amplified and extrapolated, might weaken the cause of democracy in the eyes of ordinary Chinese people.
Exiled, jailed or under vigilant watch by the government, many Chinese activists are forced to look overseas for information, platforms, funds and other resources. This dilemma adds to the difficulties of performing a balancing act between short term needs and a long-term perspective. . . . .
There is a lesson here for foreign governments and international organisations as well. The road to China’s democratisation promises to be tortuous and long, and their continued support is important in encouraging democracy loving Chinese. But such support should be strictly limited to the moral and diplomatic levels, or take shape – through official channels – in specific programmes or projects aimed at enhancing good governance, rights protection, judicial reform, and so forth. The Norwegian Nobel Committee may have done the right thing in putting the awful state of human rights in China under an international spotlight, but ultimately the prize will best serve its purpose if left unclaimed. Xiangfeng Yang, The Bigger Prize, South China Morning Post, Oct. 28, 2010.
The reaction to and defense of the Nobel award, like two rhetorical ships passing in the night, suggest some of the difficulties of communication across a vast cultural and historical divide, the bridging of which will require forbearance and sensitivity on both sides if both sides mean to interact in meaningful ways. And it suggests the continuing contests for control of the basic normative structure for the emerging world order. Values matter, and the stakes are high, indeed. See, e.g., Larry Catá Backer, God(s) Over Constitutions: International and Religious Transnational Constitutionalism in the 21st Century. Mississippi Law Review, Vol. 27, 2008. It is easy to understand the politics of both the decision to award the prize to Mr. Liu and the criticism of that decision. It is more useful to understand the greater stakes involved, not just in China, but for the development of a consensus view of the organization of global society. From that perspective, the expected rhetorical positions of the parties take on greater meaning.
Women, the poor and racial minorities face an excess of obstacles in their pursuit of education, according to a panel on human rights and education that met at the Law School.
77 million. That’s a big number. That’s the number of Shoeboxes that Operation Christmas Child (OCC) has distributed to children around the world since 1993. Some people may see that number and think that their one additional shoebox will not make a difference. This week’s Chapel speaker, Neal Johnson, could not disagree more.
Johnson, the Hampton Roads area coordinator for OCC, has been packing boxes with his family for over 16 years. Each box is designated to a boy or girl of a certain age and filled with everything from stuffed animals to toothbrushes, and coloring books to clothes. While he gained much joy from the experience, the boxes would always go to some nameless, faceless child on the other side of the world. Then, two years ago, he took a trip to Lima, Peru, to help distribute the boxes in person. This changed everything. After praying that God would show him which child was to receive his box he met a young boy named Harold. “That’s Harold,” said Johnson, pointing to a picture of the boy displayed on the screen, “that’s the face of my ministry.”
Johnson has learned that even though Jesus was always surrounded by a crowd of people, He never failed to focus on the one person in need. So now, instead of seeing a countless mass of needy children, he sees the individual child who needs Jesus’s love.
“Every year when I give a box or boxes, it is for all the Harold’s of the world.”
The Moot Court Board, who sponsored the service, will be collecting Shoeboxes from Nov. 1st-15th. For information on how you can be a part of this life changing opportunity contact the Moot Court Board or visit the Operation Christmas Child website.
New York landmarks: rightfully famous, visited, beloved. However, there is one freshly minted “landmark” in NYC that may never challenge Lady Liberty or even the Naked Cowboy for iconic status, except in the hearts of three underage city dwellers. They…
Continue reading this article, and get more legal news with an attitude, at FindLaw.com.