Justice for all

Hey there! Thanks for checking out my blog. If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed to receive updates. Thanks for visiting!

(Note: This is a post I wrote a week ago, so it’s a bit outdated - but still very relevant!)

For the first time ever, the United States will be participating in the universal periodic review (UPR) process of the U.N. Human Rights Council. This council of 47 members was established in March 2006 to replace the U.N. Commission on Human Rights, but includes as members countries such as China, Egypt, Zambia, Cameroon and Cuba, all of which have track records of human rights violations.

Moreover, there have been concerns that the council has condemned Israel’s human rights violations while overlooking some of the human rights violations committed by Middle Eastern countries. The council’s seemingly biased consideration of human rights violations around the globe has destroyed its credibility as an international organization working to enforce human rights.

While President Bush’s administration had refused to join the Human Rights Council due to these concerns, President Obama reversed this decision as part of his effort to improve the U.S.’ relations with the international community.

By participating in the review process, the U.S. will be allowing the 47 members of the Human Rights Council to judge its human rights record. All U.N. member countries are required to go through the UPR process every four years. The Obama administration will submit a 20-page report to the UPR working group, which will choose three member nations at random to review the report.

Supporters of the process have stated that by receiving a good review, the U.S. may have the opportunity to present a stronger front against human rights abusers. The Obama administration has felt that by providing a positive example, the U.S. could improve the work of the human rights council as a whole.

But critics say that by participating, the U.S. will allow human rights violators to judge its record and use the findings to justify their own atrocities. The U.S. may receive unwarranted criticism from countries that seek to condemn the U.S. and its rights record, and that have perpetrated atrocities themselves. By agreeing to the UPR process, the U.S. is essentially granting credibility to an institution that may not be worthy of it.

By submitting itself to the UPR process, will the U.S. reinforce its position as an advocate of human rights, or will it be strongly criticized by other countries with even worse records? From torture at Guantanamo Bay to immigrant detention centers, the U.S. certainly has its fair share of human rights violations; its record is not unblemished. Yet, the Obama administration may not gain much if subject to unwarranted criticisms from countries like China and Egypt. The U.N. Human Rights Council is not likely to improve its discriminatory performance simply through the participation of the U.S. – reform seems to be more likely through sustained advocacy and pressure than through engagement. Only time will tell whether President Obama’s new approach of cooperation will have a transformative effect – or a lackluster one.

I know I haven’t done Feature Friday in a really long time, but I’m planning to start again; there are so many amazing organizations and people I keep running across that I’d really like to highlight. This week, I’m going to be talking about Youth Represent.

According to the website, Youth Represent’s mission is: to ensure that young people affected by the criminal justice system are afforded every opportunity to reclaim lives of dignity, self-fulfillment, and engagement in their communities. They focus on youth aged 24 and under in New York City.

What is especially unique about Youth Represent is that they have a holistic, client-centered model of legal representation and advocacy. Not only do they provide criminal defense services for youth, but they also provide civil services that address other legal issues and needs that a young person may encounter due to their involvement in the criminal justice system. Because they define youth by age, they can represent young people both in the family and adult criminal justice systems.

Because of this unique model, Youth Represent is able to provide criminal defense but also assistance in areas like housing, education, and employment - which are often affected by a young person’s criminal accusations. Young people involved in the justice system might be denied employment or public housing, face eviction, or even suspended from school as a result. Youth Represent assigns only one attorney to each client; this attorney is able to provide enhanced representation because they address all problems, civil and criminal, that the young person faces. This is especially vital because such representation generally requires two different lawyers, and “the broad knowledge each attorney gains about their client during a criminal case enables them to be more effective advocates in other areas when a client’s criminal record is an issue and facilitates an ongoing relationship with their young clients to ensure they receive the support they need.”

Youth Represent seems to be a relatively small organization with only two staff members, but I can only hope that with this innovative methodology, they are able to expand and provide juveniles in New York with improved legal counsel. The founder, Laurie Parise, was awarded an Echoing Green fellowship in 2006 to start Youth Represent; she is also an Equal Justice Works Fellow.

We need more smart lawyers who are committed to social change, and particularly who are thinking of innovative ways to reduce the access to justice gap in criminal and civil legal services, so I’m always incredibly happy to see amazing new initiatives like this one!

As an undergraduate student thinking of going to law school to become a public interest/civil rights/human rights lawyer, I’ve been talking to a lot of attorneys in the recent months. Informational interviews galore. I literally scoured the Northwestern University alumni database and searched for attorneys, both in the corporate and public interest area. I then sent them emails asking if they were willing to chat, and most of them responded immediately and were more than happy to speak about their career paths. I highly recommend conducting as many informational interviews as possible - it gives you an excellent understanding of the field you’re getting into, and what types of career paths people follow.

It was no surprise that corporate lawyers didn’t seem to love their work. Those I spoke with seemed okay with their life, and generally resigned to it. They spoke about the great benefits, salaries, and cushy lifestyle - but none of them actually seemed enthusiastic about whatever they were doing. As I said, this is not surprising.

But what particularly interested me was when I spoke to public interest attorneys, they were highly fulfilled by their work, but they generally told me straight off the bat - “If you want to do public interest work, don’t even start working at a corporate law firm. Just start doing the work you want to ultimately be doing. Period.” I always wanted to find out whether corporate law experience can be helpful in other areas of the law, but apparently, it’s really not.

This is interesting to me because in the field of finance and consulting, for example, private sector experience seems to be valued even in the non-profit world. Organizations like Acumen Fund, various social enterprises, microfinance institutions, and international development organizations all highly value private sector experience. This seems to be the case because business practices can be really useful when it comes to management of non-profits, or even in areas such as marketing, operations, logistics, and so on. Social enterprises also really draw on business practices, so having private sector experience can be valuable in this arena. And of course, work in the financial services field can be parlayed to some extend to work in the microfinance arena.

However, I always thought the same thing about law. I had imagined that working in corporate law would give you a very strong legal training, because firms have so much money to train you well. I thought that working in such a fast-paced environment and getting exposure to corporate law work would equip you with some basic skills that would make you a better attorney. Apparently, though, that’s not at all the case. In the public interest legal field, it’s better to jump into public interest work from the get-go. Start interning, volunteering, taking classes in, and doing clinics in the area of public interest law you’re interested in - whether it’s provision of legal services to the poor, immigration and refugee law, criminal defense work, or international human rights law. Private sector experience is useless, and often it makes you less desirable because public interest employers will think you’re not committed to the sector. On the other hand, it’s possible to transition into the corporate law sector even if you started out in the public interest sector.

I didn’t know any of this before I spoke to people, and it’s definitely shaped my thinking. I always thought it would be fine to go work at a firm for a couple of years, pay off my loans, and then devote my time to public interest work. But, apparently, that’s not the best route to take, as the training provided by big law firms may take the form of an organized program — but it does not allow young associates to gain the level of responsibility that many public interest employers generally provide. Moreover, the skills developed in the corporate law arena (e.g. mergers and acquisitions, securities) aren’t necessarily transferable to the public interest area you might be most interested in.

A word of caution to other aspiring public interest lawyers, from a helpful guide from Yale Law School (I recommend anyone interested in this area of work to read this guide!):

If I work at law firms after I graduate, can I make a switch later to public interest work?

It is possible, but several facts conspire against you. First, you grow accustomed to the money. Just as you cannot imagine making $160,000 a year now, after you’ve made it for a few years you will not be able to imagine making $50,000. You will have expenses that seem necessary. Family and friends will tell you that you are insane. You’ll wonder if it’s fair to the spouse and kids (who, by the way, have been hanging out with other folks who made $160,000 to $2 million). Second, you will then have an uphill battle in actually getting a public interest job. Your resume does not demonstrate commitment to public interest; your experience from a corporate law firm may not demonstrate the needed skills or knowledge. Quite frankly, everyone is a little suspicious about whether you are serious about the cause and if you’ll stay. These can all be overcome by making sure you do lots of pro bono work during private practice, maintain
and cultivate contacts in the public interest community, and continue to live a simple life…but most people working in private practice find it difficult to do these things.

So, the lesson is: do the work you’re interested in now, not later. Don’t postpone it. You’ll get stuck in a life you aren’t passionate about, and you’ll never be able to accomplish your big dreams if you give them up for a high salary and cushy job. In some fields, it might be possible to get your private sector experience AND become a leader in a public interest organization. You might still be able to rise in prominence and affect people’s lives. But if you want to be an attorney, this isn’t the best way to go. So suck it up, get on a loan repayment program, and don’t postpone your dreams. Start living them now; otherwise, it may not even be possible.

I’m a graduating senior. June 2010. Those words hang ominously in the air, haunting me, frightening me, and at the same time, exhilarating me. Thankfully, I’ve managed to secure some exciting opportunities for post-graduation despite the lackluster economy, and I’m grateful to the universe for that. Yet, I’m finding - for the first time - the need to balance idealism and realism.

It’s difficult. I’m young, so I want to head off to Africa and pursue my lofty idealism, putting it into action somehow. But the realities are that I want to gain practical experience in litigation - which is where I’d like to end up after some time. The realities are that I have to study for the LSAT, because I want to be a lawyer. The realities are that going abroad for a long time now might not be the most practical option.

But just because something is a “reality” doesn’t mean it’s not exciting and full of passion. It is!

The field of “development” is extremely broad. You can work on education, health, microfinance, or human rights. But I can’t do all that. After taking a class this quarter on aid and development, I realize that most development projects don’t actually succeed. It’s muted my idealism quite a bit. Even if I do go abroad, most likely my work there wouldn’t leave behind much of an impact. I’d learn and gain a cross-cultural understanding, sure, but is that enough?

That’s why I’m choosing something more specific - human rights law. Law is still viewed as a monstrous creation, particularly in western countries where we are constantly drowning in the threat of lawsuits. Indeed, this dark cloud has prevented so many from living their lives. But I want my career to show that law can be transformative, positive, and empowering. That lawyers aren’t all greedy, but that the law can be used to advance social justice and truly help communities solve their problems. That the law can empower women to seek redress for gender based violence - and that it allows them to speak out where they would have been silent before. I want to use the law to bring justice to communities affected by torture, rights violations, environmental abuses, and discrimination. In particular, I want to focus on legal systems of developing countries - which are often in dire need of reform and capacity-building.

The good thing about being a senior is that it really forces you to distill. I have had to look at my diverse range of interests and really draw out what I ultimately want to do. The days are running out - and I have to make a decision. Through this process, I’ve found the idea of a career in impact litigation of some sort followed by broader reform of legal systems to be highly compelling. And far more so than “development” work, in which you can never be sure of success. It seems more fulfilling to look a client in the eye and say “We’ve done it!” than almost anything else. And after years of working on abstract things like communications or research, I want that badly. I want to work with individuals, hear their stories, and work on their cases. Change - but incremental, concrete, tangible change.

But there are more realities. The reality is that this field of human rights law - particularly justice reform and access to justice issues - does not have any clear career path, per se. The reality is that I’ll have to make it up as I go along. And maybe I’ll fail or falter. But perhaps, also, this reality will be the most fulfilling one.

(A quick note: Starting now, I’m challenging myself to write something every day that isn’t related to my thesis or my internship. This could be a blog post here, a blog post for another online outlet, a poem, or a personal journal entry. Regardless of what it is, I want to get back into writing! That also means that you’ll be seeing more posts here!

Another note: I’m sorry if this post is extremely cryptic. I’ll let you know what I’m up to as soon as I make a decision!)

The LRA - from the Enough Project

While the deadly Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) may have left Uganda for good, the notorious rebel army hasn’t stopped wreaking havoc in the region. Ugandan President Museveni recently said at a press conference in Kampala that Joseph Kony, leader of the LRA, may now be in southern Darfur. Kony has been fleeing ever since he refused to sign a peace deal with Kampala. About a month ago, after he was forced out of the DRC, he fled to the Central African Republic. And now, he’s in Darfur.

Part of the problem, certainly, is the ICC arrest warrant for Kony and other top LRA commanders. Many now believe that one of the reasons Kony hasn’t yet signed a peace treaty with Kampala is because he’s attempting to evade the ICC arrest warrant. Moreover, Kony is refusing to agree to a peace deal because he hopes the ICC will drop his warrant. However, there really is no evidence that the ICC is obstructing peace in the country, despite a strong debate over the issue. Kony has long avoided peace agreements - he is likely simply using the ICC as an excuse to continue doing what he originally intended to do. There is no evidence, really, that Kony wants peace.

Another complication is that the LRA may be receiving assistance and support from Khartoum; the LRA has received such support in the past, and the Sudanese government clearly has a track record of using militia groups to cause chaos and target civilian populations. It’s certainly possible, but there is no concrete evidence as of yet that this is taking place.

Now, it seems that both al-Bashir and Kony, who are both wanted by the ICC, have joined together. What could this mean? Quite simply: further chaos, instability, and perhaps even violence. Darfur doesn’t need any further instability, especially with the upcoming elections and referendum.

The Obama administration needs to devise a strong response to this negative development. The reality is that today in central Africa, all the conflicts are inextricably linked. This recent news is testament to the trend of the regionalization of conflict. Rwanda, Sudan, the DRC, and the CAR are all involved in the regional conflict today. When rebel leaders and perpetrators of mass atrocity in one region are allowed to go free, the problem burgeons into a regional conflict with more and more actors involved. Perpetrators will increasingly begin to band together in the face of common threats, resulting in continued insecurity throughout the region. That’s why institutions like the ICC are so important in stopping these deadly regional conflicts. But the ICC lacks any enforcement power, and so countries like the US have to step in to help the ICC enforce its arrest warrants.

If this increasingly interconnected regional conflict continues to be ignored, peace may not be a possibility for the Great Lakes region.