Apply to the Undergraduate Law Review - Testimonials from Last Year’s ULR Team

My name is Zoe Goldstein, and I am the Director of the Undergraduate Law Review for the 2016-2017 school year. I have been a writer for the law review since my freshman year, added the job of editor my sophomore year, and served as one of three Editors-in-Chief during my junior year. Now, as a senior, I am absolutely thrilled to give back to this organization that has truly given me more experience in law than I ever could have imagined as an undergraduate. The Undergraduate Law Review has brought me so many wonderful opportunities, from publications to internships, and I am looking forward to sharing these experiences with a new group of talented writers and editors this coming year.

The George Washington University Undergraduate Law Review (ULR) is a prestigious student-run publication that offers undergraduates the unique chance to research, write, and edit a law review article on a legal topic of their choosing. The year-long process involves many stages of topic investigation, legal research, draft writing, and editing, and our editors and writers will even learn the Legal Bluebook citation method (something typically not taught until law school). The articles that the ULR produces have been regarded by many professors, attorneys, and others in the legal profession as law school-level quality, which is something we take the utmost pride in. Please take a look at the profiles below of last years' writers, who were one of the most talented groups the ULR has seen yet. 

I want to give a big thank-you to the GW Justice Journal for featuring us, since the application for this year's law review is coming out this Friday, July 1! A link to the application is below. For more information, please visit http://www.gwplsa.com/undergraduate-law-review, where you will also find downloadable PDFs of every ULR that has been published since the organization's founding in 2009. If you have any questions or concerns at all, please feel free to email us at thegwulr@gmail.com. We look forward to reviewing your application!

2016-2017 ULR Application

Deadline: September 22, 2016 at 11:59 PM. 

Meet Some of Our ULR 2015-2016 Writers:

Emily Horak

Year: Class of 2018

Hometown: Santa Clarita, California 

Major: Political Science and a minor in Women’s Studies

Emily's Article: Child Sex Trafficking

My ULR article is about child sex trafficking in the United States and the legislative downfalls that have caused the industry to thrive in America. By understanding both federal and state legislation, I shed light on the strengths and weaknesses of the law and propose some solutions to help eradicate this modern form of slavery. 

Working on a ULR article has been an incredibly rewarding process. Incessantly editing, and even getting suggestions from professional editors, has undoubtedly made me a significantly better writer. Everyone on the ULR team wants to craft the best product possible, and that is something I feel like all writers and editors work toward as a common goal throughout the process.

                          

Brett Z. Mittler

Year: Class of 2017

Hometown: Bellmore, New York

Major: Information Systems and Event Management, Pre-Law

Brett's Article: Unions: (Review of Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association - Union Case Before Supreme Court AND Starkest Illustration of The Death of Scalia)

Unions often collectively bargain on everyones’ behalf, but hat does not necessarily mean it is the right thing to do. Friedrichs v. California Teachers Assoication, takes a look at whether the rights of those who are not part of a union are violated when they collectively bargain for certain rights. 

For me, the most rewarding part of the writing process is that you can choose a topic you are passionate about. Using the GW Justice Journal (GWJJ) as a platform, you can have you ideas heard. The GWJJ gives you a chance to have a working relationship with the editors and improve your writing skills in the process. 

Nicole Grajewski
Year: Class of 2016
Hometown: Los Angeles, California
Major: International Affairs (Security Policy) and Middle Eastern Studies
Nicole's Article: Russian territorial claims in the Arctic
For my third and final article for the ULR, I undertook a topic far more nuanced, technical, and complex than my prior years as a writer. My article examined the process by which Russia and the littoral Arctic states could lay claim to Arctic territory through the delimitation of maritime boundaries and the establishment of an extended continental shelf. This required a firm understanding of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Seas (UNCLOS) and the role that bathymetric and geological data play in determining the viability of a coastal state’s claim exclusive rights to the resources of the seabed beyond 200nm from its coastal baseline. The most rewarding aspect of the article was completing it.

Jennifer Weinber

Year: Class of 2016

Hometown: Bridgewater, New Jersey

Major: Political Communication

Jennifer's Article: The Constitutionality of “Ag-gag” legislation

My article was a really challenging but rewarding one to write. Growing up in central New Jersey on a small beef cattle farm, I’ve always had a real appreciation for animals and livestock due to my experiences raising them. Upon coming to GW to study law and politics, it became clear to me that my experiences back home on the farm wouldn’t end there as animal activist groups use increasingly aggressive PR campaigns to attack and ultimately try to end animal agriculture by attaching various legal arguments to their claims. To dispute all of these surrounding undercover videos and to be among the only legal writings to uphold the constitutionality of laws protecting rights to farmers in my article required extensive legal research and analysis.

While this was challenging, and at moments likely made my editors want to rip their hair out, it was so rewarding in the end being able to accomplish a piece of legal writing before heading to law school that reflects knowledge about such an important issue regarding agriculture and the law.

Kylila Tucker

Year: Class of 2018

Hometown: Signal Mountain, Tennessee

Major: International Affairs

Kylila's Article: Determining the Legal Permissibility of NFL Player Punishment: Has the NFL Commissioner Outkicked his Coverage?

My article argues that player suspensions delineated by the National Football League's Player Conduct Policy are legally permissible in accordance with antitrust and labor law. However, I further assert that the Policy should be reformed to establish uniform punishments in an effort to promote deterrence and bolster the public image of the NFL. An analysis of the structure of the league in consideration of the single-entity test, proper rule of reason, and ancillary restraints serves as evidence for this claim. 

The opportunity to refine and perfect my work over a year-long period of time was one of the most rewarding aspects of writing for the ULR.  All of the articles improve with each round of drafts, and by the end everyone can truly be proud of his or her work.

Peter Borland

Year: Exchange student from University of Edinburgh, Class of 2017

Hometown: Born in Glasgow and Raised in Edinburgh  

Major: Political Science

Peter's Article: The Legal Implications of Brexit: A Study of Employment Law

My topic examined the legal implications of Britain leaving the European Union, by focusing on British employment law. 

It was rewarding writing in detail about a possible upcoming political and legal scenario that is a topic of much popular debate. I also enjoyed writing about a political issue I feel strongly about, from an objective legal standpoint. I really appreciated the input of my editors, who helped streamline my writing and make my whole article more concise.

Minority Rights: The Fight for Democracy in Nepal

(credit: Reuters)

By Judy Chen

Protestors from the Federal Alliance of Minority Parties of Nepal are demanding for their voices to be heard in the capital, Kathmandu, through large-scale protest that has begun to interfere with the city's Kathmandu’s business operations. The demonstrators are objecting to changes made in the new Constitution seen as the “final part of a peace deal between the government and Maoist rebels which ended a decade-long rebellion in 2006.” Unfortunately, more chaos has been instigated despite the attempt of the new Constitution to bring peace. What components of the new Constitution propelled ethnic minorities in Nepal to take the quest for democracy to the streets?

Evolution of Nepal’s Political System

The Nepali government abolished its constitutional monarchy on May 28, 2008, two years after a civil war waged by the Maoist rebels. After winning elections to the First Constituent Assembly, the Maoists transformed the country into a Republic. Since then, the Legislative Parliament of Nepal, whose main responsibility is drafting the Constitution, has faced numerous challenges caused by the disagreements among the biggest political parties in Nepal: Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist-Leninist) (CPN UML) and the Nepali Congress. The failure of these three major parties to reach a consensus on the appointment of the army chief was the main reason for the political turmoil that had stalled the solutions of other pressing issues in Nepal, such as rising inflation and poverty. The First Constituent Assembly was unable to promulgate the Constitution due to the significant contention between the three parties, leaving Nepal with a political vacuum for four years. The Second Constituent Assembly was elected in 2013 to finish drafting the new Constitution, which came before the public in September 2015. The new Constitution turned the unitary state system, symbolized by a highly centralized government, into a federal Republic. It divides Nepal into seven federal states, establishes a bicameral parliamentary system, recognizes women’s ancestral rights, and claims to protect rights of gender and ethnic minorities by giving them easier access to citizenship. Pressured by the social and economic instability after the devastating 2015 earthquake, the Maoist Party and the traditional parties of Nepal expedited the passage of the new Constitution, failing to thoroughly address the interests of the protesting minority groups in the south.

The Protesting Parties

The massive demonstrations on the street of Kathmandu tell us that the goals of the new Constitution are far from being achieved, especially those regarding minority protection and representation. The Madhesi and Tharu groups of the southern Tarai plains had been spearheading the protests since the passage of the new Constitution last September on the ground that it doesn’t properly address minority rights. The two groups refuse to allow their already narrow strips of territory to be divided into more than two federal states, ruled by hill-origin, Nepali-speaking, upper caste Hindu elites. Fourteen districts of ethnic minorities, each with their individual language, tradition, and culture, will be dominated by hill-dwellers instead of locals who reside in the plain region, based on the new demarcation presented in the Constitution. The Madhesis and other minority groups in the southern plain, most of whom are Indian immigrants, felt deprived of their representation as almost all constitutional positions are only eligible for Nepali citizens by descent. The minorities of the South are protesting for a more inclusive definition of Nepalese nationality that takes the interest of the minorities into consideration. “The hill dwellers have always looked down at us as outsiders. We are here to tell them that we are also Nepalis," said Sunita Mahara, a prominent protester of Federal Alliance of Minority Parties who was injured by riot police during the clashes.

The new Constitution is also accused of being discriminatory against women regarding citizenship provisions. Children of single Nepali mothers can only obtain citizenship if they are born in Nepal, while the same restrictions do not apply to children of Nepali men. This poses substantial challenges for children of migrant women workers and trafficked women to settle with a Nepalese citizenship, even if they are Nepali by blood. Furthermore, the children of Nepalese women who married foreigners are only entitled to citizenship through naturalization, while the children of Nepalese men who marry foreign women obtain citizenship by descent. These specific constituents speak to the incapability of the Constitution to truly meet the objective of gender and minority protection.

The Status Quo

The major parties passed the Constitution in 2015 in the midst of the protests from the minority groups, which only further aggravated demonstrators. So far, protests in Singha Darbar, the administrative region of Kathmandu, have resulted in over 55 deaths, often during clashes between the police and demonstrators. Police spokesman Kamal Singh Bam confirmed the occurrences of human rights violations on behalf of the police force, admitting, “Instead of rubber bullets, we’ve found live ammunitions were used." Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli’s government has been accused, by United Democratic Madhesi Front, of using excessive force to suppress the agitation through means of public arrest and police brutality (such as firing tear gas). The violence, however, wasn’t one-sided; 8 police officers were killed in one of the initial protests by the Tharu people in August 2015. During the chaos, most of the victims were Madhesi bystanders, including the elderly, toddlers, and teenagers.

Looking Ahead

Even with the tragic loss, it doesn’t seem like the Federal Alliance is ready to acquiesce until their demands are met. This presents the Nepalese government with severe challenges caused by the resistance to the Constitution. Blockades and boycotts emerged along the Nepal-India border, where the Madhesi groups resided, which led to a sudden supply shortage of essential commodities such as oil and medicine. In addition to an economic crisis, the Nepalese government also faces the potential escalation of social unrest as the demonstrators are relentlessly engaging in the second round of protests. Peace talks between the government and demonstrators have yielded very little due to the government’s reluctance towards restructuring the Constitution.

Hopefully, the demands of the Federal Alliance, which include proportional representation and preservation of minority ethnic identities, will eventually be met through a constitutional amendment. Fortunately, Prime Minister Oli has expressed his support for this possibility, leaving hope for the blossoming of a true democracy for the Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal.

Undue Burden: Examining Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt

By Lande Watson

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court struck down parts of a Texas law that would have decreased the number of abortion clinics in the state from around 40 to less than ten. In Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, the Court held that restrictions put in place by HB 2 requiring clinics to have surgical facilities and doctors to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital would impose an undue burden on women attempting to access abortion services. The case has been hailed as the most sweeping decision on abortion rights since Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

The decision on Monday comes after a series of legal blows to women’s reproductive rights over the past few years including the Court’s decisions in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, McCullen v. Coakley and Gonzales v. Carhart. While the Court has granted for-profit companies the ability to withhold birth control from employees, struck down buffer zone laws and upheld the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, states themselves have done much of the work to restrict reproductive health access.

The proliferation of state laws that chip away at or completely destroy women’s ability to access safe and legal abortions has left many Americans without access to the right ensured to them by Planned Parenthood v. Casey:  access to a safe and legal abortion without undue burden. As of March, 2016, 24 states had in place laws or policies that “regulate abortion providers and go beyond what is necessary to ensure patients’ safety; all apply to clinics that perform surgical abortions.” According to the Guttmacher Institute, 11 states specify the size of procedure rooms, 10 states require abortion facilities to be within a set distance from a hospital and 8 states require providers to have some sort of admitting privileges. These laws use regulation as an excuse to limit access to abortion and disqualify many clinics from serving their patients.  To understand the momentous nature of the Court’s decision, it is important to explore the rhetoric used by lawmakers and anti-choice activists to defend such laws.

When the Court granted certiorari, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton released a statement claiming that “The common-sense measures Texas has put in place elevate the standard of care and protect the health of Texas women.”  After the decision came out this morning, he continued to assert that “HB2 was an effort to improve minimum safety standards and ensure capable care for Texas women.” Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick called it a “devastating blow to the protection of the health and safety of women in Texas.” Texas Governor Greg Abbott expressed his disappointment with the ruling, arguing that “Texas’ goal is to protect innocent life, while ensuring the highest health and safety standards for women.”  

The majority opinion directly rejected the assertion that HB 2 would protect women’s health. Regarding the admitting privileges requirement, the Court found, “We have found nothing in Texas’ record evidence that shows that, compared to prior law which required a ‘working arrangement’ with a doctor with admitting privileges), the new law advanced Texas’ legitimate interest in protecting women’s health.” And the surgical facilities requirement? “The District Court found that ‘risks are not appreciably lowered for patients who undergo abortions at ambulatory surgical centers as compared to nonsurgical center facilities.’”

The argument that HB 2 would improve safety for Texas women is a thinly veiled ploy to ratchet back reproductive health access for the 5.4 million Texas women of reproductive age. The argument was so poorly concealed that Texas couldn’t even maintain their claim during oral arguments: “We add that, when directly asked at oral argument whether Texas knew of a single instance in which the new requirement would have helped even one woman obtain better treatment, Texas admitted that there was no evidence in the record of such a case.” Today, the Supreme Court acknowledged the absurdity and danger of the restrictions put forward by HB 2.

The hypocrisy of TRAP laws abounds. Abortion has a 99% safety record and laws like HB 2 do more to hurt women than help them. When clinics shut down, women are forced to travel long distances, pay travel and housing fees and search out illegal and unsafe procedures. If the anti-choice movement were truly interested in the safety of women, they would increase access to reproductive health services. Instead, they choose to increase the chance that women, especially poor and minority women, are forced into the shadows, away from safe and legal abortion clinics.

Consider the insidiousness of claiming to protect those who you clearly harm. Setting aside the moral debate over abortion itself, we can all take moral opposition to oppressors pretending to act as champions for their victims, especially while doing all they can to harm them. Just as five Supreme Court Justices saw through the anti-choice smokescreens in Whole Woman’s Health, we are called upon to do the same.

As the reproductive justice movement celebrates the Court’s unequivocal rejection of the mistruths underlying restrictive state abortion laws, the work to ensure safe and legal access to abortion continues in state houses and courts across the country.    

Further reading:

How many states could see their abortion restrictions struck down after the Supreme Court’s big ruling?

China, Children and the Fight for Human Rights

By Judy Chen

The one-child policy has been a defining characteristic of China since its implementation in 1979. Although its recent modification permits families under certain qualifications to have two children instead of one, China’s population control policy is still quite controversial. Even after the policy shift, the Chinese government executes rigid regulations on private decisions such as family planning and women’s free exercise of their reproductive rights. The intransigent and impersonal enforcement of the one-child policy resulted in countless incidents of sex-selective and forced abortions, which has presented severe barriers for female empowerment and the ongoing effort against patriarchy in China. Nominally, the two-child policy has widened the options of family size for this generation and hopefully, the ones to come. 

However, small family has become an integral and encouraged part of Chinese urban culture; A sudden increase in average family size is predicted to be unlikely, especially with the rising cost of subsistence in cities. Meanwhile, individuals in rural areas have become  accustomed to bribing town, county and village officials to avoid punishment for having too many children. To a certain extent, expecting a positive shift in the corrupt rural culture due to the two-child policy is unrealistic. Whether or not the modified policy will mitigate harmful practices such as sex-selective and forced abortions, involuntary sterilization and deprivation of girls’ education is up in the air. However, with all the progress this policy changes represents,Chinese women still have no autonomy over their private, reproductive rights. By weighing the impact of China's population control policies, we can address the long-held question: How can China work towards both freedom and sustainable population growth?

One-Child

The inflexible implementation of the One-Child Policy has given rise to cultural practices that undermine women’s bodily autonomy, including sex-selective and late-term forced abortions.

In 2005, more than 1.1 million excess births of boys occurred partly as a result of sex-selective abortions. Sex-selective abortions occurred more frequently in rural than urban areas as a result of deeply embedded patriarchal values. Medical technology, although limited, is still accessible in rural areas, and allows families the option to know the sex of the fetus before birth. While it is true that the one-child restriction does not impact rural families as severely because of frequent briberies of administrative officials and significantly less rigid enforcement of the law, it has deepened general preference of sons over daughters, especially for among families who could not afford to bribe. Historically, men have been the head of the household in China. This traditional, commonly-held value is hardly mitigated in most rural areas in China, due to lack of exposure to Western liberal ideals that promotes equality, justice and individual rights. Sons are seen as more valuable assets because of their perceived future ability to contribute physical strength to farming, earn majority of household income and more importantly, to carry the family name and legacy to the next generation. Daughters are more commonly perceived as components of the family that will eventually be “married off” to another one. Rooted in China’s historical culture, this mindset resulted in higher youth literacy rate among males.Families do not see educating daughters as a necessity since they are mostly expected to stay at home in their marriages.

Although the government outlawed prenatal sex determination for non-health-related reasons in 1986, the trend of gendercide has not significantly dwindled in rural areas because son preference, the root of the problem, persisted as a norm. Unfortunately, government regulations did not have a substantial effect on stopping gendercide for two reasons: back-door services that accepted bribery, and superstitious means of prenatal sex determination. In urban cities, sex-selective abortions occurred less. Although residents in developed cities were more likely to be influenced by Western ideals, they were subject to much stricter law enforcement compared to rural families. The one-child limitation drives a sizable number of couples to the traditional norm of son preference. Back-door services and non-medical approaches, to a lesser degree than in rural areas, nonetheless enable couples to engage in gendercide even after government regulations were uptputplace. Even with the exponentially growing population in the status quo, the United Nations Population Fund, in conjunction with UNICEF, U.N. Women and WHO, openly denounce the practice of sex-selective abortion and gendercide as it obstructs the progress of global female empowerment and compromises women’s reproductive health.

Under the one-child policy, more blatant human rights violations presented themselves in the form of late-term abortions and involuntary sterilizations, both enforced by the government. In most cases, women and families expecting their second child had no other option but to abort if they hoped to keep their jobs. The option of paying a fine that takes up a considerable percentage of household income was not realistic for middle and working class families. Since the fine grows with income level, the stakes of violating the policy are high for wealthier citizens as well. The Chinese government put severe pressure on women and family to follow a law that impaired their autonomy.

At a more drastic level, there have been incidents where local officials forcefully carried out the actual procedures to meet the birth quota of a unit of community (e.g. village, town, city). In October 2013, Zhou Guoqiang and his wife Liu Xinwen’s home was broken into, at 4am, by 20 officials of Shandong Province Family Planning Commission, some of whom took Liu to the hospital where she was injected with abortion-inducing drugs involuntarily, while her husband was held down by the rest of the officials at home. In July 2012, Zhong Xuexiang, a 39-year-old woman, suffered from severe bleeding as a result of involuntary sterilization forced by local authorities, who reneged on their promise to cover the medical cost after the procedure. A report by U.N. human rights council called upon China to prohibit forced abortion and sterilization and investigate occurrences of such horrendous events. The Chinese government insisted that practices were already outlawed and refused to further investigate the aforementioned cases that were broadcasted internationally. The stories of Liu and Zhong are not anomalies. The one-child policy instigated irreversible oppression on women’s reproductive autonomy, which counters U.N.’s recognition of “the opportunities to decide the number and spacing of children” as a fundamental human right to all parents.

Two-Child

The official riddance of the one-child policy presents a significantly wider option for most families. However, real-life barriers that prevent families from having two children will not automatically disappear due to a change in policy. It is predicted that the new policy would not induce expected level of change in the status quo due to economic barriers and the prevalent norm of small family in cities, and existent lack of law enforcement in rural areas. The cost of living in cities, especially metropolises in China, is disproportionately high compared to the income of middle and working classes. “According to the Chinese Academy of Social Science, it costs 490,000 yuan ($77,165) to raise a child from birth to 16 years old in an average city in China. Meanwhile, a Credit Suisse survey suggests the average cost of raising a child to 18 is 23,000 yuan ($3,622) a year, eating away 43 percent of the average family's annual income.” 

In rural areas, the practice of bribery and use of private connections for illegal accomplishments are too widespread for the new policy to cause a substantial increase in population. The liberation of China’s population control policy did not occur simultaneously with the growth in the comprehensiveness of social security, especially regarding child welfare and paid maternity leave. Women who hold lower-income, less secure jobs may be pressured to abort their second child if their employers or the government could not guarantee their and offer them the financial support they need at the same time. "The financial pressure is my main concern," said IT company manager Gong Yanming, who expects his first child to arrive in a couple of weeks, "If we decide to have another baby, then my wife needs to quit her job and stay home with kids all the time. But we will not be able to afford a life with two children in that way. It's so expensive to raise a child in China, I would rather focus all my resources on one child." Speculation that the two-child policy will fail is high due to structural, economic and cultural reasons, which presents the possibility of China reverting its policy back to the one-child limitation. In that case, it would only be a matter of time before the resurgence of human rights violations induced by the one-child policy.

Even if the two-child policy successfully increases average family size, China still has a long way to go before they achieve the complete elimination of aforementioned human rights abuses such as sex-selective abortions. The root cause of this practice is the culturally entrenched value of gender preference. However, the one-child limitation irreversibly exacerbated the backwards cultural trend. The only effective way to fight son preference in China is to significantly reduce governmental pressure so that families have full control over their private reproductive decisions. This somewhat radical scenario would halt or significantly slow down the growth of gendercide. Parents who genuinely oppose gendercide will be much less compelled by cultural factors to decide on their future child’s gender through means that conflict with international norms of gender equality.

Finally, it is worth noting that easing the policy from one child to two children does not obliterate the fact PRC government still dictates families’ private, reproductive decisions. The enforcement of population control policies still compromise women’s reproductive autonomy, a fundamental human right recognized by international institutions such as the United Nations, U.N. Women and WHO, and the privacy to which families are entitled.

What Now?

Despite contention surrounding its morality, the one-child policy generated substantial benefits for China’s development. It is estimated that the one-child policy prevented approximately 400 million births since its implementation, which in turn kept the poverty level from soaring. Exemptions were provided in cases of children with disability and families that belong to ethnic minorities. Couples were rewarded for their compliance through certificates that guaranteed interest-free loans, education subsidy, and longer periods of maternity leave.

 
On the other hand, this strict restriction caused widespread societal issues: rapid growth of elderly population, labor shortages, and high suicide rates that accompanies the pressure of being the only child in China’s prevailing culture of expectation. While the world is waiting to see the effect of the two-child policy, one must wonder if there could be an alternative that better ensures the preservation of human rights. The government could shift the emphasis of its policy from limitation of family size to incentivization for financially responsible family planning, while expanding coverages of welfare, social securities, and basic infrastructures. Although such structural changes often require decades to implement, they are necessary objectives for China; a country’s economic development is no excuse to compromise its citizens’ entitlement to universal human rights.