International human rights law governs and safegaurds individual citizens with the intention of protecting  basic rights, liberties, and freedoms. These international laws are upheld through international courts who act to ensure member state compliance. Acceptance of international court authority and rulings is slow in many transitioning democracies. Yet increasingly, international court decisions are shaping domestic rights protection and the rule of law. In this project, I examine the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR), an international court governing the Americas, and their case law involving Guatemala to understand how international courts develop and protect human rights. In my analysis, I construct an original dataset that codes all IACHR judgements involving Guatemala between 1996-2020. In particular, the dataset focuses on cases in the area of indigenous rights, children's rights, and the right to liberty, identifying if a violation is found and how this expands human rights protection. Preliminary findings suggest the court has slowly expanded rights in these areas of law, which has led to some strengthening of the domestic legal system. This study illustrates the power of international courts to protect fundamental individual rights, however, it calls for further research exploring the potential limitations of this power in the context of transitioning societies. 

International treaties provide citizens with guaranteed human rights and hold countries to a higher standard of accountability. Through monitoring mechanisms, international organizations can track both the effectiveness and implementation of rights outlined in their treaties. However, this process of human rights protection can be convoluted when involving countries with a rich history of authoritarianism. In this research project, I assess the United Nations Committee Against Torture (CAT), to understand its effectiveness in implementing the Convention Against Torture in the Middle East. The project examines the six Middle Eastern countries that ratified the treaty and evaluates their success in circumventing the violence that it prohibits. To measure this, I have developed an original jurisprudence dataset ranging from 1994 to 2019 that includes all claims brought against Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria, Iraq, Lebanon, and Mauritania. Jurisprudence is broadly defined as the study of law but in this particular instance is the examination of case law. In a historical case law analysis, I code for whether the committee ruled in favor or against a violation to the treaty, participating advocacy groups, and the issue areas most prevalent. Additionally, I analyze annual reports documenting the personal accounts of Middle Eastern countries perceived efficacy in adhering to the treaty. Preliminary findings suggest that the Convention Against Torture is effective on the ground when there is a prominent culture of advocacy present to counteract the durable authoritarian setting it falls beneath. These findings may assist in answering larger questions about the impact of international treaties in safeguarding human rights and holding countries accountable. Importantly, these monitoring mechanisms may progressively inhibit authoritarian regimes from actively denying citizens their guaranteed human rights.

Constitutions embody individual rights and government duties, setting higher standards for society and governing institutions. Through legislative actions and judicial interpretation, the interests of the people and the government are constantly in tension and being balanced within the framework of the constitution. Yet critical to the realization of constitutional rights is the actual implementation and real effect of these legal processes. In this project, I raise the question, how are individual rights as outlined in a constitution implemented? To answer, I examine Taiwan's Judicial Yuan, specifically the Constitutional Court and its relationship with the lower courts and legislature, to find if, how, and why the Judicial Yuan, as an entity, impacts fundamental human rights. In particular, I develop an original case law dataset including key constitutional rights cases before the Constitutional Court from 1950 to 2020. Through an in-depth historical case law analysis, I code for whether the Constitutional Court expanded or constrained rights and how the decisions are implemented in lower courts and by the legislature. Preliminary research finds that the Constitutional Court makes rulings that are often incomplete without further action by the lower courts and the legislature. These findings may help answer larger questions of the efficacy of constitutional courts and their ability to bring social change.

Are corporations creatures of the state, or merely “legal shorthand” for the contractual embodiment of shareholders’ property rights? Might a corporation be something else entirely — a discrete, rights bearing entity, separate from both shareholders and the state? These questions have characterized debates over corporate theory for the last two centuries of North American legal thought, influencing the development of three main theories of the corporation. This article seeks to contextualize these arguments, providing substantive analysis of the Supreme Court of Canada’s (SCC) corporate legal jurisprudence. Specifically, I engage in systematic inquiry of the Court’s caselaw to answer the question: how has the Supreme Court of Canada developed corporations as rights-bearing entities since the passage of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms? To answer, I develop a dataset containing 24 cases brought before the SCC, in which a litigating party’s status as a corporation or business entity was of material importance to the Court’s decision to extend a Charter right (or not). These cases range in date from 1984 to 2020, and cover a diverse range of controversies arising under the Charter. I code each case for the Charter right in question and a variable measuring the Court’s development of a theory of corporation, along with descriptive characteristics of the case, enabling me to map change over time. Findings reveal a cautious, if not paradoxical, judiciary — the Court is at once willing to extend some constitutional rights to corporations, while simultaneously reluctant to acknowledge that corporations deserve protections coextensive with human ones. Rather than signaling incoherence, the Court’s approach implies the reconceptualization of a new, fourth approach to corporate theory. Importantly, this research suggests that the “nexus of contracts” paradigm popularized by scholars in the 1980s has become less relevant to the SCC, suggesting new avenues of corporate legal inquiry.

The International Criminal Court (ICC) is responsible for prosecuting the most heinous of crimes, that of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and crimes of aggression. An institution with potentially universal jurisdiction, it was created to promote rule of law globally, not beholden to any one nation and unbiased in its pursuit of justice. However, allegations of an anti-African bias have been made against the ICC by the African Union and others. Is there an inherent bias against Africa or is the ICC merely fulfilling its duties as designed? This research investigates charges of bias through close examination of the ICC’s structure, case history, and the court’s relationship to the United Nation Security Council (UNSC). To fully answer the question of bias, I created a case law dataset cataloging all ICC investigations and cases from its first in 2002 to the present. I have coded each case and investigation according to charges, which referral mechanism triggered ICC jurisdiction, and the current status of the case. Preliminary results indicate a clear focus on Africa by the Court, however, each prosecuted case falls squarely within the jurisdiction entrusted to the Court. While a discernible bias may not be present, the relationship between the ICC and the UNSC does raise questions about impartiality and global separation of power. Future research on possible remedies to charges of impartiality may benefit the legitimacy of the ICC, as well as the Court’s efforts towards international justice.

Authoritarian regimes may construct courts to engage in administrative discipline and bolster executive legitimacy. Yet in China, citizens are also increasingly utilizing courts to contest the decisions of local government officials. Litigation is at once a tool of control by the state, but may also suggest an avenue for citizenry power against the state in an otherwise constrained society. In this project, I examine administrative law cases brought to the Supreme People’s Court of China (SPC) to analyze how administrative litigation processes are used to empower citizens or to discipline state bureaucrats. To answer these questions, I developed an original case law dataset of SPC administrative law judgments between the period of 2014 to 2019. Through case law analysis I coded each decision for key identifiers including the districts in which litigation was filed, the type of plaintiff, the issue in dispute, and compensation given by the government. Preliminary findings suggest that administrative litigation is disproportionately in the area of property rights and is most frequently utilized by corporations rather than citizens or public interest bureaus. The patterns hold across a diverse set of localities throughout China with plaintiffs winning in nearly half of the cases in this dataset. These findings bring into question whether courts in authoritarian regimes are merely a pawn of executive power, and instead suggest an avenue for individual and corporate claims making against the administrative state.