Growing Need for Alternative Covid-19 Vaccination Strategy in the Face of Vaccination Uptake Hesitancy in the United States

There has been accelerated effort geared towards the swift creation of COVID-19 vaccines; however, this fast pace poses a negative impact on vaccine acceptance. The current US COVID vaccine hesitancy of 23-33% has a ripple effect and makes it impossible to attain community immunity. The primary aim of this study was to assess the current COVID vaccine hesitancy rates and to argue for the need of more effective strategies to improve its uptake in the US. This paper reviewed quantitative peer-reviewed publications assessing COVID vaccine hesitancy in the US. It was revealed that COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy was influenced by myriad factors like gender, education, political affiliation, race and location. Transparency and a mix of communication, local partnerships, incentives and arguably legal strategies can be adopted to attenuate US COVID vaccine hesitancy. Lastly, vulnerable demographics (black Americans and conservatives) need targeted COVID vaccine information. Keywords: Covid 19 Vaccines, Herd Immunity, Vaccine Uptake, Hesitancy and Vaccine Education

U.S. Family Law Along the Slippery Slope: the limits of a sexual rights strategy for polyamorous parents

Families in the United States are rapidly changing, and the normative familial model of two married, monogamous, heterosexual parents with children no longer reflects the majority of U.S. families. Nonetheless, state incentive-based policies and discriminatory family laws continue to enforce heteronormative monogamy. Recent changes to the U.S. legal landscape have produced limited formal recognition and protections for same-sex couples and LGBTQ parents, and even these narrow rights are withheld from other diverse familial configurations including families with polyamorous parents. This article uses the concept of sexual citizenship to frame the analysis of U.S. family courts’ normative construction of family, identifying striking parallels between family courts’ historical and contemporary prejudicial treatment of LGBTQ parents and the institution’s similar delegitimization and denigration of polyamorous parents today. This paper reviews polyamorous parents’ efforts towards achieving legal and societal legitimatization, finding significant parallels with legal strategies LGBTQ parents utilized to seek legal recognition and protection prior to federal recognition of same-sex marriage. This paper highlights the inadequacies of such a formal sexual citizenship approach, finding that a limited strategy of accumulating specific sexual rights fails to address non-monogamy’s more radical cultural presence as well as the (non-legal) informal aspects of belonging needed to improve the livability of polyamorous parents’ and their children’s lives. This paper concludes with recommendations for improving the treatment of non-traditional families including LGBTQ, polyamorous, and other blended families, both within and outside the legal institution.

Behavioral Biases and the Law

Empirical and experimental evidence shows that individuals exhibit behavioral biases in their decision-making processes that depart from the full rationality paradigm. This paper discusses the effectiveness of alternative debiasing strategies, designed to induce socially preferable outcomes. Following Jolls, C. and Sunstein, C.R. (2006). Debiasing through law. J. Leg. Stud. 35: 199–242, this paper examines legal strategies that aim at “debiasing through law”, attempting to reduce or eliminate boundedly rational behavior. Alternatively, policymakers can implement “insulating” legal strategies that separate the outcome from the biased behavior, without attempting to eradicate behavioral biases from the decision-making process. This paper compares these strategies in many areas, such as tort law, consumer safety law, and property law.

The process of reconciliation between Serbia and Kosovo and the international legal strategies of the EU States, the USA, and Russia(with particular emphasis on the activities of the Kosovo Specialist Chambers)

The aim of this article is to analyse the international legal and political process of reconciliation between Serbia and Kosovo in terms of its impact on the scope of development directions and strategies of the European Union countries as well as Russia and the USA. Particular emphasis was placed on the treatment of these issues in the light of the activities of the Kosovo Specialist Chambers and Specialist Prosecutor’s Office. The main theses assumed for the purposes of this article are as follows: firstly, that the policy of reconciliation between Serbia and Kosovo is multidimensional, including the necessity of the process of international criminal liability for the crimes committed by both states, while at the same time influencing the dilemmas of the development directions of individual European countries, but also of the European Union and the United States. In addition, the legal and political stabilization of the Balkan region, especially in the context of relations between Kosovo and Serbia, and the possibility of cooperation with these states as part of intergovernmental international organizations, is strategically extremely important for the EU, the USA, as well as for Russia. The Author critically analyses issues using polemics with the standpoint presented in the doctrine of the subject as well as interpreting selected instruments of international law and Kosovo’s national law. The deliberations resulted in conclusions as to the determinants in terms of the directions of the legal and political development of the EU and Russia resulting from the complicated process of reconciliation and mutual settlement of sins by Serbia and Kosovo.

The Prevention of Schoolhouse to Jailhouse

Chapter 4 documents the development of the Mississippi Delta Catalyst Roundtable to reform a deeply racist and abusive juvenile justice system and to build power in Black communities. It stresses the importance of grounding the national movement in African American communities in the South. It shows how these groups created models to combine community organizing with legal strategies and advocacy work in ways that centered the leadership of groups rooted in communities of those most impacted. Nevertheless, it demonstrates the critical importance of statewide and national networks to support local organizing carried out by small groups facing entrenched systems of oppression. It shows how people most impacted by injustice facing powerful white resistance spoke out and used intergenerational community organizing to confront systemic racism. Combining deep local organizing and national support, they made important breakthroughs and helped inspire a new racial justice movement.

Repeated proceedings against suspected illicit wealth – justifiable protection of public interest or violation of human rights?

The internationally acknowledged need for effective legal measures against illicit enrichment that is perceived as the key policy tool against organised crime and corruption triggered rapid developments in the variety of those legal measures. Lithuania may serve as a sole-standing example of a jurisdiction that enacted a great variety of legal strategies against illicit enrichment – criminal liability both for money laundering and illicit enrichment and also extended powers of confiscation, civil confiscation and tax fines for unexplained income. This diversity of measures leads to the issue of competition arising between them and also carries the risk that measures may be used repeatedly and arbitrarily against persons and their property.The paper focuses on the issue of the legitimacy of repeated investigation and assessment of suspicious assets in civil confiscation proceedings and extended powers of confiscation.The analysis is divided into two parts where fundamentally different legal situations are discussed. In the first situation, repeated assessment of the origin of the assets takes place in proceedings of similar legal nature (proceedings aiming to restore legal order). The second situation appears where reassessment takes place in proceedings of a different nature – in the restorative proceedings after failure to prove the illicit origin of the assets in the punitive proceedings.While the first situation rather clearly falls within the scope of the principle of legal certainty and the rule res judicata that prohibit repeated proceedings for the same issue in the same circumstances against the same person, the second situation is more open to debate. Punitive proceedings use the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt and the presumption of innocence is in play. These safeguards are designed to protect defendants from unfounded conviction, but they may be considered excessive for other legal issues such as the recovery of damages or the proceeds of illicit activities. In addition, in the context of civil confiscation, public interest in effective protection from organised crime and corruption comes into play. Therefore, there are strong arguments for giving priority to public safety over the principle of legal certainty that would protect defendants from repeated assessment of their assets in other proceedings with a lower standard of proof or even the reversed presumption of the illegality of unexplained wealth.Finally, the paper addresses the question of whether extended powers of confiscation qualify for restorative or punitive proceedings. The answer to this question is the key argument of whether civil confiscation proceedings can legitimately follow criminal proceedings where the court failed to confiscate the assets on the grounds of extended powers of confiscation. The paper argues that extended powers of confiscation are of a restorative nature. Therefore, when assets have already been investigated in proceedings of civil confiscation and their origin has been assessed as lawful in the light of extended powers of confiscation, re-consideration of their origin should be deemed as infringing the principle of legal certainty, unless the decision in the criminal proceedings was barred by lack of formal grounds.

Claiming Religious Freedom at the European Court of Human Rights: Socio-Legal Field Effects on Legal Mobilization

How do legal strategies at the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) vary among activists in highly asymmetrical social positions? Social scientists have demonstrated that legal mobilization raises the pressure on states to provide broader minority accommodation. While this may be true, such outcome-oriented studies overlook the fact that judicial mobilization is itself deeply imbued with inequalities and divergent interests among diverse activists. We lack comparative studies to examine how such differences play out in litigation. Drawing on a qualitative in-depth study among Sikh, Muslim, Catholic, Evangelical, and secular advocacy groups involved in religious freedom disputes at the ECtHR, this article argues that claims making often is a balancing act between legal power relations and extra-legal commitments, which leads to variation in activists’ leverage to challenge legal marginalization. First, hostile legal environments discourage more easily activists with weaker transnational connections who are in vulnerable domestic positions. Second, while the most marginalized readily seek to fit identity narratives into dominant legal frames of religion, more powerful actors can target the core of legal principles and power distribution within the legal field as such. Even when unsuccessful in judicial outcomes, they might affect broader political and legal debates.

The Swiss Primate Case: How Courts Have Paved the Way for the First Direct Democratic Vote on Animal Rights

A citizens’ initiative was launched in 2016 in the Swiss canton of Basel-Stadt, demanding that the rights catalogue in the Cantonal Constitution be complemented by a fundamental right to life and a right to bodily and mental integrity for non-human primates. This initiative became the subject of a three-year legal dispute that ended with a decision of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court in September 2020, ruling that the initiative is legally valid and must be put to the people for a vote. This case note discusses the key developments in the dispute, including the groundbreaking decision by the Constitutional Court of Basel-Stadt, which held that cantons are free to ‘expand the circle of rights holders beyond the anthropological barrier’. The authors, who were involved in the drafting of the initiative and acted as legal advisers in the judicial proceedings, offer first-hand insights into legal strategies and shed light on the importance of the case in the context of the ongoing efforts to secure rights for primates around the world.