Author: Breanna Silva

Victim, Criminal, Worker, or Lover? The Discourses of Anti-Sex Trafficking & the Lived Realities of Commercialized Sex in Southeast Asia

by Ella Tan

View/download paper

Winner, Audre Rapoport Prize for Scholarship on Gender and Human Rights (2024)

Abstract:

This paper explores anti-sex trafficking as a ‘humanitarian’ concern, arguing that the discourses of ‘rescue’ and ‘rehabilitation’ in the realm of anti-sex trafficking are not simply (failures of) humanitarian intervention to help sex workers, but are part of a neocolonial apparatus aiming to reconstruct women as workers of feminized labor within the neoliberal global economy. By examining the humanitarian laws and policies pursued by the US Government, American NGOs, and other stakeholders in the anti-trafficking industry, this paper demonstrates how the ‘rescue and rehabilitation’ discourse (and its legal, humanitarian, and political manifestations) create a paradoxical existence for the sex worker, who is transformed into a ‘victim-criminal’: simultaneously seen as a victim to be saved, as well as a criminal to be punished. By deconstructing the workings of this imperial and neoliberal apparatus, this paper demonstrates that the discursive and legislative anti-sex trafficking apparatus exists almost entirely separately from the lived experiences of women engaged in commercialized sex. This paper ultimately argues for the need to theorize new frameworks that more fully capture the nuances and complexities of women engaged in commercialized sex. Starting from the well-established framework of sex work, this paper challenges the fundamental assumptions of commercialized sex as work in the first place, and emphasizes the need to understand women’s aspirations for economic or material gain alongside their equal desire for intimacy, love, and connection, in order to create an inclusive and progressive framework of human rights and transborder justice truly beneficial to different communities of women globally.

Keywords: Commercialized sex, American neocolonialism, Gender politics, Southeast Asia, Politics of international aid

About the author:

Ella Tan Ray Ing graduated from Columbia University in 2024 with an M.A. in Political Science, specialising in Comparative Politics. She received her B.A. in History from the University of Oxford. Her research interests span the intersecting areas of postcolonial theory, gender studies, and the politics of human rights. Born and raised in Singapore, Ella has an academic and personal regional interest in Southeast Asia.

Reciting Law After Auschwitz

by Benjamin Goh

View/download paper

Winner, Zipporah B. Wiseman Prize for Scholarship on Law, Literature, and Justice (2024)

Abstract:

This paper reads in parallel two specimens of jurisprudence and literature that were republished in the aftermath of Nazism and the Holocaust. Hans Kelsen’s Reine Rechtslehre (‘Pure Theory of Law’) (1934/1960) and Maurice Blanchot’s La Folie du jour (‘The Madness of the Day’) (1949/1973) are historicized to unfold the ineffaceable traces, and public demands, of the mid-twentieth-century catastrophe. Between the postulate of purity and the law of recitation, it is the latter effect of our present anamnesis, I suggest, that undergirds and affirms the historical turn of legal theory.

Keywords: Jurisprudence; Law and Literature; Holocaust; Hans Kelsen; Maurice Blanchot

About the author:

Benjamin Goh is an Assistant Professor in the Faculty of Law, National University of Singapore. He works in the field of law and literature, particularly on topics in copyright history and postcolonial studies. “Reciting Law After Auschwitz” is based on research first undertaken in the NUS English Department and the Kent Law School. He is grateful for the prior guidance of his teachers from both institutions, and for the present recognition given in honor of Zipporah B. Wiseman’s lifework in law and literature.

Gendered Money and Relational Work: Women’s Money and Labor in Matrimonial Disputes in India

By Upasana Garnaik

View/download paper

Abstract:

What is the meaning and role of women’s money in matrimonial disputes? Economic sociologists have challenged the notion that money is uniform and fungible. Based on 12 months of ethnographic fieldwork, I highlight the legal and familial mechanisms through which money becomes gendered. By integrating concepts from economic sociology on relational work and Daniel’s (1984) concept of invisible labor, I conceptualize “invisible money”. By doing so, I show how gendering of money in family disputes renders women’s money invisible. This article expands on the meaning of relational work to include institutional relational work i.e., how institutions outside the interpersonal dynamics distinguish between appropriate and inappropriate claims and have an effect on women’s material reality. Therefore, this study provides new evidence and broadens our understanding of the social meaning of money, the temporality in relational work and highlights the gendered nature of relational work and money itself.

Keywords: Relational work, Gender, Household labor, Economic Sociology, India

About the author: 

Upasana Garnaik is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Sociology at The University of Texas at Austin. Her primary research interests are in gender, law and economic sociology particularly examining women’s experiences in family disputes in India. Upasana received her LLM from Duke Law School and has worked in New Delhi, India as a lawyer and taught at the Jindal Global Law School.

Literature as Legal History: Understanding the Colonial Roots of the Nigerian Police Force

By Ọláolúwa Òní

View/download paper

Abstract:

On the 21st of October 2020, the world woke to images and video clips of the bloodied, broken bodies of Nigerians shared across social and traditional media. The night before, young Nigerians protesting police brutality were met with a government-sanctioned, combined police and military onslaught; Nigeria’s decades-long struggle with police dysfunction was brought to a head with the massacre of its citizens at the Lekki toll gate on the evening of October 20, 2020 (“Lekki Massacre.”)

This paper makes the case that the brutal character of the Nigerian Police Force (NPF) is connected to the colonial character of the institution, and that incorporating Indigenous literature in our study of the history of the NPF inevitably exposes the colonial roots of the institution. In this work, we read Chinua Achebe’s Things Fall Apart as an account of Igbo pre-colonial history that helps our understanding of police dysfunction in Nigeria and can inform the country’s police reform ambitions.

About the author:

Ọláolúwa Òní is in the PhD program at Osgoode Hall Law School. Laolu studies the intersections between law and popular culture paying special attention to themes in colonial, postcolonial, and critical colonial studies. She is a writer and author; her novel The yNBA is sold in bookstores across Nigeria.

The Perplexities of the Rights of Nature

by Lindsay Stern

View/download paper

Abstract:

This paper examines the potential implications of Hannah Arendt’s critique of human rights in The Origins of Totalitarianism (1951) for contemporary environmental rights discourse. Reflecting first on canonical, but refreshingly strange early modern European formulations of “personhood,” the paper suggests that advocacy projects on behalf of nonhuman animals and environments court the same paradoxes Arendt identified. In that respect, the paper proposes that Arendt’s critique of human rights is less anthropocentric than prominent strains of its reception suggest. Considering Arendt’s critique against her discussion of “earth alienation” in The Human Condition (1958), the paper then frames Arendt’s account of legal personhood as an attempt to “speak from nowhere.” It concludes by tracing the first stirrings of Arendt’s development of the notion of this “nowhere” to an early, unpublished poem.

Keywords: Human rights, environmental discourse, Anthropocene, Hannah Arendt, legal personhood

About the author:

Lindsay O’Connor Stern is a writer and scholar of comparative literature. She is the author of two novellas including Town of Shadows (Scrambler Books 2012), which was adapted into a dance. Her novel The Study of Animal Languages (Viking/Penguin Random House, 2019/2020), an Amazon Editors’ pick, won a Lois Kahn Wallace Award and the Taylor-Chehak prize in fiction from the Iowa Writers’ Workshop. Her essay, “In Praise of Socks: the ‘Poetic’ in Wittgenstein” won the 2023 Ralph Cohen Prize from New Literary History. Another essay, “The Divide,” was the cover story of Smithsonian Magazine’s July/August 2020 issue and was nominated for a National Magazine Award. She has received an Academy of American Poets Prize, an Amy Award, a Watson Fellowship, and the Austin Sarat Prize from the Association for the Study of Law, Culture, and the Humanities. She is a Postdoctoral Fellow at Harvard University’s Mahindra Humanities Center.

Prisoner of the Book: The Living Constitution and Borges’ Book of Sand

by Ana Van Liedekerke

View/download paper

Winner, Zipporah B. Wiseman Prize for Scholarship on Law, Literature, and Justice (2023)

Abstract:

This paper uses Jorge Luis Borges’ short story The Book of Sand (1975) to examine the aversion of Constitutional originalists in the United States to the idea of the Constitution as a living text. Contrasting Justice Antonin Scalia’s rhetoric of magic as used to denounce the “living Constitution” with Justice William J. Brennan’s conception of an originalist Constitution as a ghost terrorizing the present, the paper asks what vision of the text these metaphors construct, and how they make the Constitution of the other into a “nightmarish” object.

Keywords: Law and literature, living Constitution, Originalism, Constitutional theory, (Constitutional) rhetoric.

About the author:

Ana Van Liedekerke is a PhD student at the Institute of Philosophy at KU Leuven in Belgium. Ana studies the intersection of narratology and constitutional theory. Her dissertation, funded by the Research Foundation – Flanders, investigates the textual agency of constitutions, emphasizing the power of texts to constitute democratic communities. She earned a Masters of Philosophy and Western Literature at KU Leuven, and she has held visiting positions at King’s College London, Stellenbosch University, and Yale University.

Reimagining Antisubordination from the Global South: Towards a Joint Venture Theory of Legal Interpretation

by Taís Penteado

View/download paper

Winner, Audre Rapoport Prize for Scholarship on Gender and Human Rights (2023)

Abstract:

The present article is dedicated to showing how subordination is multifaceted and, as such, how legal decisions based on the antisubordination principle should be attentive to the diverse ways in which inequalities can permeate the law, in order to be properly addressed by it. By using the case in which the Brazilian Supreme Court criminalized LGBTQphobia as a focal point, I argue that equality considerations must guide how concepts are framed, how problems are defined, which solutions are proposed, as well as reflections about what a decision comes to mean for a determined place’s jurisprudence and political context. In my exercise, I also highlight complications that might arise when the antisubordination principle is legally mobilized. Subordination is not static and power relations are dynamic. As such, intersectionalities (in the case at hand, involving mostly gender identity, sexuality, race and class) might pose challenges for the identification of problems that should be addressed and for the choice of adequate emancipatory decisions, particularly when subordinate groups’ interests conflict. In the same vein, subordination happens through multiple overlapping practices, such as violence, deprivation, and exclusion, and addressing one does not always lead to a unitary all-encompassing antisubordinatory direction. I try to offer a provisional solution for these complications, based on the inclusion of civil society participation considerations on legal interpretation, through what I call the “Joint Venture Theory of Legal Interpretation”. The envisioned interpretation would be animated by the “demosprudential” assumption that legal meanings are created by courts, but also by people on the ground and asserts that, as such, the process of legal reasoning should give weight to the latter. The paper is part of a broader project of fully theorizing antisubordination, which includes the articulation of the antisubordination principle, concretizing its application, trying to solve its shortcomings, and establishing the political and constitutional theories that constitute its normative underpinning.

Keywords: Antisubordination, Equality, Legal Interpretation, Demosprudence, Brazil.

About the author:

Taís Penteado is a Ph.D. candidate at FGV Law School of São Paulo, Brazil. She holds an M.A. and a J.D. from the same institution, as well as an LL.M. from Yale Law School, where she is currently a Visiting Researcher. Her work explores the ways in which Constitutional Law, Fundamental Rights, and Equality Law interact with power relations, with a particular interest in understanding how subordination permeates fundamental legal categories and how law can become a better tool for emancipation. This paper was developed during her LL.M. year and constitutes one of the backbones of her Ph.D. thesis, which aims to provide a re-theorization of the antisubordination principle.

A discriminatory education policy that further excludes the oppressed from academia: the case of the National Overseas Scholarship (NOS) for SC-ST scholars in India

by Ashok Danavath

View/download paper

Abstract

The National Overseas Scholarship (NOS) for Scheduled Caste and Tribes (SC-ST) scholars was constituted decades ago as an educational policy by the Government of India (GoI) (Thorat, 2009). With the objective of facilitating upward mobility by guaranteeing financial assistance to low-income students from Dalit and Adivasi communities, this policy has supported SC and ST students to pursue Master’s, Ph.D., and postdoctoral studies in Quacquarelli Symonds (QS) top-ranked universities of the world.

However, since its inception, the implementation procedures have always been a point of controversy (Danavath, 2022). Though the objective ostensibly is for social welfare, the NoS’s implementation has placed Dalit-Adivasi scholars at the mercy of the casteist state. Every NoS awardee has to deal with the unresponsive, if not insensitive, politico and executive bureaucracy. Moreover, the fixed amount of the scholarship grant is not adaptive to increasing inflation rates, nor to varying cost of living depending on the location of the university. These inconsiderations only add to the suffering of marginalized students in foreign countries. Despite its inadequacies, the policy has allowed few Dalit and Adivasi scholars from social science streams to reach global universities and conduct research on the socio-politico-cultural life of Indian society and state. Their research has fostered some of the first discussions on caste-based systemic violence on a global front. Yet even this iota of change towards establishing an anti-caste dialogue has become an object of scorn for the dominant caste elite of India. As such, a dialogue questioned the illegitimate dominance of the upper caste in a manifold. The current ruling political party in India, the Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) is a right-wing Hindutva government backed by dominant caste policymakers. Their election into power, beginning in 2014, systematically cracked down on the NOS policy, first by increasing the required grades (percent of marks) for eligibility of the scholarship in 2020 and delivering a death blow through major structural changes in 2022. These changes inter alia discontinued the intersectional research areas on Indian culture, heritage, and history under the NOS scholarship policy. Therefore, this policy, by implication, excludes students belonging to caste-marginalized communities from critically engaging with caste-based oppression. The regressive effects of the policy are far-reaching. Especially, its outcome has a discriminatory effect on female liberal arts scholars as a disproportionate percentage of female applicants have shifted towards STEM education (The Wire 2022). This retrogressive move by the government to censor Dalit-Adivasi voices and to shrink global critical academic space has been lamented by various international bodies, academic and civil society organizations both globally and domestically, However, this has not moved the current fascist government to reverse the changes made to the Scholarship policy.

In light of the policy changes made to the NOS impeding academic discussion on caste, and any academic engagement with its intersections, as a scholar hailing from the caste-oppressed Scheduled Tribal background, in this paper I am exploring the question – Are Dalits-Adivasi scholars doing research on caste a problem for the casteist state?

About the author

Ashok Danavath is a first-generation Schedule Tribe (Indigenous) researcher from Telangana, India, specializing in the study of experiences among marginalized communities, with a primary focuses on Dalit and Adivasi populations in South Asia. He holds an M.A. in Development Studies from the International Institute of Social Studies in the Netherlands. Ashok actively challenges prevailing narratives and champions inclusive methodologies in his research. His diverse research interests encompass educational policies for caste-oppressed students, welfare policy, rural and agrarian changes, social inequalities, post-colonial education, and epistemic violence. In addition to his research pursuits, Ashok regularly contributes op-eds in both English and Telugu. Currently, he serves as a Senior Researcher with the National Campaign on Dalit Human Rights.

Plain Reading the Constitution: Frederick Douglass, Textualism, and the Pursuit of Racial Justice 

by Emma Brush

View/download paper

Winner, Zipporah B. Wiseman Prize for Scholarship on Law, Literature, and Justice (2022)

Abstract:

In the legal imagination, Frederick Douglass is often viewed as a “constitutional utopian” for his efforts to salvage the prewar Constitution with an antislavery construction. Rejecting the views of both the Taney Court and the followers of William Lloyd Garrison, who saw the Constitution as “a covenant with death, and an agreement with hell,” Douglass and other political abolitionists put forward a redemptive view of the Constitution rooted in both the letter and the spirit of the document. For Douglass, the fierce contest over constitutional meaning suggested the amenability of the Constitution’s “plain meaning” to abolition and the importance of wresting political power, and thus interpretive power, from pro–slavery forces. The long–term potency of Douglass’s adaptive, literalist, and purposive method suggests the importance of his constitutional interpretation for formulating a racial justice jurisprudence today.

The textualism practiced by the current Supreme Court, however, poses multiple challenges to the pursuit of that same goal. The questions that occupied Douglass’s day—whether and how to embrace a document tied to foundational injustice—have come to swirl not only around Douglass’s legacy but also around contemporary questions of constitutional theory, particularly pertaining to the relation of the text and textual interpretation to racial justice. In this paper, I will argue that Douglass’s textualism offers progressive constitutionalists a theory of interpretation that meets originalism on many of its own terms but also insists on a radically revised conception
of constitutional meaning, one that centers racial justice first and foremost.

About the author:

Emma Brush is a JD/PhD student who studies the intersection of American law and literature across the long nineteenth century. Her dissertation explores the constitutional arguments of abolitionist writers and activists and traces their impact on law and political discourse from the nineteenth century to today. Before beginning her graduate study at Stanford University, she served as the managing editor of the Breakthrough Journal, the publication of an environmental think tank out of Oakland, California.

The Unhappy Marriage of ‘Queerness’ and ‘Culture’: The Present Implications of Fixating on the Past

by Arti Gupta

View/download paper

View the edited version, now published in Vol. 48(2) of the Australian Feminist Law Journal.

Winner, Audre Rapoport Prize for Scholarship on Gender and Human Rights (2022)

Abstract:

In September 2018, the Supreme Court of India in Navtej Johar v. Union of India, decriminalised consensual same-sex sexual activities by reading down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. A significant aspect of the Court’s reasoning was that Section 377 was an embodiment of ‘Judeo-Christian’ morality and a colonial imposition. In providing that reasoning, the judgment does not stand alone. For a long time, various revisionist accounts of religious texts and scriptures have been presented to argue that ancient ‘Indian culture’ had been tolerant towards non-normative sex and gender, and ‘homophobia’ was simply a British imposition. Such revisionist arguments had initially been put forth by Indian queer rights groups to nullify the orthodox homophobic attitudes, which rested on the claim that homosexuality is alien to ‘our culture’. However, this article argues that there has been an increasing cooptation of such accounts by dominant Hindu Right groups for their political ends. This article also shows that such reliance on the past (through scriptures or otherwise) to confer legitimacy on the present can have the effect of constraining the radical potentialities of that past. At the end, this article argues for a turn towards the future, which, creating new solidarities, can become a horizon of possibilities.

About the author:

Arti Gupta graduated from the National Law School of India University, Bangalore in 2022, with a degree in B.A. LL.B. (Hons.). At law school, she explored her research interests in queer theory, postcolonial theory, female sexual abuse, and critique of the human rights discourse. This paper was written over a duration of 18 months as three essays for three separate courses. This paper is a combined, expanded and edited version of all three essays. Currently, Arti is practicing as an Advocate at the Supreme Court of India.