• Selected
• Entire List

Abstract:
Ho'oponopono is a traditional Hawaiian dispute resolution system that has recently experienced a resurgence of interest. The word ho'oponopono literally means to make right. In this system, both the offender and victim participate in a type of guided mediation along with other stakeholders in the offense. Ho'oponopono is different from typical mediations because after the session is successfully completed, the participants figuratively cut the cord of legal and psychological entanglement which binds them - in other words, the dispute is put to rest forever. When victim and offender come to a true resolution of the problem, and jointly make the decision to move forward without further conflict on the issue, true healing can occur.

Ho'oponopono, hooponopono, mediation, traditional, hawaii, hawaiian, criminal, alternative dispute resolution

Abstract:
Ho'oponopono is a traditional Hawaiian dispute resolution system that has recently experienced a resurgence of interest. The word ho'oponopono literally means "to make right." In this system, both the offender and victim participate in a type of guided mediation along with other stakeholders in the offense. Ho'oponopono is different from typical mediations because after the session is successfully completed, the participants figuratively cut the "cord" of legal and psychological entanglement which binds them - in other words, the dispute is put to rest forever. When victim and offender come to a true resolution of the problem, and jointly make the decision to move forward without further conflict on the issue, true healing can occur.

Ho'oponopono, hooponopono, mediation, traditional, hawaii, hawaiian, criminal, alternative dispute resolution

Abstract:
The thesis of this Article is that outside, foreign, non-native diseases are the most dangerous threat to indigenous populations. Additional threats include the loss of cultural identity caused by the introduction of new technology, and the loss of religious and cultural identity caused by proselytizing missionaries that seek to replace the indigenous religions. As such, the world community should take all necessary steps to protect indigenous peoples from these threats. The best way to prevent the introduction of disease, technology, and foreign culture is to strictly limit any contact between modern-day society and uncontacted indigenous peoples. While some countries have domestic laws governing the relationship between their citizens and the uncontacted tribes within their country's boundaries, domestic laws are not enough because of the desire of citizens to exploit natural resources within their geopolitical boundaries.

Because domestic law is insufficient to protect the indigenous populations, a rule of international law is necessary to ensure compliance in all the countries that have uncontacted indigenous populations. Current international law does not really address the problems of uncontacted indigenous peoples. The most pertinent document is the United Nations Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. According to Professor Clinton, the draft Universal Declaration of Indigenous Rights contemplates the continued international legal protection of the peoplehood and political institutions of indigenous and tribal peoples. While the Declaration has not been ratified by the United Nations member states, the fact that a draft declaration exists is a step in the right direction.

The Declaration does address a number of issues facing indigenous peoples, but does not address the problem of first contact, that is, initial contact between foreign (usually Western) explorers and indigenous peoples which have had no prior human contact outside the members of their social group. Thus, I have modified the Declaration to address the issues of first contact, as well as some issues of sovereignty and cultural identity. The modified Declaration, titled Indigenous Homeland Security: A Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the International Law of First Contact can be found in Appendix A of this paper.

first contact, indigenous rights, indigenous peoples, international law

Abstract:
The Federal Sentencing Guidelines, introduced in 1987, are a valuable tool for some prosecutors but an albatross around the necks of others. While some commentators laud the guidelines for their transparency and horizontal equity in sentencing, others feel they inhibit justice by limiting prosecutorial discretion in sentencing. Most people who study or have contact with the Guidelines have a strong opinion about their effects on criminals, justice, and society. However, one of the more powerful aspects of the guidelines remains mainly under the radar of academics and the public alike. Section 3E1.1 grants downward adjustments in sentencing when the defendant accepts responsibility for his or her crimes. But what does it mean to accept responsibility, and when should this downward adjustment be granted? While Section 3E1.1 could be used as a powerful tool to reform the defendant, it is generally treated as an automatic benefit, given to almost all defendants who plead guilty in the federal system.

Federal sentencing guidelines, federal, criminal, 3E1.1, acceptance of responsibility, restorative justice, reintegration