ILNews

Law school program set to earn special status with United Nations

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The United Nations has recommended a program at Indiana University School of Law - Indianapolis for "Special Consultative Status" to the U.N., which would allow its students and faculty to engage in treaty negotiation sessions. The Program in International Human Rights Law learned of the honor on May 18.

George E. Edwards, professor at I.U. School of Law - Indianapolis and the founding director of PIHRL, said, "The PIHRL gained this U.N. status in part because of the long relationship we have had with the U.N., including sending our J.D. and Master of Laws (LL.M.) students to work as U.N. interns. We sent our first intern to the U.N. in 1997."

Over the past five years, government representatives of more than 50 countries have had the opportunity to review PIHRL membership information, financial records, projects, staff and student credentials, goals and mission, structure and organization, and information about the law school, the campus, and Indiana University.

"This is the equivalent of the U.N. telling the PIHRL, 'We have vetted your organization extensively and have determined that you and your members possess special expertise,'" Edwards said.

Under the new status, which is scheduled to be formally ratified July 25, faculty and students working with the PIHRL will have more open access to U.N. facilities, as well as the right to participate as a non-governmental organization in treaty negotiation sessions, Human Rights Council sessions, and other U.N. activities. Edwards and PIHRL Program Manager Perfecto "Boyet" Caparas will possess permanent NGO badges, which will permit them entry to U.N. facilities around the world, ensuring easy access to the diplomats and staff as they advocate for human rights.

About 2,000 organizations representing 200 countries have been accredited with special consultative status by the U.N. The PIHRL, in its accreditation dossier, included reports detailing human rights concerns worldwide, among them, discrimination against women in Chad and Australia, indigenous rights in Panama, and sexual-orientation discrimination in the United States and Chile.

More information about the PIHRL is available on the law school's website: http://indylaw.indiana.edu/humanrights/.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT