It seems to me yesterday when, as a second year student at the University of Bologna Law School (in Bologna, Italy), I decided I wanted to pursue a career in Commercial Law and Intellectual Property. One of the reasons was that I liked the topic probably more than many others in law school. Another (and as powerful) reason, however, was that my professor–Vito Mangini–inspired me, and made the topic more interesting than many others in law school. Since then, Vito Mangini became the most important mentor I have ever had in my academic career, the person who guided my professional life until I came to the United States (and to Marquette!).

During the following years, Professor Mangini was the supervisor of my undergraduate thesis and later of my doctoral dissertation. He then was the mastermind behind every scholarship and fellowship I have applied for (to study in the U.S., the U.K., etc.), always thinking about my career and how to help me in succeeding. When I moved from Bologna to the States he was proud and happy, and was the first one supporting and pushing me in accepting this great challenge and opportunity.

On the topic of the intersection of gender and refugee law, two recent (admittedly unrelated) reports caught my eye.  The first:  Human Rights First released “How to Repair the U.S. Asylum System:  Blueprint for the Next Administration.”  Among the several excellent suggestions in this blueprint is to “recognize gender-based persecution as a ground for asylum,” and more specifically, to “[d]irect DHS and DOJ to promulgate joint regulations that make clear that women persecuted on account of their gender are eligible for asylum.” Such reform is needed.  Hat tip Refblog Asylum Update.

The second item:  a report from Asylum Aid entitled “Relocation, Relocation:  The impact of internal relocation on women asylum seekers.”  Internal relocation (also sometimes called the “internal flight alternative”) is the idea that a person seeking refuge in another country should be required to flee internally, instead, if possible.  As the summary of the report points out:

As women’s asylum and human rights claims are more likely than men’s to be based on non-state persecution, women are disproportionately affected by the principle of internal relocation. This means even if you are recognised as being persecuted and at risk if you return to your home area, you may be told you can relocate to another part of your country. This report discusses the legal application of internal relocation and questions the appropriateness of this principle for women asylum seekers who have experienced gender based persecution.

Hat tip ImmigrationProf Blog.

If you are interested in these issues, the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies is hiring, for a permanent position as well as a summer clerk position.

Cross-posted at Feminist Law Professors.

As I am finishing up the semester teaching dispute resolution and focusing on arbitration, we’ve been having lots of fun in class finding mandatory arbitration clauses in our life — credit cards, cell phones, apartment leases, etc. My favorite clause to teach is from Gateway Computers, which used to have a clause requiring arbitration under the International Chamber of Commerce rules. My guess is that some junior associate drafting the clause thought it would be great to go to Paris on a regular basis!

I point out in class that there have been proposals to limit mandatory arbitration, but that there is generally little expectation these would be passed by the Senate or House. This year, however, the news might be different with the Democrats taking over. As Vicky Pynchon has helpfully posted, there is now new contemplation that the bill could be passed. The bill, proposed by Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold last summer, provides:

Arbitration Fairness Act of 2007 – Declares that no predispute arbitration agreement shall be valid or enforceable if it requires arbitration of: (1) an employment, consumer, or franchise dispute, or (2) a dispute arising under any statute intended to protect civil rights or to regulate contracts or transactions between parties of unequal bargaining power.

Declares, further, that the validity or enforceability of an agreement to arbitrate shall be determined by a court, under federal law, rather than an arbitrator, irrespective of whether the party resisting arbitration challenges the arbitration agreement specifically or in conjunction with other terms of the contract containing such agreement.

Exempts arbitration provisions in collective bargaining agreements from this Act.

So . . . it will be interesting to watch how the new party in charge deals with issue of mandatory arbitration (and if we have to rewrite the arbitration chapters in our textbooks once again!).

Cross posted at Indisputably.