Interning in Pohang, South Korea

This summer I have the opportunity to intern in Pohang, South Korea. I have worked primarily under two under Regent Graduates who now teach at Handog International Law School (HILS), Professor Collier and Professor Mundy.

Along with teaching, Professor Mundy runs a NGO called the Women’s Hope Center. The Hope Center provides in-client (women who stay in the Center’s housing) and out-client support for women who need help. Whether women are escaping abuse, trying to get back on their feet, or are pregnant and do not have any other support, the Hope Center works to provide not only financial support, but job placement, education, and counseling from a Christian perspective. One of the centers primary demographics, especially for in-client support is young pregnant women.

The center is one of the few (maybe only) Christian crisis pregnancy centers in Korea. Even though abortions are illegal in Korea, they are still widespread and very common. Since the Korean culture is a shame-based culture, even Christian families often encourage their daughters to get an abortion rather to save the family from suffering public shame. The Hope Center works to show that even the women feel they cannot raise a child, other options like foster care, adoption or 24-hour babysitting are still feasible options.

For those that stay in-home, there are certain requirements such as budgetary restrictions and church participation. Every week I get to sit in and participate in the Hope Center meetings, and it has been humbling to see how hard they all work and sacrifice to make a difference.

My research this summer for the Hope Center has been to research and write a paper, which will be turned into a pamphlet, about how U.S. citizens may adopt Korean children legally and get them U.S. citizenship. Korea is very nationalistic, nearly every Korean you meet will be 100% Korean, and all will claim to be. Accordingly, they are very protective apprehensive about letting foreigners adopt their children or gaining citizenship. The pamphlet will work to explain complex law in a simple fashion to Americans who contact the Center, or other places the pamphlet will be distributed, so they can make an educated choice if adoption from Korea is right for them.

As abortion moves towards legalization in Korea, hopefully a pamphlet that lets people navigate the adoption process will make the prospects of adopting from Korea less daunting and will allow for more adoptions. By encouraging and making the path to adoptions easier, these young women will see they can still give their children a good life and alleviate a lot of the family pressure.
I work with two other Co-workers, the counselor Grace and office manager Wade. Both have been extremely welcoming to me. They have taken me out to try new Korean foods and even prepared food for me as well. Wade and I have also taken up table tennis once a week after work as well. To be able to help a center work to save lives and rescue young women in such an apparent way, with such great people, has been a blessing and an opportunity I am truly grateful for.

I have also been able to learn and explore much more about Korea. I lived in Korea previously for a year. Before I lived near Seoul and while I got to experience Korean culture, Seoul is still very Westernized. In Pohang, I have gotten to see more traditional temples and food, and have had a more traditional Korean experience.

Along with the Women’s Hope Center I have two other projects. The first is with Professor Collier, a Regent Law School graduate, who now teaches and Handong International Law School (HILS).
I am doing research on the massive Chinese infrastructure plan called “One Belt One Road” and the developmental and legal consequences that will arise from it for Mongolia and Korea. Professor Collier is working on a paper about the project and my research memo will help lay the foundation for him to write his paper. It has been a unique challenge. It is a topic that I had not heard of prior to coming to Korea. Basically, the Chinese hope to spend over a trillion dollars on infrastructure projects throughout Asia and Eastern Europe to link them into trading zones and increase connectivity between them. With this massive project, the Chinese look to pursue economic as well as geopolitical goals. This project will likely be around 25-30 pages when finished.

The other project is with one of the Korean professors at HILS, Professor Won. He is writing a chapter in a book about issues of law faced by different countries around the World. He is a Korean international law expert and has been chosen to write the section on Korea. He has had me find sources and research issues such as human rights offenses, the justification behind the Korean war, and rights of P.O.W.S.

Both these projects have been extremely interesting, and life outside of the internship has been great as well. I would encourage all future students to do this internship, especially those hoping to pursue law internationally. The research topics are all relevant and the teachers are incredibly knowledgeable on the topics. For instance, Professor Won had me read nearly the whole Geneva Convention and then helped talk me through how it applied specifically to the Korean War.

-Sam Kane

This post was written by a Center for Global Justice intern.  The views expressed in this post do not necessarily reflect those of Regent University, Regent Law School, or the Center for Global Justice.


Summer Internship in Uganda

Greetings from Uganda! My name is Daniel Moxley, and I am currently in Uganda completing a summer internship at the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. It has been an honor to participate in the Center for Global Justice, Human Rights, and the Rule of Law Internship and Fellowship Grant Program. It has been a pleasure to meet and work with Justice Chibita, the Director of Public Prosecutions, as well as Chelsea Mack (a Center for Global Justice fellow at the Office of the DPP) and many other attorneys. More importantly, though, it has been a privilege to serve the people of Uganda.

Students from Regent University School of Law in Virginia, Pepperdine University School of Law in California,
and Mekerere University School of Law in Uganda, visiting Kyampisi Childcare Ministries

The Center’s purpose is to promote justice, human rights, and the rule of law around the world, but it’s purpose in Uganda specifically is to end practices such as human trafficking and child sacrifice. The Center may be unable to end these practices itself, but any progress in that direction is well worthwhile. Over the course of the summer, we were able to make progress on documentation of crimes, court filing systems, and prospective legislation that will hopefully address child sacrifice more directly than any existing laws. This work is vital to the justice system in Uganda. Those who contribute to the Center are enabling its interns and fellows to fight crime, and ultimately, to change the world for the better.

I would encourage students to apply for internships or fellowships in the future. The internship in Uganda is difficult in some ways. Interns will be exposed to terrible crimes, will have to adapt to a new culture, and will have to give up opportunities that might otherwise have been available. But they will change the world.

This post was written by a Center for Global Justice intern.  The views expressed in this post do not necessarily reflect those of Regent University, Regent Law School, or the Center for Global Justice.


Cross & Gavel Interviews CGJ Executive Director Jeffrey Brauch

CGJ Executive Director Jeffrey A. Brauch was recently interviewed by Cross & Gavel host Mike Schutt on the topic of "Knowing What it Means to Be Human." (Listen to the podcast at the bottom of this post.)

Law professor Jeff Brauch argues that our beliefs about human nature will drive our politics, our policy, and our culture. In his recent book, Flawed Perfection: What It Means to Be Human and Why It Matters for Culture, Politics, and Law (2017), he lays out a compelling case for the importance of an accurate understanding of human nature.

He begins with the idea that our fundamental presuppositions about the nature of human beings will drive how we approach almost anything in the public sphere. From there, he provides examples from the fields of human rights, criminal justice, and bioethics, to name a few.

Join Professor Brauch, Executive Director of Regent Law School's Center for Global Justice, Human Rights, and the Rule of Law, as he and host Mike Schutt discuss this important topic.


Chelsea’s Child Sacrifice Presentations with APC

Chelsea Mack has been serving as a CGJ Legal Fellow in Uganda since Fall 2017. She was recently asked to present on the topic of child sacrifice and wrote this about her experience:

Over the last several weeks, I was given the opportunity on two different occasions to present on the topic of child sacrifice. The presentation was based on many of my own observations in addition to information that I am learning throughout my fellowship.

The first presentation was one of the sessions in the Policy Lab sessions that the Africa Policy Centre (APC), a Christian Policy Think Tank based within Uganda Christian University (UCU), hosts for faculty, students, and other interested individuals. The APC members asked me to give an introduction to the child sacrifice issue here in Uganda that was followed by an in-depth discussion among the members. The presentation seemed to spark enough interest for APC to decide to commit to raising awareness of the issue and providing other possible assistance to address child sacrifice in Uganda.

Additionally, I was then asked to give a summarized presentation in a brief conference that the APC organized focusing on child sacrifice. I was one of the participants of a panel that consisted of faculty members of UCU. Various members of the media were present for recording and questions as well as selected UCU students and other invitees.

My prayer is that the issue of child sacrifice will continue to be raised in the media, on university campuses, and among Ugandan citizens so that awareness campaigns are no longer needed.

This post was written by a Center for Global Justice Fellow.  The views expressed in this post do not necessarily reflect those of Regent University, Regent Law School, or the Center for Global Justice.


NIFLA v. Becerra and First Amendment Rights

The following post is written by CGJ Summer Intern Corrie Lee.  Corrie is working with the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates for 8 weeks in Fredericksburg, VA, assisting their attorneys in legal research and writing and serving member pregnancy centers across the country.  
Learn more about Corrie Lee and make a donation to her page here >>

The First Amendment is one thing that sets the United States of America apart from every other country in the world. This amendment allows citizens the freedom to speak messages with which they agree while remaining silent regarding messages with which they fundamentally disagree and do not wish to promulgate.

Perhaps one of the most famous quotes on free speech sums up this amendment perfectly: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

The Supreme Courts' recent decision in NIFLA v. Becerra ensures the protection of these rights nationwide for all Americans.

The Supreme Court made it clear that laws targeting specific groups and the messages they promote are unconstitutional. Legislation such as AB 775 flies in the face of the original purpose of the First Amendment.

Just listen to Justice Anthony Kennedy’s concurring opinion smacking down the State of California’s attempt to overturn the First Amendment by forcing pro-life pregnancy centers to share a message that conflicts with their ideals and principles:
“The California Legislature included in its official history the congratulatory statement that the Act was part of California’s legacy of ‘forward thinking.’ App. 38–39. But it is not forward thinking to force individuals to ‘be an instrument for fostering public adherence to an ideological point of view [they] fin[d] unacceptable.’ Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U. S. 705, 715 (1977). It is forward thinking to begin by reading the First Amendment as ratified in 1791; to understand the history of authoritarian government as the Founders then knew it; to confirm that history since then shows how relentless authoritarian regimes are in their attempts to stifle free speech; and to carry those lessons onward as we seek to preserve and teach the necessity of freedom of speech for the generations to come. Governments must not be allowed to force persons to express a message contrary to their deepest convictions. Freedom of speech secures freedom of thought and belief. This law imperils those liberties.”
The State of California sought to force these pregnancy centers to speak a message about abortion that was contrary to their central goals. The Court stated that California’s AB 775 is unduly burdensome and unconstitutional on its face.

This may seem like a victory only for NIFLA and its centers, but this is a win for all Americans. Indeed, the Court has said in no uncertain terms that they will not allow the government to suppress the beliefs of private speakers or force them to promote a belief that is contradictory to their own.

The Court ensured that the free speech rights of all Americans, regardless of their beliefs, will be protected against unnecessary governmental interference.

The Court has ensured that Americans will not face unduly burdensome regulations on their speech merely because their ideology is contrary to state-sponsored abortion agendas.

Most importantly, the Court established that a state-preferred message shall not take precedence over the rights of citizens to speak freely and with conviction.

NIFLA v. Becerra stands to protect the First Amendment rights of every American citizen—regardless of political viewpoint.

This decision is a victory for all Americans. It allows citizens to continue advocating their beliefs freely and without interference from the government. Rather than protecting the interests of the state of California, the Supreme Court has vindicated Americans nationwide.

Ultimately, the NIFLA v. Becerra ruling represents a victory for freedom.

This post was written by a Center for Global Justice intern.  The views expressed in this post do not necessarily reflect those of Regent University, Regent Law School, or the Center for Global Justice.


Summer Work with the Family Research Council and Advocates for Faith & Freedom

Hello! My name is Julianne Fleischer and I have the amazing opportunity to be a part of Regent University’s Center for Global Justice, Human Rights, and the Rule of Law Internship and Fellowship Grant Program. This summer, I am working with Advocates for Faith and Freedom, a Non-Profit law firm in California as well as working remotely for the Family Research Council, a Non-Profit public policy organization in Washington, D.C.

Julianne's Workspace

I am currently working on a project with the Family Research Council in regard to international religious freedom. A number of countries have implemented laws that severely burden religious freedom. I have been researching which countries have implemented apostasy and blasphemy laws and the punishments that are enforced as a result of violating an apostasy or blasphemy law. Apostasy laws make it illegal for an individual to convert from Islam to another religion or to renounce his or her religious beliefs. Blasphemy laws make illegal to publish or state insulting language toward a religion (usually Islam).

The U.S. Department of State publishes a yearly International Religious Freedom Report and according to the report, punishment for those convicted of violating an apostasy or blasphemy law can include marriage annulment, property confiscation, or prison sentences. At least ten countries impose death sentences for those convicted of apostasy or blasphemy.

The Family Research Council in Washington, D.C.
It is a painful reality that there are individuals around the globe who do not have the freedom to exercise their religious beliefs. The threat to religious freedom is not isolated to one region, but is a global threat. Through organizations like the Family Research Council who advocate on behalf of the voiceless and the persecuted, we are able to be faithful stewards of the resources given to us by the Lord to defend religious freedom domestically and globally. Thank you for your continued support!

“Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy.”
-Provers 31:8-9

Learn more about Julianne and make a donation to her page here >>

This post was written by a Center for Global Justice intern.  The views expressed in this post do not necessarily reflect those of Regent University, Regent Law School, or the Center for Global Justice.


Interning with Shared Hope International

My name is Amanda Lopez and I am a 2L interning with Shared Hope International in Arlington, Virginia. Through my work as a student staff member with the Center for Global Justice last semester, I had the privilege of working on a Shared Hope project, which opened the door to joining the organization on-site for the summer. I am currently working as a Law Clerk in its Legal Policy Office.

During my time here so far, I have had the opportunity to visit the Capitol for a discussion on the homelessness of our nation’s youth, as well as observing various webinars discussing human trafficking, and specifically child sex trafficking. Shared Hope specifically works with states to try to implement policies protecting and advocating for child sex trafficking victims.

My main project this summer is to research federal legislation pertaining to law enforcement reporting requirements for missing and located children and how states implement this federal legislation. Shared Hope creates ‘Report Cards’ for each state to evaluate the state’s compliance with federal legislation. Reporting requirements for missing and located children makes up Shared Hope’s Report Card component 6.6.

My goal is to assist Share Hope to ensure that component 6.6 is accurate and not duplicative of the federal legislation. It has been truly eye-opening to see how many states do not follow federal legislation. Organizations like Shared Hope strive to ensure such vital legislation is being followed, especially when this legislation seeks to assist such a vulnerable community within our society.

Learn more about Amanda and make a donation to her page here >>

This post was written by a Center for Global Justice intern.  The views expressed in this post do not necessarily reflect those of Regent University, Regent Law School, or the Center for Global Justice.