The Parsley Massacre and its Impact on Haitian-Dominican Relations

By Kimberly Bernard

Kimberley Bernard is a 2024 graduate of Albany Law School. A native of Westbury, NY, Kimberley was raised by Haitian immigrant parents. She completed her undergraduate studies at SUNY Albany, earning a Bachelor of Arts in English.

During law school, Kimberley gained diverse legal experience through internships with the Albany County Public Defender’s Office, the Honorable Richard A. Rivera, the New York State Attorney General’s Law Enforcement Misconduct Investigative Office, and the Family Violence Litigation Clinic. She also worked as a student assistant in the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion office and served as treasurer of the Black Law Students Association.

Following graduation, Kimberley joined the Franklin H. Williams Judicial Commission as a Legal Fellow.

Kimberley, a proud Haitian-American, is passionate about raising awareness of Haiti’s history, ongoing challenges, and, most importantly, its vibrant culture and richness. This paper was written for Professor Bonventre’s International Law of War and Crime Seminar.

This paper explores the historical complexities surrounding the Parsley Massacre, a brutal episode in the fraught relationship between Haiti and the Dominican Republic. Beginning with an analysis of the historical context, economic disparities, and factors leading to tension, the study delves into the rise of Rafael Trujillo and the anti-Haitian sentiments propagated by his regime. Focusing on the events of the Parsley Massacre itself, the paper examines the methods employed by Trujillo's government and the international community's response.

The aftermath section assesses the enduring impact on diplomatic relations, human rights, and the socio-cultural fabric of both nations. Drawing parallels with similar historical atrocities, the paper underscores the importance of historical memory and commemoration. It scrutinizes the efforts towards reconciliation, both on a bilateral level and within diaspora communities.

The study concludes with reflections on the lessons learned from the Parsley Massacre, advocating for increased historical awareness, educational initiatives, and international cooperation to prevent future conflicts. Through this comprehensive analysis, the paper contributes to a nuanced understanding of the Parsley Massacre and its ongoing implications for the interconnected histories of Haiti and the Dominican Republic.

_____________________

To read the paper, open HERE.

The Defense of Following Superior Orders

A Complex Ethical Dilemma

By Patricia T. Whelan

Patricia Whelan earned her J.D. from Albany Law School in 2023 and was admitted to the New York State Bar in 2024. Before attending law school, she earned her bachelor’s degree from Penn State.  At Albany Law, Patricia was involved in various organizations including the Albany Law Review, Elder and Disability Law Pro Bono Society, and Student Bar Association.  She received the Outstanding Law School Chapter Justice Award as Chief Justice of Phi Alpha Delta Law Fraternity and previously served as the Editor-in-Chief of the Center of Judicial Process.  Patricia also enjoyed competing in Moot Court and was a finalist in the 2021 Donna Jo Morse Client Counseling Competition.  Patricia has interned for the Third Judicial District, Federal Public Defender’s Office, and served as the Law Student Liaison for the ABA Section of State & Local Government Law.

Currently, she is working as an Associate Attorney at Pierro, Connor & Strauss.

Two of Patricia’s law school seminar papers have previously been published on the Center for Judicial Process website. [One on Justice Thomas and one on the NY Court of Appeals.]

The defense of following superior orders is one of the most complex and controversial defenses in international criminal law that requires careful consideration of the moral, legal, and historical contexts.  The question of whether it is morally justifiable to follow orders, even when they conflict with one’s own sense of right and wrong, has been a topic of debate for centuries.  This ethical dilemma has been central to discussions surrounding war crimes, military obedience, and the responsibility of individuals within hierarchical organizations.  Generally, soldiers are duty-bound to obey the orders of their superior officers.  However, this becomes problematic when a soldier is ordered to perform an act which constitutes an act of war.  In such situations, the duty of military obedience conflicts with the need to maintain the supremacy of the rule of law.  

Historically, the defense of following superior orders previously allowed soldiers to escape culpability for their crimes.  However, the principles established during the Nuremberg Trials explicitly rejected the defense of following orders, stating that individuals are still responsible for their actions, even if they were acting under orders from a superior.  These Trials set an international precedent that war criminals cannot claim that they were following orders to escape responsibility.  Orders that involve war crimes, human rights violations, or actions that contravene international law are considered unlawful and must not be followed.  This moral duty is rooted in the principles of humanity and the protection of basic human rights.

This paper discusses the defense of following orders and its ban to prevent defendants from escaping liability for their actions during World War II.  Part II provides a brief explanation of the defense and examines the common justifications used to support it.  Part III explores the history of the defense and its relevance in the notorious Trials.  Part V considers the moral and ethical dilemmas surrounding the defense of following orders, and Part VI briefly concludes.

_____________________

To read the paper, open HERE.

International Law Studies Staff, 2024 - 2025

Director  
Vincent M. Bonventre

Student Editorial Board, 2024 - 2025
Editor-in-Chief

Rachael Brown is a third year JD candidate at Albany Law School.  She graduated from SUNY New Paltz where she majored in International Relations and minored in Disaster Studies.  She is the Managing Editor for Business and Production for the Albany Law School Government Law Review.  She spent the summer following her first year at Albany Law as an intern with the Honorable Daniel J. Stewart in the Northern District of New York.  She spent this past summer as a legal intern with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Operational Services Division.  She is still working for the Commonwealth and completing another internship in NDNY with Judge Stewart.  She is also a research assistant for Professor Hirokawa.

Executive Editor

Ethan Rotondi is a 3L at Albany Law School. He received his undergraduate degree from Le Moyne College in Syracuse, where he majored in Political Science and Pre-Law. During his time at Le Moyne, Ethan was invited to the New York State Political Science Association’s Annual Conference where he presented research focused on U.S. foreign policy as it relates to the conflict in Yemen. Ethan is currently a law clerk with Thorn Gershon Tymann and Bonnani, LLP in Colonie, and has previously interned at the New York State Office of the Attorney General and the Rensselaer County District Attorney’s Office. In his free time, Ethan enjoys skiing and watching the Chicago Cubs. 

Executive Editor

Connor Weingarten is a third-year student at Albany Law School. He graduated from Ithaca College, where he majored in Journalism. Before coming to Albany Law School, Connor worked as a sports radio producer and studio host for Learfield IMG College, and as a production assistant for NBA Entertainment.

He spent the summer following his first year at Albany Law as a legal intern in the Schenectady County Attorney’s Office, on behalf of the Department of Social Services. He has also completed a field placement in the New York State Senate with Senator Kristen Gonzalez, and he spent this past summer as a legal intern with the New York State Department of Labor.

Connor is currently working once again in the Schenectady County Attorney’s Office.

______________________

For previous years' boards, click HERE. 

International Prosecution of Gender-Based Violence

How the ICTY Transformed the Treatment of this “Inevitable Consequence of War” 
By Brianna Wagner

Brianna Wagner is a third-year student at Albany Law School from Troy, New York. She graduated magna cum laude from Fordham University with a major in Political Science and a minor in Women, Gender, and Sexuality Studies.
During her time at Albany Law, Brianna has served as both Secretary and Co-Chair of the Women’s Law Caucus, Teaching Assistant for Introduction to Lawyering I & II, and participated in the Donna Jo Morse Client Counseling Competition and the Domenick L. Gabrielli Appellate Advocacy Competition.
In her role as WLC Co-Chair, Brianna served as a student member of the Kate Stoneman Committee. In the 2023-24 academic year, she also served as an ex officio member of the Gender Fairness Committee of the Third Judicial District.
Brianna will be joining Hinman Straub as a first-year associate in the fall, pending her admission to the New York State Bar. 

Richard Goldstone, the former Chief Prosecutor for the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, noted that “[m]en had written the laws of war in an age when rape was regarded as being no more than an inevitable consequence of war.”

In the aftermath of the Bosnian War, the ICTY was tasked with prosecuting the atrocities that occurred at the hands of the Serbian army. For the first time in international legal history, the tribunal departed from the idea that sexual assault is simply a byproduct of war and set a new precedent for how sexual violence should be prosecuted.

This paper examines how that tribunal permanently altered the way international law prosecutes gender-based violence, by including sexual violations in convictions of genocide, grave breaches, crimes against humanity, and violations of the laws and customs of war. Other international tribunals have used the ICTY as a template for prosecuting gender-based crimes and have continued developing the way international law addresses sexual violence.

_____________________
To read the paper, open HERE.

The Great Irish Potato Famine: Did the British “Famine Relief” Constitute Genocide?

By Christina C. Jefferson

Christina Jefferson, a 3L at Albany Law School, graduated from Niagara University, magna cum laude, with a Bachelor of Science in Criminal Justice and Criminology and then earned a Master of Science in Criminal Justice Administration from Niagara as well.

At Albany Law, Christina was the winner of the 2022 Donna Jo Morse Client Counseling Competition, and she has served as both a Research Assistant for Professor Evelyn Tenenbaum and a Criminal Law Teaching Assistant for Professor Vincent Bonventre. She is currently a Law Clerk at Shaw, Perelson, May & Lambert, and she is also currently working toward her Private Investigator license in New York State.

Christina enjoys hiking and has a lifetime goal of visiting every National Park in the United States.

The Great Famine in Ireland obliterated the potato crop and starved a large portion of the Irish population from 1845 to 1849.  A fungal disease named phytophthora infestans infected the entire crop and rendered the potatoes useless.  At the time, the Irish relied heavily on their potato crop due to its heartiness and ability to grow well without additional resources.  Potatoes were the staple crop of the Irish farmers, and roughly half the population relied on the crop for survival, especially the poor, rural communities.

By 1846, entire crops succumbed to the blight and were unusable. All told, it is estimated that between five hundred thousand and three million Irish people died as a result of The Great Famine.  Some people question whether the British government did enough to help their colony of Ireland during the worst blight they had experienced.

__________________

To read the paper, open HERE.