Collective Law

There were many law collectives in the 1970s and till late 1980s. These collectives ran as worker-run, co operative law firms. They often had revolutionary politics, and supported explicitly revolutionary groups and individuals. Lawyer and non-lawyer employees were paid the same wages, and had equal decision- making power. At some law collectives, workers supporting families were paid more. A handful of law collectives organized along those lines still exist – For example, the People’s Law Office in Chicago. There has been a small movement of activist law collectives since the 1999 Seattle WTO protests. These groups are usually non-lawyer centered, they run along anarchist principles even if they do not explicitly identify as anarchist, and work as part of the movement for social justice. These law collectives are made up mostly or entirely of non-lawyers. They are located in cities including Philadelphia, Washington, DC. New York. Madison. Portland. Oakland. and Montreal, Ottawa, and Toronto, Canada. This new generation of law collective works to empower people to provide their own legal support. They give "trainer trainings" so people can give "Know Your Rights" and other workshops to their communities. teach people to provide legal support for their affinity groups or for specific protests. and demystify the law in general and law collective work in particular….
the "A16" World Bank and IMF protests in 2000. the Republican and Democratic convention
protests, also in 2000. the Free Trade Area of the Americas FTAA protests in 2001 and
2004. on going protests by the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty. and in the mass protests
around the US against the war in Iraq in 2003.
Role of collective law in Canada:-
Canadians believe that the rule of law must govern relations between states. Canadians have
deemed their own security indivisible from that of their allies. These are the abiding
foundations of Canada’s commitment to collective security. Canadians have a strong sense of
responsibility to alleviate suffering and respond, where their efforts can make a difference.
Canadians have proven their worth in the past and remain equally valid in a global
environment that is increasingly inter dependent.
Canada cannot dispense with the maritime, land, and air combat capabilities of modern armed
forces. at present, there is no immediate direct military threat to Canada and that
today’s conflicts are far from our shores. even so, the country must maintain a prudent level of
military force to deal with challenges to our sovereignty in peacetime, and retain the
capability to generate forces capable of contributing to the defense of their country when the
need arise. Beyond the basic national requirement, were Canada to abandon the capability to
participate effectively in the defense of North America, NATO-Europe allies, and victims of
aggression elsewhere, the country would stand to lose a significant degree of respect and
influence abroad.
Collective Security and the Changing Face of Peacekeeping.
If the country make a significant