The Rosy Future of International Law: Redux

It's that time of year again -- I'm in New York today for the Junior International Law Scholars' annual workshopping conference (generously hosted by the New York Law School Law Review and Center for International Law). Yet again, the conference is dominated by women; 22 of 35 participants are female. The panels, which are divided into four themes -- Bridging the Domestic/International Divide, International Security, International Human Rights, and Trade law -- break down to 9 female presenters and 3 male presenters, will all of the commentators being female (including our own Elena Baylis). The first and third panels are entirely female and the second has one male and three females. The balance runs the other way in the final panel (on trade), with two males, one female, and a female commentator. (We did let in two males to lead the lunchtime discussion on "engaged scholarship" but balance that with a session led by the two female organizers of the group, yours truly included). This breakdown does lend some credence to the theory that the dominance of women in the junior end of the field has to do with the ghettoizing of warm and fuzzy human rights issues as "female" -- a question we pondered about this time last year in posts here and here. But with women at this year's conference presenting articles such as "Protecting Rights Online: Access to Knowledge, Human Rights, and the International Regulation of the Internet," "Beyond Legality and Legitimacy: The Erosion of the Nonproliferation Norm," and "Deconstructing Overlaps Among Foreign Investment and Trade Regimes", there's a credible argument that we can do well more than just the "fluffy" stuff. In fact, I'd say that we're taking over the show . . .

'Nuff said

(Occasional item taking context-optional note of thought-provoking quotes.)

We’re beyond feminism. We’re into personism now.

-- Kathy DeLange, Texas-based 64-year-old retired school psychologist, interviewed by The New York Times

On this day

On February 29, ...
... 2008 (today), is celebrated Leap Year Day, the extra day squeezed into the calendar every 4 years "so that the calendar is in alignment with the earth's motion around the sun." Among traditions followed on this day is that which, in days long ago and as depicted in the 1908 postcard at right, gave a woman freedom to propose marriage rather than wait for a lagging bachelor to ask her. The arrival of a Leap Year also augurs the onset of 2 quadrennial events: a new U.S. Presidential election cycle and a new Summer Olympics, this year to be held, in Beijing, China.
... 1968 (40 years ago today) , the report of a bipartisan group appointed by U.S. President Lyndon Baines Johnson, formally titled the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders and known less formally as the Kerner Commission because its chair was Illinois Governor Otto Kerner, warned against the consequences of racism: "'Our nation is moving toward two societies, one black, one white -- separate and unequal.'" The commission contended that without immediate remedial change there'd be a "'continuing polarization of the American community and, ultimately, the destruction of basic democratic values.'"

News---Lincoln Scholar, Allen Guelzo Interviewed By Comedian Jon Stewart

Lincoln and Douglas: The Debates that Defined America, Allen C. Guelzo, Simon & Schuster, 416 pp, $26.00.

Picture right: Gettysburg College's Civil War Era Studies Professor Allen Guelzo recently appeared on Comedy Central's "The Daily Show" with Jon Stewart. Source: Evening Sun, February 28, 2007. has a link to Comedy Central's news show, hosted by Jon Stewart, which features a seven minute interview with Allen Guelzo, professor of Lincoln studies at Gettysburg College.

Description from Publisher: In 1858, Abraham Lincoln was known as a successful Illinois lawyer who had achieved some prominence in state politics as a leader in the new Republican Party. Two years later, he was elected president and was on his way to becoming the greatest chief executive in American history.
What carried this one-term congressman from obscurity to fame was the campaign he mounted for the United States Senate against the country's most formidable politician, Stephen A. Douglas, in the summer and fall of 1858. Lincoln challenged Douglas directly in one of his greatest speeches -- "A house divided against itself cannot stand" -- and confronted Douglas on the questions of slavery and the inviolability of the Union in seven fierce debates. As this brilliant narrative by the prize-winning Lincoln scholar Allen Guelzo dramatizes, Lincoln would emerge a predominant national figure, the leader of his party, the man who would bear the burden of the national confrontation.

Of course, the great issue between Lincoln and Douglas was slavery. Douglas was the champion of "popular sovereignty," of letting states and territories decide for themselves whether to legalize slavery. Lincoln drew a moral line, arguing that slavery was a violation both of natural law and of the principles expressed in the Declaration of Independence. No majority could ever make slavery right, he argued.

Lincoln lost that Senate race to Douglas, though he came close to toppling the "Little Giant," whom almost everyone thought was unbeatable. Guelzo's Lincoln and Douglas brings alive their debates and this whole year of campaigns and underscores their centrality in the greatest conflict in American history.

Book Review by Publishers Weekly/Reed Business Services: Guelzo (Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation: The End of Slavery in America) gives us an astute, gracefully written account of the celebrated Lincoln–Douglas debates of 1858. These seven debates between two powerful attorneys and statesmen, Abraham Lincoln and Sen. Stephen A. Douglas, starkly defined the stakes between sharply different positions on slavery and union on the eve of civil war and offered examples of serious, deeply reasoned exchanges of views rarely seen in American politics. As Guelzo wisely shows, the debates did not stand alone but were part of a larger Illinois senatorial campaign. Douglas won re-election that year, but Lincoln gained national recognition despite losing and then defeated Douglas three years later for the presidency. Perhaps more important, the views that Lincoln enunciated in 1858—that the government, heeding the majority's will, should halt slavery's further spread—laid the foundation for emancipation and a new era in the nation's history. Guelzo's smoothly narrated history of this segment of Lincoln's career, packed full of illustrative quotes from primary sources, will become a standard.

CWL--- Guelzo usually has a strong presence at conferences or panels and his appearance on The Jon Stewart Show is now except. Stewart handled the scholar well and the scholar handled the comedian well. Both are quick, witty and well-informed.

"The Politics of the Veil"

As recently reported by the New York Times and elsewhere, a debate is raging in Turkey about whether women should be banned from wearing headscarves (hijab) and other religious attire in public universities and other state institutions. (map credit)
Turkey imposed a ban to promote a vision of secular democracy that traces its broadest roots to the founding of the modern Turkish state by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk (below left) in the 1920s. (The law in question apparently does not single out women; certain types of beards and other forms of religious attire were also prohibited). Similar bans have been in place on and off since the days of Ataturk. In a departure from this long history, Turkey’s parliament recently backed constitutional amendments that would enable the lifting of the ban. These proposals have brought about protests in the streets seeking to maintain the ban and related protections for secularism (below right). (photo credit)
Such restrictions on religious expression implicate well-established international human rights protections. As in the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, many of the omnibus human instruments treaties include reference to the right to religion in conjunction with freedom of expression and thought. For example, the 1953 European Convention on Human Rights & Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) at Article 9 articulates broad protections for freedom of thought, conscience, and religion that include the right to change one’s religion and to express it in community with others. The right to manifest one’s religion, however, is subject to a potent “clawback” clause at Article 9(2), which authorizes the state to prescribe limitations on the exercise of the right in certain circumstances. Article 9(2) reads:
Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society
► in the interests of public safety,
► for the protection of public order, health or morals, or
► for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Similar language appears in the universal International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), drafted more than a decade after the ECHR. Thus, the human rights treaties treat internal convictions differently than external religious manifestations: restrictions may be placed by the state on the latter so long as they are prescribed by law and necessary to achieve a legitimate, and enumerated, state aim.
Ironically, perhaps, the ban that Turkey is now considering lifting has already received the blessing of the European Court of Human Rights (below right).
That blessing came in response to a complaint by Leyla Şahin, a medical student at the University of Istanbul who was denied access to lectures, courses and two written exams because she was wearing a headscarf. Şahin alleged a violation of several articles of the ECHR and its Protocols: ECHR Articles 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion), 8 (right to respect for private and family life), 10 (freedom of expression), and 14 (prohibition of discrimination), and Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (right to education). The case is Şahin v. Turkey.
In a judgment that was 5 years coming, the Grand Chamber (analogous to en banc review) rejected Şahin’s claims. While it ruled that the ban was an infringement on her rights of religious expression, the Chamber considered the restriction justified within the Turkish context. In particular, it ruled that Turkey was acting within its margin of appreciation when it considered the ban to be necessary to protect two legitimate state aims: the rights and freedoms of others and public order. With respect to the first articulated aim, the Chamber reasoned that that the headscarf is perceived by many as a compulsory religious duty. Allowing it to be worn in state institutions would impact the rights of others who chose not to wear it. (Here, the Court cited Dahlab v. Switzerland, in which the court held that a pre-school teacher wearing a headscarf may affect the freedom of conscience and religion of her very young charges). This, the Court reasoned, would threaten the right of gender equality that pervades the ECHR.
With respect to the second legitimate aim — the protection of public order — the Court ruled that the ban was justified in light of the danger posed by political Islam to the secular democratic state. The Court determined that Turkey was within its right to ban the headscarf in the face of extremist political movements that are seeking to dismantle the secular republic and impose their religious values on society as a whole. In this way, the Court accepted that the headscarf in Turkey had become a symbol of “political Islam” or “radical Islam” and that allowing women to wear the scarf is the equivalent of allowing political Islam to take root.
The Şahin decision turns largely on the concept of the margin of appreciation, a jurisprudential abstention that grants states some measure of discretion in implementing their human rights obligations in their unique historic, cultural, and social contexts. Similar to U.S. constitutional adjudication, the more fundamental the right and the more extreme the restriction, the narrower the margin of appreciation. In this case, Turkey was granted a wide margin of appreciation in light of the fact that the European Court could identify no European consensus on regulating religious symbols and thus declined to impose one on the rest of Europe. (This aspect of the ruling prompted a vigorous dissent from Françoise Tulkens, the Belgian judge, who lamented the lack of “European supervision” offered by the Court.) In addition, the Court noted that Turkey’s specific historical experience with fundamentalism and constitutional secularism justified the ban.
The Court did not independently consider Şahin’s other claims involving her right to education or privacy on the ground that those claims did not raise any issues separate from the claims under Article 9. The Court’s ruling considers the issues entirely in the abstract, even though there was no evidence in the record that the applicant sought to undermine the ethos of secularism (in fact there was testimony that she supported it), that there was any disruption at the university upon her wearing the scarf, that she subscribed to any extremist movements, or that her goal was to proselytise or attack the convictions of others. (An interview with Şahin is available here). Even in the abstract, the opinion lacks analytical rigor as to how the ban advanced the state’s legitimate goals of maintaining secularism and public order. This is the thrust of the lone dissent by Judge Françoise Tulkens (left). In her view, the principles of secularism, equality and liberty should harmonized, not weighed against each other. Furthermore, the sadly ironic result is that the European Court has disempowered women who choose the wear the headscarf out of religious conviction and ratified their exclusion from public universities — all in the guise of promoting gender equality. (It may also provoke a female “brain drain”; Şahin apparently now practices as a doctor in Vienna).
Although the case applies to just Turkey as a technical matter, the Court’s jurisprudence applies to all of Europe. This raises the question of how the Court would consider a similar ban in place elsewhere in Europe, such as the one in France (French tympanum with motto, below left). In 2004, France banned the wearing of “ostentatious” symbols symbols of religious affiliation in state institutions that on its face applies equally to Sikh turbans, Yarmulkes, headscarves, crosses, etc. In drafting a “neutral” statute the French Parliament claimed to be guided by the concept of laïcité, or state secularism, that purportedly undergirds the French state. And yet, the statute is inherently subjective, and the French majority practice will be taken as the standard against which all other practices will be compared. (In the U.S., this formulation would be immediately declared void for vagueness, because it allows for too much discretion in determining what constitutes “ostentatious.”) The French measure has been given judicial approval by the French Conseil Constitutionnel, which cited the Şahin case for support. (The best discussion of this issue, the French law, and the relevant decisions can be found in Joan Wallach Scott’s The Politics of the Veil (right), which inspired this post and its title.)
These concerns about the wearing of the headscarf create simplistic associations between religious traditions and Islamic fundamentalism, radicalism, and terrorism. This belies the fact that the headscarf and related articles of Islamic clothing (a useful guide may be found here) are in many ways unstable signifiers. Some who choose to wear the headscarf or other coverings find support—if not an obligation—for them in the Qur'an. In these circumstances, the headscarf and other coverings act as symbols of individual religious conviction, spiritual duty, and piety. In the “diaspora”—where the custom may not be mandated by religious edict, familiar pressure, or social norms—wearing the headscarf may express nostalgia for a homeland (perhaps never known), operate as a fashion statement or a form of adolescent rebellion against assimilationist parents, or assert an ethnic or religious identity against perceived cultural hegemony. Of course, how we dress is not devoid of political significance; religious fundamentalist movements have appropriated the headscarf and other coverings for political ends. In these contexts, mandating that women cover themselves can result in female subjugation by preventing women from fully participating in society. While ostensibly shielding women from the male gaze, the headscarf and other coverings may also operate to control and suppress women’s sexuality and sexual autonomy. As a symbol of chastity, the headscarf can also serve as a shaming symbol against others who resist the practice. The headscarf thus can be used as an expressive symbol by—and against women—depending on the context. Opinions like Şahin ascribed the headscarf with a monolithic meaning: the wearing of the headscarf signals ideological support for political Islam. In today’s context, this meaning has in many ways eclipsed the prior simplistic equation of the headscarf with women’s oppression.
Putting legal arguments to the side, such bans are flawed as a matter of policy. As Scott argues in her book, such ban simply reaffirm the status of Muslims as “outsiders” who inevitably pose a threat to mainstream culture and society. By outlawing the wearing of the headscarf, it inevitably becomes a symbol of resistance and an expressive act. At the same time, such bans conveniently give the illusion of action: they are easily implemented and compliance is easily verified. Such quick fixes are no substitute for the really hard work of genuine assimilation, which must involve the adaptation of the host culture to infusions of new cultures in the face of inevitable processes of globalization and migration. In any case, denying young women the right to a public education and to public employment is a perverse and counterproductive reaction to a practice with deep religious and cultural moorings.

On this day

On February 28, ...
... 1972, the week-long visit of Richard M. Nixon to the People's Republic of China, the 1st ever by a U.S. President, ended with the signing of the Shanghai Communiqué. In it Nixon and Chinese Premier Chou En-Lai set the groundwork for deeper relations between the 2 countries. During his visit the President also had met Chinese Communist Party Chairman Mao Tse-Tung; for a detailed account of the visit and all that preceded it, check out Nixon and Mao (2007) by Oxford historian Margaret MacMillan.
... 1971, the all-male electorate in Liechtenstein voted against women's suffrage in the principality, which is situated between Switzerland and Austria. The vote was 1,867 to 1,817. Women would win the right to vote in 1984. (map credit)

CWL---Ezra Ayers Carmen's Civil War (Notes)

Intrigued by the first chapter of Ezra Ayers Carmen's The Maryland Campaign of 1862 edited by Joseph Pierro, I spent some time with the editor's brief biography of the author. The first chapter is fine review of the Maryland's varied sympathies and the politics that reflected them. The clear, concise, non-hyperbolic and non-partisan writing style caught my attention immediately.

Ezra A. Carmen:

Born in New Jersey, received his degree from Western Military Institute in Kentucky.
Travelled with the Institute as an instructor when it moved to Nashville Tennessee. Taught math and received his masters degree from the University of Nashville. Returned to New Jersey and became lieutenant colonel of the 7th New Jersey.
Wounded at Williamsburg, VA on May 5, 1862.
Recuperated and became colonel of the 13th New Jersey in the summer of 1862.
Led the unit in the East Woods at the Battle of Antietam.
Within days after the battle, he visited the battlefield and conducted interviews.
Assigned to the Western Theatre, Carman suffered head injuries at Kenesaw Mountain, Georgia.
Mustered out in June 1864 and had participated in 23 engagements.
One of the prime movers in the preservation of the battlefield and the sparse collection of monuments there.

More to come on Carman's Maryland Campaign.

Picture: Ezra A. Carmen's coat in the collection of Don Troiani, Connecticut.

Write On! Transitional Justice & Development

(Write On! is an occasional item about notable calls for papers.) "Transitional Justice and Development" will be the theme of a forthcoming special issue of the International Journal of Transitional Justice. Editors seek papers for the issue, which, it's hoped, will help to "bridge the gap between the fields of transitional justice, development and peacebuilding" by publishing articles on a host of topics. Here's a sampling of some possible areas of focus:
► establishment of good governance through institutional reform post-conflict
► accountability of state and nonstate actors alike, for wrongdoing such as violations of economic and social rights and economic crimes
► gender, transitional justice, and development
► World Bank policies in post-conflict areas
► poverty and economic development programs as distributive justice or reparations
Deadline for submission, at the journal's website, is June 15, 2008. For further information, e-mail

On this day

On February 27, ...
... 1999, as many as 40 million voters thronged polling stations in Nigeria to elect a civilian as President. The election of Olusegun Obasanjo brought an end to 15 years of military rule in the African country whose flag's at right. Obasanjo, whose tenure has been marred by allegations of corruption, human rights violations, and environmental degradation (see example here), continues to rule as President to this day.
... 1992, in the anti-pornography case of R. v. Butler, 1 side of which had been argued by LEAF (logo below) -- the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund -- Canada's Supreme Court ruled that the country's law making the possession or distribution of obscene materials a crime would be unconstitutional if the basis for banning the materials were morality, but constitutional if the basis were promotion of equality of women and men.

New---Maryland Campaign of September 1862 Now Available

Today I received a review copy of The Maryland Campaign of Septemter 1862: Ezra Ayers Carman's Definitive Study of the Union and Confederate Armies at Antietam, edited by Joseph Pierro, from Routledge Press.

It is 515 pages which include a 30 page subject index and 15 appendices (100 pages). It is a large format (8.5 x 11) book, with notes at the bottom of the page (a rarity!!).

The number of notes per chapter range from 45 to 123 and there are 24 chapters. There are no photographs or illustrations. The atlas to the book has been digitized by the Library of Congress and is available at its American Memory wwwsite. The publisher states that the book will be available March 17th.

Damn! It's a beautiful thing!

The Amazon link is:

The publisher's link is:

Both Amazon and Routledge are offering free shipping on this item.

Other Voices---Early Review of Noswothy's Roll-Call to Destiny

Roll Call to Destiny: The Soldier's Eye View of Civil War Battles , Brent Nosworthy, Basic Books, 336 pages, March 2008, $27.95.

Reviewed by Bruce Trinque, Amston, CT on Civil War Discussion Group,

Although in some ways Brent Nosworthy’s new Roll-Call to Destiny: The Soldier’s Eye View of Civil War Battle can be viewed as a companion to his previous, ground-breaking The Bloody Crucible of Courage: Fighting Methods and Combat Experience of the Civil War, fundamentally Roll-Call to Destiny is independent of that earlier volume, written from a quite different perspective. Thoroughly grounded in firsthand accounts, Roll-Call to Destiny provides a vivid examination of combat during the American Civil War: infantry, cavalry, and artillery (and even naval, or at least riverine, action), from the beginning of the war until nearly its end, both Eastern and Western theaters, Union and Confederate.

The focus is not principally upon the experiences of individual soldiers, but rather upon the activities of “small units” (usually, regiments or batteries, but also brigades or larger organizations, where appropriate) at several different battles, including First Bull Run, Gettysburg, and Missionary Ridge, but also lesser-known actions such as Arkansas Post and Darbytown Road. The author does not attempt to provide detailed accounts of the whole battles, but rather focuses upon one or more selected small units at those actions to illustrate numerous facets of Civil War warfare. He is particularly careful to link the theory and practice of such American combat to European military history and technical developments, showing how the American experience fit into a broader picture and that it is impossible to really understand the battlefields of 1861-65 without taking that broader picture into account. In several cases, the author challenges conventional wisdom and provides convincing new answers to old questions.

Besides this innovative and insightful assessment of Civil War combat, Roll-Call to Destiny offers plenty of more traditional military history in the form of stirring narratives of dramatic episodes peopled by soldiers whose courage and skill rose to the occasion – or sometimes did not. This is a book that should be of great interest and value to anyone seriously interested in the real nature of fighting during the American Civil War. Even those who think that they have already read everything there is to be said on the subject will come away with new information and ideas. This is definitely a book that deserves a strong thumbs-up.


What’s Wrong With NAFTA?

Several weeks ago, I noted presidential elections seldom turned on a candidate's trade policy (post). But this campaign is shaping up to be all about trade! One newspaper recently claimed “If there is a sleeper issue with the potential to catapult Barack Obama past Hillary Rodham Clinton in the remaining delegate-rich Rust Belt states, it is the North American Free Trade Agreement . . . ” I wish I could say the debate between Obama and Clinton was a substantive one, but sadly I cannot. In a campaign where the candidates’ policies admittedly are more similar than different, they seem to be drawing distinctions based on who dislikes NAFTA more. Clinton’s now infamous “shame on you, Barack Obama” speech was in response to Obama mailers claiming she once touted NAFTA as “a boon for the U.S. economy.” Despite the fact the agreement was implemented under her husband’s watch (though partly negotiated by the first Pres. Bush), Clinton now questions NAFTA’s benefits and has called for a "time out" on future trade agreements. Obama too has adopted an anti-NAFTA stance; he claims the regional trade agreement was oversold to the American people and that his administration would fix NAFTA. So, how did NAFTA become the political hot potato for the Democratic party? What’s so wrong with NAFTA?
First off, I must admit I generally prefer multilateral arrangements like the WTO Agreement to bilateral or even regional trade agreements (“RTAs”) like NAFTA. RTAs create trade diversion. An example will help illustrate the point: Imagine Belgium is the most efficient producer of chocolate bars, and it has traditionally been the top supplier to the U.S. market. The United States subsequently enters into a trade agreement with Canada, who also produces chocolate bars. Canadian bars are less efficiently produced and therefore more expensive, but under the new trade pact Canada receives a tariff preference not granted to Belgium (as would be required under a multilateral agreement). Once the pact is signed, the lower tariff means Canadian chocolates become cheaper in the U.S. market—not because of increased efficiencies on the part of Canadian producers, but exclusively because of the negotiated preference. So now, U.S. imports of chocolate bars are diverted from Belgium, the efficient producer, to Canada.
The WTO does recognize RTAs, but GATT Article XXIV calls for these regional arrangements to liberalize substantially all trade among members, a requirement that is rarely satisfied in practice; RTA members invariably set up “carve-outs,” or specific goods and services that will not be liberalized (or that will be liberalized very slooow-ly). Moreover, there is a great imbalance in bargaining power when smaller economies negotiate individual agreements with powerful trade players like the United States or the European Union. In my view, the best trade deals—best for the United States, the world economy, and developing countries—are those that arise from the give-and-take of multilateral negotiations. Indeed, U.S. trade policy for a long time disfavored these regional arrangements. When NAFTA was signed in 1994, the United States had only two other bilateral arrangements—with Israel and Canada, neither one of which caused the firestorm of protest NAFTA did. (U.S. policy has now taken a drastic turn in favor of these RTAS, and a confusing array of regional arrangements are concluded seemingly every other day. But I save that discussion for another day.)
Alas, the strong criticism and opposition leveled at NAFTA has little to do with a philosophical debate between multilateral vs. regional trade liberalization. In a word, opponents of NAFTA are primarily concerned with jobs—or job losses to be more precise. Ross Perot once promised NAFTA’s implementation would bring “the giant sucking sound” of good manufacturing jobs leaving the United States in pursuit of lower wages in Mexico. Opposition to NAFTA plays well in states like Ohio that have lost a significant number of such jobs in recent years. But is NAFTA’s reputation as a stinker among Democrats well-deserved? Are Obama and Clinton’s efforts to distance themselves from NAFTA—and to one-up each other on the anti-NAFTA rhetoric—justified?
Understanding that statistics are “lies, lies and damn lies,” it is hard to look exclusively to empirical evidence for an answer. It is a first step, however. The studies I have seen show that NAFTA’s impact on U.S. jobs has been relatively small. One study looked at 10 years of data and concluded NAFTA-related job losses in the United States amounted to an average of 37,000 per year; during the same period, the U.S. economy was creating over 200,000 jobs per month. Another concluded “NAFTA has had relatively small positive effects on the
U.S. economy
” (though it has had relatively large positive effects on Mexico). But NAFTA has created adjustment costs—and some argue those costs are disproportionately borne by certain industries and certain groups of Americans.
A report by the well-known Public Citizen (who is unabashedly anti-NAFTA) concluded that NAFTA-related job losses disproportionately affected Latinos. Citing U.S. government statistics, Public Citizen asserts “In 1999, an astounding 47 percent of the total number of workers who received federal assistance under a program for workers certified as having lost jobs as a direct result of NAFTA were Latino.” Apparently, Latinos are disproportionately represented in some of the industries most affected by NAFTA, such as textiles and apparel. But it has proved difficult to measure the specific effects of NAFTA on specific industries. There seems to be some general agreement that in addition to textiles and apparel, the automotive industry has experienced the greatest change in trade flows, which presumably has affected employment in those sectors. Some of those changes are due to events other than NAFTA, however—such as the Mexican devaluation of the peso. Undoubtedly, NAFTA has had both good and bad affects on the U.S. economy (and on Mexico’s economy, for that matter). But the mainstream studies indicate NAFTA’s impact in the United States has been relatively minor because trade with Mexico represents a small portion of U.S. GDP—less than 3 %. While some workers in some sectors have seen significant job losses, NAFTA contains two employment adjustment assistance programs meant to provide retraining to such workers. Of course no politician wants to tell her constituents that their good paying jobs are being exchanged for a social welfare program, but the long-feared “giant sucking sound” of massive job losses has yet to materialize.
What’s wrong with NAFTA? If we are expecting benefits without any burdens, then NAFTA—and the plethora of regional and bilateral agreements we have negotiated since—will prove a disappointment. There are costs to trade. We must determine whether those costs outweigh the benefits. It is too easy to set up NAFTA and free trade as the straw man upon which we heap all of our fears and anxieties, but trade has proved beneficial to the United States time and again. If the Democratic Presidential candidates are truly arguing that NAFTA’s costs outweigh its benefits, they would do well to provide substance and context to their arguments. The chest-thumping I-dislike-NAFTA-more approach does not serve the American people well.

Child LWOP report

Just received from Equal Justice Initiative, a Montgomery, Alabama, based nonprofit organization focusing on criminal justice and prisons systems, a report on an issue on which we posted here and here: child LWOP.
Cruel and Unusual : Sentencing 13- and 14-Year-Old Children to Die in Prison, is concise yet filled with data, photos, and nutshell profiles of these children who face incarceration for life.
Check it out.

On this day

On February 26, ...
... 1987, the leadership of the Church of England voted by a wide margin to work to permit permit women to become Anglican priests. That work took a while: it was not until March 12, 1994, that Angela Berners-Wilson (right) became the 1st woman to be ordained, in Bristol, England. And a survey conducted 4 years after that found that in 6 out of 44 dioceses, "many" ordained women "complained of bullying and even sexual harassment from male colleagues."
... 1993 (15 years ago today), a car bomb exploded in the garage beneath New York's World Trade Center, killing 6 persons and injuring 100. Another 50,000 workers were evacuated from the Center, which would, of course, be demolished in the attacks of September 11, 2001. Ramzi Yousef and others said to be responsible for the 1993 attack were tried in ordinary federal criminal courts, and in 2003 their convictions were affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The 1st incident is attributed to the "Islamic Group," an organization believed to have links with al Qaeda, the network to which the 2d attack's been attributed.

Secession & ethnicity in Kosovo

Following on my post last week about the legality of Kosovo’s declaration of independence, readers interested in this subject might want to take a look at these views of the legality debate from our colleagues at Opinio Juris. And to balance those relatively secession-friendly outlooks, consider this skeptical assessment of the legality of unilateral secession, written in the context of the Quebec Secession case.
In considering these questions, I am troubled by the history of deliberate manipulation of ethnic populations in Kosovo in light of the role that Kosovo's current ethnic composition plays in assessments of its independence claim. Of course, the Serbian attempt at ethnic cleansing of the Albanian population from Kosovo was one of the reasons for NATO’s intervention and UN administration of the province. But under the UN administration, other efforts at manipulation have continued. On the one hand, periodic riots and attacks on Serbian enclaves by Albanians have pushed out most of the few Serbs who stayed after 1999. On the other hand, Serbia has provided considerable support to the Serbian enclaves to persuade the Serbs there to remain within Kosovo. When a claim to self-determination depends on an ethnic group's claim to be a people in possession of a territory, there are strong and dangerous incentives for all concerned to try to shape the ethnic composition of that territory, and certainly those have been at work here.

(credit for 2005 map of Kosovo ethnic makeup, based on data from the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe)

New---GNMP VC Is Money Magnet

$20M More To Go For Visitor Center, Erin James, The Daily Record, Sunday News, February 23, 2008

With fewer than two months to go before the opening of the new Gettysburg National Military Park Visitor Center and Museum, fundraisers are more than $20 million away from reaching their goal of $125 million needed for the project. But that's right on schedule, according to a spokeswoman for the Gettysburg Foundation, the nonprofit organization that has handled the funding of the new center. "We're thrilled with the way things are going," spokeswoman Dru Neil said.

The up-to-date fundraising total of $105 million was released this week for the first time since spring last year, when the total raised was at $93 million, Neil said. And even though the visitor center is on schedule to open April 14, the Gettysburg Foundation is not fretting the remaining amount needed. That's because the cost of constructing the center and restoring the Cyclorama painting is about $103 million -- $101 million of which has already been donated, Neil said. The difference between that total and the ultimate goal of $125 million will go toward other facets of the project, including endowments and battlefield rehabilitation, Neil said.

The new visitor center, being built off Baltimore Pike, was originally projected to cost $40 million, but the project's scope expanded and costs spiraled upward. The center will include a snack bar, a place for visitors to check historical records, a collections storage area and two theaters that will show a 22-minute film about the battle. The museum at the center will include more than a dozen rooms and more than nine interactive exhibits, serving as a gallery dedicated to topics like the casualties of war and the emancipation of slaves. Visitors will also be able to view exhibits in two areas outside the museum.

Fundraising activities are still very much alive at the Gettysburg Foundation, although the focus this past week has been on moving staff offices to the new center, Neil said. Park Service staff have said their offices will not be relocated until only days before the center's opening. Donations to the project continue to come in from both large donors, such as corporations or other foundations, and individual donors, Neil said. Center The opening at the Gettysburg National Military Park is planned for April 14.


CWL: Lucky me! I signed up for the GNMP's seminar for April 12 and it looks like the audience will receive a walk through the Saturday evening before the 14th. I'll post pictures of the event.

Capacity for outrage: Irrevocably damaged?

That's the concern voiced in "The Harm Initiative," an excellent item by Slate law columnist Dahlia Lithwick (left). She recalls having been worried that the 2004 disclosure of the Abu Ghraib detainee abuse photos would prove to be "a sort of foot in the door for looser torture standards—a way to begin desensitizing the American people to the kinds of abuse that had been going on in secret." (We've posted similar concerns about the effect of depicting violence here and here.)
Congress' loosening of standards in the Military Commissions Act of 2006 went a long way to that end, Lithwick writes. She then moves to her current concern: that "just as those images paved the way to our broader torture policy," any further information of "the CIA torture tapes now stand to do the same thing for water-boarding in particular."

On this day

On February 25, ...
... 1986, in Manila, Corazon Aquino (left) was sworn in as the 1st woman President of the Philippines. The move culminated what was called the People Power Revolution, which sent into Hawaiian exile longtime dictator Ferdinand Marcos. He'd threatened to stage a ceremony swearing himself back into power; he changed course, however, after the United States withdrew its support of him. Aquino, who had entered politics after the 1983 killing of her husband Benigno, a dissident leader, held office until 1992. Litigation stemming from human rights violations during the Marcos regime continues; indeed, as we've posted, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear 1 such case. Argument in Republic of Philippines v. Pimentel is set for March 17, 2008.
... 1956, in an effort to dispel "the 'Stalin cult' that has held Soviet citizens in its thrall for 30 years," Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev "denounced Joseph Stalin as a brutal despot" in a speech before the 20th Congress of the Communist Party.

Dark days ahead in France

The French justice system is scraping bottom, according to former Justice Minister Robert Badinter (left).
On Thursday, the Conseil constitutionnel, France's constitutional court, approved the bill I discussed last month calling for life internment of perpetrators sentenced to at least 15 years in prison for crimes aggravés -- crimes committed with aggravating circumstances -- committed against minors. Stating that the measure constitutes “ni peine ni sanction”, i.e., neither a criminal penalty nor an administrative sanction, the “wise men”, as the constitutional judges are called, affirmed that a person who has served his or her term for a crime but is determined to still be dangerous may be interned for the rest of his or her life, as long as regular passages before psychiatrists confirm dangerousness. The doctors’ union, among others, opposed the law because, among other things, it confuses mental illness with criminal delinquency, standard practice in totalitarian societies: the state, rather than civil society, deals with social deviance (mental illness, political dissidence, or any other behavior or belief that can be labeled dangerous) as well as criminal delinquency. As first proposed, the law was to apply retroactively, another standard of totalitarian regimes that is contrary to general principles of criminal law and international human rights law. The Conseil d’Etat, the highest administrative court in France, nixed the retroactivity clause: internment could only apply if, at the time of sentencing, the judge tacked it on to the sentence. The lower house of parliament therefore approved the bill without the retroactivity clause. Under pressure from President Nicolas Sarkozy (left), his party’s majority in the Senate muscled through a version of the law with the retroactivity clause put back in. The Conseil constitutionnel took it out, thus limiting application until at least 2023, and added a further limitation: during their incarceration, persons subject to the provision must have been provided the psychological and other help necessary to their rehabilitation. The provision thus would, in theory, apply only to those who, despite such services, are determined to still be too dangerous to release. In a stunning challenge to the separation of powers dictated by the French Constitution, Sarkozy has asked the chief justice of the Cour de cassation how to get around the Conseil constitutionnel, saying "we can’t let the 'monsters' go free". One of the magistrates’ unions expressed “stupefaction”, and both unions are calling for resistance on the chief justice’s part as well as for demonstrations: art. 62 of the Constitution provides that the Conseil’s decisions are beyond all recourse, and are to be followed by all courts as well as the executive and the legislature. Standing by her man, so to speak, is the current Justice Minister, Rachida Dati (right), who says the law represents “significant progress” and that Sarkozy is justified in his challenge.
President and Justice Minister together against the Constitution. Remind you of anyone?

African Migration to Europe

President Geoge W. Bush’s trip to Africa last week (he visited Benin, Tanzania, Rwanda, Ghana, and Liberia) also stimulated some media attention on African migration to Europe. (At left, a 2007 photo of Bush with Liberian President Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf.)
African and European policymakers came together at an international conference in Accra, Ghana, to strategize on ways to prevent thousands of deaths and human rights abuses involved in irregular migration flows between the continents. (It's a problem about which IntLawGrrls previously posted here and here; also see report of a similar meeting held in Accra in 2005.)
Migration is not new, nor is it necessarily a “problem.” (See, e.g., a 2007 OECD Report arguing that migration can help improve economic standards in host countries as well as in countries of origin.) Scientists and historians attribute our ancestors' early migrations across Africa and beyond to survival strategies (in response to climate change, hunting patterns, or agricultural needs) and to the desire for conquest, trade, or exploration.
The reasons for contemporary African migrations are familiar: nomadic migrations to follow natural agricultural patterns or trading opportunities, displacement resulting from political persecution or instability, war, famine, or natural disaster.
The Accra conference also focuses on “irregular” economic migration to Europe and the loss of life and human rights abuses that accompany it. Intermittent news stories recount stories of overcrowded and rickety boats going down with dozens of African migrants; estimates put the number of such deaths at more than 1000 per year. Many migrants who arrive by boat come from North Africa. However, due in part to a previously liberal Libyan immigration policy and other recent events, migration from from sub-Saharan Africa is on the increase. Some make dangerous journeys across the Sahara in search of work in North Africa or to boat smugglers who will take them to islands off the mainland of Spain or Italy. More than 20,000 Africans made the boat passage to Italy in 2006 alone. The Migration Policy Institute estimates that 7 to 8 million African irregular migrants now live and work in Europe. No one really knows how many have died in the Sahara or on the seas.
Some migrants came from educational and economic backgrounds that allowed them (or their families) to save enough money for the trip. Others simply made their way the best they could.
Migration flows are often gendered in nature—based on the “push” from the home country and the “pull” from the host country. Women and children, for example, make up a large percentage of refugees escaping armed conflict. Male migration seems to predominate in the boat migration to Europe through North Africa.
The complexity of irregular migration status is often ignored by officials in host countries. “Economic migrants,” no matter how difficult their circumstances, are often disparaged and their economic and social rights marginalized. And many such “economic migrants” might also be political asylum seekers who have been persecuted in their home countries. According to the Oxford-based migration researcher Hein de Haas, human rights NGOs have criticized European and Libyan governments for violating the international legal principle of non-refoulement by returning asylum seekers to countries in which they might be tortured or persecuted.
Those who do make it become substantial economic supports for their own families and for home country economies. The World Bank estimates that remittances from African migrants (not all of whom leave the continent) can constitute a significant portion of a home country's GDP. (See World Bank Remittances Factbook 2008 and an article discussing the possibility of a World Bank sponsored Diaspora Remittance Investment Fund.
According to the BBC, the Accra conference prioritized two strategies:
1st, the policymakers plan to publicize the life-threatening risks of the migration itself as well as the alienating or abusive conditions many African migrants with irregular status experience while living and working abroad.
2d, conference delegates discussed proposals to increase legally authorized migration targets for African workers with specified skills. Instead of promoting the well-known “brain drain” in which the Global South exports nurses, doctors, and teachers to Europe and North America, some argued for ways to enhance “brain circulation” or “circular migration”—temporary labor migration of skilled workers. The latter approach is not based in altruism; some European countries face labor shortages in certain fields.
Publicizing the dangers is an important start. On the other hand, large-scale temporary work programs may be as controversial in Europe and Africa as they are in the United States. (See 2007 Council on Foreign Relations report on “circular migration.”) But such measures would not address the root causes of large-scale African migrations—the yawning economic and social development gap between Europe and Africa, political instability and the trade in small arms, as well as the human will to risk everything to ensure the survival of those we love.

(photo above right courtesy of Office of U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees)

On this day

On February 24, ...
... 1803 (205 years ago today), the U.S. Supreme Court for the 1st time held an Act of Congress unconstitutional, and thus established the power of judicial review over legislative and executive action. Chief Justice John Marshall wrote the landmark judgment in Marbury v. Madison (above) for a unanimous Court. Evidence of the decision's lasting and global significance is this article by James Crawford, a professor at England's University of Cambridge: Marbury v. Madison at the International Level, 36 George Washington International Law Revew 505 (2004).
... 1955, 5 countries signed the Pact of Mutual Cooperation Between the Kingdom of Iraq, the Republic of Turkey, the United Kingdom, the Dominion of Pakistan, and the Kingdom of Iran. Known as the "Baghdad Pact" in recognition of the Iraqi city in which it was signed, the treaty did not last long: as detailed in a BBC analysis, its failure "heralded the end of British influence in the Middle East."

Other Voices: Damn Rare African-American Archives

Man Amasses Black History Treasure Trove, Kathy Matheson, Associated Press, February 23.

As a child growing up in the 1940s, Charles Blockson was once told by a white teacher that black people had made no contributions to history. Even as a fourth-grader, Blockson, who is black, knew better. So he began collecting proof.

Picture: "Slave Trade", from the Middle Passage , envelope, #16, Sec 11, courtesy of The Charles L. Blockson Afro-American Historical Collection, Temple University

Today, the Charles L. Blockson Afro-American Collection at Temple University contains more than 30,000 historical items, some dating to the 16th century. It includes Paul Robeson's sheet music, African Bibles, rare letters and manuscripts, slave narratives, correspondence of Haitian revolutionaries and a first-edition book by W.E.B DuBois.

"It's really invaluable," curator Diane Turner said. "The materials are just so wonderful and unique." The collection has grown so much since Temple acquired it 25 years ago that it moved into a larger space on campus this month. Blockson, 74, is a historian, lecturer and author who began amassing his collection as a boy living in the Philadelphia suburb of Norristown. His quest began after he asked a substitute teacher about famous black people in history. She replied that there weren't any.

"I set out to prove her wrong," Blockson said. Among his first purchases were the books "Up from Slavery" by Booker T. Washington, "God's Trombones" by James Weldon Johnson and a biography of George Washington Carver. As he grew older, Blockson's hunts for books at the Salvation Army and Goodwill led to searches at more rarefied shops. He recalled a bookstore where he would hide volumes he couldn't afford in hopes they would still be there when he saved up the money.

At Penn State University, where his starring roles on the football and track teams earned him the nickname "Blockbuster," his friends did not understand his passion. "People used to say, `What are you collecting those old books for?'" Blockson recalled. After graduating in 1956, he turned down an offer to play football with the New York Giants and briefly entered the military. His continual collecting and research helped him become an expert on the Underground Railroad; he wrote several books, lectured around the world and met historical figures including Rosa Parks, Langston Hughes and Malcolm X.

Blockson worked as a teacher beginning in 1970. About 13 years later, he gave his collection to Temple and began serving as its curator. The fact that it's at a mainstream university makes it unique among large black historical collections, said Michele Gates Moresi, curator of collections at the National Museum of African American History and Culture. Many prominent collections are at historically black colleges, such as Howard University's Moorland-Spingarn Research Center in Washington, D.C., she said.

"With the heart of the black community in North Philly, it was a perfect place for it," he said of his decision to house the collection at Temple. Blockson also recently donated thousands of items to the Penn State library, which plans to open the Charles L. Blockson Room in April. There is some overlap with the Temple collection, which emphasizes black history in Philadelphia and Pennsylvania, but the Penn State items more broadly document the African Diaspora, said Nancy Eaton, dean of Penn State libraries.

Scholars are lucky that Blockson began collecting when he did, said F. Keith Bingham, archivist at historically black Cheyney University near Philadelphia. Many items in the collection might not be available now or would be prohibitively expensive, he said. Last fall, the University of South Carolina paid $35,000 for a first-edition book by black poet Phillis Wheatley, a slave who once read her work in the presence of George Washington. Blockson said he paid a sliver of that when he acquired his copy 40 years ago.

Today, his collection includes valuable books, pamphlets, posters, taped interviews, artwork and more than 500,000 photographs. Among the rare acquisitions: a copy of Dale Carnegie's "Lincoln the Unknown." The book's jacket has a patch of tanned skin from a black man, which is embossed with the title.

Before retiring at the end of 2006, Blockson lobbied for more room for the collection because it had outgrown its space in Sullivan Hall. Turner, who took over as curator in September, oversaw the move to a larger space in the building. Visitors are greeted by "The Lantern Holder," a type of statue Blockson said indicated safe homes on the Underground Railroad. "It serves as the sentinel to the collection ... to guide people in," he said. Those who follow it can ask to read a copy of Blockson's own autobiography: "Damn Rare: Memoirs of an African-American Bibliophile."

Picture: Curator Diane Turner, right, talks on the phone as workers move books from the Charles L. Blockson Afro-American Collection to a different location at Temple University in Philadelphia, Wednesday, Feb. 13, 2008. The collection contains over 30,000 historical items, some dating to the 16th century. AP Photo/Matt Rourke

On the Net:


Biographical Information: The grandson of an escaped slave, historian Blockson has compiled and edited 47 first-person accounts of blacks who stole their way to freedom via the harrowing stratagems and hidden routes generically called the underground railroad. Few of the accounts will be new to students of the rich lode of ex-slaves' narratives; but Blockson brings to bear years of work as the curator of Temple University's Afro-American Collection and his earlier mapping of routes in a National Geographic article. His focus on the emotion and uncertainty of escape makes this work a handy primer on the pain, daring, and drama of the slaves' flight. For Afro-American and antebellum collections. Thomas J. Davis, SUNY at Buffalo, Reed Business Serives

CWL: Blockson's The Undeground Railroad and African Americans in Pennsylvania: Above Ground and Underground : An Illustrated Guide
are the standards in the field for school, undergraduate, and public libraries.

The Underground Railroad is a fascinating collection of letters, diaries and narratives of slaves, with accompanying historical notes and photographs. African Americans in Pennsylvania: Above Ground and Underground: An Illustrated Guide is an encycopedia/biographical dictionary of African Americans and their communities during the mid-19th century. Adams County's Yellow Hill, which was the refuge of many African-Americans during the Battle of Gettysburg about 8 miles to the south, is discussed.
Bloggers Team