Go On! ABA women's rights session

(Go On! is an occasional item on symposia and other events of interest)

As the next in its 2010-2011 series of Rule of Law Informational Sessions, the Section of International Law of the American Bar Association will sponsor a free session about IMPOWR, its International Models Project on Women's Rights, from 11 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. Eastern time on March 31, 2011.
Attendees may take part in the session in person at the Law Library of Congress, Room LM 240 of the Madison Building, 101 Independence Avenue, S.E., Washington, D.C., or by preregistering here in to take part by teleconference.
Details here.

Go On! "Live from L" webcast

(Go On! is an occasional item on symposia and other events of interest)

To celebrate the 80th Anniversaryof the "L" -- the Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State -- a webcast event, Live from L, will be held from 12 noon to 2 p.m. Eastern time on February 24, 2011.

Speaking live from the moot courtroom at George Washington University Law School will be the current Legal Adviser, Harold Hongju Koh, and other senior L staff. They'll be talking about a variety of international law issues. Time permitting, there'll be Q&A as well.Cosponsoring the event with GW are American University, the American Society of International Law, and the American Bar Association Section of International Law.
Law students may sign up for the webcast free; for others, registration is $15.

Register here.

Guest Blogger: Erin Daly

It's IntLawGrrls' great pleasure to welcome Erin Daly (left) as today's guest blogger.
Erin is Professor of Law and Associate Dean of Faculty Research and Development at Widener Law School in Wilmington, Delaware. She earned her B.A. from Wesleyan University and her J.D. cum laude from the University of Michigan, then practiced 1st Amendment and employment law at the San Francisco law firm of Cooper White & Cooper.
Since entering academia in 1993, she's produced many publications on comparative environmental law, constitutional law, and transitional justice, among them Reconciliation in Divided Societies: Finding Common Ground (2006), for which a Nobel Peace Prizewinner, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, wrote the foreword. Co-authoring the book (issued in paperback in 2010) with Erin was Jeremy Sarkin, the South African legal expert about whom we posted yesterday.
Erin has served as a Vice-Chair of the Young Lawyer’s Division Law and Media Committee of the American Bar Association. Earlier this month, Erin was elected the Chair of the Section on International Human Rights of the Association of American Law Schools (a position that IntLawGrrl Christiana Ochoa held a while back). In her guest post below, Erin recaps the Section's "new voices" programs during AALS' 2010 annual meeting, discusses Section plans, and welcomes suggestions for the coming year.
Erin dedicates her post to Coretta Scott King (1927-2006), about whom we IntLawGrrls have frequently posted. She was, of course, the widow of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. (prior posts) -- and she was also a civil rights and human rights activist in her own right. Today the United States observes Martin Luther King, Jr. Day. It is, as Erin writes, a holiday that Coretta Scott King

named in honor of her husband, but which is really a testament to her own lifelong commitment to making the world a better place through service to others and to holding up ideals of equality and human dignity, whether in the context of literacy, poverty eradication, or the rights of minorities of all kinds in the United States and abroad. She took on each new challenge with grace and intelligence and continued throughout her life to push for greater rights for all.

(source for 1984 Charles Tasnadi/AP photo of her leading a picket of South African embassy in Washington, D.C.) Today we are honored to include Coretta Scott King in our list of foremothers just below the "visiting from..." map at right.

Heartfelt welcome!

Congratulations to Diane!

I am pleased to report that today in San Francisco, IntLawGrrls' founder Diane Marie Amann (center) received the 2010 Mayre Rasmussen Award for the Advancement of Women in International Law at the American Bar Association annual meeting. We've posted previously on the details of the award here. It was an honor to be there, along with IntLawGrrl Connie de la Vega (right).
As Diane would say, "Heartfelt congratulations!"

Go On! More ABA intlaw sessions

(Go On! is an occasional item on symposia and other events of interest) In addition to the free session on the international death penalty about which we've already posted, other complimentary programs of intlaw interest are scheduled in tandem with the upcoming American Bar Association annual meeting in San Francisco.
According to an e-mail just received from the ABA Standing Committee on Law and National Security, here are complimentary events (caveat: not always so flagged in the full ABA program) that the section has planned, in cosponsorship with the Section of International Law and a number of others:

Friday, August 6
► Immigration Reform: Court Reform and Beyond, 2-4 p.m., Moscone Center West, 747 Howard Street, Second Floor, Room 2009. Discussing various legislative and administration proposals will be Chief Counsel Roxana Bacon, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services; Director Lucas Guttentag, American Civil Liberties Union Immigrants' Rights Project; Judge Dana Leigh Marks, President of the National Association of Immigration Judges; and Deputy Assistant U.S. Attorney General Juan Osuna, Chair of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Karen T. Grisez, Chair of the ABA's Commission on Immigration, will moderate.
► Cyber Security, Law and Liability - Thieves, Spies and Hostile Armies, 3:45-5:15 p.m. Moscone Center West, 747 Howard Street, Room 2022. Risks of and strategies to combat cyber-insecurity will be discussed by: Stewart A. Baker, former Assistant Secretary for Policy Department at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Pacific McGeorge Law Dean Elizabeth Rindskopf Parker; and Council of Foreign Relations Fellow Robert K. Knake. Harvey Rishikof, who heads the ABA's national security standing committee, will moderate.

Saturday, August 7
► Standards in International Law: Anticipatory Self Defense and WMD Programs - The Use of Lethal Force, 8:30-10 a.m., Moscone Center West, 747 Howard Street, Room 2020. Discussing preemptive strikes, U.N. Charter obligations, and other use of force issues will be discussed by Army Col. W. Renn Gade; Professor Ruth Wedgwood (Johns Hopkins); Deputy Director Leonard S. Spector, James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies; and Professor Orde Kittrie (Arizona State). Commander Chris Bidwell, National Security Counselor for the Defense Threat Reduction Agency at Ft. Belvoir, Virginia, will moderate.
► Careers in National Security Law, 10:30 a.m. to 12:15 p.m., Marriott Marquis, Golden Gate Hall, C1, B2 Level, 55 Fourth Street. Addressing private- and public-sector job growth in national security law and ways to find such work will be Lt. Colonel James Durant, Deputy Head of the Air Force Academy's Department of Law; Professor Michael Greenberger (Maryland); and Texas Tech law student and Iraq War veteran Jeff Mustin. Andrew Borene, Manager of Intelligence Community Programs at LexisNexis, will moderate.
For the full program of ABA annual meeting events is here.

Go On! International law & capital punishment

(Go On! is an occasional item on symposia and other events of interest) Judges' use of foreign and international legal norms -- an issue often treated at IntLawGrrls (most recently here) -- will be the topic of discussion for a free-of-charge panel to be held in conjunction with the upcoming annual meeting of the American Bar Association (a meeting, incidentally, that will conclude the year-long term of the ABA's current President, Carolyn Lamm, an expert in international arbitration, litigation, and trade).
Here's the plan for the session entitled The Influence of International Law and Opinion in US Death Penalty Cases, to be held 8-9:30 a.m. Saturday, August 7, at Bingham McCutchen LLP, Three Embarcadero Center, San Francisco, California:

Panelists will discuss whether it is legitimate to consider international human rights instruments or treaty obligations in capital cases, recent capital cases involving issues of international law and comity, and the effect of foreign governments’ opposition to the implementation of the death penalty on foreign nationals. We will conclude the session with a discussion on what, if any, universal principles of fairness and due process exist among countries that retain the death penalty.

Speakers confirmed so far are Juan Manuel Sanchez, Consul for Protection and Legal Affairs at the Consulate General of Mexico in San Francisco, and our colleague Richard J. Wilson, Professor of Law and Director of the International Human Rights Law Clinic at American University Washington College of Law. Moderator will be Maurice Possley, a Pulitzer Prizewinning journalist and Lecturer at the University of Michigan Law School.

No need to be registered for the ABA annual meeting to attend this event. RSVP here.

Kampala Countdown – Civil Society at the ICC Review Conference – America and Americans

(As part of IntLawGrrls' series on the ICC Kampala Conference, delighted to feature another guest post from Leila Nadya Sadat)

KAMPALA, Uganda – As the Review Conference of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court enters its final climactic days, it is useful perhaps to think about what has been accomplished and what lies ahead.
Certainly, States and civil society have had a real opportunity to engage the Court, and the Court’s personnel have had the opportunity to hear both praise and criticism from affected communities. The Ugandan newspapers have carried daily coverage of the conference and there is a real sense of pride among Africans here that the world came to their continent for this important milestone in the ICC’s existence.
As for the amendments, last week the Belgian amendment was adopted and sent to the plenary, as this writer predicted; and while many States objected to the retention of Article 124 of the Rome Statute, others, led by Japan, argued that it was an important concession to increase ratifications, particularly in Asia, and it now appears that it will be retained with a “sunset” provision (at the fourteenth Assembly of States Parties meeting).
But of course, it is inclusion (or not) of the crime of aggression that is the critical issue and the most difficult. The statements of delegates during the opening plenary and opening sessions of the Special Working Group on Aggression demonstrated tremendous consensus on the inclusion of this crime within the Court’s jurisdiction; but divergences of views emerged as to the preconditions for the exercise of the Court’s jurisdiction. In contrast to U.S. Ambassador at large for War Crimes Issues Stephen Rapp’s very well-received remarks in the opening plenary, U.S. Department of State Legal Adviser Harold Hongju Koh delivered remarks on Friday, June 4th that were more difficult for many delegations to swallow. Koh emphasized what he thought was a lack of consensus among the delegates and imperfections in the definition of aggression set out in proposed Article 8bis. Perceptions that the U.S. delegation was present to “kill” the inclusion of aggression caused much discomfiture in the room, even though the other permanent members of the U.N. Security Council also spoke out in favor of an exclusive role of the Council in determining whether or not an act of aggression had taken place or not, including Britain and France. The latter referred to this as a “ligne rouge” that could not be crossed.
As I wrote a decade ago about the Rome Statute itself, the issue of the crime of aggression poses a clear challenge to the prerogatives of the P-5, and at the same time is linked to them through the possibility of Security Council referral (Article 13(b)) and Security Council deferral (Article 16 ). Many States and several human rights groups believe that granting the Security Council an exclusive filter will politicize the Court and oppose inclusion of aggression subject to that precondition.
H.R.H. Prince Zeid Ra'ad Zeid al-Hussein of Jordan, Chair of the Special Working Group, has had a difficult task during the past few days navigating between these two positions to forge a middle ground. A new conference paper has emerged as well as new “understandings” proposed to attempt to bridge the gap (including one attempting to underscore that the Court will really hear only the “most serious” cases), and there is cautious optimism among the leadership of the Review Conference as well as with this writer, that a compromise solution will be adopted.
One last thought:
As a member of civil society attending the ICC Review Conference and a proud U.S. national who, at the same time, was not part of the U.S. delegation (and respectfully begs to disagree with official U.S. policy on the issue of aggression) I was thinking about this interesting situation of so many Americans present in one capacity or another at this important meeting, even though the United States is not a party to the ICC, and in fact spent many years actively trying to destroy the Court.
In addition to the very large official delegation (14 members is what I have been told, although the initial rumor was that there were 25 members present), many influential U.S.-based human rights groups are present, several representatives of various foundations, a collection of assorted law professors attending in one capacity or another (including this correspondent), the American Coalition for the International Criminal Court (AMICC), the American Bar Association 2010 Task Force, the Heritage Foundation (one member of which tried to sneak in as a CICC member!), and, in his own category, former Nuremberg Prosecutor Benjamin Ferencz. I suppose this is all to be expected; the ICC as an institution represents values that American lawyers adhere to, and the Nuremberg legacy exerts a powerful influence even today. Yet, although I saw two Chinese representatives of civil society present, and representatives of other non-States Parties were there, no other non-State Party is represented to such a significant degree. This makes the contrast between the “official” U.S. delegation and the large “unofficial” grouping a noticeable one.

Rule of Law, Environmental Clinics, Justice, and Academic Freedom

At Washington and Lee University School of Law’s commencement ceremony last weekend, ABA President Carolyn Lamm made a call for the critical role of lawyers in forwarding justice. Talking about the rule of law, in particular, she said: “it is not just the rule of law that we are called upon to strengthen but the rule of just law.”
Her remarks made me reflect upon the current attacks on U.S. clinical legal education, and especially environmental clinics, by state legislatures in light of my experiences helping to develop clinical legal education in China almost ten years ago. As a Yale-China Legal Education Fellow at Sun Yat-Sen University’s law school, I taught civil rights law and helped the school launch its first legal clinic, which focused on labor law. The Ford Foundation has played a critical role in launching clinical legal education programs around the world, including in both the United States and China.
During my time working with clinical legal education in China, I often heard this Ford Foundation clinical initative described as playing a critical role in developing the rule of law there. Because they provided students with an active learning experience and practical understanding of the law, these clinical experiences helped them to bridge the gap between school and practice. They also provided students with the chance to reflect upon professional responsibility under the guidance of their professors. Whenever I have encountered people who scoff at the notion that I was teaching law in China out of a sense that there is not meaningful law there, I describe a day I spent observing students provide legal advice to injured workers in a manner very much like what takes place in clinics in this country.
From my own experiences of clinical legal education in both countries and the stories of my students and colleagues, I am quite certain that clinics play a critical role in helping our students strengthen the “rule of just law.” As the Society of American Law Teachers (SALT), which I serve on the board of governors of, has articulated in its responses (here and here) to these clinic attacks, clinics play a crucial role in preparing our students to be ethical lawyers and in serving populations (like those injured farm workers in China) who would not otherwise be able to have needed legal assistance. When state legislatures threaten to impede the operation of these clinics, they put at risk our student’s education and law schools’ provision of a needed service to those who are disadvantaged in our society.
Moreover, these attacks are part of a broader, troubling pattern exemplified by the Virginia Attorney General’s recent request that UVA provide information on climate scientist Michael Mann. Law schools and the universities in which they are located need academic freedom in order to provide important knowledge to society and educate the next generation effectively. These attacks are wrong not simply because they are politically motivated—supported by powerful corporations facing suit by clinics or by those who disagree with climate science—but because they make it harder for universities to be places in which people learn through the free flow of ideas. If we create a climate of fear around research already being scrutinized through a peer-review system or around teaching people to provide needed representation to a broad range of clients, we undermine the ability of universities and their law schools to serve society. As our country and the world faces a broad range of vexing problems, such service is more needed than ever.

IntLawGrrl Receives Rasmussen Award

'Grrls. . . It is a great pleasure and honor to announce that our very own, Diane Marie Amann (right), founder of IntLawGrrls blog (which just celebrated its 3d birthday on March 3!), is being awarded the "Mayre Rasmussen Award for the Advancement of Women in International Law."
The award is presented by the American Bar Association Section of International Law to individuals who have achieved professional excellence in international law, encouraged women to engage in international law careers, enabled women lawyers to attain international law job positions from which they were excluded historically, or advanced opportunities for women in international law. Past recipients include Marsha Echols, Rona R. Mears, Dianna Kempe, Lucinda Low, and, posthumously, Mayre Rasmussen.
Rasmussen was a pioneer in the field of international business law. She was one of the first women to break into the international business law practice at a major international law firm, and was also one of the first women to achieve a major leadership position in the Section of International Law and Practice. She was a founder of the Women's Interest Network (WIN), the successful ABA International Law Section program that focuses on women in international law; she was also well-known for mentoring women.
Diane follows easily in those great footsteps.
You can read the details of Diane's extensive and impressive bio here. But, in a nutshell, Diane has more degrees than she knows what to do with, was a Supreme Court law clerk, has practiced law in both the private and public spheres, taught law all over the world, directed institutions, received numerous awards, and mentored students and colleagues. IntLawGrrl Beth Van Schaack sums it up:

Not only is Diane an intellectual powerhouse and inspired and inspiring teacher in the field of international law, she is also an incredibly generous mentor.

And, as you know, Diane is the also the founder of IntLawGrrls blog, which has had more than 3,000 posts since inception with almost 3 dozen permanent IntLawGrrl voices and more than 100 women who've joined the blog as guests. As another IntLawGrrl, Jaya Ramji-Nogales, eloquently describes it:

Through IntLawGrrls, Diane has created a vital and vibrant space for female academics to voice concerns specific to our experience and to express our opinions on the pressing issues of the day.

Indeed, it was the chorus of IntLawGrrls singing Diane's praises to the ABA that nominated her for the Rasmussen Award. A clear reminder that we must continue to actively support and promote one another.
CONGRATULATIONS Diane! You are a true inspiration to us all with your tireless efforts to advance women in international law.
Diane will receive the award at either the ABA International Section's Women's Interest Network (WIN) in April at the 2010 Section Spring Meeting in New York City, or in in August during the ABA Annual Meeting in San Francisco. We'll keep you posted!

ABA to honor Zimbabwean lawyers

This coming Saturday, August 1, at a luncheon meeting in Chicago, the Rule of Law Initiative of the American Bar Association will honor Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights with its 2009 Rule of Law Award.
The Zimbabwean group -- a public interest litigation organization operating in one of Africa's most treacherous environment's for human rights defenders -- is being recognized for its efforts at advancing the rights of persons in the country. Its impressive portfolio includes:
► Representing indigent individuals who have been illegally denied citizenship;
► Providing emergency legal aid to detained human rights defenders;
► Training legal practitioners, teachers, and traditional leaders on human rights; and
► Preparing lawyers for a future transitional justice project.
In addition to honoring the courageous lawyers and advocates who protect human rights in Zimbabwe, the giving of this award also provides an opportunity to reflect upon the state of human rights in that country in recent years:
► In June 2008, the U.N. Security Council condemned Zimbabwe's intimidation of political opponents, which resulted in the deaths of opposition activities and displacement of thousands. Despite the creation of a coalition government between President Robert Mugabe's Zanu-PF and the Movement for a Democratic Change leader earlier this year, Zimbabweans continue to struggle against an oppressive Mugabe regime in their quest to realize their human rights.
► On June 18, 2009, four members of the nongovernmental organization Women of Zimbabwe Arise were detained by police for peacefully demonstrating in commemoration of World Refugee Day. The women were assaulted while in custody, and then denied medical treatment for their injuries.
► On July 13, 2009, Mugabe supporters disrupted a national conference to draft a new Constitution, which would include provisions to curtail executive power.
Established in 1994, the Rule of Law Award is granted to leaders and countries that take "significant steps towards implementing democratic and market reforms" on the domestic level. Past award recipients of the Rule of Law Award include Pakistan's lawyers and judges who protested that country's purging of its judiciary; U.S. Supreme Court Justices Stephen Breyer and Anthony M. Kennedy; and Nataša Kandić, Founder and President of the Humanitarian Law Center based in Belgrade, Serbia.
Heartfelt congratulations to the courageous members of Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights and their peers!

Who Should Engage in Post-Conflict Reconstruction -- Civilians or Military?

Last week, President Barack Obama announced that although he hoped to send 300 civilians to Afghanistan, he was unable to find the economists, lawyers, and political scientists he had hoped to send. Therefore, he announced, he would instead engage soldiers and the military to do the post-conflict reconstruction programmatic work.

Post-conflict reconstruction is a relatively new field, if it can even be said to be a field, in which internationals and locals work to normalize and build sustainable institutions and infrastructure following war. Aspects of post-conflict reconstruction can include legal drafting, democratization, human rights institution building, gender mainstreaming (often sorely missing, as I have written in my article Lessons from Arizona Market: the Impact of Neoliberlism and the Free Market Mindset on Women in the Post Conflict Reconstruction Process).
The entire enterprise is highly susceptible to critique for a mulitude of reasons, many of which I have written in my article Deconstructing the Reconstruction: Human Rights and the Rule of Law in Post War Bosnia and Herzegovina. The enterprise smacks of colonialism, in particular when internationals are put in positions akin to governors of a colonial outpost, as was arguably the case in Kosovo and, for some of the postwar period, in Bosnia and Herzegovina. This engenders fears of western imperialism, particularly when programs which work in the United States or Europe are imposed or superimposed onto other legal, cultural, political, and economic systems. It is particularly sensitive to the often whimsical and fleeting interests of donors (at the nation-state, organizational, and private level) that would often prefer to see their money used on "sexier" issues than those that have been carefully assessed to be real priorities.

The possibility, then, that military personnel would become the de facto internationals to engage in these operations still in a nascent phase of normative development, and already fraught with legitimate critiques from virtually every scholarly disclipline, is frightening. This is not to say that military personnel are not inherently capable -- or also are, in fact, economists, lawyers, and political scientists, although most are not. But military are on the ground to maintain and foster security, which is a different objective than having the skill and priority of creating sustainable rights regimes.

When I heard that President Obama was planning to send military personnel to do post-conflict reconstruction work because he could not find 300 U.S. civilians to do the job, I wanted to tell him that, in fact, although not well publicized, there are many divisions within federal agencies and private organizations that have produced thousands of U.S. civilian professionals and scholars who have already engaged in post conflict reconstruction work. For instance:

► A division within the Department of State sent hundreds of American lawyers to Bosnia and Herzegovina to assist with the first and second round of elections, and then seconded several hundred to the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe as experts in human rights, elections, governance, democratization, media, education and gender.

► A different division of the Department of State has sent hundreds of American lawyers as Junior Professional Officers to the United Nations.

► The American Bar Association's CEELI program regularly sends lawyers and judges abroad to work in developing legal systems.

► A multitude of agencies of the United Nations employs Americans on a contract basis at any give time.

It is high time that the United States developed databases of expert Americans with international experiences and kept these people at the ready as potential surge teams. We exist in the thousands at any given time. Rather than turn these crucial tasks over to the military, already stretched to and beyond its capacity, the United States must begin to recognize its existing -- albeit informal -- core of civilians trained in aspects of post-conflict reconstruction. And it must find a way to make it feasible to call up and send these civilians, rather than to engage the military to become responsible for post-conflict reconstruction work.

Go On! "Transnational Networks"

(Go On! is an occasional item on symposia of interest. This particular one's a guest post, from IntLawGrrl guest/alumna Jenia Iontcheva Turner)

On Friday, November 7, 2008, SMU Dedman School of Law will host an international law conference entitled The Rise of Transnational Networks. The American Society of International Law is a co-sponsor, and the quarterly publication of the American Bar Association's Section of International Law and Practice, The International Lawyer, will devote a symposium issue to the conference.

In the last few decades, judges, legislators, prosecutors, and agency officials have increasingly been coordinating policy and decision-making across borders through informal networks. Such coordination has often occurred without formal legal sanction and is especially prominent in areas of cross-border regulation, including banking, antitrust, environmental protection, and securities law. But it also occurs in more politically charged areas, such as constitutional law, national security, law enforcement, and human rights.

This conference will bring together academics, judges, government agency officials, and NGO representatives to discuss the increased prominence of networks and the contributions of such networks to international cooperation. Participants will discuss questions such as:

► Under what conditions are transnational networks likely to arise?

► How do they function?

► What are their advantages over traditional diplomacy and international organizations?

► In what circumstances are networks most likely to be successful?

► What are some of the main obstacles to their legitimacy and effectiveness?

► How can these obstacles be overcome?

A detailed program, registration, and more information may be found here.

On the Job! UNDP, ADR & equality in Pakistan

(On the Job! pays occasional notice to interesting intlaw job notices) The American Bar Association-U.N. Development Program International Legal Resource Center is seeking applicants for a UNDP program aimed at achieving gender equality in Pakistan via mechanisms of alternative dispute resolution (ADR).

The 30-day project's set to be go forward this fall; application deadline's this Friday, September 26. Any ADR expert should send c.v. and cover letter "express[ing] your interest in the position and outlin[ing] why your background is suitable" to gichingj@staff.abanet.org.

On August 21

On this day in ...
... 1973 (35 years ago today), after an inquest jury returned an open verdict, "the Londonderry City coroner, Major Hubert O'Neill," said that British troops who'd opened fire on civil rights marchers on January 30, 1973, were responsible for "'sheer unadulterated murder.'" The shootings in Derry, Northern Ireland (coat of arms at right), on what's known as "Bloody Sunday," left 14 unarmed persons dead.
... 1878 (130 years ago today), in Saratoga Springs, New York, 100 attorneys from 21 states founded the American Bar Association. According to the ABA's website:

The legal profession as we know it today barely existed at that time. Lawyers were generally sole practitioners who trained under a system of apprenticeship. ...
The first ABA constitution ... defined the purpose of the ABA as being for 'the advancement of the science of jurisprudence, the promotion of the administration of justice and a uniformity of legislation throughout the country....'
Today, the stated mission ... is 'to be the national representative of the legal profession, serving the public and the profession by promoting justice, professional excellence and respect for the law.'

The Doha Disaster & Ross Contest: What I did on my Summer Vacation

Hello InLawGrrls Readers!
Where has the summer gone? Just a few short weeks ago, I set out for some much needed R&R. I landed in Westport on California's moody, foggy, cold, craggy, and oh-so-beautiful North Coast. Westport is a town of about 200 inhabitants with a claim to fame nearly unheard of in the modern age: I couldn't get internet access! I confess at first I was perturbed at the thought. No access? Whatever would I do without the "civilizing" influence of the internet, Starbucks, bookstores and all that noise that accompanies modern life? What did I do? I went native! I quickly gave up on the thought of driving 20 miles down a steep, narrow and winding road to get my fix. Instead, I walked on the beach, read, walked my dogs, slept and wrote a little (my rented house didn't even have a television and my cell phone got no reception to boot!). As with any addiction, the first 72 hours were the worst. After that, it was simply amazing. I only wish all of you had a chance to rejuvenate as well. (photo credit)
Alas, back to reality! Upon my return to civilization (ok, I confess to pouncing on my email like a starving water buffalo set free on the range) I was met with a pleasant surprise: my fifteen minutes of fame had arrived! Diane was kind enough yesterday to highlight the publication of my essay, which won the American Bar Association's Ross Essay Contest. I owe a debt of gratitude to all of you for the win. I first wrote about that conversation with my father right here on this blog. I don't believe I would have written the same essay without the trip down memory lane I first took with all of you. Thank you. Let's see, to date my blog posts have led me to: (1) write an op-ed piece published in the Sacramento Bee, (2) write an award-winning essay, and (3) launch my own website. Wow! I look forward to seeing what this (academic) year's posts will bring!
Of course, plugging back in to civilization also brought its share of bad news. Once again, trade negotiations that would have completed the nearly eight year old Doha Development Round collapsed at the eleventh hour. If I did not know better, I would say this round was cursed. We had a miscarriage in 1999 with the "Battle in Seattle," when developing countries refused to agree to a launch. It wasn't until just a few weeks after September 11, 2001, that Doha was born--as proof of Presiden't Bush's commitment to business-as-usual so as not to "let the terrorists win." An inauspicious beginning for a trade negotiation, you'll have to agree. Then came the "Cancun Crisis," where delegates failed to meet a crucial deadline and everyone said the round was DOA. And now this . . . The "Doha Disaster" as I've dubbed it (if I were keeping up with the parallelism, I would have to find something to rhyme with "Geneva," which is the city in which the current negotiations fell apart. Try as I might, my rhyming skills just were not up for it, so I took the easy way out!)
Is this really the end of the round? Maybe. Nothing will happen before the U.S. Presidential election; and having failed so spectacularly at the eleventh hour, it will take a great deal of U.S./EU leadership to bring things back on course--not to mention India's support. I cannot see a new president using his early political goodwill for something that is admittedly so controversial (and particularly not if that President is Obama--who is my choice despite our differences on trade policy). If Doha is not dead, it is going into a very long hibernation.

You go, 'Grrl!

Kudos to IntLawGrrls' own Marjorie Florestal (left), whose smiling face jumped out at me on reading this month's edition of the ABA Journal.
Why?
Well, for her essay titled, simply, "Why?"
The Journal 's Board of Editors selected Marjorie's essay over nearly 200 others that sought to answer this question: "Why do you believe the legal profession is the greatest profession in the world?"
To answer, Marjorie draws readers back to her childhood, to a hot day in the tiny kitchen of her apartment in New York City:

'Why?' my father finally asked.
Family legend has it that I responded, 'Because I want to be the international Thurgood Marshall.'

Marjorie concludes -- here's a hint without a giveaway of the ending -- by offering a "why" to that "why." Full essay's here.
In addition to having her essay published, Marjorie won a $5,000 prize in the essay contest, which, as the Journal explains, is "supported by a trust established in the 1930s by the late Judge Erskine M. Ross of Los Angeles" (right).
Heartfelt congratulations!

Medellín executed; debate continues

The case of José Ernesto Medellín ended with his execution by lethal injection at 9:57 last night at the Texas prison in Huntsville.

In March, as detailed in prior IntLawGrrls posts, the U.S. Supreme Court in Medellín v. Texas rejected the Mexico-born defendant's challenge to his conviction. Medellín had contested the use of a confession obtained without telling him of his Vienna Convention on Consular Relations right to consular access. But the Court held 6-3 held that the Convention regime, which Congress never implemented into internal U.S. law, did not oblige Texas to reconsider Medellín's case, notwithstanding an International Court of Justice order to do so.

Last night's execution went forward after the United States' highest court declined Medellín's application for a stay. This vote was 5-4. Justice John Paul Stevens, who had cast the 6th vote for Texas in March, would have granted a stay in order to seek the views of the U.S. Executive respecting what, in Stevens' view, was the failure of Texas to discharge its

duty as a matter of international law -- to remedy the potentially significant breach of the United States' treaty obligations ....

Also dissenting from denial of a stay were Justices David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen G. Breyer. Breyer favored delay in order to permit Congress to respond to the Medellín majority's exposition of what it maintained makes a treaty provision self-executing or non-self-executing. Making particular note of the mid-July introduction into Congress of a bill entitled the Avena Case Implementation Act of 2008, Breyer argued that

until the Court's decision in Medellín a few months ago, a member of Congress might reasonably have believed there was no need for legislation because the relevant treaty provisions were self-executing. It is not realistic to believe Congress could act to provide the necessary legislative approval in only a few weeks' time.

Questions of how government ought to respond to Medellín's treatment of international treaties' status in internal U.S. law endure despite the conclusion of this particular case. Taking up those questions is a newly appointed Joint Task Force on Treaties in US Law, newly formed by the American Society of International Law and the American Bar Association's Section of International Law. Members include private- and public-sector attorneys, as well as a number of IntLawGrrls' academic colleagues: yours truly, Diane Marie Amann, California-Davis; Donald K. Anton, Michigan; Curtis A. Bradley, Duke; Lori Fisler Damrosch, Columbia; Duncan Hollis, Temple; Julian Ku, Hofstra; Sally Rider, Arizona; Edward T. Swaine, George Washington; and Carlos Manuel Vázquez, Georgetown.

(credit for 2007 Pat Sullivan/AP photo of Texas death chamber)

Human rights lawyer still under house arrest; American lawyers plan to march in solidarity

Further to Naomi's post above:
Less attention has been paid by the media to a human rights lawyer who remains under house arrest in Pakistan. She is Asma Jahangir, head of Pakistan's Human Rights Commission -- the website for which, incidentally, appears to have been removed from the Internet. (Jahangir photo at left courtesy of jazbah.org, a website by and about women in Pakistan)

Foreign correspondent Emily Wax wrote in yesterday's Washington Post that Jahangir

was placed under house arrest last Saturday, and since then the government has turned her two-story family villa into a jail. More than 20 prison guards, some with submachine guns, are posted in her garden, and plainclothes officers in oversize suits peer through her windows.
. . . .
Life under house arrest has been 'just lovely, and it hasn't hurt me,' Jahangir, 55 and mother of three, said Friday in an interview at her home. 'I am so proud of Pakistanis and specifically of our lawyers for speaking out and getting their heads bashed in for a better Pakistan.'

American Bar Association lawyers, meanwhile, plan to march around the Supreme Court in Washington on Wednesday to show solidarity with Pakistan's lawyers, and the ABA encourages similar marches throughout the country. Details here.

¡Felicitaciones, Cruz!

Heartfelt congratulations to my colleague, Cruz Reynoso, recipient of the American Bar Association's 2007 Robert J. Kutak Award, in recognition of his life's work as a lawyer, judge, and professor.
Those who spoke at yesterday's ceremony in San Francisco sketched an outline of Cruz's life: Growing up as 1 of 11 children in then-rural Orange County, California, where, as a child of Latino heritage, he attended segregated public schools. Rejecting those who said he was foolish to think he might one day go to college. Earning a bachelor's from Pomona College and a law degree from the University of California, Berkeley. Hanging out a shingle in El Centro. Becoming director of the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, and then a law professor at the University of New Mexico. Returning to California to join the bench. Eventually serving, from 1982-1987, as an Associate Justice of the California Supreme Court, the Latino to hold that position. Vice Chair of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, U.S. delegate to the U.N. Human Rights Commission. Receiving the Presidential Medal of Freedom from President Bill Clinton in 2000 (above).
It's a truncated list of achievements, and yet it does not include what I've found most significant in the 6 years that Cruz, just retired this year as a chaired law professor at University of California-Davis, has been my colleague. He's a gentleman, in the best sense of the word -- a person of understatement and empathy, a mentor to his students, a friend to his colleagues. ¡Felicitaciones, Cruz, y muchisimas gracias!