Study dispute resolution in Cyprus

(Delighted to welcome back alumna Anna Spain, who contributes this guest post)

I am pleased to announce a new program on international dispute resolution that I’ll be helping to teach this summer. It will take place in Cyprus, a venue that provides a unique and important context for the study of international dispute resolution.
In 1960, Cyprus became an independent nation after being under British colonial rule, thus aggravating the ongoing dispute between Turkey and Britain over the territory. Hostilities in 1963 and 1974 ultimately resulted in Turkish Cypriots declaring their independence as the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus from the Republic of Cyprus. (This history is the subject of a post yesterday as well as many prior IntLawGrrls posts.)
Today, the island nation is divided de facto into these two communities by an UN-administered buffer zone. The UN Peacekeeping Mission (logo below left) has served to maintain the ceasefire on the island since 1964 under the mandate of UN Security Council Resolution 186. Issues pertaining to property, territory, governance and the Turkish vs. Greek cultural identities remain, although economic development has led to increased cooperation in recent years.
In 2002, efforts to resolve the dispute began under the Annan Plan, which was formally presented to the parties by UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan on March 31, 2004. Although the Plan, which proposed terms to adjust the territory and address outstanding property disputes, was not accepted by the parties at that time, future efforts are being considered.
Our innovative study abroad program is inspired by this history.
It’ll be taught by Cesare Romano, Professor of Law at Loyola Law School and Director of the Cyprus Program and me. We will strive to understand the complex factors contributing to this and other international disputes around the world. As detailed here, we will spend one week at the University of Nicosia in the southern part of the island of Cyprus, and two weeks at Eastern Mediterranean University in the north. Participants will also visit the UN Peacekeeping Mission.
The program is designed to offer a comprehensive study of
► International dispute resolution mechanisms; and
► How those mechanisms are used to manage international conflict and to resolve international legal disputes.
The three-week, four-credit course will cover a broad spectrum of topics, including international law, the use of adjudication in international courts and tribunals, negotiation, mediation and other peacebuilding approaches.
I am delighted to be involved in this initiative, both professionally and personally.
The situation in Cyprus offers me an opportunity to expand my research and scholarship about how process, through international dispute resolution, can contribute to resolving conflict and influencing state-behavior. Identity-based conflicts and intra-state conflicts, like the one in Cyprus, are on the rise, expanding international disputes beyond the traditional inter-state context. As a result, new approaches are required. (See my recent article discussing this, Integration Matters: Rethinking the Architecture of International Dispute Resolution.) This initiative will also draw upon my prior experiences as an attorney-adviser at the U.S. Department of State – working with the UN Compensation Commission and the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal – in considering ways to approach the property disputes that are a contributing factor to the situation on Cyprus.
On a more personal note, I began my work in this field 17 years ago when, as a high school student, I helped mediate racial tensions between black and white members of my community. I understand first-hand how sensitive and challenging addressing identity-disputes can be. I also believe that progress is possible, and I look forward to sharing this optimism with those who join us in Cyprus this summer.
This program is open to law students as well as members of the general public. Applications are due April 8, 2011. For more information or to apply, visit here.

Third Four Societies Conference

(Delighted to welcome back alumna Anna Spain, who contributes this guest post)

Scholars from around the world recently gathered in Awaji, Japan, for the Third Four Societies Conference.

Hosting the end-of-August event was the Japanese Society of International Law. Along with the Australia and New Zealand Society of International Law, the Canadian Council on International Law, and the American Society of International Law, JSIL has participated in Four Societies since the conference was established in 2006, in order to foster a scholarly network of international law scholars that is truly global in its perspective. (IntLawGrrls posted on the second conference here.)

Nisuke Ando, Professor Emeritus of International Law at Kyoto University and Director of the Kyoto Human Rights Research Institute, delivered the keynote address, in which he framed the central theme of the conference: “International Law in the New Era of Globalization.” In his remarks, Ando defined globalization not as an emerging trend but as an ongoing process that cannot be constrained within a particular point of time. He challenged participants to consider whether international law in an era of globalization intends to promote benefits that are shared by all.

The conference’s seventeen participants -- approximately half of whom were women -- were selected to present scholarly works (papers available here) by their respective societies.

► Mika Hayashi, Yoshihisa Hayakawa, Yoshiyuki Lee-Iwamoto, and Tomonori Mizushima represented JSIL.

► Sarah McCosker, Christopher Michaelsen, Karen Scott, and Philippa Webb represented ANZSIL.

► Ljiljana Biuković, Charles-Emmanuel Côté, Robin Hansen, and Dwight Newman represented CCIL.

► ASIL selected the following people to attend on its behalf, pictured above from left to right:

yours truly, Anna Spain, Associate Professor at University of Colorado Law School; co-presenters Rahim Moloo, General Counsel at University of Central Asia, and Justin M. Jacinto, Associate at White & Case LLP, standing next to ASIL President David D. Caron; Anastasia Telesetksy, Associate Professor at University of Idaho Law School; and Michael J. Kelly, Professor at Creighton University Law School, standing next to ASIL Executive Director Elizabeth Andersen.

While scholars wrote on different subjects in the areas of the environment, globalization, human rights, humanitarian law, international dispute settlement, investment and trade, several central themes emerged:

► What is the role of sovereignty in today’s world?

► How should we understand fragmentation, integration and harmonization?

► Should international law prioritize the collective interests of the international community?

► Is it time to democratize international law and increase the status of non-state actors?

After two days of presentations and commentary from the participants, the conference concluded with remarks by leaders of the four societies, including ASIL President Caron.

The participating scholars plan to publish their works as a collection in an edited volume.

The Fourth Four Societies Conference will be hosted by ASIL, under the leadership of Caron and Andersen, in 2012.

Women @ ASIL Update

Just in time for the American Society of International Law's annual conference, here's an update to Diane's earlier, comprehensive post, "Women @ ASILquater."
In addition to the IntLawGrrls bloggers and guests/alumnae and other female speakers listed in that post, there are two late-breaking panels that feature IntLawGrrls and other women:
On Thursday, March 25, from 10:45 am ­ 12:00 pm, our own Hope Lewis (pictured right) will moderate a panel entitled “The Humanitarian Crisis in Haiti: International Legal Implications.” The 2010 earthquake in Haiti is estimated to have killed 230,000 people and displaced more than 1 million, triggering a humanitarian crisis of global significance. Only a few weeks later, a massive earthquake hit Chile. This roundtable will address the international and transnational legal implications of such disasters. In particular it will emphasize international legal frameworks for preparedness and risk-reduction and the rights and treatment of internally-displaced persons (including special legal obligations toward women with children, persons with disabilities, and unaccompanied minors). Panelists will also discuss the implications of international trade and development law for long-term recovery after such disasters. Panelists include Janet Lord of the Harvard Law School Project on Disability and Claire Nelson of the Institute of Caribbean Studies.
On Friday, March 26, from 10:45am - 12:00pm, the International Refugee Law Interest Group will sponsor its first panel, entitled "Occupation and Refugee Status: State Responsibility Arising out of War, Intervention, and Prolonged Foreign Territorial Control." This session will address issues relating to the obligations of occupying powers to refugees, such as: Does an occupying power carry primary responsibility for the protection of people whose lives were specifically affected by its actions, for refugees "created" by war or intervention, irrespective of the legitimacy of those acts? Do such obligations extend beyond the time of occupation and what is the relationship between prolonged occupation and refugee status? Panelists include Susan Akram (Boston University) (pictured left) and yours truly, IntLawGrrl Jaya Ramji-Nogales. The discussion will be followed by the Interest Group's business meeting from noon until 12:30 pm.
Also, ASIL Program Committee Co-Chair and IntLawGrrl Hari Osofsky (pictured below right) reminds us not to forget the poster sessions, which include posters from emerging scholars and practitioners doing innovative work (on display during the receptions on Thursday and Friday evening).
Thursday:
► Ulrike Barten, Minorities and the Right to Internal Self-Determination ­ Facing Changes in International Law
► Kathryn Bryk Friedman, All Politics (or International Law) is Local
IntLawGrrl guest/alumnae Anna Spain (pictured below left), Integration Matters: The Emerging Architecture of International Dispute Resolution
► Linda Tashbook, Releasing Captured Documents
Friday:
► Erin Louise Palmer, The Role of International Institutions in Preventing Amnesty for Human Rights Abusers: Lessons from the Chilean Experience
► Suzanne Katzenstein, Still Safe to be King? Domestic Courts, Foreign Sovereign Immunity and Human Rights
► Katerina Novotna, Kosovo ­ Laboratory of the International Community? Role of International Law in the Re-Establishment of the Rule of Law in Kosovo
► Sa Yu, TRIPS Patent Provisions as an International Law of Innovation and Development
► Misa Zgonec-Rozej, Judicial review by the EU and Domestic Courts of the Al-Qaida and Taliban Sanctions Regime: Counter-Terrorism, Due Process and the Search for the Golden Mean
See you next week!

Guest Blogger: Anna Spain

It's IntLawGrrls' great pleasure today to welcome Anna Spain (right), who guest-posts below on lessons learned from the COP 15 conference. (photo credit)
As we've posted, Anna attended the just-concluded, 2-week U.N. climate change conference in Copenhagen, Denmark (prior posts here, here, here, here, and here), as a delegate for Mediators Beyond Borders, a nongovernmental organization.
She joined the law faculty of the University of Colorado as an Associate Professor of Law this year, having been a Lecturer on Law at UCLA School of Law and the UCLA School of Public Affairs before that. She focuses her teaching and scholarship on international law, dispute resolution, international cooperation, conflict and state behavior, and human rights.
Before entering academia, Anna was an Attorney-Adviser at the U.S. Department of State Office of the Legal Adviser, representing the U.S. before the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal in The Hague, serving as a delegate to the U.N. Compensation Commission in Geneva, and advising the on international investment disputes in Asia and the Pacific. She also gained policy experience at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative.
Anna served as law clerk to Judge Raymond Finch, U.S. District Court, U.S. Virgin Islands, after earning J.D. from Harvard, where she was an Executive Editor of the Harvard Human Rights Journal. She holds a B.A. magna cum laude in environmental studies and economics from Denison University. Her professional affiliations in addition to Mediation Beyond Borders includes membership in the American Society of International Law and the American Bar Association and term membership in the Council on Foreign Relations.

Heartfelt welcome!

The Copenhagen Accord: Deal but No Deal

(My thanks to IntLawGrrls for the opportunity to contribute this guest post)

After two years of preparation and two weeks of intense negotiations at the COP 15 in Copenhagen, there is no internationally legally binding deal on climate change. This is not exactly a surprise. Countries, particularly the United States, China and Denmark, were careful to set clear expectations that there would be no such deal in the weeks leading up to the COP. It is, however, disappointing, particularly given the urgency facing those who are already feeling the impacts of global warming.
There is the Copenhagen Accord – a summary of political commitments developed and agreed to in the final hours by the ministerial-level leaders of five nations: Brazil, China, India, South Africa and the United States. The text of the Copenhagen Accord recognizes climate change as “one of the greatest challenges of our time,” and notes the political will to take action immediately to keep the global increase in warming below 2 degrees. It specifies targets and deadlines for Annex I and Non-Annex I countries, and commits developed countries to providing $30 billion in funding over the next two years. It also highlights, albeit in vague language, the need to monitor and verify emission reductions – a sensitive point of negotiation between the United States and China.
The Accord is the result of the efforts of a handful of nations. As high-level ministers arrived last Wednesday and Thursday, they began negotiating in an attempt to reach a deal of some kind. Their efforts were heralded by U.N. Assistant Secretary Robert Orr as “the most genuine negotiation I’ve ever seen between leaders.” Yet in their understandable haste, a select few nations engaged in a process that left most countries out, usurping the traditional negotiation process used by diplomats and civil servants. As a consequence, some of those latter countries sought to block the Copenhagen Accord’s formal acceptance.
But the Copenhagen Accord is an outcome – it is something.
U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said “finally, we sealed the deal,” while also noting the need to translate the Accord into international law next year. President Obama has called for continued confidence-building before a legally binding deal can be reached. Translation: more meetings. Indeed, although the Copenhagen Accord is deemed “operational immediately,” it will require continued multilateral discussions and cooperation for it to take full effect.
But can we afford to continue COP talks?
The cost alone is staggering. Denmark spent an estimated $350 million on hosting the conference, which allegedly racked up a 41,000-ton carbon footprint. The process is also flawed. It is a time-sink – resulting in a two-year lead-up to a two-week meeting that reached a “deal” in the last two days. Tuvalu’s upset during the first week and the temporary withdrawal by several African nations in the second week were symptomatic of a process in which power triumphs over interests. Simply put, there is a deficit of trust. No country wants to make the first move if it means vulnerability. This is why deals are made in side-negotiations where smaller groups of parties find the assurances they need to “get real.” The lesson of COP 15 – the Accord is the result of such a meeting.
Another lesson worth keeping in mind for next year's climate change summit in Mexico City is this:
Climate change is a global challenge of unprecedented scale, complexity and severity, and as such it demands considering a new kind of process for reaching global solutions. The same old multilateral treaty negotiation process that worked so well in the case of the 1987 Montreal Protocol is not sufficient. Among other things, on the issue of climate change there simply is not enough time.

'Nuff said

(Taking context-optional note of thought-provoking quotes)

At least for climate change, increased NGO involvement is neither competition with state dominance nor necessarily signals the erosion of such. NGOs still need governments to provide leadership and create and enforce laws. At the same time, governments need NGOs to help convince the public to change our behavior in order to change the climate. Amidst all the excitement over what governments will agree to in Copenhagen, NGOs are making it clear that deal or no deal their involvement is here to stay.

-- University of Colorado Law Professor Anna Spain (right), in a super ASIL Insight entitled "Who’s Going to Copenhagen?: The Rise of Civil Society in International Treaty-Making." Spain's serving as a delegate for the nongovernmental organization Mediators Beyond Borders at COP 15, the now-under-way U.N. climate change conference about which IntLawGrrls have posted here, here, here, here, and here.