People Power Meets Fortress Europe

The people power movement has been celebrated throughout North Africa in recent weeks, but the resultant political unrest has also pushed many Tunisians to flee their homes. Some fear reprisal under a new political regime; others are simply concerned for their safety in an unstable political environment. Though the push for democratic change in Tunisia has been welcomed in Europe, not so the Tunisians fleeing political instability in their native land. European nations have been quick to apply a security rather than a humanitarian lens to the issue of North African migration.
As noted on the Immigration Prof blog, Italy declared a humanitarian emergency last weekend, referring to the estimated 5,000 Tunisians who have arrived on the Italian island of Lampedusa in recent weeks as a "Biblical exodus." The migrants are fleeing a state of lawlessness in Tunisia, where strikes and clashes have become commonplace and police protection is scarce. IOM officials described the migration as a "mixed flow", including both refugees and economic migrants.
Lampedusa, which is closer to North Africa than to Italy, has a native population of 5,000 and an immigration holding center designed for 850 people. While most have been moved to better-equipped migrant camps elsewhere in Italy, the 1,814 Tunisians who remain threatened a hunger strike yesterday rather than face return.
Last weekend, Italian Interior Minister Roberto Maroni (of the anti-immigrant Northern League party) asked the EU border patrol to step up controls in the Mediterranean, the EU to cover part of the cost of deporting migrants (to the tune of 100 million euros), and EU members to share the burden of accommodating them. On Tuesday, the EU offered fast-track money to Italy to assist with accommodation infrastructure, material aid and medical care, social assistance, legal aid, and language assistance.
The individual member states have not been quite so forthcoming. Austria, Germany, and France have all refused to come to the aid of the Tunisian migrants. On Monday, France said that it "will not tolerate any illegal immigration from Tunisia." Though the French government recognized that there might be refugees in the flow, it said there were very few such cases. Moreover, the French advocated a return to regular patrols along the coasts of North Africa to keep immigration levels as low as possible. On Tuesday, the German Interior Minister said, "we cannot solve all the world's problems."
While the EU appeared willing to take a stab at stepping up border controls, its bureaucratic rigidity has left it ill-prepared to do so. On Monday, Frontex, the EU agency focused on border security, said it was ready to assist with the Tunisian situation and indeed had sent two experts to Lampedusa, but could not yet get involved because it had not received a formal request from Italy for assistance. And the idea of increasing EU patrols in the Mediterranean through Frontex could take weeks as EU nations have to agree on personnel and equipment contributions to the mission.
To its credit, in addition to the aid to Italy, the EU announced a 258 million Euro aid package to Tunisia through 2013. Unfortunately some of these funds are earmarked for radar equipment and patrol boats for the Tunisian military -- presumably to prevent migrant outflows. After refusing Italy's request to put its armed forces on Tunisian soil in order to put an end to these migration streams, the Tunisian government itself has been enforcing European borders. Tunisian troops have already arrested between 1000 and 1500 people trying to flee; given that at least some of those in flight are refugees, encouraging such border closure appears contrary to international refugee law obligations. Even worse, the Tunisian coast guard was accused last week of ramming and sinking a ship containing 120 migrants headed to Italy; 5 died and 30 are missing. People power, undaunted by brutal security forces and dictators alike, may be no match for Fortress Europe.

On February 1

On this day in ...
... 2006 (5 years ago today), asserting the freedom of the press was at stake, 6 newspapers in 4 European countries "reprinted controversial cartoons of the prophet Muhammad which have provoked outrage, trade boycotts and threats of violence towards Danes." The 12 cartoons had been published in several months earlier in "a right-of-centre Danish broadsheet." The controversy has resurfaced at times since; for example, in 2009, when Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen was selected as NATO Secretary-General, and just last month, when trial began involving an alleged plot to attack the cartoonist.

(Prior February 1 posts are here, here, and here.)

On December 15

On this day in ...
... 1995 (15 years ago today), on the 1st day of a 2-day summit in Madrid, Spain, European leaders unanimously agreed on a timetable for introduction of "a single, unifying currency for the 21st century," which they called the euro (symbol at left). According to The New York Times, the agreement marked an effort by

many European leaders to forge a single currency and a broader economic and political integration of the Continent that they hope will invigorate its flagging economy and insure greater political stability and peace.

The euro would become legal tender at the stroke of midnight January 1, 2002 (at which moment this 'Grrl acquired a mint set of coins and notes, in Salzburg, Austria), and go on to have more notes and coins in circulation than any other type of money, including the U.S. dollar. But it has fallen on hard times amid European economic demise these last months -- so much that some pundits now wonder whether the end of the euro is nigh.

(Prior December 15 posts are here, here, and here.)

'Nuff said

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

By comparison to those modern post-World War II constitutions, ours is an old-fashioned Constitution, a creature of the eighteenth century Enlightenment. Several years ago, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld disdainfully referred to 'old Europe.' If he had been speaking of human rights, he should have referred to the 'new Europe' and the 'old United States.'

-- Judge William A. Fletcher (above), U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in "International Human Rights and the Role of the United States," just published in the Northwestern University Law Review. The article, which idenitifes the United States as an exceptionalist in its approach to human rights, follows another article that Fletcher published a few years ago, in the University of Virginia Law Review. (photo credit) Both were based on lectures given at the respective universities.

On September 29

On this day in ...
... 1954, the European Organization for Nuclear Research began operations. Dissolved was the provisional council on nuclear research in the region, which had been established a couple years earlier; nonetheless, the French acronym by which that first effort had been known, CERN, remains the shorthand term for this organization to this day. The organization now has 20 member states. Its laboratory, which "sits astride the Franco–Swiss border near Geneva," is a center for physics research; a number of its scientists have earned Nobel Prizes in the field.

(Prior September 29 posts are here, here, and here.)

On August 14

On this day in ...
... 1900 (110 years ago today), a fleet of ships containing more than 20,000 sailors and Marines from 8 countries arrived to suppress anti-foreigner violence in the Chinese capital then known as Peking. Thereafter the "forces of the Western powers and Japan in China continued to grow," and they spread across northern China after completing their occupation of the capital. The landing occurred months after the beginning of the Boxer Uprising -- which, as posted, eventually had united nationalists and troops authorized by Empress Dowager Longyu in battles against foreigners in China. The uprising would come to a full stop on September 7, 1901, when representatives of China, Japan, 9 European countries, and the United States signed the Boxer Protocol (above) in Peking. (photo credit)

(Prior August 14 posts are here, here, and here.)

Write On! Regulating disasters

(Write On! is an occasional item about notable calls for papers.)

"Emergency Regulation under the Threat of a Catastrophe" is the subject of a call for papers from École des Hautes Études Commerciales de Paris, or HEC Paris, since 1881 an international business school based in the French capital.

Prompting the call -- and the HEC Paris workshop at which papers will be presented, on November 10 and 11, 2010: the ash plumes (below right) from an Icelandic volcano that grounded airlines, and thus stranded thousands of spring 2010 travelers in, to, and from Europe. (photo credit)

An informative account of the regional and international regulatory mess this entailed was just published as an ASIL Insight by Alberto Alemanno, an associate professor in business law and taxation at HEC Paris, and a co-organizer of this event.

Here's an excerpt from the full call for papers:

The ash crisis is not the first or the only such problem to have occurred. It is one of a series of recent real or potential catastrophes -- natural disasters, terrorism, pandemics -- that have taken by surprise globalized firms and partly regulators. As such it represents a rich case study in the problem of emergency regulation ....
[W]e propose a workshop with selected speakers and discussants that will retrospectively look at what happened during the worst aviation crisis in European history, and proactively suggest how the lessons learned can affect other regulatory systems which might be faced with similar crises.

Questions that papers might address:

► Roles of science and technology in supporting both risk assessment and decision;

► Institutional design and capability of the regulatory system; and

► Various stakeholders' roles.
Selected papers may be published in the European Journal of Risk Regulation, for which Alemanno serves as Editor-in-Chief, and published in a book to follow.

Submit 300-word abstracts no later than September 15, 2010, to Alemanno at alemanno@hec.fr, or to his co-organizer, Maryland Engineering Professor Emeritus Vincent Brannigan, at firelaw@firelaw.edu.

Further details here.

On May 31

On this day in ...
...1975 (35 years ago today), the European Space Agency was established the day after plenipotentiaries meeting in Paris approved the ESA Convention, which formally entered into force 5-1/2 years later. The ESA's purpose is "to provide for, and to promote, for exclusively peaceful purposes, cooperation among European States in space research and technology and their space applications ..." It's also involved in monitoring of the global environment, including the Gulf of Mexico oil debacle, which IntLawGrrls have discussed in posts available here.

(Prior May 31 posts are here, here, and here.)

Results are in, immigration is down in Europe

Eurostat, the European Statistics office, has published its 2009 report on asylum requests in Europe. The results should warm the heart of any proponent of tighter borders, managed immigration, and "local" asylum solutions (i.e., in or near the asylum seekers' home country):
► Of the total 229,500 asylum requests made in the EU, 166,900, or close to three-quarters (73%), were denied.
France, which calls itself a terre d'asile (land of asylum) as if it were synonymous with terre promise (promised land), received the most requests (47,600). But of the more than 35,000 requests it actually reviewed in 2009, it denied more than 30,000, while Germany refused 17,000 of the roughly 27,000 requests it received. Of the 27 EU member states, only Malta, Portugal and Slovakia granted more requests than they denied. Moreover, the 27% of requests that were not denied did not necessarily result in grants of asylum:
► While 12% of those seeking asylum did obtain it, 4% were given permission to stay in the EU on humanitarian grounds, and 11% were granted only subsidiary protection, which means they may be returned to their home country once it is deemed "safe."
The drawbridge to Fortress Europe (image credit) would therefore seem to be up, perhaps never to come back down.
This will have a disproportionate impact on women (see prior post):
► Subsidiary protection is replacing asylum in cases of gender-based discrimination, such as genital mutilation and forced marriage, whereas the conditions taken into account to determine a country's "safety" do not include indicators of gender-based discrimination.
More and more women and girls are therefore being given a temporary status that deprives them of the ability to easily integrate into and become fully autonomous, contributing citizens of their adoptive countries, where they live under threat of being returned to a country with outward signs of "safety" (end of armed conflict, democratic government) that may be unrelated to these women's personal safety.

On May 7

On this day in ...

... 1948, the post-World War II Congress of Europe opened at The Hague in the Netherlands. For the next 3 days, "some 800 activists representing the various European movements: met "under the honorary chairmanship of the former British Prime Minister, Winston Churchill." The meeting concluded with the adoption of a resolution

calling for the convening of a European Assembly, the drafting of a Charter of Human Rights and the establishment a Court of Justice responsible for ensuring that the Charter is properly implemented.

The conference thus was a key step toward European regional integration.

(Prior May 7 posts are here, here, and here)

On April 7

On this day in ...
... 1978, in the wake of criticism from abroad, the United States "put on the back burner" plans to place neutron bomb warheads on missiles and shells "planned for deployment in Europe." A "specialised thermonuclear weapon which produces a minimal blast but releases large amounts of lethal radiation, the bomb "designed to kill people while minimising damage to property...." Although development would be authorized in 1981, only a few such bombs were made, and none was deployed to Europe. China would announce development of the neutron bomb in 1999. (credit for (c) 1999 BBC image)


(Prior April 7 posts are here, here, and here)

How transnational law develops

(Part 2 of a 3-part guest post by Mireille Delmas-Marty)

Having introduced a comparison of French and U.S. approaches to legal pluralism in a transnational legal world develops, we now consider answers to our threshold question: How does the transnational legal world develop?
Transnational law develops through:
► cross-referencing,
► efforts to harmonize, and
► creation of hybrid rules of substance and procedure.
In both the European and the U.S. legal systems, the last method is rarely used. It is true that some hybrid rules have been created. An example is the hybridisation of the accusatorial and inquisitorial criminal procedure rules that occurred first in the ad hoc tribunals and later at the International Criminal Court. But these rules – which increase judicial powers in the preliminary phase, transmit dossiers to the trial judge, and accord more prominent roles to victims – do not directly affect national legal orders.
In the United States, much has been debated about the 1st option, called cross-referencing or, sometimes, consultation; that is, the citation by U.S. judges of decisions handed down by judges of foreign constitutional and international courts. Most salient are 2 U.S. Supreme Court judgments, Lawrence v. Texas (2003) and Roper v. Simmons (2005). The latter issued during a Term when the Court considered or referred to foreign law in at least 6 cases, according to Justice Stephen G. Breyer (above). In his foreword to my book Ordering Pluralism (trans. Naomi Norberg 2009), Breyer wrote that "six out of a total docket of 79 indicates the increasingly routine nature" of this method in American cases.
In France, meanwhile, the main concern is the middle option, harmonisation. Jurists focus on the changes that European efforts to harmonise different national systems imposes on criminal, contract, and other sectors of French law.
Harmonisation is a very complex process, entailing both more and less integration than either of the other 2 options:

Harmonisation and cross-referencing
Compared with cross-referencing, harmonisation requires more integration. Cross-referencing assumes the priority of domestic law; in contrast, harmonisation involves a hierarchy in which an abundance of international law is binding on the national legislative authority. That international law derives, moreover, from both poles of the bipolar European legal system discussed in my last post:
► Respecting the European Union pole, France’s Conseil d’État (right) observed in 2000 that since the 1960s the Community had produced more than 68,000 acts supposed to be integrated to French law.
► Respecting the Council of Europe pole, the indirect effects of decisions by the European Court of Human Rights (below left) against France must be noted. In 1990 that Court condemned France twice -- in Huvig and Kruslin, which challenged wiretapping without any legal basis -- and France adopted a new law within a year. In Medvedyev (2008), a Court panel ruled that in France the prosecutor is not independent enough to satisfy the due process principle enshrined in Article 5 of the Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Should the Court’s Grand Chamber confirm this finding of violation, the French government likely will have to delay and revise a pending plan to transfer more power from the investigating judge to the prosecutor, about which I wrote an op-ed last summer. (Prior IntLawGrrls post)

Harmonisation and hybridisation
Compared with the 3d option of hybridisation, however, harmonisation involves less integration This is because each member state enjoys a margin of appreciation that precludes application of strictly identical rules throughout Europe. As articulated in Handyside v. United Kingdom (1976) and later judgments, the margin-of-appreciation concept operates to limit the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights, particularly in areas in which differences among members states are so strong and so deeply linked to national cultures that it seems impossible for international judges to impose the same rule on every state. Examples include areas such as abortion, euthanasia, and privacy. The national margin of appreciation excludes binary reasoning: it imposes not an obligation of strict conformity, which bars all variation, but rather an obligation of compatibility, which permits some differences in application of European legal norms.
In short, the margin of appreciation involves gradation-based reasoning -- fuzzy logic, as I have called it -- and accepts incomplete integration.
Not all differences are accepted, however. The concept preserves some gradation of integration, for it assumes limits which must not be exceeded. Examples:
► Abortion may be subject to limitations by the state that are strict, as in Ireland or Poland, or not so strict, as in Germany. But, as the Court established in Tysiac v. Poland (2007), the domestic law must effectively implement the Europe-wide right to abortion.
► Wiretapping may be controlled very differently in each European national system -- by administrative authority, for instance, or by a judge or a parliamentary commission. The Court has not relinquished its right to review such mechanisms, but has limited review to those deemed incompatible with Europe-wide norms.
This graduated approach has some resonance among U.S. jurists. Justice Breyer proposed in Heller (2008), which entailed "review of gun control regulation," U.S. courts ought to embrace an "interest balancing inquiry." Breyer considered deference to legislative appreciation to be "particularly appropriate" given that the decision was made "by a local legislature, with particular knowledge of local problems and insight into appropriate local solutions." The consequence is that different localities may seek to solve similar problems in different ways. Breyer’s dissenting opinion in Heller:

The Framers recognized that the most effective democracy occurs at local levels of government, where people with firsthand knowledge of local problems have more ready access to public officials responsible for dealing with them.

(internal quotation marks omitted) This statement is not so different from those in which the European human rights court has considered that national courts are better situated than European judges to determine the proper scope of restrictions based on public order.

(Still to come in this 3-part guest post: Part 3, on where and when transnational law develops; here. Part 1, which introduced comparison of French and U.S. approaches, is here.)

Coping with legal pluralism: French & American approaches to the transnational legal world

(Part 1 of a 3-part guest post by Mireille Delmas-Marty)

From the viewpoint of tradition in France, or any continental European state, the term "legal pluralism" seems to be a kind of monster -- a chimera, if you will. That is because the 2 words that make up the term usually carry opposite meanings:
► "Pluralism" implies differences, dispersion, and free movement, interaction and evolution; in contrast,
► "Legal" leads us to think in terms of a unified, hierarchical, static structure.
But the world is not static, and so we must take up the challenge of overcoming this contradiction. We must change our minds just as our legal history changed. It changed at the end of World War II, when a European legal order emerged, and then again since the end of Cold War, when the so-called globalisation of law accelerated. Changes occurred in, to name a few areas:
► Human rights law with the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and subsequent instruments;
► Trade law with the establishment of the World Trade Organisation;
► Environmental law with the 1997 Kyoto Protocol and perhaps the Copenhagen process; and
► Criminal law with the International Criminal Court.
The emergence of the European legal conception has deep influence, one that perhaps makes it easier for the French to accept and join this transnational legal world.
On initial comparison, similarities between the legal system of Europe and the federal system of the United States jump to the fore. The distribution of powers between European member states and the community is as sensitive as in any federal system. Power is transferred to the community whenever member states in Europe are unable to comply with community objectives. That practice -- an implementation of the principle of subsidiarity -- is paired with that of proportionality. This latter norm is stated in Article 5 of the Lisbon Treaty as follows:

"[T]he content and form of Union action shall not exceed what is necessary to achieve the objectives of the Treaties."

The effect of proportionality on European integration is like that of a dimmer switch on a lamp: integration is increased when member states do not attain European Union objectives, and decreased when they do.
Despite those similarities, the differences between the European and the U.S. systems are critical.
They differ, for example, in history.
For centuries, Europe was constructed as separate states, independent in politics, language, and legal system, while America was founded as a federal republic with a national as well as state governments.
The 2 systems differ as well in contemporary practice.
Although we tend to think of the United States as more unified, in some areas this is not the case. With respect to the death penalty, for example, unification appears more complete in Europe, pluralism more present in the United States. But in most areas, it’s the other way around: pluralism appears much more complex in Europe, where the system is both bipolar and multipolar:
► Bipolarity is symbolised by the coexistence of 2 European supreme courts. For the Council of Europe, comprising 47 states including Russia and Turkey, there is the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. For the subset of 27 states that make up the European Union, there is also the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg. By tradition the latter focuses on the market, the former on human rights.
► Multipolarity is preserved in each of these bipolar regimes, by different legal techniques. In the Strasbourg system there is, of course, the doctrine of margin of appreciation. In the Luxembourg system, member states may opt out of certain aspects of European legal integration. Thus the December 2009 entry into force of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (prior IntLawGrrls post) may not apply in Britain, Poland, or the Czech Republic, each of which has obtained the ability to opt out of that instrument.
It may seem difficult to accept such a wide range of pluralism within a federal system.
That is why, in my opinion, the European legal order is situated halfway between reproducing a federal legal system and anticipating a global legal world. Such a global legal world should constitute neither the complete fusion nor the complete separation of diverse legal systems. It should, rather, constitute what I call "ordering pluralism." Thus the title of my new book: Ordering Pluralism (2009) (prior IntLawGrrls post).
I use "ordering," rather than "ordered," pluralism in order to stress the movement rather than the model, the process rather than the result.
From the vantage point of ordering pluralism, I would say that the questions asked in the French and American approaches to law are the same:
► How does transnational law develop? Is it a law among nations? A law beyond single nations?
► Where does transnational law develop? At which level? National? Regional? Global?
► When does transnational law develop?
At this point in time, the answers each approach gives are somewhat different. Yet one can expect that over time they may converge.

(Still to come in this 3-part guest post: Part 2, on how transnational law develops, and Part 3, on where and when it develops)

On the job! Director of antiracism group

(On the Job! pays occasional notice to interesting intlaw job notices) A decade-old, Brussels-based nongovernmental organization that serves as an umbrella group for 600 others throughout Europe -- the European Network Against Racism -- is seeking applications for the post of Director.
Duties include:
► ensuring that ENAR is a forceful and effective advocate in the fight against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance; and
► promoting equal opportunities and community cohesion at the European level.
Committed candidates with "excellent competencies and experience in leadership, strategic thinking and planning, research and policy work, communication, staff and financial management" are welcome to apply by accessing, completing, and submitting the documents available here. Deadline is January 4, 2010.

Taking on Islamophobia

I was pleased to see that Pankaj Mishra has addressed head-on fear mongers like Niall Ferguson and Christopher Caldwell who argue that the increase in Muslim immigration to Europe risks "Islamicization" and the decline of liberal Enlightenment values. In his recent book review, "A culture of fear", Mishra points out not only the statistical inaccuracies but also the political and philosophical flaws of such an approach. In Mishra's words:

Multi-ethnic Europe is an immutable fact, and needs, appropriately, a more inclusive, open-ended identity, one derived more from its pluralistic and relatively peaceful present, and supranational future, than its brutishly nationalist and imperialist past. Writing in 1937 about the minority then most despised in Europe, Joseph Roth predicted that "Jews will only attain complete equality, and the dignity of external freedom, once their 'host nations' have attained their own inner freedom, as well as the dignity conferred by sympathy for the plight of others". This proved to be too much to ask of Europe in 1937. But the moral challenge has not gone away - civilisation remains an ideal rather than an irreversible achievement - and the dangers of leaving it unmet are incalculable.

Well worth a read!

'Nuff said

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

[M]ore alert American and British governments might have brought science and technology to their aid in mitigating some of the problems presented to them by Egypt, the Suez Canal, and the dependence of Western Europe on the oil of the Middle East. A fraction of our investment in the space program put into the development of a practicable electric automobile and of nuclear power plants here and, with European cooperation, in Europe could do much to solve our air pollution problems and free Europe from dependence upon the Middle East .... The investment still seems to me a profitable one for Europe and the United States for their own welfare and security and for world peace.

-- Thus declared former U.S. Secretary of State Dean Acheson (left) in 1969, concluding ch. 58 of the 1st edition of his memoir, Present at the Creation. Subtract some of his optimism about the promise of nuclear power. Multiply "the Middle East" beyond Egypt. And add China, India, much of the developing world, and the United States itself to the list of oil-thirsty countries. The sum of those parts? A statement that stands pretty much on its own fully 4 decades after it was written.

(credit for 1938 photo at top left of 1st successful Saudi oil gusher; credit for photo at top right of Mercury missile launched by NASA in 1959)

Athbhliain fé mhaise dhaoibh!

Athbhliain fé mhaise dhaoibh [or, in English, Happy New Year to you all]. I just thought I’d take this opportunity to point out a few things coming up on this (European) side of the Atlantic in 2009 that’s likely to catch our attention here.
► First of all Ireland will, it appears, get another opportunity vote on the Lisbon Treaty. As many of our readers will know, the Irish electorate voted ‘no’ to the ratification and incorporation of the Treaty last summer. We were the only European Union state to have a referendum on the Treaty and for those who wonder why we did, it’s because EU Treaty Law has supremacy over Constitutional law and, in Ireland, that has been interpreted since the case of Crotty v An Taoiseach (1986) as requiring a constitutional referendum on EU Treaties. Ireland has previously voted twice on an EU Treaty (Treaty of Nice) and ‘Lisbon II’ will be one of the political and legal events of 2009 here. The referendum is expected in 2009.
► The European Court of Human Rights will hear cases relating to abortion rights in Ireland and female genital mutilation/non-refoulement both of which emanate from Ireland. We previously discussed these cases on the blog, and the ECtHR’s decisions are anxiously awaited.
► Thirdly, we expect to see discussions about the placement of released Guantánamo Bay detainees in European states gain even more momentum in the next few months. Strategies for closing the detention centre are quite a hot topic here on IntLawGrrls and the role that European states’ will play in this process will be watched with great interest, particularly given the alleged role some European states (incl. Ireland, I’m afraid) are said to have played in getting people to Guantánamo by collusion in extraordinary rendition.
This is just a taster of the international law stories like to come from Europe over the course of the next 12 months, but as always it seems likely that it will be the unexpected occurrences that will most grab our attention. We look forward to discussing all this and more here on IntLawGrrls.

On December 29

On this day in ...
... 1998 (10 years ago today), an uneasy truce continued to hold in Kosovo, amid warnings that fighting between Serbian forces and the Kosovo Liberation Army could resume if international ceasefire monitors withdrew.
... 1815, Sawtche, a Khoikhoi woman born around 1789 in what is now South Africa, died in Paris, France. As a slave she'd also had the name Saartjie Baartman. Because the posterior part of her body seemed unusually large, she had became an "object of curiosity among white colonizers," who bestowed upon her the ignominious nickname "Hottentot Venus." She was taken to Europe in 1810. "After having been immodestly 'studied' by naturalists from the Muséum national d'histoire naturelle," recounts the caption to this French caricature, she died "in the most severe misery." At her death she was 25 years old, and had turned to prostitution when "scientific" interest in her waned. In 2002 her remains were returned to Cape Town; in the words of this article:

... Sarah Baartman is home, and has finally had her dignity restored by being buried where she belongs -- far away from where her race and gender were so cruelly exploited.

IntLawGrrls' guest/alumna Judith Weingarten's Zenobia blog post on Sawtche may be found here. The above poster is from Venus, a play about this woman, by Suzan-Lori Parks (right).

JFK's Trade Legacy

This year marks the 45th anniversary of JFK's assassination in Dallas, Texas. To commemorate the occasion, and to celebrate the President's historic visit to the University of North Dakota shortly before his death, UND held an exciting interdisciplinary conference entitled "John F. Kennedy: History, Memory, Legacy."

Attendees included such luminaries as Ted Sorenson, the President's speechwriter, and Richard Reeves, the noted former New York Times columnist. Also in attendance was my colleague Brian Landsberg who began working at the Justice Department's Civil Rights division in 1964. Over his 30 year tenure at Justice, Brian litigated many of the landmark civil rights cases of the last century--including cases on school desegregation and voting rights. I was privileged to have also been invited to the conference to discuss Kennedy's trade legacy.

Although few outside of trade circles recognize it, Kennedy has had a powerful influence on the modern trading system. He managed to get Congress to pass the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 at a difficult time both domestically and internationally. On the domestic front, a powerful oil lobby oppossed trade liberalization, the U.S. economy was in a recession, American workers feared the impact of a trade deal on their jobs, and a fairly isolationist general public was suspicious and resistant to a new trade deal. Internationally, JFK had to confront a newly-expanding European Community, the struggle for the hearts and minds of developing countries, and of course The Cold War. Despite these many competing interests, Kennedy recognized the needs of the United States was best served by a trade deal that provided greater economic opportunity for all. He masterfully worked with competing constituencies to ensure passage of the Act.

As a result of his efforts, the Kennedy Round of international trade negotiations was launched at the GATT (the precursor to the WTO). Although he would not live to see the launch of the Round, Kennedy's legacy was historic. When concluded, the Kennedy Round changed the face of international trade, shifting from a primary focus on tariff reductions to the important work of providing a legal structure for trade.

Kennedy was neither a fierce supporter or opponent of free trade. Rather, he recognized that, properly managed, free trade provided more benefits than detriments. He was ultimately a pragmatist, and both the country and the world was better of for it. I hope the next president studies and emulates Kennedy's successful trade policies.

On September 19

On this day in ...

... 1946, in a speech at the University of Zürich in Switzerland (left), on the subject of European integration, Winston Churchill, the once and future British Prime Minister, proposed to avoid European wars like those of the 1st half of the 20th century by means of what he called a "sovereign remedy":

[T]o recreate the European fabric, or as much of it as we can, and to provide it with a structure under which it can dwell in peace, in safety, and in freedom. We must build a kind of United States of Europe. In this way only will hundreds of millions of toilers be able to regain the simple joys and hopes which make life worth living. The process is simple. All that is needed is the resolve of hundreds of millions of men and women to do right instead of wrong and to gain as their reward blessing instead of cursing.

(photo credit)

... 1994, U.S. troops landed in Haiti to secure the return of Jean-Bertrand Aristide, who'd been elected President in 1991 but gone into exile following a military coup. Aristide would serve till 1996 as the President of Haiti (in red on map at right), be elected again in 2000, and then, in 2004, go into exile in South Africa.