On June 14

On this day in …
… 1926, Mary Cassatt (left), American Impressionist painter and printmaker, died at Château de Beaufresne, near Paris. (photo credit) She is known for her images of the social and private lives of women, with particular emphasis on the intimate bonds between mothers and children. Cassatt studied art at the Pennsylvania Academy of Fine Arts in Philadelphia. In 1874, after traveling in Europe, she settled in Paris and had a work accepted at the Salon. In 1877, she made the acquaintance of Edgar Degas, who would become a colleague and mentor to her. Throughout her life she supported the Impressionist movement, and helped it gain popularity in the United States. Cassatt's career and legacy were reviewed here by IntLawGrrl guest/alumna Judith Weingarten.
… 1907, Norway (flag at right) granted some women the right to vote in parliament, as well as the right to stand for elections in Norway. In 1901, the country had granted municipal suffrage to some women who met certain wealth requirements. In 1907, full parliamentary suffrage was granted to the 300,000 women who already had municipal suffrage. In 1910, municipal suffrage was made universal. In 1913, general suffrage for women was granted in Norway. (photo credit)

(Prior June 14 posts are here and here.)

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).

On Art! Beyond Babylon...to federal court

(In this installment of IntLawGrrls "On Art!" series on artifacts of transnational culture, guest blogger Judith Weingarten, an archaeologist, returns to the blog with an account of legal issues swirling about a new show at a leading U.S. art museum)

The latest archaeological blockbuster at New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art is Beyond Babylon: Art, Trade and Diplomacy in the Second Millennium B.C.

The exhibit, which opened a week ago today, runs through March 15, 2009, and is the subject of this New York Times review, is the direct sequel to the Met's 2003 Art of the First Cities, which covered the third millennium B.C. But unlike the 2003 show, which took place as American troops invaded the heartland of ancient Mesopotamia, there is a gaping hole in the new show: 55 pieces from Syria — stone sculptures; frescoes; goldwork, including this stupendous bowl from the ancient city of Ugarit (below left) – were not sent as promised to New York.
In a wall card near the beginning of the show, the Met thanks the Syrian government for its willingness to lend such important objects, and expresses "deep regret that recent legislation in the United States has made it too difficult and risky for the planned loans to proceed." That legislation, an amendment made in January to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, permits private individuals claiming to be victims of state-sponsored terrorism to file liens against property belonging to that state whenever the property is in the United States. Property loaned to museums may fall within the ambit of this amendment.
This is the almost inevitable sequel to the legal battle over the Persepolis tablets.

What are the Persepolis Fortification Tablets?
In size and durability, the Achaemenid Persian Empire had no equal before the creation of the Roman Empire and, like the Roman Empire, it created an area of political, economic, and cultural connections of an unprecedented scale. The Great King Darius I (522–486 B.C.) built
an imperial residence complex at Persepolis – today, Iran. This empire came to a brutal end when Alexander the Great conquered, looted, and burned the city in 330/329 B.C. Even in ruins, the massive platform, lofty columns, sculptured walls, and staircases were imposing, and for many centuries they attracted visitors.
But it was not until 1931 that The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago began to excavate what lay beneath these standing ruins. One entirely surprising discovery was a large group of 15,000 to 30,000 or more cuneiform clay tablets. Together, these tablets constituted proof that behind the splendid palaces and sculptured façades that were the setting for the court of the Great Kings stood an administrative apparatus that controlled movements of food, animals, and labor in the region around the palaces, relying on an information system that was as complex and sophisticated as any in the ancient world.
Until their discovery, the main written sources for the Persian Empire were those written by foreigners — notably the Hebrew Bible and Greek sources such as Herodotus and historians of Alexander’s campaigns. These accounts, quite naturally, gave a partial and biased picture of the
Persian Empire.
The Persepolis tablets thus have a very deep modern significance as irreplaceable items of cultural heritage for the people of Iran. Persepolis and the Persian Empire are central symbols of their cultural identity.
It was therefore an extraordinary act of trust and international scholarly cooperation for when the Iranian government to allow the tablets to be brought to the Oriental Institute in 1936 on a long-term loan for purposes of conservation, translation and analysis. The massive quantity and fragile physical condition, coupled with the challenges of reading the texts. have made their analysis and publication a difficult, long-term project. Already it has extended for seventy years, and it is still far from completion. (Details on the tablet archive project are here.)

Return of the Texts
From the time of the tablets’ first arrival in Chicago, researchers at the Oriental Institute were keenly aware of the texts’ importance as the cultural heritage of the Iranian people, and of their scholarly responsibility not only to translate the tablets but also to ensure their return as loan objects back to Iran once analysis and recording were complete. The most recent return of loaned tablets, in 2004, received extensive in the international media. It therefore came as a complete shock when, several months later, the Oriental Institute was served with legal
documents demanding that it surrender the Persepolis tablets to satisfy the legal claims for damages in a lawsuit by victims of a Hamas bombing attack in Israel. (Details on the litigaton may be found here and here and here.)

The Oriental Institute found itself caught in the middle of a complex legal drama that began in Jerusalem in 1997 and is now playing out in a federal courthouse in Chicago. In 1997, a group of American tourists fell victim to a bombing attack in Jerusalem. The Palestinian organization Hamas claimed responsibility for the bombing. The surviving victims and the families of those who died argued that the Islamic Republic of Iran had funded Hamas and should therefore be held accountable to pay compensation. When the case was heard in federal court in Rhode Island, representatives of the state of Iran did not appear to contest the case. As a result, a default judgment was entered against Iran for over $400 million in damages. Because the tablets are on loan from Iran to the Oriental Institute, the plaintiffs are attempting to appropriate and sell them to satisfy the claim for damages. The Oriental Institute and the University of Chicago maintain that the law does not allow for the seizure of cultural heritage as compensation.

Whose tablets are these anyway?
The tablets are not commercial assets like oil wells, tankers, or houses. Instead, these types of culturally unique and important materials fall within a special protected category and are not subject to seizure. This trove of tablets has never been a commercial item to be bought or sold. The tablets have never been a source of profit either to Iran or to the Oriental Institute. They are non-commercial items of cultural heritage, every bit as unique and important as the original document of the Constitution of the United States. (Imagine if a future Iraqi government were to put a lien on that document.) The stakes are enormous. If the lawsuit prevails, this would do irrevocable harm to scholarly cooperation and cultural exchanges throughout the world.
That is already starting to happen. The Syrian government had offered to lend the Met invaluable parts of their cultural heritage: many of these objects that had never left the country before. Of American institutions, only the Met has the resources to pull off such a project, which depends as much on personal contacts as on cash.
That little card on the wall doesn’t say it all.
The Met submitted applications for immunity from seizure for all the borrowed foreign works — including pieces from Armenia, Georgia, Greece, Lebanon and Turkey, as well as Syria — but finally decided that the FSIA amendment jeopardized the Syrian loans. Though not on display, the 55 Syrian objects are in the catalog. There you can see how important a role they played in the internationalist narrative conceived by Joan Aruz (right), the curator in charge of the Met’s department of ancient Near Eastern art.

"Saudi woman faces death for witchcraft"

The headline says it all. Human Rights Watch broke the story about condemned prisoner Fawza Falih Muhammad Ali earlier this week, when it published this letter to Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah bin Abd al-Aziz Al Saud. And Judith Weingarten, who's guest-blogged here at IntLawGrrls, has more here at her Zenobia blog.

An Embarrassment of Riches, but 1 True Gem

Some thoughts to add to the enriching political discourse consistently available on on IntLawGrrls...
There is no doubt that the Democratic contenders for this year's presidential race are poised to address the acute challenge of rehabilitating the United States' reputation within the world community.
As our colleague and foundrix Diane Marie Amann has posted here and elsewhere, as our colleague Jaya Ramji-Nogales posted here, and as our new colleague Judith Weingarten has cogently argued here, both leading contenders for the Democratic nomination have promised to make the revitalization of the United States' reputation and influence in the world a top priority of their administrations. Whichever Democratic candidate wins (touch wood), s/he will have to undertake immediate and bold moves to signal the United States' commitment to re-engage with the international community on multilateral terms and to unequivocally reject the isolationist, unilateralist, exceptionalist, and unitary executivist policies of the past.
Three obvious steps that should be implemented immediately:
1. The next President should re-sign the ICC Statute, which was signed by President Clinton in the waning days of his administration and then immediately "unsigned" by President Bush at the dawn of his administration. At this point, there is no need to even submit the treaty to the Senate for ratification if the U.S. is not ready to make the full commitment to the Court, whose Assembly of State Parties is pictured below. Just signing the treaty will send a message to the rest of the world that we respect multilateral institutions and promote the promise of legal accountability for breaches of international law.

2. The next President should also take the necessary steps to immediately close Guantanamo (below), notwithstanding the many legal and logistical challenges this presents (most notably the need to find states willing to take responsibility - in keeping with international expectations of due process - for detainees who are potentially indelibly broken, radicalized, and acutely dangerous). The next President must immediately sponsor legislation to enable our courts to continue doing what they have been doing since 1789: determining whether a detention is lawful in keeping with our Constitutional tradition of habeas corpus and our international commitments.

3. The next President should also immediately launch a credible and searching inquiry into detainee abuses whereever they have been alleged and encourage the appropriate authorities to launch genuine investigations and prosecutions of responsible individuals, whatever their position in the chain of command. Promoting a genuine accountability for the mistreatment of detainees (regardless of whether this mistreatment rises to the level of torture) will re-confirm that the United States does not consider itself to be above the law (domestic or international).

So, which Democratic candidate is best positioned to achieve this internationalist rennaissance?

The habeas lawyers have spoken:

Only Senator Obama has the collective endorsement of over 90 lawyers (the list is still growing) litigating the Guantanamo habeas cases. In an open letter published, among other places, here, these lawyers endorse Obama as the person who will best bring a prompt end the legal, policy, and moral travesty that is Guantanamo. Some highlights from their letter:

Some politicians are all talk and no action. But we know from first-hand experience that Senator Obama has demonstrated extraordinary leadership on this critical and controversial issue. When others stood back, Senator Obama helped lead the fight in the Senate against the Administration's efforts in the Fall of 2006 to strip the courts of jurisdiction, and when we were walking the halls of the Capitol trying to win over enough Senators to beat back the Administration's bill, Senator Obama made his key staffers and even his offices available to help us. Senator Obama worked with us to count the votes, and he personally lobbied colleagues who worried about the political ramifications of voting to preserve habeas corpus for the men held at Guantanamo. He has understood that our strength as a nation stems from our commitment to our core values, and that we are strong enough to protect both our security and those values. Senator Obama demonstrated real leadership then and since, continuing to raise Guantanamo and habeas corpus in his speeches and in the debates.

The writ of habeas corpus dates to the Magna Carta, and was enshrined by the Founders in our Constitution. The Administration's attack on habeas corpus rights is dangerous and wrong. America needs a President who will not triangulate this issue. We need a President who will restore the rule of law, demonstrate our commitment to human rights, and repair our reputation in the world community. Based on our work with him, we are convinced that Senator Obama can do this because he truly feels these issues "in his bones."

So has Hollywood:

The video posted below is a must see, even for those supporting other candidates, because it captures what is at stake - and what is possible to achieve - in this election. By my estimation, no other candidate in this presidential race could have inspired such a moving tribute.

The makers of the video are not, apparently, connected to the campaign. Here is a short explanation on the video's origins:

Celebrity-filled music videos have been used to support many social movements, from famine relief for Africa, to support for American farmers, to opposition to apartheid in South Africa. But rarely have celebrities and musicians banded together to create new music in the heat of a presidential campaign. The Black Eyed Peas' frontman, songwriter and producer known as will.i.am, along with director and filmmaker Jesse Dylan, son of another socially active musician, Bob Dylan, released a new song Friday that attempts to do just that.

The music video "Yes We Can" premiered on ABCNewsNow's "What's the Buzz" on Friday. It was inspired, will.i.am told ABC's Alisha Davis, by Sen. Barack Obama's Presidential campaign and in particular by the speech he has gave after the New Hampshire primary. "It made me reflect on the freedoms I have, going to school here I went to school, and the people that came before Obama like Martin Luther King, Presidents like Abraham Lincoln that paved the way for me to be sitting here on ABCNews and making a song from Obama's speech," will.i.am said. "The speech was inspiring about making change in America and I believe what it says and I hope everybody votes," Dylan said.

The music video includes excerpts from the Obama speech and appearances from a range of celebrities including: Scarlett Johansson, John Legend, Herbie Hancock, Kate Walsh, Kareem Abdul Jabbar, Adam Rodriquez, Kelly Hu, Adam Rodriquez, Amber Valetta and Nick Cannon. When word got out about the song, will.i.am and Dylan said people were eager to participate. "I'm blown away by how many people wanted to come and be a part of it in a short amount of time. It was all out of love and hope for change and really representing America and looking at the world," will.i.am said. Dylan and will.i.am say they did not coordinate the production or release of this video with the Obama campaign and the filmmakers say they don't even know if Obama is aware of the video. "We didn't talk to anybody there... We just came together because it was an inspirational song about change coming out of his speech,"
Dylan said. ...

Don't forget to vote!

Guest Blogger: Judith Weingarten

It's IntLawGrrls' great pleasure to welcome Judith Weingarten (left). She's guest blogging today, to make the "case for Hillary Clinton" in this 2008 Democratic presidential nomination contest by means of her post below.
A long and loyal reader of IntLawGrrls, Judith studied Classical Archaeology at the University of Oxford (M. Litt.) She is a member of the British School of Athens, and for many years has been involved in archeological excavations in Greece and on the island of Crete. Author of The Chronicle of Zenobia: The Rebel Queen (2006), she publishes and lectures frequently about early Greek archeology and the ancient Near East. Judith divides her "home-time," as she puts it, "between the wonderful city of Amsterdam and a mountain village on the edge of a nature reserve in Tuscany, Italy." Check out her blog, Zenobia: Empress of the East.
Heartfelt thanks, Judith!

The Case for Hillary Clinton

I thank Diane Marie Amann for inviting me to put the case for Hillary Clinton.
My timing isn’t perfect. But the results from S. Carolina make it vital for Democrats to examine our two leading candidates with extra care. Why do I prefer Hillary’s policies and think she will do a better job than Obama? I needn’t repeat what the NY Times has said in endorsing her for the Dem nominee. Instead, I’d like to bring up a few issues that IntLawGrrls might want to think about.
1st, it is said that Barack Obama’s election would change the world’s perception of America at a stroke. Believe me, the election of any Democrat would bring a giant sigh of relief among all our former friends and allies. After that, they will wait to see our policies. So it will come back to policies – accomplished, not promised.
2d, it’s said Hillary is divisive, she is hated, and won’t be able to get things done. Yet she has worked effectively in the Senate, promoted a stream of legislation, and proved that she can work with moderate Republicans to get results. Similarly, when overwhelmingly re-elected to the Senate, she carried much of Republican upstate New York, persuading independents and moderate Republicans to back her. Some people do hate her. So what? The 30% of Americans who still think George W Bush is doing a good job will never change, never like her, and go on hating Democrats; probably as many Dems loathed GWB but he was (re?)elected in 2004 anyway.
A personal impression: I heard HRC speak at a fund-raising luncheon when running for re-election and I happened to be in New York. The charge that ‘she’s a robot’ is nonsense. She was a warm, funny speaker and the 300 women and men in the audience responded fervently. We heard a winner. I don’t doubt she has ‘charisma’, but I suspect she learned, as did most women of her generation, not to let it show too much. She’ll undo that, I think, as she swings into the election.
3d, she hasn’t really had her own Experience (Oh, 'Grrls, should we be denigrating good work because it’s done by a Wife?). As First Lady, HRC travelled the world, meeting with leaders and oppositions, while helping to launch such initiatives as the Children’s Health Insurance Program and the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy. Do you remember her speech in Beijing at the UN World Conference on Women in 1995 (despite the Chinese government and some American staffers trying to shut her up)? – when she declared that "human rights are women's rights and women's rights are human rights". If you’ve forgotten, take a moment to read about it at the link above.
Now in her 2d term as Senator, she has built up an impressive legislative record on progressive issues – some high profile (e.g., the recent battle with GWB over extending the Children’s Health Insurance Program ) but much of it gritty, unglamorous, plain hard work. She has introduced, sponsored and co-sponsored legislation on Women’s issues, Education, Health care (with the scars to prove it), Civil rights, and joined other senators in submitting a friend of the court brief supporting U. of Michigan in its court battle to maintain affirmative action in 2003.
On the home front, a Democratic President will have the monumental task of putting back together a competent, problem-solving government, while keeping America this side of fiscal bankruptcy. Where does one even start? How about by knowing how the national government works (or used to work)? No pep talks, please, or hands-off management.

Now, Iraq. I know, Obama always opposed the illegal, immoral, and ruinous war. But he didn’t have to vote for or against it since he wasn’t in the Senate at the time. Now he is in the Senate and has voted the same as HRC on Iraq funding and war-related bills. No one wants deny our troops when they are ‘in harm’s way’(a weak euphemism for killing and being killed). Anyway, that was then. Now both candidates want to get out.

Who can handle that better? If you thought leaving Vietnam was messy, just wait for Iraq. Not enemy tanks rolling down the road but plenty of blood, chaos and a grinning Iran. There is also Afghanistan going down the chute, and we may now be slipping sideways into a third war in Pakistan. Good will and calling for Unity is really not enough. Unity with whom? No one on the other side is waiting to grasp Obama’s hand. Rather, can’t you already hear the accusations of 'Who Lost Iraq?'

Whoever takes this on had better be tough. And knowledgeable. HRC is the the 1st New York Senator to serve on the Senate Armed Services Committee . She has introduced two relevant bills in 2007, the Congressional Oversight of Iraq Agreements Act – to require the President to get Congressional approval for any bilateral agreement extending the U.S. military commitment, and the Iraq Troop Protection and Reduction Act – to halt the President’s escalation and to end the war before he leaves office. Hillary is a learner. Just as she learned from the collapse of her first health coverage plan – and has now crafted a plan that could get the job done – she has come to the right side on Iraq (and hands up, all of you, who swear you had no doubts even in the beginning. Good for you. It took me a little longer). Even with HRC as commander-in-chief, it’s going to be incredibly difficult, politically dangerous, and (I’m sorry to re-emphasize) very bloody.

My last point is electability. I do not believe Obama can be elected. I need not tell IntLawGrrls how critical it is that the next President is a Democrat (think of those two Supreme Court seats coming up, and tremble).

But we want Change, you say. The election of the first woman President is not a Change?

We, too, have waited long enough.

Award-winning IntLawGrrls

Heartfelt thanks to Judith Weingarten, author, archeologist, and editor of the blog Zenobia: Empress of the East, and Mary Dudziak, author, law professor, and editor of Legal History Blog. They've bestowed on IntLawGrrls 2 blogger awards: Rockin' Girl Blogger and Thinking Blogger, respectively! (You'll find these virtual plaques displayed proudly every day in our righthand column.)
In each case we're asked to return the favor by honoring 5 additional blogs. My nominee for Rockin' Girl goes backatcha to Mary's LHB, already a Thinking Blogger winner. For Thinking, my vote's for SCOTUSblog, a can't-get-this-info-anything-else resource for tracking the latest developments in domestic law and policy. I leave to others the opportunity to name 4 more in each category. 'Grrls? Readers? Weigh in.