For the most part, women participate in meager numbers on the world’s most important international courts. In its sixty-five year history, only three permanent women judges have ever served on the International Court of Justice. Two of them sit on the bench today. The European Court of Justice had only 15% permanent female judges in May 2010. Women were appointed to World Trade Organization panels only 17% of the time in 2009, although women constituted 43% of the appellate body in mid-2010, up from only 19% historically. At the same time, women accounted for 29% of the judges on the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, and only one woman had ever served as an ad hoc judge. No women sit on the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. The International Criminal Court is the only court, of eleven surveyed in my article, in which women outnumbered men on the bench. As is frequently noted, international courts are playing a growing role in both deciding international disputes and defining the content of international law. And their increasing importance has led to many serious questions about their legitimacy. Because international courts generally lack enforcement powers and guaranteed funds, without legitimacy – defined as justified authority – states and others are less likely to cooperate and comply with their judgments. Among the factors that may impact a court’s legitimacy is the ratio of the sexes, or “sex representation,” on the bench. My article suggests sex representation matters to legitimacy in at least three ways: ► First, when men and women approach the law or facts differently, both are necessary for impartiality, an important prerequisite of legitimate adjudication. Because of the low numbers of women judges on international courts, empirical studies of a gender effect are rare. But one study of sentencing at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, by Dr. Kimi Lynn King and Megan Greening, shows that female judges gave weightier sentences to defendants who assaulted women, while male judges did the same for male victims. Further, many female international court judges, including frequent IntLawGrrls guest Judge Patricia M. Wald, suggest their life experiences as women make a difference in at least some cases. ► Second, sex representation is important to legitimacy even if men and women are not inherently different because at least some constituencies seem to believe they are nonetheless. For example, as demonstrated in my forthcoming International Criminal Law Review piece, co-sponsored by IntLawGrrls, as part of its "Women and International Criminal Law" project, some non-government organizations and states sought to include female judges on post-World War II international criminal tribunals because they thought women would alter the development of facts and the direction of the law. Unisex courts would lack justified authority for them. Similarly, when a group has suffered discrimination or exclusion, it is likely to question the authority of an institution that continues to exclude it. Women’s participation in low numbers is not limited to international courts; it extends to the prestigious International Law Commission, the Inter-American Juridical Committee, and several of the United Nations treaty bodies. For many, these institutions (and international law) will face legitimacy troubles until they more accurately reflect the ratio of the sexes. ► Finally, women judges matter for reasons of democratic legitimacy. Imagine a world court with only jurists from one nation. Even if it possessed the most credentialed of benches, such a court would lack justified authority. Legitimate adjudication requires both impartial judges and judges with some link to the constituencies their rulings impact. Just as geographic diversity – a virtually ubiquitous requirement in international court statutes – strengthens international courts’ legitimacy, so too does sex representation. Consequently, perhaps the strongest argument for sex representation is that women make up almost half the world's population, and thus, an important constituency of international courts. In fact, states have already taken steps toward sex representation in the statutes of the International Criminal Court, the African Court of Human and Peoples' Rights, and for ad litem judges on the International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda." Similarly, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe resolved to reject unisex lists of candidates to the European Court of Human Rights. The argument for sex representation is all the more compelling when female Presidents, Supreme Court Judges, and Ministers of Justice have served in a wide range of countries. Surely qualified candidates for international judgeships can be found in countries where women achieve so much. More international courts make decisions that affect our lives today than ever before. They define the scope of our human rights and decide who will be held accountable for what kind of international crimes. They determine which communities will benefit from the exploitation of oil in disputed parts of the ocean, and whether environmental harm has taken place, what reparations must be paid and to whom. They play an integral role in defining fair trade practices and whether natural resources belong to the people within a state or to multinational corporations. This article seeks to shine light on the paucity of women judges participating in these vital decisions and in defining the content of international law today. It argues that we must pay more attention to sex representation if we wish to strengthen the legitimacy of these increasingly important institutions.
Showing posts with label Patricia Wald. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Patricia Wald. Show all posts
Do women judges matter?
(Delighted to welcome back alumna Nienke Grossman, who contributes this guest post) Thank you to IntLawGrrls for inviting me to blog about my most recent article: “Sex on the Bench: Do Women Judges Matter to the Legitimacy of International Courts?” I will also be discussing this article at the International Legal Theory Interest Group session from 3 to 4:30 p.m. this Friday, March 25, in Salon IIIB of the Ritz Carlton in Washington, D.C., at the annual meeting of the American Society of International Law. (Prior IntLawGrrls posts on the meeting are available here.) 
For the most part, women participate in meager numbers on the world’s most important international courts. In its sixty-five year history, only three permanent women judges have ever served on the International Court of Justice. Two of them sit on the bench today. The European Court of Justice had only 15% permanent female judges in May 2010. Women were appointed to World Trade Organization panels only 17% of the time in 2009, although women constituted 43% of the appellate body in mid-2010, up from only 19% historically. At the same time, women accounted for 29% of the judges on the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, and only one woman had ever served as an ad hoc judge. No women sit on the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. The International Criminal Court is the only court, of eleven surveyed in my article, in which women outnumbered men on the bench. As is frequently noted, international courts are playing a growing role in both deciding international disputes and defining the content of international law. And their increasing importance has led to many serious questions about their legitimacy. Because international courts generally lack enforcement powers and guaranteed funds, without legitimacy – defined as justified authority – states and others are less likely to cooperate and comply with their judgments. Among the factors that may impact a court’s legitimacy is the ratio of the sexes, or “sex representation,” on the bench. My article suggests sex representation matters to legitimacy in at least three ways: ► First, when men and women approach the law or facts differently, both are necessary for impartiality, an important prerequisite of legitimate adjudication. Because of the low numbers of women judges on international courts, empirical studies of a gender effect are rare. But one study of sentencing at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, by Dr. Kimi Lynn King and Megan Greening, shows that female judges gave weightier sentences to defendants who assaulted women, while male judges did the same for male victims. Further, many female international court judges, including frequent IntLawGrrls guest Judge Patricia M. Wald, suggest their life experiences as women make a difference in at least some cases. ► Second, sex representation is important to legitimacy even if men and women are not inherently different because at least some constituencies seem to believe they are nonetheless. For example, as demonstrated in my forthcoming International Criminal Law Review piece, co-sponsored by IntLawGrrls, as part of its "Women and International Criminal Law" project, some non-government organizations and states sought to include female judges on post-World War II international criminal tribunals because they thought women would alter the development of facts and the direction of the law. Unisex courts would lack justified authority for them. Similarly, when a group has suffered discrimination or exclusion, it is likely to question the authority of an institution that continues to exclude it. Women’s participation in low numbers is not limited to international courts; it extends to the prestigious International Law Commission, the Inter-American Juridical Committee, and several of the United Nations treaty bodies. For many, these institutions (and international law) will face legitimacy troubles until they more accurately reflect the ratio of the sexes. ► Finally, women judges matter for reasons of democratic legitimacy. Imagine a world court with only jurists from one nation. Even if it possessed the most credentialed of benches, such a court would lack justified authority. Legitimate adjudication requires both impartial judges and judges with some link to the constituencies their rulings impact. Just as geographic diversity – a virtually ubiquitous requirement in international court statutes – strengthens international courts’ legitimacy, so too does sex representation. Consequently, perhaps the strongest argument for sex representation is that women make up almost half the world's population, and thus, an important constituency of international courts. In fact, states have already taken steps toward sex representation in the statutes of the International Criminal Court, the African Court of Human and Peoples' Rights, and for ad litem judges on the International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda." Similarly, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe resolved to reject unisex lists of candidates to the European Court of Human Rights. The argument for sex representation is all the more compelling when female Presidents, Supreme Court Judges, and Ministers of Justice have served in a wide range of countries. Surely qualified candidates for international judgeships can be found in countries where women achieve so much. More international courts make decisions that affect our lives today than ever before. They define the scope of our human rights and decide who will be held accountable for what kind of international crimes. They determine which communities will benefit from the exploitation of oil in disputed parts of the ocean, and whether environmental harm has taken place, what reparations must be paid and to whom. They play an integral role in defining fair trade practices and whether natural resources belong to the people within a state or to multinational corporations. This article seeks to shine light on the paucity of women judges participating in these vital decisions and in defining the content of international law today. It argues that we must pay more attention to sex representation if we wish to strengthen the legitimacy of these increasingly important institutions.
For the most part, women participate in meager numbers on the world’s most important international courts. In its sixty-five year history, only three permanent women judges have ever served on the International Court of Justice. Two of them sit on the bench today. The European Court of Justice had only 15% permanent female judges in May 2010. Women were appointed to World Trade Organization panels only 17% of the time in 2009, although women constituted 43% of the appellate body in mid-2010, up from only 19% historically. At the same time, women accounted for 29% of the judges on the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, and only one woman had ever served as an ad hoc judge. No women sit on the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. The International Criminal Court is the only court, of eleven surveyed in my article, in which women outnumbered men on the bench. As is frequently noted, international courts are playing a growing role in both deciding international disputes and defining the content of international law. And their increasing importance has led to many serious questions about their legitimacy. Because international courts generally lack enforcement powers and guaranteed funds, without legitimacy – defined as justified authority – states and others are less likely to cooperate and comply with their judgments. Among the factors that may impact a court’s legitimacy is the ratio of the sexes, or “sex representation,” on the bench. My article suggests sex representation matters to legitimacy in at least three ways: ► First, when men and women approach the law or facts differently, both are necessary for impartiality, an important prerequisite of legitimate adjudication. Because of the low numbers of women judges on international courts, empirical studies of a gender effect are rare. But one study of sentencing at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, by Dr. Kimi Lynn King and Megan Greening, shows that female judges gave weightier sentences to defendants who assaulted women, while male judges did the same for male victims. Further, many female international court judges, including frequent IntLawGrrls guest Judge Patricia M. Wald, suggest their life experiences as women make a difference in at least some cases. ► Second, sex representation is important to legitimacy even if men and women are not inherently different because at least some constituencies seem to believe they are nonetheless. For example, as demonstrated in my forthcoming International Criminal Law Review piece, co-sponsored by IntLawGrrls, as part of its "Women and International Criminal Law" project, some non-government organizations and states sought to include female judges on post-World War II international criminal tribunals because they thought women would alter the development of facts and the direction of the law. Unisex courts would lack justified authority for them. Similarly, when a group has suffered discrimination or exclusion, it is likely to question the authority of an institution that continues to exclude it. Women’s participation in low numbers is not limited to international courts; it extends to the prestigious International Law Commission, the Inter-American Juridical Committee, and several of the United Nations treaty bodies. For many, these institutions (and international law) will face legitimacy troubles until they more accurately reflect the ratio of the sexes. ► Finally, women judges matter for reasons of democratic legitimacy. Imagine a world court with only jurists from one nation. Even if it possessed the most credentialed of benches, such a court would lack justified authority. Legitimate adjudication requires both impartial judges and judges with some link to the constituencies their rulings impact. Just as geographic diversity – a virtually ubiquitous requirement in international court statutes – strengthens international courts’ legitimacy, so too does sex representation. Consequently, perhaps the strongest argument for sex representation is that women make up almost half the world's population, and thus, an important constituency of international courts. In fact, states have already taken steps toward sex representation in the statutes of the International Criminal Court, the African Court of Human and Peoples' Rights, and for ad litem judges on the International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda." Similarly, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe resolved to reject unisex lists of candidates to the European Court of Human Rights. The argument for sex representation is all the more compelling when female Presidents, Supreme Court Judges, and Ministers of Justice have served in a wide range of countries. Surely qualified candidates for international judgeships can be found in countries where women achieve so much. More international courts make decisions that affect our lives today than ever before. They define the scope of our human rights and decide who will be held accountable for what kind of international crimes. They determine which communities will benefit from the exploitation of oil in disputed parts of the ocean, and whether environmental harm has taken place, what reparations must be paid and to whom. They play an integral role in defining fair trade practices and whether natural resources belong to the people within a state or to multinational corporations. This article seeks to shine light on the paucity of women judges participating in these vital decisions and in defining the content of international law today. It argues that we must pay more attention to sex representation if we wish to strengthen the legitimacy of these increasingly important institutions. Aggression, Humanitarian Intervention & Women
(From IntLawGrrl Beth Van Schaack, another in our series of posts on essays forthcoming in "Women and International Criminal Law," a special issue of the International Criminal Law Review)For this special issue dedicated to Judge Patricia M. Wald, an IntLawGrrls alumna, I contributed an article on the potential for the new crime-of-aggression provisions in the Statute of the International Criminal Court to chill bona fide exercises of humanitarian intervention, given that:
► The crime is expansively drafted to potentially cover all uses of sovereign force,
► Delegates rejected efforts by the United States to include an express exception for military operations launched to prevent the commission of other crimes within the jurisdiction of the ICC, and
► Other proposals that would have prevented humanitarian interventions from being considered “acts of aggression” were not fully explored or implemented.Drawing on elements of feminist theory, the article acknowledges that feminists may never fully come to terms with a notion of humanitarian intervention given the doctrine’s valorization of militarism. This is especially true in light of the fact that women are so often excluded from decisions about uses of force. The article nonetheless argues that if we want to hold out the possibility of humanitarian intervention being deployed in defense of women, elements of the new provisions (such as the terms “manifest,” “character,” “gravity,” and “consequences”) should be interpreted to exclude situations involving the nascent responsibility to protect doctrine.
Entitled "The Crime of Aggression and Humanitarian Intervention on Behalf of Women," this article is part of a larger project to analyze the rarely-considered gender aspects of the crime of aggression and to explore whether or not the amendments adding the crime of aggression to the ICC Statute would represent an advancement for women, as discussed here.
This work was inspired by the Bayeux Tapestry—the longest piece of embroidery on record—which tells in detail how William the Conqueror contested the coronation of King Harold II upon the death of King Edward the Confessor. After arriving in England, William's troops pillaged the locals in preparation for battle. Among other atrocities that we would today designate as war crimes, they burned a home, sending the mother depicted at left and her child fleeing.
Women & ICL series continues
Our readers will recall that this past fall, IntLawGrrls co-sponsored our first symposium along with the American Society of International Law, on the topic of Women and International Criminal Law (full program here).The papers featured at this symposium will be published in a special 2011 issue of the International Criminal Law Review dedicated to Judge Patricia M. Wald, an IntLawGrrls guest/alumna. Some papers were commissioned; others we received through a global call to papers. We've been spotlighting these papers over the last few months -- Diane Marie Amann's post on her paper is here, Jaya Ramji-Nogales' post on hers is here, and that of Dina Francesca Haynes, Naomi Cahn, and Fionnuala Ní Aoláin is here. Jaya's paper, also subject of an earlier
post, is now available online here. We'll continue to post these as we move into the production phase.Today we feature another paper, posted below, by Margaret deGuzman (left), another IntLawGrrls alumna and Assistant Professor of Law at Temple University Beasley School of Law in Philadelphia. We're delighted to welcome her back. Meg's paper engages the question of "Why Should International Courts Prosecute Sex Crimes?" The full paper, available here, is part of her ongoing work on gravity as an organizing principle for international criminal law and prosecutorial discretion.
Experts to vet aspiring ICC judges
In anticipation of International Criminal Court elections, civil society has tapped several independent experts to vet candidates.Honored to say that among those serving on the Independent Panel on International Criminal Court Judicial Elections will be an IntLawGrrls alumna. She's Patricia M. Wald (below left), formerly Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and Judge of the
International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia -- and, as demonstrated by prior IntLawGrrls posts, a leading proponent for the selection of exceptional judicial candidates.Joining Judge Wald on the panel convened by the Coalition for the International Criminal Court will be another woman, Dr. Cecilia Medina Quiroga (below right), Co-Director of the Human Rights Centre at the University of Chile and former President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (prior posts).
Completing the panel are 3 men: Hans Corell (prior posts), former Under-Secretary-General for Legal Affairs and Legal Counsel of the United Nations; Justice Richard Goldstone (prior posts), former Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia; and Judge O-Gon Kwon (prior post), ICTY Vice President and former Presiding Judge at the Daegu High Court in South Korea.
According to a CICC release, these independent experts will be taskedto help fill a significant gap in the procedures – the lack of a competent, fair, independent assessment of whether the nominees actually fulfil the qualifications prescribed by the Rome Statute.To do so, the experts will develop a vetting procedure like that some national bar associations use to evaluate domestic judicial candidates. Their yardstick will be Article 36(b) of the Rome Statute of the ICC, which states:
(a) The judges shall be chosen from among persons of high moral character, impartiality and integrity who possess the qualifications required in their respective States for appointment to the highest judicial offices.
(b) Every candidate for election to the Court shall:
(i) Have established competence in criminal law and procedure, and the necessary relevant experience, whether as judge, prosecutor, advocate or in other similar capacity, in criminal proceedings; or
(ii) Have established competence in relevant areas of international law such as international humanitarian law and the law of human rights, and extensive experience in a professional legal capacity which is of relevance to the judicial work of the Court;
(c) Every candidate for election to the Court shall have an excellent knowledge of and be fluent in at least one of the working languages of the Court.
ICC States Parties are expected this year to put forward candidates for election by the ICC Assembly of States Parties, given that the 9-year terms of 6 ICC judges will expire in March 2012. Supreme balance shift
In her essay for "Women and International Criminal Law," our special edition of International Criminal Law Review (prior posts) now in production, IntLawGrrls guest/alumna Patricia M. Wald writes thatwomen judges (men too of course) have to be recognised as smart, fair, and hardworking if they are to wield influence ...
It appears the 2 newest arrivals to the U.S. Supreme Court got an advance copy.
Appears, too, they've heeded this sage advice from Wald, onetime Judge on the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugsolavia and Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Judging from recent reports, 2 voices are likely to be heard once the Court takes the bench to hear oral arguments this morning: the voices, that is, of Justices Sonia Sotomayor (above left) and Elena Kagan (above right). (credit for Dec. 26, 2010, Steve Petteway/Supreme Court / photo, also depicting Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg at center)
Since Kagan was seated at the beginning of this October Term 2010, "the tenor of the debate has changed," David Savage, Supreme Court correspondent for the Los Angeles Times, recently reported. For years, he wrote, "Supreme Court conservatives led by Justice Antonin Scalia dominated the debates during oral arguments." But now Sotomayor and Kagan "have joined the fray and reenergized the liberal wing."
Bolstering Savage's assessment was a report by New York Times Supreme Court reporter Adam Liptak. The title pretty much said it all: "Sotomayor Guides Court’s Liberal Wing." She does so, he wrote, by close questioning and incisive commentary that, taken in combination, reveal -- dare one say empathy? Liptak preferred to say that
Judging from recent reports, 2 voices are likely to be heard once the Court takes the bench to hear oral arguments this morning: the voices, that is, of Justices Sonia Sotomayor (above left) and Elena Kagan (above right). (credit for Dec. 26, 2010, Steve Petteway/Supreme Court / photo, also depicting Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg at center)
Since Kagan was seated at the beginning of this October Term 2010, "the tenor of the debate has changed," David Savage, Supreme Court correspondent for the Los Angeles Times, recently reported. For years, he wrote, "Supreme Court conservatives led by Justice Antonin Scalia dominated the debates during oral arguments." But now Sotomayor and Kagan "have joined the fray and reenergized the liberal wing."
Bolstering Savage's assessment was a report by New York Times Supreme Court reporter Adam Liptak. The title pretty much said it all: "Sotomayor Guides Court’s Liberal Wing." She does so, he wrote, by close questioning and incisive commentary that, taken in combination, reveal -- dare one say empathy? Liptak preferred to say that
she has displayed a quality — call it what you will — that is alert to the humanity of the people whose cases make their way to the Supreme Court.
An example of this combination, from an article by the Wall Street Journal's Jess Bravin, regarding a recent oral argument on California prison conditions:
'When are you going to avoid the needless deaths that were reported in this record?' Justice Sonia Sotomayor said at arguments on Tuesday. 'When are you going to get around people sitting in their feces for days in a dazed state? When are you going to get to a point where you are going to deliver care that is going to be adequate?'
Amid reports that these new, "smart, fair, and hardworking" Justices may be shifting balance on the Court, Justice Scalia publicly renewed his attacks on substantive due process applied to enforce rights of women (and, here, gays).
Coincidence?
Guest Blogger: Kathleen Clark
It's IntLawGrrls' great pleasure to welcome Kathleen Clark (left) as today's guest blogger.Kathleen is Professor of Law and 2010-11 Israel Treiman Faculty Fellow at Washington University School of Law, St. Louis, Missouri, where teaches and writes about government ethics, national security law, legal ethics, and whistleblowing. For more than a decade, she has offered a course she created, on governmental ethics; in addition, she created a course on comparative whistleblowing, which she taught at the Summer Institute for Global Justice, Utrecht University, the Netherlands.
A 2004 Washington Post op-ed on the Department of Justice "torture memo," coauthored with our colleague Julie Mertus, led to Kathleen's testimony before Congress and her publication of "Ethical Issues Raised by the OLC Torture Memorandum," 1 Journal of National Security Law & Policy 455 (2005).
In her guest post below, Kathleen makes the case for the need for "someone in government will provide some clarification -- and some sanity" on the issue of WikiLeaks disclosures, an issue on which IntLawGrrls featured 2 guest posts last week, by Judge Patricia M. Wald (here) and by Professor Mary Ellen O’Connell (here).
Kathleen earned her B.A. and J.D. degrees from Yale University, and clerked for the Honorable Judge Harold H. Greene, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. She then served as counsel to the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, working on issues of white collar crime.
A member of the American Law Institute, Kathleen's an advisor to the institute’s Project on Principles of Government Ethics. She's also a consultant to the Administrative Conference of the United States and past Chair of the National Security Law Section of the Association of American Law Schools.
Heartfelt welcome!
International Law & WikiLeaks
(Delighted to welcome back alumna Mary Ellen O’Connell (below right), who contributes this guest post on release of classified documents by WikiLeaks, an issue on which alumna Patricia M. Wald posted yesterday)
I generally share Judge Wald’s critical view of WikiLeaks’ action.
In thinking about the matter from the perspective of international law, so far I see three areas of special interest:
1. Prosecution
State Department Legal Adviser Harold Koh, Attorney General Eric Holder, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and others have all discussed prosecuting “those responsible” for the document dump. The main figure associated with WikiLeaks is the Australian, Julian Assange. He is thought to be in hiding somewhere in Europe. Interpol has issued an international arrest warrant for Assange, to send him to Sweden to face questioning. I have seen no reports of a U.S. request for an international arrest warrant. (credit for logo of Interpol Red Notice)
My first thoughts in this episode have concerned on what basis Assange could be brought to the U.S. for prosecution. If he comes into Swedish custody, for example, and the United States then requests his extradition, NPR is reporting that the basis of criminal prosecution would likely be the Espionage Act. (See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. sec. 798 “Disclosure of Classified Information”.)
The Espionage Act seems to be narrowly drafted and to contain details that might well make it difficult to meet the requirements of U.S. extradition treaties.
2. Terrorism
Perhaps for the issues raised in Point 1, U.S. Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) is calling for WikiLeaks to be declared a terrorist organization? I wonder if Rep. King believes that declaring WikiLeaks a terrorist organization means that the U.S. will treat Assange as an “enemy combatant?” International law has no authority to support such assertions. We can hope that the administration will definitive reject them, and even reconsider other cases where criminal suspects are currently being treated as “enemy combatants.” (See my soon-to-be forthcoming article, “The Choice of Law Against Terrorism.”)
3. Diplomacy
We can further hope that this case will wake up governments around the world to greater vigilance on behalf of international law.
We should all be very concerned that certain Middle Eastern governments want to see military force used against Iran. There is no right to use military force against a state for the possession of even unlawful weapons. (See my “The Ban on the Bomb and Bombing, Iran, the U.S., and the International Law of Self-Defense”.) This is only one example. The documents are full of issues we in international law should be bringing to public awareness.
Ironically, in some cases involving the United States and non-compliance with international law, I wonder if governments are going to read the unflattering documents and either end cooperation or pressure the United States into ending non-compliant conduct? I have written about U.S. uses of military force in Yemen that conflict with international law. Is Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh going to continue to cooperate in this after what has been said about him?
And, of course, all of us in international law need to be concerned about the attempt to steal private information concerning the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
The gratuitous gossip in some of the communications is also striking — it made me think of the Rolling Stone interview with General Stanley McChrystal. (prior IntLawGrrls post)
The WikiLeaks decision to release this material was reprehensible. Hopefully the right lessons will be learned from it with respect to the conduct of diplomacy and the goals of U.S. foreign policy.
I generally share Judge Wald’s critical view of WikiLeaks’ action.In thinking about the matter from the perspective of international law, so far I see three areas of special interest:
1. ProsecutionState Department Legal Adviser Harold Koh, Attorney General Eric Holder, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and others have all discussed prosecuting “those responsible” for the document dump. The main figure associated with WikiLeaks is the Australian, Julian Assange. He is thought to be in hiding somewhere in Europe. Interpol has issued an international arrest warrant for Assange, to send him to Sweden to face questioning. I have seen no reports of a U.S. request for an international arrest warrant. (credit for logo of Interpol Red Notice)
My first thoughts in this episode have concerned on what basis Assange could be brought to the U.S. for prosecution. If he comes into Swedish custody, for example, and the United States then requests his extradition, NPR is reporting that the basis of criminal prosecution would likely be the Espionage Act. (See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. sec. 798 “Disclosure of Classified Information”.)
The Espionage Act seems to be narrowly drafted and to contain details that might well make it difficult to meet the requirements of U.S. extradition treaties.
2. Terrorism
Perhaps for the issues raised in Point 1, U.S. Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) is calling for WikiLeaks to be declared a terrorist organization? I wonder if Rep. King believes that declaring WikiLeaks a terrorist organization means that the U.S. will treat Assange as an “enemy combatant?” International law has no authority to support such assertions. We can hope that the administration will definitive reject them, and even reconsider other cases where criminal suspects are currently being treated as “enemy combatants.” (See my soon-to-be forthcoming article, “The Choice of Law Against Terrorism.”)
3. Diplomacy
We can further hope that this case will wake up governments around the world to greater vigilance on behalf of international law.
We should all be very concerned that certain Middle Eastern governments want to see military force used against Iran. There is no right to use military force against a state for the possession of even unlawful weapons. (See my “The Ban on the Bomb and Bombing, Iran, the U.S., and the International Law of Self-Defense”.) This is only one example. The documents are full of issues we in international law should be bringing to public awareness.
Ironically, in some cases involving the United States and non-compliance with international law, I wonder if governments are going to read the unflattering documents and either end cooperation or pressure the United States into ending non-compliant conduct? I have written about U.S. uses of military force in Yemen that conflict with international law. Is Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh going to continue to cooperate in this after what has been said about him?
And, of course, all of us in international law need to be concerned about the attempt to steal private information concerning the Secretary-General of the United Nations.The gratuitous gossip in some of the communications is also striking — it made me think of the Rolling Stone interview with General Stanley McChrystal. (prior IntLawGrrls post)
The WikiLeaks decision to release this material was reprehensible. Hopefully the right lessons will be learned from it with respect to the conduct of diplomacy and the goals of U.S. foreign policy.
Wald on WikiLeaks
(Honored to welcome back alumna Patricia M. Wald, former federal and international judge, and former member of Presidential commission on U.S. intelligence, who contributes her thoughts on the unauthorized WikiLeaks release of U.S. diplomatic cables and military documents, some of which hav
e been published in The New York Times, the Guardian, Le Monde, El Pais, and other media)I think that freelancers do have some duty not to do things that will inevitably result in making any rational course of foreign relations more difficult.
Though it may be difficult to draw a precise line, I do see a difference between publishing the Pentagon Papers (after the fact), which disclosed the perfidy of the Vietnam War, and just dumping all sorts of personal calumny about foreign leaders – though part of these “dumps” may well have been motivated, like the Pentagon Papers, to show the futility of our sojourn in Afghanistan. (It seems almost impossible that the dumps aren’t violative of all sorts of laws.)
The episode also illustrates how our courtship with technology can be ruinous, by making it so easy to gain access to and disseminate so much classified material through young and immature intelligence operators.
Go On! Women & ICL
(Go On! is an occasional item on symposia and other events of interest)
We at IntLawGrrls are delighted to announce Women and International Criminal Law, a daylong event we've organized for Friday, October 29, 2010, just days before the 10th 
anniversary of the milestone U.N. Security Council Resolution 1325 (2000) on Women and peace and security.
anniversary of the milestone U.N. Security Council Resolution 1325 (2000) on Women and peace and security.Featured will be a roundtable discussion of papers to be published in a 2011 special edition of the International Criminal Law Review, to be edited by IntLawGrrls Jaya Ramji-Nogales, Beth Van Schaack, and yours truly, Diane Marie Amann.
We've dedicated to the Honorable Patricia M. Wald, the IntLawGrrls guest/alumna pictured at the top of the above poster and at bottom right. Formerly a Judge on the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, she has served as an American Society of International Law Counsellor and as Co-Chair of the ASIL Task Force on U.S. Policy Toward the International Criminal Court.
Judge Wald will be among the speakers at this roundtable. Other distinguished participants, including a few chosen pursuant to our earlier call for papers, are listed in the full program, set 
forth below.
forth below.IntLawGrrls is honored to be hosting the event along with our generous 
cosponsors, the American Society of International Law; the California International Law Center at King Hall at University of California, Davis, School of Law; Santa Clara University School of Law, Santa Clara, California; and Temple University Beasley 
School of Law, Philadelphia.
All attendees must preregister for this event. Seating is limited, so we encourage you to register early, pursuant to registration details
here. For those who can't attend, our cosponsors plan in due course to post video of the event on their websites.
cosponsors, the American Society of International Law; the California International Law Center at King Hall at University of California, Davis, School of Law; Santa Clara University School of Law, Santa Clara, California; and Temple University Beasley 
School of Law, Philadelphia.All attendees must preregister for this event. Seating is limited, so we encourage you to register early, pursuant to registration details
here. For those who can't attend, our cosponsors plan in due course to post video of the event on their websites.Heartfelt thanks are also due to poster designer Janet Goldwater, who directed the film "Mrs. Goundo's Daughter," which our own Hope Lewis reviewed a while back, and to ASIL's Veronica Onorevole and to IntLawGrrl Kathleen A. Doty California International Law Center Fellow, for providing organizational assistance above and beyond the call of duty.
Without further ado, here's the program:
► Panel on The Limits of International Criminal Law, moderated by Michael Surgalla, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, Criminal Division, Human Rights and Special Prosecutions. Papers to be presented:
• "Criminal Justice for Gendered Violence and Beyond," by IntLawGrrl Naomi Cahn, John Theodore Fey Research Professor of Law, The George Washington University Law School, Washington, D.C., and Co-Chair of WILIG, ASIL’s Women in International Law Interest Group; IntLawGrrl Dina Francesca Haynes, Associate Professor of Law, New England Law School, Boston; and IntLawGrrl guest/alumna Fionnuala D. Ní Aoláin, Associate Dean for Planning and Research and Dorsey & Whitney Chair in Law, University of Minnesota Law School, Minneapolis, Professor of Law, Transitional Justice Institute, University of
Ulster, Belfast and Derry, Northern Ireland, and ASIL Executive Council member.
• "Criminal Justice for Gendered Violence and Beyond," by IntLawGrrl Naomi Cahn, John Theodore Fey Research Professor of Law, The George Washington University Law School, Washington, D.C., and Co-Chair of WILIG, ASIL’s Women in International Law Interest Group; IntLawGrrl Dina Francesca Haynes, Associate Professor of Law, New England Law School, Boston; and IntLawGrrl guest/alumna Fionnuala D. Ní Aoláin, Associate Dean for Planning and Research and Dorsey & Whitney Chair in Law, University of Minnesota Law School, Minneapolis, Professor of Law, Transitional Justice Institute, University of
Ulster, Belfast and Derry, Northern Ireland, and ASIL Executive Council member.
• "The Public Health Implications on Women of Armed Conflict and Transitional Justice," by
Jennifer Leaning, Director of the Francois-Xavier Bagnoud Center for Health & Human Rights; Professor of the Practice of Health and Human Rights at Harvard School of Public Health; and Associate Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School.
Jennifer Leaning, Director of the Francois-Xavier Bagnoud Center for Health & Human Rights; Professor of the Practice of Health and Human Rights at Harvard School of Public Health; and Associate Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School.
• "Questioning Hierarchies of Harm: Women, Forced Migration and International Criminal Law," by IntLawGrrl Jaya Ramji-Nogales, Associate Professor of Law at Temple University Beasley School of Law, Philadelphia.
• "The Crime of Aggression: A Feminist Project?" by IntLawGrrl Beth Van Schaack, Associate Professor of Law at Santa Clara University School of Law, Santa Clara, California.
• "The Crime of Aggression: A Feminist Project?" by IntLawGrrl Beth Van Schaack, Associate Professor of Law at Santa Clara University School of Law, Santa Clara, California.
► Panel on Gender and International Criminal Law, moderated by Morten Bergsmo, Visiting Professor of Law at Georgetown University Law Center, Washington, D.C., and Senior Researcher at the Faculty of Law, University of Oslo, Norway. Papers to be presented:• "The Gendered Dichotomy of Cumulative Charges for Sexual and Gender-Based Crimes at the International Criminal Court," by Laurie Green, LL.M. Student, American University Washington College of Law, Washington, D.C.
• "Beyond Consent: A Note on the Definition of Sexual Assault in International Criminal Law," by Katie O’Byrne, Law Clerk at the High Court of Australia, Canberra.
• "Prioritizing Gender Crimes at International Criminal Courts: The Philosophical Foundations of a Feminist Agenda," by IntLawGrrls guest/alumna Margaret M. deGuzman, Assistant Professor of Law at Temple University Beasley School of Law in Philadelphia.
• "Beyond Consent: A Note on the Definition of Sexual Assault in International Criminal Law," by Katie O’Byrne, Law Clerk at the High Court of Australia, Canberra.
• "Prioritizing Gender Crimes at International Criminal Courts: The Philosophical Foundations of a Feminist Agenda," by IntLawGrrls guest/alumna Margaret M. deGuzman, Assistant Professor of Law at Temple University Beasley School of Law in Philadelphia.
► Lunch tributes by IntLawGrrl Kelly Askin, Senior Legal Officer, International Justice, Open Society Justice Initiative, and by ASIL Executive Director Elizabeth Andersen, who will read a tribute to Judge Wald by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
► Panel on Beyond International Criminal Law, moderated by David P. Stewart, Visiting Professor of Law at Georgetown University Law Center, Washington D.C., and former Assistant Legal Adviser for Private International Law, U.S. Department of State. Papers to be presented:
• "Is International Criminal Law Feminist?" by IntLawGrrl guest/alumna Doris Buss, Associate Professor of Law at Carleton University in Ottawa, Canada.
• "The Paradoxical Feminist Quest for Remedy: A Case Study of Jane Doe v. Islamic Salvation Front and Anwar Haddam," by IntLawGrrl Karima Bennoune, Professor of Law and Arthur L. Dickson Scholar, Rutgers School of Law, Newark.
• 'Assessing Civil Liability for Harms to Women During Armed Conflict: The Rulings of the Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission," by IntLawGrrl Lucy Reed, Partner at Freshfields Deringer Bruckhaus LLP in New York, Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commissioner, and ASIL's Immediate Past President.
• "The Paradoxical Feminist Quest for Remedy: A Case Study of Jane Doe v. Islamic Salvation Front and Anwar Haddam," by IntLawGrrl Karima Bennoune, Professor of Law and Arthur L. Dickson Scholar, Rutgers School of Law, Newark.
• 'Assessing Civil Liability for Harms to Women During Armed Conflict: The Rulings of the Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission," by IntLawGrrl Lucy Reed, Partner at Freshfields Deringer Bruckhaus LLP in New York, Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commissioner, and ASIL's Immediate Past President.
► Panel on Women as Creators of International Criminal Law, moderated by IntLawGrrl alumna Diane Orentlicher, Deputy, Office of War Crimes Issues, U.S. Department of State. Papers to be presented:
• "Hannah Arendt as a Theorist of International Criminal Law," by David Luban, University Professor and Frederick J. Haas Professor of Law and Philosophy, Georgetown University Law Center, Washington, D.C.
• "Cecelia Goetz, Woman at Nuremberg," by IntLawGrrl Diane Marie Amann, Professor of Law, Martin Luther King Jr. Hall Research Scholar, and Director, California International Law Center at King Hall, University of California, Davis, School of Law, an ASIL Vice President.
• "Cecelia Goetz, Woman at Nuremberg," by IntLawGrrl Diane Marie Amann, Professor of Law, Martin Luther King Jr. Hall Research Scholar, and Director, California International Law Center at King Hall, University of California, Davis, School of Law, an ASIL Vice President.
• "Sex Representation on the Bench and the Legitimacy of International Criminal Courts," by IntLawGrrl guest/alumna Nienke Grossman, Assistant Professor of Law, University of Baltimore School of Law.
• "International Criminal Law at the Crossroad: The Impact of Judge Wald," by IntLawGrrl Jenny S. Martinez, Professor of Law and Justin M. Roach, Jr. Faculty Scholar, Stanford Law School, Stanford, California.
► Closing Remarks on Women and International Criminal Law, by IntLawGrrl guest/alumna and special edition honoree Patricia M. Wald, former Judge on the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and former Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit; former ASIL Counsellor and Co-Chair ASIL Task Force on U.S. Policy Toward the International Criminal Court.
Go On! IntLawGrrls @ 4th IHL Dialogs
(Go On! is an occasional item on symposia and other events of interest)Delighted to announce that IntLawGrrls again will cosponsor the International Humanitarian Law Dialogs at the Chautauqua Institution in upstate New York, not far from another cosponsor, the Robert H. Jackson Center.
The theme of this year's 4th annual Dialogs, to be held August 29 to 31, is timely given the outcome of the International Criminal Court Review Conference in Uganda. IntLawGrrls wrote a Kampala series of posts about that conference, as well as a crime of aggression series about a key conference outcome, the adoption of provisions designed to make the crime punishable by the ICC.
The Dialogs' theme, in short, is: Crimes Against Peace - Aggression in the 21st Century.Exploring it will be prosecutors from international criminal fora, plus many international criminal law scholars. (Prior IntLawGrrls posts.) Last year was a great opportunity to meet such colleagues at Chautauqua, a picturesque lakefront venue. It was also the source of 2 IntLawGrrls guest contributions: a trilogy of posts by Judge Patricia M. Wald (here, here, and here), plus a post by Judge Marilyn J. Kaman (here).
Many present and former international prosecutors are expected to take part this year. In addition to those mentioned as specific speakers in the program that follows, prosecutors set to attend 
include the following from the:
include the following from the:► International Criminal Court, Deputy Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda (left);
► International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, former prosecutor H.W. William Caming;
► Special Court for Sierra Leone, Chief Prosecutor Brenda Hollis (below right), recently in the news for calling a supermodel to testify at the ongoing Hague trial about diamonds received from defendant Charles Taylor, former 
President of Liberia, and former Chief Prosecutor David M. Crane, the founder of the Dialogs who's now a Professor of Law at Syracuse University, another cosponsor, and the founder of the Dialogs;
President of Liberia, and former Chief Prosecutor David M. Crane, the founder of the Dialogs who's now a Professor of Law at Syracuse University, another cosponsor, and the founder of the Dialogs;► Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia: Co-Prosecutor Andrew T. Cayley and former Co-Prosecutor Robert Petit; and
► International Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda and for the former Yugoslavia, former Chief Prosecutor Richard J. Goldstone.
► International Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda and for the former Yugoslavia, former Chief Prosecutor Richard J. Goldstone.
Sessions on the current program include:
Sunday, August 29► Showing of War Don Don, an award-winning HBO Documentary film about a Special Court trial in Sierra Leone, moderated by filmmaker Rebecca Richman Cohen (left).
Monday, August 29
► Keynote speech by Benjamin B. Ferencz, formerly a prosecutor at the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg and a lifelong activist on behalf of international criminal justice, introduced by Professor Michael P. Scharf of Case Western Reserve University School of Law, another cosponsor.
► Updates from all the current prosecutors, moderated by Professor John Q. Barrett, St. John's University School of Law.
► Keynote speech by Judge Hans-Peter Kaul, 2d Vice President of the International Criminal Court, introduced by Leila Nadya Sadat, an IntLawGrrl guest/alumna who contributed to our Kampala series, and Director of the Whitney R. Harris Institute at the Washington University School of Law, another Dialogs cosponsor.
► Dialog on the crime of aggression, with Ferencz, John Washburn, Convener of the American Non-Governmental Organizations Coalition for the International Criminal Court, and William R. Pace, Convenor of the Coalition for an International Criminal Court, moderated by Professor David J. Scheffer of Northwestern University School of Law, formerly U.S. Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes.
► Keynote address by Stephen J. Rapp, currently the U.S. Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes, and formerly the Chief Prosecutor at the Special Court for Sierra Leone, introduced by David Sullivan of Enough Project, another cosponsoring organization.
► Keynote address by Stephen J. Rapp, currently the U.S. Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes, and formerly the Chief Prosecutor at the Special Court for Sierra Leone, introduced by David Sullivan of Enough Project, another cosponsoring organization.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010► Year in Review -- International Criminal Law, by IntLawGrrl Valerie Oosterveld (left), a Professor at the Faculty of Law, University of Western Ontario, and frequent contributor to our Kampala series.
► Keynote speech by Professor William Schabas, Irish Centre for Human Rights, National University of Ireland, Galway.
► Issuance of the 4th Chautauqua Declaration & Conclusion of Dialogs, hosted by IntLawGrrl Diane Marie Amann (yours truly, also a Kampala series contributor), Professor of Law at the University of California, Davis, wearing my hat as a Vice President of the American Society of International Law, another cosponsor of the IHL Dialogs.
For more information, contact Carol Drake at cdrake@roberthjackson.org.
Guest Blogger: Nancy Amoury Combs
It's IntLawGrrls' great pleasure to welcome Dr. Nancy Amoury Combs (right) as today's guest blogger.Nancy's the 2009-11 Cabell Research Professor of Law at William & Mary Law School in Williamsburg, Virginia, which she joined in 2004 and where she teaches Human Rights Law, International Criminal Law, International Law, and Transitional Justice, all areas on which her scholarship touches. In her guest post below, Nancy discusses her just-published book on fact-finding by international criminal tribunals.
She holds a Ph.D. from Leiden University in the Netherlands. Her J.D. is from the University of California-Berkeley, where she served as Articles Editor of the California Law Review and received the Thelin Marrin prize for graduating 1st in her class. After law school, she clerked for Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy. She also earned a Certificate from the Hague Academy of International Law, and served as legal advisor at the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal in The Hague. Nancy was graduated summa cum laude with a B.A. in philosophy from the University of Portland in Oregon.
Along with IntLawGrrls' guests/alumnae Margaret deGuzman, Yvonne McDermott, and Jenia Iontcheva Turner, Nancy serves as an Expert Researcher for the Netherlands-based International Expert Framework on International Criminal Procedure. Our distinguished guest/alumna, Judge Patricia M. Wald, belongs to the IEF Advisory Board.Before attending university, Nancy owned and operated a chimney sweeping business.
Heartfelt welcome!
Judge Vaz stands alone (for now)
IntLawGrrls is a frequent site for discussions about gender, women 
judges, and international justice. It was a theme in our recent Kampala series, of course, and the central consideration in posts by guests like Patricia M. Wald (here) and Nienke Grossman (here).In that light, this bears note:
As is evident from the photo array available here, Andrésia Vaz of Senegal (right) is currently the lone woman out of 16 permanent judges at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (logo above left).Even that's better than the status quo elsewhere at The Hague.
As we've posted, the International Court of Justice (logo above middle) is a male-only bench, as it has been from its inception save the years that Rosalyn Higgins, now retired, served. In a recent ASIL Insight, our colleague Natalya Scimeca laid out the process by which the 2 ICJ vacancies are to be filled. In so doing, she noted that China's
national group "has apparently nominated Madam Xue Hanqin [left], who is currently the Chinese Ambassador to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and a member of the International Law Commission," to replace the departing ICJ judge from China. No word yet on the nomination by the U.S. national group. Scimeca, who clerked for Judge Thomas Buergenthal, retiring after a decade on the ICJ, made this comment about the possibility that no woman might be chosen for either ICJ vacancy:This would be unfortunate at a time when the Court's supporters seek to justify its continuing relevance and its unique status within the international legal realm.
(See news update in post above)
US ♥ international law
Well, sort of.
Consider this excerpt from the brief just filed by the United States in a Guantánamo detainee's habeas corpus case:
So said the United States' response to the petition for rehearing of the ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (courthouse above right) in Al Bihani v. Obama (2010). (Prior IntLawGrrls post) Indeed, in the body of its argument (pp. 6-9), the government repeated and expanded upon its nod to international law. In so doing, it cited case law familiar to those of us who labor in this field. For example:
► Murray v. Schooner Charming Betsy (1804), a precedent from the Court of Chief Justice John Marshall, was cited for the proposition that "an act of Congress ought never to be construed to violate the law of nations, if any other possible construction remains."
► United States v. Yunis (D.C. Cir. 1991), a judgment (by a panel included then-Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg, along with then-Chief Judge/now IntLawGrrls guest/alumna Patricia M. Wald and the opinion's author, Abner Mikva) arising out of a 1985 cross-border, terrorism-linked hijacking. Yunis was cited for the proposition that "courts will not blind themselves to potential violations of international law where legislative intent is ambiguous."
Notably, the U.S. position in this brief stands at odds with that taken in the Military Commissions Act of 2006; in section 5(a), Congress forbade anyone to "invoke the Geneva Conventions or any protocols thereto in any habeas corpus or other civil action ... as a source of rights in any court of the United States or its States or territories."
At both junctures of its Al-Bihani brief, however, United States argued that international law offers no reason to grant the detainee's petition for rehearing. Here's page 2:
Consider this excerpt from the brief just filed by the United States in a Guantánamo detainee's habeas corpus case:
Petitioner cites the panel majority’s statement that the 'premisePp. 1-2 (citations switched to hyperlinks).that the war powers granted by the [Authorization for Use of Military Force (2001)] and other statutes are limited by the international laws of war * * * is mistaken.' The Government agrees that this broad statement does not properly reflect the state of the law. The Government interprets the detention authority permitted under the AUMF, as informed by the laws of war. That interpretation is consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2006), and with longstanding Supreme Court precedent that statutes should be construed as consistent with applicable international law.
So said the United States' response to the petition for rehearing of the ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (courthouse above right) in Al Bihani v. Obama (2010). (Prior IntLawGrrls post) Indeed, in the body of its argument (pp. 6-9), the government repeated and expanded upon its nod to international law. In so doing, it cited case law familiar to those of us who labor in this field. For example:
► Murray v. Schooner Charming Betsy (1804), a precedent from the Court of Chief Justice John Marshall, was cited for the proposition that "an act of Congress ought never to be construed to violate the law of nations, if any other possible construction remains."
► United States v. Yunis (D.C. Cir. 1991), a judgment (by a panel included then-Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg, along with then-Chief Judge/now IntLawGrrls guest/alumna Patricia M. Wald and the opinion's author, Abner Mikva) arising out of a 1985 cross-border, terrorism-linked hijacking. Yunis was cited for the proposition that "courts will not blind themselves to potential violations of international law where legislative intent is ambiguous."
Notably, the U.S. position in this brief stands at odds with that taken in the Military Commissions Act of 2006; in section 5(a), Congress forbade anyone to "invoke the Geneva Conventions or any protocols thereto in any habeas corpus or other civil action ... as a source of rights in any court of the United States or its States or territories."
At both junctures of its Al-Bihani brief, however, United States argued that international law offers no reason to grant the detainee's petition for rehearing. Here's page 2:
[N]one of this changes the outcome ... The panel majority specifically addressed and properly rejected petitioner’s argument under international law. That unanimous ruling is correct and does not warrant rehearing or rehearing en banc.What the government giveth ....
Newly Courted?
The nomination of Solicitor General Elena Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court already has inspired, among much other press:► Fiona's thoughtful consideration of constitutional and human rights protection;
► My own reading of intlaw tea leaves; and
► The Supremes and the Single Girl, which our guest/alumna Mary L. Dudziak posted at her own Legal History Blog.
It's also prompted thoughts about how having 3 women might affect the 9-member Court.
"Women do bring different life experiences to the court," our honored guest/alumna, Judge Patricia M. Wald, wrote in the series she published here last fall. It's a point that other IntLawGrrls also have explored, many in posts (available here) on the confirmation of Justice Sonia Sotomayor last summer.
Surely, having a bench that's 1/3 women would place America's highest court closer to a global forefront regarding representation. As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg herself has noted, 4 out of the 9 Justices on Canada's Supreme Court are women. And a number of international tribunals have a significant mix of genders -- in some cases, like that of the International Criminal Court, where 10 of 19 Judges are women, by decree of statute. Truth be told, however, women lag elsewhere. At the United States' southern border, the Supreme Court of Mexico lists only 2 Ministras out of 11 members. On Germany's Federal Constitutional Court, 3 out of 16 Judges are women; on the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (prior post), 1 out of 12 Justices; and on France's Conseil Constitutionnel, 1 woman out of 11 membres.
A likely consequence that gets less attention is one that might in the end have the greatest effect on our profession: opening seats for women on the high bench may in in turn open space for women to act as advocates before that same bench. Our colleague Pamela Harris, organizer of the Georgetown Law conference about women and the Supreme Court on which we posted last month, told The New York Times:
'If clients are visualizing the court as a predominantly male entity, they are going to want a lawyer who looks like the people on the bench. I think this could also be a critical moment in terms of women arguing before the Supreme Court.'
Happy 3d birthday to us! Again.
Today we IntLawGrrls celebrate our 2d 3d birthday.Huh?
Well, in an unintended display of math anxiety, this founder/'Grrl declared it our golden birthday on this day a year ago -- that is, said then that we'd juist turned 3 on the 3d day of the 3d month. In fact, though we were entering our 3d year, it had only been 2 years since the launch of this blog on "international law, policy, practice." But no one called us on the arithmetic error, and so today we get to celebrate gold all over again.
Since we announced our birth on what folks in Japan marked as Girls Day 2007, we've grown like Topsy.
We're proud cosponsors of 2 autumn conferences -- 2009 and, yet to come, 2010.
We're proud that 'Grrls have been invited to speak at other conferences, to contribute scholarship, blog posts, and op-eds, on account of their work here.
Contributing more than 3,000 posts have been nearly 3 dozen permanent IntLawGrrls voices, plus more than 100 women who've joined us as guests. 'Grrls and guests/alumnae have ties to nearly 2 dozen countries in our world. As listed in full in our righthand column, we include, to name a very few, distinguished presidents Lucy Reed and Hélène Ruiz Fabri, distinguished scholars like Mireille Delmas-Marty and Hilary Charlesworth (and so many others), distinguished diplomat Diane Orentlicher, distinguished judges Patricia M. Wald and Marilyn J. Kaman, and distinguished U.N. expert Gay McDougall. And we've been proud over the years to honor no fewer than 70 transnational foremothers -- women who've inspired us, from "A" (Alice Paul) to "V" (Virginia Leary).
To all our contributors and all our readers -- today we will pass the milestone of 400,000 viewings since our founding! -- heartfelt thanks. We look forward to a Year 4 future of sharing lots more good things.
Women @ ASILquater
As we have each year since our founding (here, here, and here), IntLawGrrls is proud today to highlight women who will speak March 24-27 at the forthcoming annual meeting of the American Society of International Law.
This 104th gathering of the Society, entitled International Law in a Time of Change, kicks off with the Grotius Lecture by Antony Anghie at 4:30 p.m. on March 24, features a keynote address by State Department Legal Adviser Harold Hongju Koh at 5 p.m. March 25, the Manley O. Hudson Medal Lecture by Edith Brown Weiss (right)at 4:15 p.m. March 26, a keynote by Canada's Chief Justice, Beverley McLachlin (below left), at 5:30 March 26, and runs through March 27. All events will take place at the Ritz Carlton Hotel, 1150 22d Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. (Details and registration here.)
Delighted to see from the program that, once again, there's much diversity in topics and presenters. Virtually all panels again have at least 1 woman participating, and that many have more (those few that do not include women do not, alas, receive mention in this list). Kudos to the Program Committee Co-Chairs, IntLawGrrls' own Hari M. Osofsky and our colleagues K. Russell LaMotte and Allen S. Weiner! Particularly proud that so many persons featured are IntLawGrrls or IntLawGrrls guest alumnae -- not only Planning Committee members Rebecca Bratspies, Chimène Keitner, Hope Lewis, and Beth Van Schaack, but also, of course, 
Lucy Reed (right), who will conclude her 2-year tenure as ASIL President at the meeting, to be succeeded by our colleague David D. Caron.Without further ado, here's this year's honor roll:
Thursday, March 25, 9-10:30 a.m.
► "Empirical Approaches to International Law": Elizabeth Andersen (ASIL Executive Director), IntLawGrrl Elena Baylis (Pittsburgh), Susan Franck (Washington & Lee), Janet Levit (Tulsa), and panelists; Tonya Putnam (Columbia), moderator.
►"New Thinking on Social and Economic Rights: Honoring Virginia Leary," an IntLawGrrls foremother: IntLawGrrl guest/alumna Gay McDougall (United Nations) (below, far right), Mona Rishmawi (United Nations), and Alicia Ely Yamin (Harvard), panelists; IntLawGrrl guest/alumna Barbara Stark (Hofstra), moderator.
►"International Human Rights Law, Foreign Sovereign Immunity, and
National Courts": Rosanne van Alebeek (Amsterdam), Sarah H. Cleveland (Counselor to State Department) (near right), panelists.►"Getting to Closure: Winding Up the International and Hybrid Criminal Tribunals": Tracey Gurd (Open Society Justice
Initiative) and Anne Joyce (State Department), panelists; IntLawGrrl guest/alumna Valerie Oosterveld (Western Ontario), moderator.►"Risk, Science and Law in the WTO": Tracey Epps (New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs & Trade), panelist.
►"New Voices I": Dionysia Avgerinopoulou (Columbia), IntLawGrrl guest/alumna Máiréad Enright (Cork), and Alexandra R. Harrington (McGill), panelists; Edith Brown Weiss (Georgetown), moderator.
Thursday, March 25, 10:45 a.m.-12:15 p.m.
►"Providing Global Public Goods Under International Law": Anne van Aaken (St. Gallen, Max Planck Institute), Victoria Henson-Apollonio (Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research), Inge Kaul (United Nations), and Sabrina Safrin (Rutgers-Newark), panelists; IntLawGrrl Rebecca Bratspies (CUNY), moderator.
►"Extraterritoriality: Bagram and Beyond": Sabine Nölke (Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs), panelist; IntLawGrrl guest/alumna Chimène Keitner (California-Hastings), moderator.
►"Hot Topics in GATS and Human Rights": Jane Kelsey (Auckland) and Marion Panizzon (World Trade Institute), panelists.
►"Teaching International Law: Lessons from Clinical Education": Lusine Hovhannisian (Public Interest Law Initiative) and Deena Hurwitz (Virginia), panelists.
Thursday, March 25, 12:30-2:30 p.m.► Women in International Law Interest Group Luncheon: Dinah Shelton (George Washington; Inter-American Commission on Human Rights) (left), speaker.
Thursday, March 25, 1-2:30 p.m.
► "Afghanistan, Pakistan and the Modern Challenges to Use of Force Law": Elizabeth Rindskopf Parker (Pacific McGeorge) and Hina Shamsi (NYU), panelists; IntLawGrrl guest/alumna Mary Ellen O'Connell (Notre Dame), moderator.
► "Evolving Intersections Between Treaty Law and Domestic Law": IntLawGrrl Johanna E. Bond (Washington & Lee) and Mallory Stewart (State Department), panelists.
Friday, March 26, 9-10:30 a.m.
► "International Environmental Justice: Possibilities, Limits and Tensions": Deepa Badrinarayana (Chapman) and Jennifer M. Green (Minnesota), panelists.
► "Corruption and Human Rights": Leslye Obiora (Arizona), panelist.
► "International Law 2.0": Beth Simone Noveck (Office of Science and Technology) and Renee C. Redman (Iran Human Rights Documentation Center), panelists; IntLawGrrl guest/alumna Molly Beutz Land (New York), moderator.
► "New Voices II": Neha Jain (Max Planck Institute for Foreign and International Criminal Law), Kimberley N. Trapp (Cambridge), and IntLawGrrl guest/alumna Julie Veroff (Oxford), panelists.
Friday, March 26, 10:45 a.m.-12:15 p.m.
► "Non-State Actors and the Emerging Climate Change Law Regime:" Elizabeth Burleson (South Dakota) and IntLawGrrl Naomi Roht-Arriaza (California-Hastings), panelists; Jaye Dana
Ellis (McGill), moderator.► "Updating the Restatement": Oona Hathaway (Yale) and 9th Circuit Judge Margaret McKeown (left), panelists.
► "Same or Different? Fighting Terrorists in the Bush and Obama Administrations": IntLawGrrl Diane Marie Amann (California-Davis) and Susan Baker Manning (Bingham McCutchen), panelists.
► "The Rising Use of International Law by African Judiciaries": Erika George (Utah), panelist; Angela M. Banks (William & Mary), moderator.
► "Preventing the Next Financial Crisis: Coordination and Competition in Global Finance": Barbara C. Matthews (BCM International Regulatory Analytics), panelist.
Friday, March 26, 12:45-2:15 p.m.
► "Reform and Restructuring at International Financial Institutions": Anne-Marie Leroy (General Counsel, World Bank), panelist.
► "Theoretical Insights at the Margins of International Law: CLS Meets TWAIL": Celina Romany (Puerto Rico Bar Association), panelist; Jeanne M. Woods (Loyola-New Orleans), moderator.
► "Family, Sex, and Reproduction: Emerging Issues in International Law": Joanna N. Erdman (Toronto), Katherine Franke (Columbia), Laura Katzive (Wellspring Advisors), and Kathleen Lahey (Queen's-Ontario); Nancy Northup (Center for Reproductive Rights), moderator.
► "War and Law in Cyberspace": Eliana Davidson (Defense Department) and Robin Geiss (International Committee of the Red Cross), panelists.
► "Implications of the Global Financial Crisis on International Trade and Investment Regimes": Elizabeth Trujillo (Suffolk), panelist.
Friday, March 26, 2:30-4 p.m.
► "Bottom-Up Strategies for Survival and Resistance: Examples from Latin America and Elsewhere": Chantal Thomas (Cornell), panelist; Berta Esperanza Hernández-Truyol (Florida), moderator.
► "Transnational Legal Dialogue, a Human Rights-Based Hierarchy, and the Creation of Norms": Jutta Brunnée (Toronto), IntLawGrrl guest/alumna Patricia M. Wald (former Judge, International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia) (right, and Melissa A. Waters (Washington University), panelists; Erika de Wet (Amsterdam and Pretoria), moderator.
► "Preventing the Next Financial Crisis: Coordination and Competition in Global Finance": Barbara C. Matthews (BCM International Regulatory Analytics), panelist.
Friday, March 26, 12:45-2:15 p.m.
► "Reform and Restructuring at International Financial Institutions": Anne-Marie Leroy (General Counsel, World Bank), panelist.
► "Theoretical Insights at the Margins of International Law: CLS Meets TWAIL": Celina Romany (Puerto Rico Bar Association), panelist; Jeanne M. Woods (Loyola-New Orleans), moderator.
► "Family, Sex, and Reproduction: Emerging Issues in International Law": Joanna N. Erdman (Toronto), Katherine Franke (Columbia), Laura Katzive (Wellspring Advisors), and Kathleen Lahey (Queen's-Ontario); Nancy Northup (Center for Reproductive Rights), moderator.
► "War and Law in Cyberspace": Eliana Davidson (Defense Department) and Robin Geiss (International Committee of the Red Cross), panelists.
► "Implications of the Global Financial Crisis on International Trade and Investment Regimes": Elizabeth Trujillo (Suffolk), panelist.
Friday, March 26, 2:30-4 p.m.► "Bottom-Up Strategies for Survival and Resistance: Examples from Latin America and Elsewhere": Chantal Thomas (Cornell), panelist; Berta Esperanza Hernández-Truyol (Florida), moderator.
► "Transnational Legal Dialogue, a Human Rights-Based Hierarchy, and the Creation of Norms": Jutta Brunnée (Toronto), IntLawGrrl guest/alumna Patricia M. Wald (former Judge, International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia) (right, and Melissa A. Waters (Washington University), panelists; Erika de Wet (Amsterdam and Pretoria), moderator.
► "Remembering Tom Franck: What He Taught Us about the Recourse to Force": Rosalyn Higgins (former President, International Court of Justice) (far left), moderator.
► "ICSID in the Twenty-First Century: An Interview with Meg Kinnear" (Secretary-General, World Bank's International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes) (near left).Friday, March 26, 4:15-5:15 p.m.
► "Hudson Medal Lecture": Medal Winner Edith Brown Weiss (Georgetown).
Friday, March 26, 5:30-6:30 p.m.
► ""Keynote": Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, Supreme Court of Canada
Saturday, March 27, 9-10:30 a.m.
► "The Road Forward from Copenhagen: Climate Change Policy in the 21st Century": Ann Petsonk (Environmental Defense Fund), panelist.
► "The ICC Review Conference and Changing U.S. Policy Towards the Court": Olivia Swaak-Goldman (International Criminal Court), panelist; Leila Nadya Sadat (Washington University), moderator.
► "China and East Asia on the World Stage": Deborah Brautigam (American) and Saadia Pekkanen (University of Washington), panelists; Julia Ya Qin (Wayne State), moderator.
Saturday, March 27, 10:45 a.m.-12:15 p.m.
► "Advancing Women's Rights Internationally": Cathy Albisa (National Economic and Social 
Rights Initiative), Fionnuala D. Ní Aoláin (Minnesota) and Rebecca Cook (Toronto),panelists; Kamari Maxine Clarke (Yale), moderator.
Rights Initiative), Fionnuala D. Ní Aoláin (Minnesota) and Rebecca Cook (Toronto),panelists; Kamari Maxine Clarke (Yale), moderator.► "Treaty Bodies and Beyond: The Practice and Process of Translating International Norms into Domestic Law": Susan Deller Ross (Georgetown) and Ruth Wedgwood (John Hopkins; Human Rights Council) (right), panelists; Celia Goldman, moderator.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
