Her co-panelist was Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos, who is Professor of Law at the University of Athens, Greece, and the former President of the European Court of Human Rights. Moderating was Israr Khan, President of the Oxford Union, a 200-year-old debating society which draws much of its membership from the University of Oxford.
Amann is Regents’ Professor of International Law, Emily & Ernest Woodruff Chair in International Law, and a Faculty Co-Director of our Dean Rusk International Law Center here at Georgia Law.
University of Georgia School of Law Professor Diane Marie Amann recently spoke on “Child-Taking Justice and Forced Residential Schooling of Indigenous Americans” at Washington University School of Law in St. Louis.
Her presentation was part of a spring semester WashU Law International Law Colloquium organized by Professor MJ Durkee, who is the William Gardiner Hammond Professor of Law and Director of the Whitney R. Harris World Law Institute. Durkee joined that faculty in 2023, after serving as an Allen Post Professor, Associate Dean for International Programs, and Director of the Dean Rusk International Law Center here at Georgia Law.
The discussant for Amann’s paper was Lecturer Steve Alagna, who is an enrolled citizen of the Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska, and whose WashU Law Appellate Clinic just filed an amicus brief in federal appellate litigation which seeks redress, under the United States’ Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, for survivors of Indigenous children who died and were buried at a former residential school site.
Amann is Regents’ Professor of International Law, Emily & Ernest Woodruff Chair in International Law, and a Faculty Co-Director of our Dean Rusk International Law Center here at Georgia Law. The paper she presented at WashU builds upon research that she published as “Child-Taking,” 45 Michigan Journal of International Law 305 (2024).
During his time in Florence, Kadri will expand his ongoing research pertaining to the legal and technical regulation of AI-generated “deepfakes” and focus on the European regulatory approaches to this topic. In 2024, Kadri authored his third book, Dilemmas in Digital Abuse, which discusses related topics including harmful technological advancements and the corresponding regulatory responses.
Kadri is an Assistant Professor of Law at Georgia Law Law, and his research focuses on torts and criminal law, with an emphasis on how technology, law, and social norms enable and affect privacy, speech, and abuse. His scholarship appears in journals including the Harvard Law Review Forum, UCLA Law Review, Texas Law Review, Utah Law Review, Maryland Law Review, and Journal of Free Speech Law and he has published shorter pieces in The New York Times and Slate. His course offerings include Torts, Cybercrime, and Regulating Digital Abuse.
University of Georgia School of Law Professor Diane Marie Amann recently gave a public lecture entitled “Child-Taking: Unlawful Transfer plus Identity Alteration, in Ukraine and Beyond,” at the University of Reading School of Law in Reading, United Kingdom, as part of that law school’s Global Law at Reading (GLAR) lecture series.
Her presentation drew upon her just-published article, “Child-Taking,” 45 Michigan Journal of International Law 305 (2024).
Amann is Regents’ Professor of International Law, Emily & Ernest Woodruff Chair in International Law, and a Faculty Co-Director of our Dean Rusk International Law Center here at Georgia Law. This fall, she is spending a research-intensive semester in the United Kingdom, where she is a Research Visitor at the Oxford Faculty of Law Bonavero Institute of Human Rights and Visiting Fellow at Exeter College Oxford.
Amann discussed the significance of the warrants, which had charged Russia’s President and another Presidential official of the war crimes of child deportation, and which were issued just days before the 2023 Annual Meeting. The remarks spurred her to further research on the topic, resulting in her article “Child-Taking,” also published this month, at 45 Michigan Journal of International Law 305 (2024) (prior post).
Also on the panel were: Professor Saira Mohamed, University of California-Berkeley School of Law; Professor Javier S. Eskauriatza, University of Nottingham Scholl of Law; and Professor Marko Milanović, University of Reading School of Law. Katherine Gallagher, Senior Staff Attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights and an Adjunct Professor of Clinical Law at New York University School of Law, moderated. The panelists’ remarks in full are here.
Amann is Regents’ Professor of International Law, Emily & Ernest Woodruff Chair in International Law, and a Faculty Co-Director of our Dean Rusk International Law Center here at Georgia Law. She served from 2012 to 2021 as International Criminal Court Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda’s Special Adviser on Children in & affected by Armed Conflict. This Fall 2024 semester she is at the University of Oxford in the United Kingdom, serving as a Research Visitor at the Faculty of Law Bonavero Institute of Human Rights and as a Visiting Fellow at Exeter College.
During this research-intensive semester Amann is pursuing her scholarship related to women professionals who played roles in international criminal trials after World War II and also her work on child rights, especially as they relate to armed conflict and similar violence.
Founded in 1314, Exeter College is the fourth-oldest among Oxford’s three dozen colleges. It is located in the city center next to the university’s Bodleian Library.
As theorized in the article, “child-taking” occurs when a state or similar powerful entity takes a child and then endeavors to alter, erase, or remake the child’s identity. It is a criminal phenomenon that has been repeated across decades and centuries. On rare occasion, criminal prosecutions have occurred, as with the Situation in Ukraine before the International Criminal Court. More often redress, if any, must take place in other forums. The article thus considers these other types of transitional justice, with particular attention to the legacies of forced residential schooling imposed upon Indigenous children in the United States, Canada, and elsewhere.
Amann is Regents’ Professor of International Law, Emily & Ernest Woodruff Chair in International Law, and a Faculty Co-Director of our Dean Rusk International Law Center here at Georgia Law. She served from 2012 to 2021 as International Criminal Court Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda’s Special Adviser on Children in & affected by Armed Conflict.
Here’s the abstract of the “Child-Taking” article, the print version of which is available here:
A ruling group at times takes certain children out of their community and then tries to remake them in its image. It tries to rid the child of undesired differences, in ethnicity or nationality, religion or politics, race or ancestry, culture or class. There are too many examples: the colonialist residential schools that forced settler cultures on Indigenous children; the military juntas that kidnapped dissidents’ children; and today’s reports of abductions amid crises like that in Syria. Too often nothing is done, and the children are lost. But that may be changing, as the International Criminal Court (“ICC”) is seeking to arrest Russian President Vladimir Putin and Commissioner for Children’s Rights Maria Lvova-Belova for the war crimes of unlawfully deporting or transferring children from Ukraine to Russia.
“This article examines the criminal phenomenon that it names ‘child-taking.’ By its definition, the crime occurs when a state or similar powerful entity, first, takes a child, and second, endeavors, whether successfully or not, to alter, erase, or remake the child’s identity. Using the ICC case as a springboard, this article relies on historical and legal events to produce an original account of child-taking. Newly available trial transcripts help bring to life a bereft mother and five teenaged survivors, plus the lone woman defendant, who testified at a little-known child-kidnapping trial before a postwar Nuremberg tribunal. Their stories, viewed in the context of the evolution of international child law, inform this article’s definition. These sources further reveal child-taking to be what the law calls a matter of international concern. At its most serious, child-taking may constitute genocide or another crime within the ICC’s jurisdiction. Yet even if circumstances preclude punishment in that permanent criminal court, child-taking remains a grave offense warranting prosecution or other forms of local and global transitional justice. This is as true for the Indigenous children of residential schools in North America, Australia, and elsewhere, and for children in Syria and many other places in the world, as it is for the children of Ukraine.
University of Georgia School of Law Associate Dean & Hosch Professor Jason A. Cade’s article “Deporting the Pardoned” was recently cited by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in the case Lopez v. Garland.
Below is an excerpt from the article:
Federal immigration laws make noncitizens deportable on the basis of state criminal convictions. Historically, Congress implemented this scheme in ways that respected the states’ sovereignty over their criminal laws. As more recent federal laws have been interpreted, however, a state’s decision to pardon, expunge, or otherwise set aside a conviction under state law will often have no effect on the federal government’s determination to use that conviction as a basis for deportation. While scholars have shown significant interest in state and local laws regulating immigrants, few have considered the federalism implications of federal rules that ignore a state’s authority to determine the continuing validity of its own convictions. This Article contends that limitations on the preclusive effect of pardons, expungements, appeals, and similar post-conviction processes undermine sovereign interests in maintaining the integrity of the criminal justice system, calibrating justice, fostering rehabilitation, and deciding where to allocate resources. In light of the interests at stake, Congress should be required to clearly express its intent to override pardons and related state post-conviction procedures. A federalism-based clear statement rule for statutory provisions that restrict generally applicable criminal processes would not constrain the federal government’s power to set immigration policy. Congress remains free to make its intent clear in the statute. But the rule would ensure that Congress, rather than an administrative agency, has made the deliberative choice to upset the usual constitutional balance of federal and state power.
Jason A. Cade is Associate Dean for Clinical Programs and Experiential Learning, J. Alton Hosch Professor of Law & Community Health Law Partnership Clinic Director. In addition to overseeing the law school’s 11 in-house clinics and 7 externship programs, Cade teaches immigration law courses and directs the school’s Community Health Law Partnership Clinic (Community HeLP), in which law students undertake an interdisciplinary approach to immigrants’ rights through individual client representation, litigation, and project-based advocacy before administrative agencies and federal courts.
Additional information about the Community HeLP Clinic can be found here.
Professor Diane Marie Amann recently was featured in Expresso, a newspaper based in Lisbon, Portugal, regarding efforts to hold Russian officials accountable for the war in Ukraine.
Reviewing various obstacles to these efforts, Tribuna quoted Amann as follows (in translation):
“One question, obviously, is whether this court will be able to arrest the accused leaders,” acknowledges Diane Marie Amann. Still, she points out, “this is a challenge in all criminal cases, and the magnitude of the challenge should not impede the effort to ensure justice.”
Recalling the March 17, 2023, arrest warrants issued by the International Criminal Court against Russian President Vladimir Putin and his Children’s Rights Commissioner Maria Lvova-Belova (about which Amann has written here), Tribuna wrote:
Although neither has been detained – which highlights the challenge that any legal system faces when trying to guarantee justice while the conflict is ongoing – the decision had effects, considers Amann. “It raised public awareness about the criminal allegations and encouraged states and civil society actors to call for the return of children.”
Amann is Regents’ Professor of International Law, Emily & Ernest Chair in International Law, and Faculty Co-Director of the Dean Rusk International Law Center here at the University of Georgia School of Law. She writes and teaches in areas including transnational and international criminal law, child and human rights, constitutional law, and global legal history.
University of Georgia School of Law Professor Diane Marie Amann spoke last week at a conference which paid tribute to Professor Megan A. Fairlie (1971-2022), an international criminal law scholar who had presented her own work at our law school’s Dean Rusk International Law Center.
Most recently, Dr. Fairlie had taken part in a 2019 symposium entitled “International Criminal Court and the Community of Nations,” and she published her presentation, “Defense Issues at the International Criminal Court,” in the Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law symposium issue.
In recognition of Fairlie’s scholarship on persons accused by international criminal tribunals, Amann chose to present “Inge Viermetz, Woman Acquitted at Nuremberg,” at Friday’s conference.
Amann, who is Regents’ Professor of International Law, Emily & Ernest Woodruff Chair in International Law, and Faculty Co-Director of the Dean Rusk International Law Center here at Georgia Law, has published frequently on women professionals during the post-World War II trials at Nuremberg and elsewhere.
exchange of notes 