Georgia Law students to compete in regional Model African Union rounds

4-2

Front row, from left: Johann Ebongom, Chanel Chauvet, Amanda Hoefer, Rebecca Wackym; back row, from left, Nelly Ndounteng, Shummi Chowdhury

A team of 6 Georgia Law students will represent the Republic of Niger in the 20th Annual Southeast Model African Union.

Thanks to the leadership of the African Studies Institute at University of Georgia, the regional competition will be held here on campus Thursday through Saturday. The Dean Rusk International Law Center, University of Georgia School of Law, is honored to cosponsor.

The contest is intended to sharpen skills in diplomacy, leadership, governmental, legal research, and public speaking. Rounds will simulate activities of the African Union.

Through the work of its many committees, this decades-old the intergovernmental organization addresses myriad issues on the continent. The competition will use as its organizing platform an African Union document,alternate-semau-flyer_0 “Agenda 2063: The Africa We Want.”

The students Georgia Law students who will compete, and their committee assignments, are:

Rebecca Wackym, 1L, Executive Council

Amanda Hoefer, 1L, Committee on Democracy, Governance and Human Rights

Johann Ebongom, LLM, Committee on Economic Matters

Nelly Ndounteng, LLM, Committee on Social Matters

Shummi Chowdhury, 1L, Committee on Pan-Africanism and Continental Unity

Chanel Chauvet, 2L, Committee on Peace and Security

niger

All the students have experience in international law and policy. Chowdhury and Chauvet are Dean Rusk International Law Center Student Ambassadors, for example, while Ndounteng and Ebongom both practiced law, in Nigeria and Cameroon respectively, before enrolling at Georgia Law.

Bon courage!

LLMs’ behind-scenes courthouse tour

photo-6_2A group of our Georgia Law LL.M. students walked downtown to the Athens Clarke-County courthouse yesterday to visit with several of our law school alums.

Assistant District Attorney Paige Otwell (JD’88) welcomed the group, which included her mentee in the LL.M. Class of 2017, Nelly Sandra Ndounteng.

Associate Magistrate Judge Ben Makin (JD’04) explained his role in the judicial system and discussed subjects ranging from arrest warrants and jail bonds to small claims court.

Ryan Hope (JD’00), who serves as Chief Assistant Solicitor  in the county’s Office of the Solicitor General, told the students how he became interested in the court system through his work at the public defender clinic in law school. In his remarks he touched on Clarke County’s accountability courts, such as DUI court, which integrate treatment and “quick, limited punishments” with the goal of reducing recidivism.

The Honorable Ethelyn N. Simpson (JD’90), Chief Judge of the State Court, related how her early experience clerking for Superior Court judges allowed her to see “a lot of good lawyers and a lot of bad lawyers,” preparing her for an unexpected career on the bench. Her enthusiasm about “the greatest job” was infectious.

After meeting with the alumni, the LL.M. students were escorted into the courtroom to view victim testimony in an ongoing trial. For the students, who come from Cameroon, Venezuela, Nigeria, Iran, Ghana, and the Bahamas, the experience was informative and rewarding. Special thanks to ADA Otwell and Dean Rusk International Law Center Student Ambassador Deborah Nogueira-Yates, a member of the Georgia Law J.D. Class of 2018 who earned her LL.M. here last May, for organizing the visit!

(Pictured above: front row, from left, Philicia Armbrister, Gilbert Oladeinbo, Valerie Mills, Nelly Ndounteng, and Assistant District Attorney Paige Otwell; top row, Noj Oyeyipo, Johann Ebongom, Javier Gonzalez, Laura Kagel (Director of International Professional Education), and Hamed Moradi Roodposhti)

Triggers and Thresholds of Non-International Armed Conflict

adhaque_img“Triggers and Thresholds of Non-International Armed Conflict” by Adil Ahmad Haque, originally published on Just Security Blog on September 29, 2016. We are grateful for permission to reprint this as part of our series inspired by gjicl_confposter“Humanity’s Common Heritage,” our recent conference on the 2016 ICRC Commentary on the First Geneva Convention. The author, Rutgers Law Professor Haque, was a conference participant; this post is the 1st of 3 he prepared soon after the conference. He writes:

When and where does the law of non-international armed conflict apply?  Since most contemporary armed conflicts are fought between states and organized armed groups, or between such groups, these are important questions for both international lawyers and policy makers.  The answers may affect the jurisdiction of U.S. military commissions, the detention of Taliban commanders and ISIL members, legal constraints on Saudi-led military operations in Yemen, and accountability for war crimes in Syria.

In this post, I’ll discuss the trigger and threshold of non-international armed conflict (NIAC). My point of departure is the much-discussed 2016 Commentary on the First Geneva Convention recently released by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC).  The University of Georgia School of Law recently hosted a fantastic event examining a number of issues raised by the Commentary, including the duty to “ensure respect” for the Convention by other Parties, incidental harm to sick and wounded combatants, and the classification of conflicts.  This post grows out of that rich discussion.

The ICRC’s Commentary clearly states that an international armed conflict (IAC) “can arise when one State unilaterally uses armed force against another State even if the latter does not or cannot respond by military means.”  Accordingly, the law of armed conflict constrains the first use of armed force by one state against another.  Let’s call this a unilateral trigger.

In addition, “there is no requirement that the use of armed force between the Parties reach a certain level of intensity before it can be said that an [international] armed conflict exists.”  Accordingly, minor skirmishes between state armed forces, or the capture of a single soldier, “would spark an international armed conflict and lead to the applicability of humanitarian law.” Let’s call this a nominal threshold.

Unfortunately, the Commentary is not so clear with respect to non-international armed conflict.  The Commentary endorses the view that NIACs “are protracted armed confrontations occurring between governmental armed forces and … one or more armed groups, or between such groups.”  This passage, as well as some cited authority, seem to suggest a bilateral trigger, requiring “armed clashes,” “combat zones,” or, simply, “fighting.”

The Commentary also states that, for the law of NIAC to apply, “[t]he armed confrontation must reach a minimum level of intensity.”  Read alongside the Commentary’s discussion of IAC, it seems that this “minimum level of intensity” would not be met by minor skirmishes or by the capture of a single soldier or fighter.

The Commentary seems to accept a unilateral trigger and nominal threshold for IAC (quadrant 1) but a bilateral trigger and significant threshold for NIAC (quadrant 4).

screen-shot-2016-09-29-at-10-31-17-am

In my view, we should accept a unilateral trigger and nominal threshold for both IAC and NIAC.

First, if an armed group is sufficiently organized, then a first use of armed force by or against that group should trigger a NIAC.  Consider the following case:

Daesh:  Daesh fighters pour over the Syria-Iraq border, killing Iraqi civilians, capturing Iraqi territory and taking over Iraqi government institutions.  Iraqi forces flee, offering no resistance.

If we accept a bilateral trigger for NIAC, then the law of armed conflict does not apply until Iraqi forces “respond[s] by military means,” resisting Daesh’s advance.  Until that time, Daesh fighters do not violate the law of armed conflict or commit war crimes.  This result seems deeply unattractive.  Although the Daesh fighters violate Iraqi criminal law, it seems hard to accept that they do not violate the law of armed conflict.

Now consider the following scenario:

Consent:  State A attacks organized armed group G on the territory of State T, with the consent of State T.  There is no pre-existing armed conflict between State A and group G.  State A does not take feasible precautions in attack and recklessly kills many civilians.

If we accept a bilateral trigger for NIAC, then the law of NIAC does not apply until group G responds with military force, resulting in “armed clashes.”  Since State T consents, the law of IAC does not apply either.  It follows that State A does not violate the law of armed conflict or commit war crimes.  This result seems intolerable.

Importantly, human rights law may not be sufficient to protect civilians or armed forces in cross-border cases like those described above.  On most views, human rights law does not apply to the conduct of non-state armed groups that do not yet exercise territorial control and fulfill government-like functions.  Moreover, according to some militarily active states, human rights law does not constrain extraterritorial lethal targeting by state armed forces.  Yet, in my view, such conduct should be constrained by international law.

We should also accept only a nominal intensity threshold for NIAC.  Consider the following case:

Capture:  Members of organized armed group G mistakenly cross the unmarked border between State T, in which they normally operate, and State A.  They encounter a unit of State A’s soldiers, and a minor skirmish ensues.  No one is killed, but one group member is captured by the soldiers while one soldier is captured by the group and taken back across the border into State T.

In this case, it seems that both the group member and the soldier should be entitled to humane treatment under Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.  Moreover, if there are civilians present when the skirmish occurs, then it seems that the conduct of the skirmish should be constrained by customary rules including distinction, precautions, and proportionality  If those rules are flagrantly violated, then those violations should amount to war crimes.

In my view, if an organized armed group has the capacity to sustain military operations then any military operation by or against that group should be constrained by the law of armed conflict.  The organization and capacity of the group is sufficient to distinguish military operations by or against the group from “internal disturbances and tensions, such as riots, isolated and sporadic acts of violence and other acts of a similar nature.”

Some might worry that applying the law of armed conflict to first uses of low intensity force will displace or reduce the protections of human rights law.  Fortunately, that is not the case.  Even during armed conflict, states may choose not to derogate from their ordinary human rights obligations.  Alternatively, derogation may be strictly required only with respect to certain measures, or only in certain parts of a state’s territory, or only in certain situations, even if the law of armed conflict provides additional constraints on all acts with a sufficient nexus to the conflict.

Most importantly, killings that are not prohibited by the law of NIAC may be prohibited by human rights law.  In particular, “[w]here military necessity does not require parties to an armed conflict to use lethal force …, but allows the target for example to be captured rather than killed, the respect for the right to life can be best ensured by pursuing this option.”  In situations of armed conflict, the law of NIAC may aid the interpretation of human rights law but does not exhaust the content of human rights law.

Finally, the law of armed conflict cannot authorize what human rights law forbids.  As the ICRC observes elsewhere, “[t]he law relating to the conduct of hostilities is primarily a law of prohibition: it does not authorize, but prohibits certain things.”  Human rights law and the law of NIAC do not conflict with each other but instead complement one another, as both impose constraints on violence rather than licenses to commit violence.  As Additional Protocol II makes clear, human rights law “offer[s] a basic protection to the human person” while the law of NIAC aims “to ensure a better protection for the victims of [] armed conflicts.”

Center’s Laura Kagel to meet with prospective LLMs in Austria, Croatia

llmLaw students in Austria, Croatia, and nearby regions will soon have the opportunity for talk with a Dean Rusk International Law Center staffer about pursuing a degree at here at the University of Georgia School of Law.

Early next month yours truly, Laura Tate Kagel, the Center’s Director of International Professional Education, will take part in LL.M. fairs in Vienna, Austria, and Zagreb, Croatia. Sponsor of the fairs is EducationUSA, an arm of the U.S. Department of State.

I’ll be on hand personally to discuss the career benefits and special advantages of earning the Master of Law, or LL.M., degree at Georgia Law. (See prior posts about our current LL.M. students, as well as our hundreds of LL.M. alums, here.)

You can contact me directly at lkagel@uga.edu, and you can register for the fairs via the links below:

Wedne1sday, November 9, Vienna: 16:00 – 18:00, Amerika Haus, Friedrich-Schmidt-Platz 2, 1010 Vienna. Registration: http://www.fulbright.at/llm/.

Thursday, November 10, Zagreb: 18:00-20:00 at the Sheraton Hotel, Ul. kneza Borne 2, 10000 Zagreb. Registration: https://goo.gl/forms/sA9eCLQH1WKtzaVV2.

Hope to see you there!

Critique of ICRC’s 2016 Commentary to Geneva Convention I: Arming medical personnel, loss of protected status

mullIt’s our pleasure to publish this post as part of our series inspired by “Humanity’s Common Heritage,” our recent conference on the 2016 ICRC Commentary on the First Geneva Convention. The author is Nicholas W. Mull, a Columbia Law LL.M. candidate who served till mid-2016 at the Pentagon, as an International & Operational Law Attorney, Head Operational Law Department, U.S. Marine Corps, Office of the Judge Advocate General of the Navy. Mull, a conference participant, writes:

The protected status of medical personnel and their units, transports, and establishments, when addressed by commentators, is typically focused on affirmative duties of combatants not to target medically protected persons and objects. However, equally important is the affirmative duty of medically protected persons to refrain gjicl_confposterfrom “acts harmful to the enemy” and the extent of the right of self-defense. These are the concerns of medical providers in the field at the tactical level that are typically ignored.

These concerns are directly addressed in the ICRC’s recent updated commentary for the first Geneva Convention (GC I). While there are several opinions in the commentary that are, arguably, in error, for brevity, this post will only touch on one tactical concern. The commentary asserts that medical personnel may only carry “light individual weapons” without losing protected status, which is in error for several reasons:

  1. It purports a limit on the type of weapons to be used in self-defense; and
  2. It opines that protected status can be lost by virtue of an act that only presents a remote hypothetical harm to the enemy that can only come to fruition if the medical personnel purposefully engage in offensive hostilities.

As a preliminary issue, it is vital to interpret Article 21 of GC I, which provides for the sole reason by which protected medical personnel and establishments may lose protected status: commission, “outside their humanitarian duties, [of] acts harmful to the enemy.” The operative condition of “harmful to the enemy” requires a purposeful act that in of itself has caused harm to the enemy’s ability to conduct legitimate military operations. This is not to say that it is a high threshold to meet, but merely that it must actually cause a real definable present harm to the enemy and that it is intended to cause such harm, e.g. utilizing a field hospital to shelter “able-bodied combatants.” This standard should also be understood as more expansive than the direct participation in hostilities (DPH) standard used for determining the loss of protected status of civilians, specifically as it includes both direct and indirect actions. The generally expansive nature of this standard necessitated Article 22 of GC I, which covers actions that may not be considered as “acts harmful to the enemy” such as, inter alia, arming medical personnel.

Turning to the issue of arming medical personnel, the updated commentary concludes that medical personnel are only authorized to carry “light individual weapons” and that to possess crew-served weapons (CSW) results in the “loss of specific protection of the military medical unit.” The qualification of “light” and “individual” is a noticeable addition in the 2016 commentary that is absent from the 1952 Pictet Commentary. This addition presents unnecessary danger to medical personnel in contemporary conflicts of which reciprocity can no longer be presumed.

From a textual analysis, Article 22 makes no condition regarding the quality or quantity of the arms that medical personnel may posses; it only presents a limitation on the employment of the weapons for self-defense. Looking to the 1952 Pictet Commentary, it focuses exclusively on the purpose and permissible use of the arms.

Despite the clear meaning of the text of Article 22, which is free from ambiguity, the 2016 commentary draws an inappropriate analogy to Article 13 of Additional Protocol I (AP I), which states that the equipping of civilian medical personnel with “light individual weapons” would not be considered an act harmful to the enemy. Article 13 of AP I was not an attempt to clarify any ambiguity of Article 22, but was instead pertaining to a completely different class of personnel. Further, it is a highly illogical inferential leap to assume that States would want civilians being armed to the same degree as military medical personnel that are subject to the high standards of discipline of a uniformed service.

States must be able to arm their medical personnel to the degree as they see fit to counter the likely threats to medical personnel in a theatre of operations. Certainly, such arms may only be used in self-defense, but to limit medical personnel to side arms and small assault rifles while the enemy or “marauders” attack them with CSW and other anti-material weapons is unjust. commentary-e1458062747572To paraphrase Pictet in his Commentary, it is not proper to require medical personnel to be the sacrificial lamb to unlawful actions of the enemy or criminals.

It is not hard for a combat experienced individual to envision situations in which medical personnel may have a need to defend themselves with CSW and anti-material weapons. For example, field hospitals may be present in a combat zone in which enemy tactics could include suicide vehicle borne improvised explosive devices (SVBIEDs). To personally defend themselves as well as their patients this scenario may require the use of a .50 caliber machine gun—a weapon primarily designed for anti-material purposes—to subdue the imminent threat to life.

Lastly, as previously noted, to lose the protected status medical personnel must purposefully commit an act that in of itself creates a present harm to the enemy. Arming medical personnel with CSW or other heavier weapons as necessary to counter likely threats to save their lives and the lives of their patients does not result in a present harm to the enemy. In fact, the only way it could be a present harm to the enemy is to presume that the medical personnel intend to violate the law by engaging in offensive hostilities. In reality, this only presents a remote hypothetical harm that does not meet the standard of being harmful to the enemy.

armletIt may not be the best policy choice to heavily arm medical personnel for the risk of confusion that can be created as to their protected status, especially if the situation is one in which medical personnel are not displaying Red Cross armlets, as is often the case with U.S. military medical personnel. But, this is ultimately a policy choice that should not be confused with status of law.

Distinguished jurist Pillay discusses state sovereignty, human rights

duo“The biggest violators of human rights are states themselves, by commission or omission.”

This quote by Navi Pillay aptly summarized her talk on “National Sovereignty vs. International Human Rights.” Pillay, whose renowned legal career has included posts as U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights and as a judge on the International Criminal Court and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, spoke this morning at the University of Georgia School of Law Atlanta campus.

Elaborating on the quote above, Pillay decried national legislation aimed at restricting the activities – and with it the effectiveness – of local nongovernmental organizations. Such anti-NGO laws already have passed in Russia and are pending in Pillay’s home state of South Africa, among other countries. That said, she welcomed new means of speaking law to power; in particular, social media that permit human rights advocates to reach millions. Also welcomed were accountability mechanisms that the United Nations has developed in recent decades, such as Universal Periodic Review by the Human Rights Council, reporting processes of treaty bodies, and reports by special rapporteurs.

amann_pillayI was honored to give welcoming remarks at the breakfast. Georgia Law’s Dean Rusk International Law Center, which I lead, cosponsored this Georgia WILL event with the World Affairs Council of Atlanta and Georgia State University’s Global Studies Institute. (We owe special thanks to Judge Dorothy Toth Beasley for her hospitality this week.)

Conversing with Pillay was World Affairs Council President Charles Shapiro. They began by speaking of Pillay’s childhood in Durban, where she grew up the daughter of a bus driver. She spoke of how testifying as a 6-year-old in the trial of a man who’d stolen money from her helped spark her desire to become a lawyer – and how donations from her community helped make that dream a reality.

Shapiro then asked about capital punishment, noting a scheduled execution. Pillay acknowledged the absence of any universal treaty outlawing the death penalty, but found evidence of U.N. opposition both in the decision not to permit the penalty in U.N. ad hoc international criminal tribunals and in the growing support for the oft-repeated U.N. General Assembly resolution calling for a moratorium on capital punishment.

“It started with just 14 states against the death penalty, and is now more than 160,” said Pillay, who currently serves on the International Commission against the Death Penalty.

img_0335On this and other issues, she said, advocates endeavor to encourage states first to obligate themselves to respect and ensure human rights, and then to implement the undertakings they have made in this regard:

“The United Nations was formed by states. It is a club of governments. Look how steadily they have adopted treaties and agreed to be bound by them. That doesn’t mean we are transgressing sovereignty.”

GJICL publishes award-winning article

gjiclScholarship published in the Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law special issue on “Children and International Criminal Justice” has just been named Article of the Year by the U.S. National Section of the Paris-based Association internationale de droit pénal/International Association of Penal Law.

The honoree is Linda A. Malone, the Marshall-Wythe Foundation Professor of Law at William & Mary Law School in Williamsburg, Virginia, for her article entitledlamalo “Maturing Justice: Integrating the Convention on the Rights of the Child into the Judgements and Processes of the International Criminal Court,” 43 Ga. J. Int’l & Comp. L. 599 (2015). The article surveys the status of international child law and offers suggestions on how it may interface with ICC practices.

Professor Malone presented her research at a plenary session (also featuring a keynote by Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda) of the conference that GJICL and the Dean Rusk International Law Center, University of Georgia School of Law, held during the preparatory phase of the ICC Office of the Prosecutor Policy on Children. The final version of the policy will be launched next month at The Hague.

Georgia Law launches women’s leadership initiative: “Georgia WILL”

georgiawillheader

Very pleased to reprint this announcement of an important Georgia Law initiative

In celebration of its own women leaders and in an effort to nurture women who will lead in the future, the University of Georgia School of Law this year is spearheading Georgia WILL (Georgia Women in Law Lead).

Georgia WILL launched with a breakfast on August 19, 2016, the centenary of the day that the State of Georgia enacted a statute entitled “Attorneys at Law; Females May Be,” and soon admitted Minnie Hale Daniel, whose previous applications had been rejected, as the state’s first woman lawyer. Celebrated along with Daniel were Georgia Law’s first alumnae, Edith House and Gussie Brooks, both members of the Class of 1925, as well as the many women who today help lead the law school. They include: Associate Deans Diane Marie Amann, Lori Ringhand, and Usha Rodrigues; Carol A. Watson, Director of Georgia Law’s Alexander Campbell King Law Library; Ramsey Bridges, Director of Law Admissions; Anne S. Moser, Senior Director of Law School Advancement; Heidi M. Murphy, Director of Communications and Public Relations; and Kathleen A. Day, Director of Business & Finance.

“This is a superb opportunity both to give recognition to our women leaders and to join in the global conversation about women’s leadership,” remarked Georgia Law Dean Peter B. “Bo” Rutledge. “Given our hope that this initiative will foster a new generation of women leaders, we’re especially pleased that our Women Law Students Association is cosponsoring all events.”

Events in the next twelve months will feature women, including members of the Georgia Law community, who are national and international pathbreakers in law, business, and public service. One highlight event will occur at the annual meeting of the Association of American Law Schools in San Francisco, where Georgia Law will host a brainstorming session for women professors who are or are interested in becoming law school or university administrators; another, at Georgia Law’s Athens main campus, where IntLawGrrls contributors will convene in March for a conference marking the blog’s 10th birthday.

Events scheduled so far (at Georgia Law’s Athens campus unless otherwise stated) are as follows:

October 13 Judge Lisa Godbey Wood (J.D. 1990), U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia, will deliver “Reflections on Sentencing.” Her service as Georgia Law’s inaugural B. Avant Edenfield Jurist in Residence also includes teaching a week-long course on sentencing.

October 19 Judge Navanethem Pillay, a South African jurist whose former positions include United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and Judge on the International Criminal Court and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, will speak on “National Sovereignty vs. International Human Rights” at Georgia Law’s Atlanta Campus. The World Affairs Council of Atlanta cosponsors.

October 25 Ethical challenges faced by corporations will be the topic of a talk by Sloane Perras (J.D. 2002), Chief Legal Officer at Krystal Company and On The Border. Earlier this month, Perras was recognized by the Women’s In-House Counsel Leadership Institute for welcoming other women into her area of practice and also for directing corporate policy toward inclusion of women in high-level legal positions.

January 5 Georgia Law will host “Women’s Leadership in Legal Academia” at the Annual Meeting of the Association of American Law Schools in San Francisco. This brainstorming session for women professors who are or are interested in becoming law school or university administrators will feature academics, as well as Monika Kalra Varma, an executive leadership consultant who served for the last five years as Executive Director of the District of Columbia Bar Pro Bono Program.

February 4  Georgia State Representative Stacey Godfrey Evans (J.D. 2003) will provide opening remarks at “Georgia Women Run.” Joining her will be a diverse group of elected officials, who will discuss the challenges and rewards of running for office as a nontraditional candidate.

March 1 to 31 Georgia Law’s Alexander Campbell King Law Library will host a special exhibit, “Attorneys at Law; Females May Be: Celebrating the Past and Ongoing Leadership of Women in Law,” in conjunction with Women’s History Month and, on March 8, International Women’s Day.

March 2 The Women Law Students Association will present the 35th Annual Edith House Lecture, named after a graduate of Georgia Law’s Class of 1925 whose career included service as the first woman U.S. Attorney in Florida. Delivering this year’s lecture will be Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, U.S. District Judge for the District of Columbia.

March 3 Contributors to IntLawGrrls, the pre-eminent international blog authored primarily by women, will convene for a 10th birthday conference and research forum.

March 18 Receiving the 2016 Distinguished Service Scroll Awards, given annually by Georgia Law’s Law School Association, will be Ertharin Cousin (J.D. 1982), Executive Director of the U.N. World Food Programme, based in Rome, Italy, and Audrey Boone Tillman (J.D. 1989), Executive Vice President and General Counsel of Aflac Inc.

March 27 Gabrielle Kaufmann-Kohler, Professor of Law at the University of Geneva, Switzerland, will deliver the 2d Annual Glenn Hendrix Lecture at Georgia Law’s Atlanta campus. The Atlanta International Arbitration Society cosponsors.

Fall 2017 Vice-Chancellor Tamika R. Montgomery-Reeves (J.D. 2006) of the Delaware Court of Chancery will teach a short course on advanced topics in Delaware corporate law, and also headline an alumnae reception in Atlanta.

Center’s e-newsletter recaps last year, looks forward to great 2016-17 events

Very pleased to share the e-newsletter we at the Dean Rusk International Law Center mailed to our University of Georgia School of Law community and beyond. E-mail us ruskintlaw@uga.edu to request direct mailing of future editions.

News from Georgia Law’s Dean Rusk International Law Center

Since last October, when we rededicated our Louis B. Sohn Library on International Relations and celebrated the 38th birthday of our University of Georgia School of Law Dean Rusk International Law Center, we’ve pursued a range of initiatives: conferences and scholarly endeavors; global practice preparation via externships, research projects, international advocacy, and student engagement; and partnerships with Global Atlanta and other internationally minded groups, at home and abroad. Many initiatives are profiled at our Exchange of Notes blog—we’re pleased to share highlights with you.

Conference on Geneva Conventions Commentaries leads 2016-17

The new International Committee of the Red Cross Commentary was the focus of a conference keynoted by the editor of the commentaries project, Dr. Jean-Marie Henckaerts, one of the more than 450 foreign-trained lawyers who’ve earned a Georgia LL.M. since we first awarded the degree four decades ago. Henckaerts is a Geneva-based Legal Adviser for the ICRC, which cosponsored the conference along with our Center and the Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law—a publication for which Henckaerts once served as an Associate Editor, and which marks its 45th birthday this year. Joining him at the September 2016 conference were experts with experience in academia, armed forces and government, and international organizations. Georgia Law moderators were Professor Harlan Grant Cohen, Associate Dean Diane Marie Amann, who leads our Center, and Kathleen A. Doty, our Center’s Director of Global Practice Preparation.

Preceding Henckaerts’ visit was that of another LL.M. alumnus, Dr. Kannan Rajarathinam, who serves as Head of Office, U.N. Assistance Mission for Iraq. GJICL will publish his speech, “The United Nations at 70: Pursuing Peace in the 21st Century,” which keynoted our Center’s October 2015 rededication. Cosponsors for this official UN70 event included the Section of International Law of the American Bar Association, the American Branch of the International Law Association, and the American Society of International Law.

Other events highlights: “The Whole World Is Watching: Foreign Policy and the U.S. Presidential Election,” a September 2016 lecture by Derek Shearer, Chevalier Professor of Diplomacy & World Affairs at Occidental College and former U.S. Ambassador to Finland, cosponsored by the World Affairs Council of Atlanta and the University of Georgia School of Public & International Affairs; “The President wants it; the Candidates all oppose it: What is the TPP?,” a September 2016 talk on international trade by Professor Harlan Grant Cohen; “Common Challenges to Diverse Security Threats,” presented by Mallory Stewart, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Emerging Security Challenges & Defense Policy, and hosted by our Center in Washington, D.C., in partnership with ASIL’s Nonproliferation, Arms Control & Disarmament Interest Group; and “Tomb Raiders and Terrorist Financing: Cutting off the Illicit Traffic in ‘Blood Antiquities,’” a lecture delivered in April 2016 at the Georgia Museum of Art by our J.D. alumna Tess Davis, a cultural heritage expert who serves as Executive Director of the D.C.-based Antiquities Coalition.

Later in 2016-17, we look forward to welcoming: Navanethem Pillay, former U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights and Judge at the International Criminal Court and International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda; Viet Thanh Nguyen, whose novel The Sympathizer won the 2016 Pulitzer Prize for Fiction and whose nonfiction work that will form the basis of his visit to our Center,Nothing Ever Dies: Vietnam and the Memory of War, is a National Book Award nominee; the 10th anniversary conference of IntLawGrrls blog; and Gabrielle Kaufmann-Kohler, Professor of Law at the University of Geneva. Introduced by another international arbitration expert, our Dean Peter B. “Bo” Rutledge, Kaufmann-Kohler will deliver the 2d Glenn Hendrix Lecture, which we’re proud to cosponsor with the Atlanta International Arbitration Society. Details on these and other events here.

Global Practice Preparation

Numerous initiatives prepare Georgia Law J.D. and LL.M. students to practice law in our globalized profession—both at home and abroad, in both private and public sectors. Our Center employs Student Ambassadors to conduct research and aid its work, and it awarded Louis B. Sohn Professional Development Fellowships to support students’ participation at the 2016 ASIL annual meeting and visit to the Pentagon.

For more than a decade, our International Law Colloquium has welcomed leading scholars to workshop their works in progress with students as well as faculty discussants. Presenters have come to our Athens campus from throughout the United States and as far as Galway, Geneva, London, Montreal, Rome, and Toronto to explore an array of legal topics. Our Spring 2017 course, led by Professor Harlan Grant Cohen, continues that tradition. Confirmed professors: Duncan Hollis, Temple Law; Benedict Kingsbury, New York University Law; Jonathan Todres, Georgia State University Law; Sergio Puig, Arizona State Law; Melissa J. Durkee, University of Washington Law; and Saira Mohamed, Berkeley Law.

Overseas opportunities include: our Spring Semester at Oxford University in England, where in 2017 Professor Nathan S. Chapman, following the lead of Professor James C. Smith last year, will join Oxford colleagues to offer courses with comparative and transnational elements; and our summer study abroad in partnership with Leuven Centre for Global Governance Studies at Belgium’s University of Leuven. Our Global Externships support international and transnational law placements in firms, corporations, governmental ministries, and international and nongovernmental organizations—last year, at home, in New York, Washington, and Atlanta, and overseas, in Cambodia, China, England, Germany, Italy, Palestine, Russia, and Thailand.

Global Practice Preparation includes support for student organizations, such as: our Willem C. Vis International Commercial Arbitration Moot team, which placed 5th in the 2016 finals in Vienna (left), as well as our Jessup International Moot Court Competition team; the International Law Society, Georgia Law’s student chapter of the International Law Students Association; and the Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law, which last year issued “Children and International Criminal Justice,” an edition publishing a keynote by International Criminal Court Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda, a foreword by Associate Dean Diane Marie Amann, and other papers from a recent symposium.

Scholarly achievements

Associate Dean Diane Marie Amann will speak in November at The Hague, Netherlands, launch of the International Criminal Court Office of the Prosecutor Policy on Children. She has assisted in the drafting of the policy since her 2012 appointment as the Prosecutor’s Special Adviser on Children in and affected by Armed Conflict. Amann presented on the crime of aggression in July at the University of Oxford in England, on international humanitarian law at an International Committee of the Red Cross panel in April in Washington, D.C., and on children at the 2015 International Law Weekend in New York. Her publications are available here.

Professor Mehrsa Baradaran published How the Other Half Banks, a book on inequality in financial services, in September 2015. Commentary with a transnational turn has included: her presentation at the World Bank in Washington, D.C.; an interview on Irish radio; and quotations in London’s Guardian as well as “What the U.S. doesn’t like about Japan’s post offices,” a Washington Postarticle.

Professor Elizabeth Chamblee Burch, an expert in complex litigation, will present in early 2017 at “Fifty Years of Class Actions—A Global Perspective,” a Theoretical Inquiries in Law conference at Tel Aviv University, Israel. In fall 2015, Zeit Online, The National Law Journal, and The New York Times quoted Burch on transnational litigation involving Volkswagen’s claims about diesel emissions.

Professor Jason A. Cade published “Enforcing Immigration Equity” in Fordham Law Review and also affiliated with the University of Georgia Latin American & Caribbean Studies Institute. His “Return of the JRAD” appeared at New York University Law Review Online and spurred many response essays by immigration law experts.

Professor Nathan S. Chapman presented a work in progress, “Due Process of War,” at Wake Forest University School of Law.

 

Since his 2015 appointment as Managing Editor of AJIL Unbound, the online extension of the American Journal of International Law, Professor Harlan G. Cohen has overseen the publication of 126 essays, from authors in more than 18 countries, on topics as diverse as Latin American constitutionalism, climate change, the crime of aggression, the appointment of international arbitrators, conflicts of law, and the legacy of the Sykes-Picot agreement. He has presented at many law schools; recent publications include “Methodology and Misdirection: Custom and the ICJ” at EJIL: Talk! and “A Politics-Reinforcing Political Question Doctrine,” forthcoming in the Arizona State Law Journal.

In February, our Center’s Director of Global Practice Preparation, Kathleen A. Doty, presented “Guantánamo’s Future” in a University of Georgia symposium on “Cuba and the U.S. South: A Shared History.” At the ASIL annual meeting in April, she led a panel she’d organized as chair of the Nonproliferation, Arms Control & Disarmament Interest Group, and in May she was selected for travel to Asia as a World Affairs Council of Atlanta Young Leaders Fellow.

Professor Walter Hellerstein took part in conferences and workshops in Austria, France, and Kazakhstan, and was a guest professor at the Vienna University of Economics & Business. Recent publications include “Specialized Courts in Multijurisdictional Systems: An American Perspective,” a chapter in Recent Developments in Value Added Taxes, and “Taxing Remote Sales in the Digital Age: A Global Perspective,” in the American University Law Review.

Dr. Laura Tate Kagel, our Center’s Director of International Professional Education, affiliated with the University of Georgia Latin American & Caribbean Studies Institute, and has traveled to Eastern Europe in support of our LL.M. degree initiative.

Professor Lisa C. Milot’s scholarship on performance-enhancing drugs drew attention during the 2016 Summer Olympic Games in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: her work was featured in Vice Sports and in “El debate sobre el doping,” published in Chile’s La Tercera.

Dean Peter B. “Bo” Rutledge published “The Testamentary Foundations of Commercial Arbitration” in Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution, and spoke about arbitration at a New York University conference, at the annual conference of the Atlanta International Arbitration Society, and at a regional meeting of the National Association of Attorneys General.

Professor Margaret V. Sachs presented on international securities fraud during a panel entitled “Rulemaking, National and International” at the annual meeting of the Law and Society Association in New Orleans.

Ethisphere listed Professor Larry R. Thompson, former PepsiCo General Counsel and an expert on corporate responsibility, among the 100 Most Influential in Business Ethics.

 

Professor Sonja R. West traveled to Budapest to speak on “Improving Press Coverage of the Courts through Communication” at the European Judicial Conference on Courts and Communication, organized by Bíróság, Hungary’s National Office for the Judiciary.

Old Europe and new transnational challenges in latest Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law

gjicl44_1Issues circling the globe are featured in  Volume 44 Issue 1 of the Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law, or GJICL, just published and available online.

The volume begins with two articles, by scholars with ties to France, Australia, and New Zealand, as well as the United States:

kingNew Judicial Review in Old Europe, by Alyssa S. King (right)

bermanHuman Rights Law and Racial Hate Speech Regulation in Australia: Reform and Replace?, by Dr. Alan Berman (left)

Four notes, by alums who received their Georgia Law J.D.s in 2016, also appear in the volume:

carrollThe TBT Agreement’s Failure To Solve U.S.–COOL, an analysis of a World Trade Organization dispute respecting country-of-original labeling, by Elinore R. Carroll (right)

domineyEbola, Experimental Medicine, Economics, and Ethics: An Evaluation of International Disease Outbreak Law, by Sara Louise Dominey (left)

singletonBalancing a Right to Be Forgotten with a Right to Freedom of Expression in the Wake of Google Spain v. AEPD, by Shaniqua Singleton (right)

► Regulating Lolicon: Toward Japanese Compliance with Its International Legal Obligations to Ban Virtual Child Pornography, by Cory Lyn Takeuchi