Georgia Law Professor Amann speaks at Oxford University conference on transnational human rights

“Victors’ Justice and the New Turn to Transnational Process” is the title of a paper that Professor Diane Marie Amann presented earlier this month in England, as part of an Oxford University conference, which took place over the course of 2 days at the Law Faculty’s Bonavero Institute of Human Rights, Mansfield College, and at St. Antony’s College.

Through the lens of the “victors’ justice” critique that some late 20th century scholars used to describe post-World War II trials at Nuremberg and Tokyo, the paper examines contemporary interest in transnational means of prosecuting international crimes.

An expert in international criminal law and human rights, Amann is the Emily & Ernest Woodruff Chair in International Law and Faculty Co-Director of the Dean Rusk International Law Center here at the University of Georgia School of Law. For a portion of 2018, she was a Research Visitor/Visiting Fellow at Bonavero/Mansfield College.

Command responsibility in 2018 judgment, topic of Georgia Law Professor Amann’s ICC Forum essay

Honored to have contributed on the doctrine of command responsibility to the newest edition of ICC Forum, an online publisher of essays on human rights and international criminal law. My essay was one of several responding to this question, posed by the editors:

“What does the Bemba Appeal Judgment say about superior responsibility under Article 28 of the Rome Statute?”

My own response, entitled “In Bemba, Command Responsibility Doctrine Ordered to Stand Down,” amplified an argument I’d made in an EJIL: Talk! contribution last year (prior post).

Specifically, it traced the development of the international-humanitarian- law/law-of-armed-conflict-doctrine that places on military commanders a burden greater than that shouldered by other combatants. It then turned to the International Criminal Court Appeals Chamber’s 2018 judgment in Bemba. The majority’s interpretation of the ICC Statute’s command-responsibility provision, my essay argued, risks tolerating “derelictions of duty” so as “to condone indiscipline,” and thus “to increase the risks of the very harms that the doctrine of command responsibility is intended to dispel.” As a result, perhaps “no one can be held to account.”

Other invited experts who contributed essays were: Miles Jackson, Associate Professor of Law, Jesus College, University of Oxford; Michael A. Newton, Professor of the Practice of Law and Political Science at Vanderbilt University Law School; Nadia Carine Fornel Poutou, Executive President Association of Women Lawyers of Central African Republic; and Leila Nadya Sadat, James Carr Professor of International Criminal Law at Washington University School of Law.

ICC Forum is supported by the Promise Institute for Human Rights at UCLA School of Law; UCLA Law Professor Richard H. Steinberg serves as Editor-in-Chief.

(Cross-posted from Diane Marie Amann)

Georgia Law faculty present and comment on international law papers at annual ASIL Southeast workshop

University of Georgia School of Law faculty were well represented at the  annual American Society of International Law Southeast scholarly workshop, held this year at Washington & Lee University School of Law in Lexington, Virginia.

Kathleen A. Doty, Director of the law school’s Dean Rusk International Law Center (above, 2d from left), presented on the Women, Peace and Security (WPS) initiative established by the UN Security Council. Commenting on her paper, entitled “Rethinking the WPS Agenda in Light of International Relations Studies of Women in Conflict,” was Washington & Lee Law Professor Mark Drumbl.

Serving as commentators during the daylong workshop were 2 additional Georgia Law faculty: Professor Melissa J. Durkee, J. Alton Hosch Associate Professor of Law (above right), was the discussant for “The Corporate Keepers of International Law” by William & Mary Law Professor Jay Butler; and Christopher Bruner (above, 2d from right), Stembler Family Distinguished Professor in Business Law, commented on “The Pendulum of International Financial Regulation” by George Mason Law Professor Paolo Saguato.

Georgia Law Professor Amann speaks on accountability at Save the Children-Chatham House London conference

“Justice for Children in Conflict” is the title of a panel on which Professor Diane Marie Amann spoke last week in London, England, as part of a centenary symposium on children and armed conflict cosponsored by Save the Children and the Royal Institute of International Affairs, the latter more commonly known as Chatham House.

Amann (2d from left above) is the Emily & Ernest Woodruff Chair in International Law and Faculty Co-Director of the Dean Rusk International Law Center here at the University of Georgia School of Law. Since 2012, she has served as the Special Adviser to International Criminal Court Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda on Children in & affected by Armed Conflict – service that included assisting in the research and drafting of the ICC Office of the Prosecutor Policy on Children (2016).

Aspects of the Policy were a focus of Amann’s talk in London last Tuesday. Asked by moderator Veronique Aubert, Senior Conflict & Humanitarian Policy & Research Advisor for Save the Children (at left above), to name the root causes of the deficit in accountability for international crimes against and affecting children, Amann cited matters like evidence-gathering and witness protections, but stressed absence of political will to prevent and punish such crimes.

Other speakers included (from center to right) Shaheed Fatima QC, a barrister at Blackstone Chambers, Jessica Gladstone, a partner at Clifford Chance LLP, and Salah Uddin, International Campaign Officer for the British Rohingya Community. The panel was one of several throughout the day’s events, held at Church House, Westminster.

 

Georgia Law professors Harlan Cohen, Melissa J. Durkee featured in latest AJIL

Scholarship by 2 members of the international law faculty here at the University of Georgia School of Law is featured in the latest edition of the peer-reviewed American Journal of International Law, the premier publication of the century-old American Society of International Law. Specifically, volume 113, issue 2 includes works by:

Harlan Cohen, Gabriel M. Wilner/UGA Foundation Professor in International Law and Faculty Co-Director of the Dean Rusk International Law Center here at the University of Georgia School of Law and a member of the AJIL Board of Editors. He published a an Editorial Comment featured on the issue’s cover and entitled “What is International Trade Law For?” (pp. 326-46), as well as a review of Not Enough: Human Rights in an Unequal World, a 2018 Harvard University Press book by Samuel Moyn (pp. 415-19).

Melissa J. Durkee, a J. Alton Hosch Associate Professor of Law. She too published a book review, of Lawmakers: International Organizations in the Crafting of World Markets, a 2017 Cambridge University Press volume by Susan Block-Lieb and Terence C. Halliday (pp. 422-28).

The spurning of Adam Smith: Center Director Emeritus Johnson op-ed on international trade in The Hill

C. Donald Johnson, Director Emeritus of Georgia Law’s Dean Rusk International Law Center, just published an op-ed in The Hill, a publication based in Washington, D.C.

Entitled “Trump team spurns Adam Smith with its trade stance”, the op-ed recounts Johnson’s meetings with colleagues in Geneva, Switzerland, headquarters of the World Trade Organization, and elsewhere in Europe. Johnson writes:

“Common questions discussed at each meeting involved whether the WTO can continue to function if the United States clogs the dispute settlement system, refuses to comply with its rules or simply withdraws from participation.”

He characterizes the current U.S. administration’s approach as “a complete reversal of American policy since the 1930s of promoting the free-market policies of Adam Smith,” pointing to U.S. disputes with China and others as examples.

The full op-ed by Johnson – who served as Ambassador, Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, 1998-2000, and who is the author of The Wealth of a Nation: A History of Trade Politics in America (Oxford University Press 2018) (prior posts) – is available here.

Delivering prestigious Gresham College Fulbright Lecture in London, Georgia Law Professor Lori Ringhand analyzes laws regulating online election campaign spending in US and UK

Pleased today to welcome back Lori A. Ringhand, J. Alton Hosch Professor of Law here at the University of Georgia School of Law, and, this Spring 2019 semester, a Fulbright Distinguished Chair at the University of Aberdeen, Scotland. In connection with her US-UK Fulbright award, Professor Ringhand gave a prestigious lecture this past Tuesday, April 2, in London. Her account of that lecture – available on video – is below.

I recently had the pleasure of delivering the Gresham College Fulbright Lecture at the Museum of London. Gresham College has been offering free public lectures to residents of London for more than 400 years, and has been offering Fulbright lectures in partnership with the US/UK Fulbright Commission for decades.  Recent Gresham lecturers include eminent public law scholar Vernon Bogdanor,  historian and author Timothy Garton Ash, and current Speaker of the House of Commons, John Bercow.

My lecture focused on the challenges faced by lawmakers in the United States and the United Kingdom as they try to ensure that campaign finance laws remain relevant in the age of widespread online electioneering. As both nations have discovered, our existing regimes are not built for a world in which political advertising spreads, rapidly, organically, and often anonymously, through online social media platforms.

Regulators in the US and the UK nonetheless rarely look to each other’s experiences to inform their own thinking in this complex area. The election law systems of each country are seen as so fundamentally different that comparative consideration seems pointless.

As I explained in my Gresham Lecture, I disagree.

The differences in regulatory approaches certainly are real, and significant:

  • In the UK, political spending is limited, and most of it runs through political parties and regulated third-party campaigners, with outside or unregulated groups historically playing little role.
  • In the US, in contrast, political spending is increasingly dominated by outside groups, which can both raise and spend unlimited amounts of money, often entirely outside of the federal regulatory system.

But in regard to regulating online election activity, the similarities between the two nations are much more meaningful than the differences. As I laid out in the talk, the regulatory challenges presented by online electioneering difficult in both principle and practice, but they are fundamentally the same in each country. Consequently, there is a great deal we can learn from each other in this area.

I hope my lecture helps us take a necessary first step in that direction.