International law has increasingly turned to "evidence" or information to provide the solid foundation for resolving questions about the legitimacy of resort to force, particularly when traditional legal doctrines governing the use of force are abandoned. Yet the turn to evidence only raises further questions for international lawyers, as is clear in debates about the sufficiency of intelligence as a foundation for the invasion of Iraq or the role of evidence in the war on terror. When and where does the "evidentiary requirement" arise? What evidence would suffice to justify humanitarian intervention, the use of force in self-defense or to establish the legitimacy of a mandate to authorize force on the part of the Security Council? What function does information gathered through national intelligence agencies play in such a legal system? Who determines which facts are relevant? What authority or agency is able to guarantee or judge the sufficiency of evidence, and ultimately the truth?

Organized as a roundtable discussion for those attending the ASIL annual meeting, this session will provide information on the hiring process for law teachers in the U.S., the qualities of a successful law teacher, and how much international law is taught in U.S. law schools today. The session will begin with a facilitated discussion among Roundtable Members to be followed by general discussion.

This program was planned in consultation with the AALS because it is the learned society for legal educators and offers a Faculty Appointments Register and Faculty Recruitment Conference to facilitate the hiring process for law schools.

The notion of “cultural divides” can refer to those between one state and another (e.g., Canada and the United States) and to those within each country itself. Examining such divides may assist in understanding why a state interacts with the international legal system as it does, while focusing on that interaction can uncover cultural underpinnings buried in a nation’s past.

Professor Douglas M. Johnston, one of Canada’s pre-eminent international legal scholars, coined the title of this session, but illness prevents him from participating. Naturally, its content has evolved with the contributions of the individual panelists. Nevertheless, its overall intent remains: the panel will bring the perspective of a friendly neighbor and ally to the American debate on the function and suitability of international law. It seeks to enhance our understanding of each other’s engagement with the international legal system.

The group of Canadian legal scholars and practitioners chosen for the panel offers a breadth of expertise in several fields of international law. Moreover, it reflects not only the cultural divides of language and geography in Canada, but the diversity of professional experiences and positions that members of Canada’s international legal community have chosen.

Rereading Root can mean reading Root anew or reading him differently. Slaughter will read him from the perspective of a political scientist, examining his underlying assumptions about how and why nations behave as they do. Three assumptions in particular bear scrutiny. First, his vision of international law assumed a world of "modern democracies," in which "popular control of national conduct" was steadily increasing. Second, he assumed that greater popular knowledge of the rights and obligations embedded in international law would increase the likelihood of support for peaceful settlement of disputes and more international cooperation. And third, he identified the greatest sanction of international law as the loss of national reputation. His assumptions about democracies essentially still hold among a majority of international relations scholars. His assumptions about the effects of increased knowledge of international law assumed a small and relatively coherent body of international law, as opposed to growth and differentiation of the subject into many different specialties. Thus the question today is really whether knowledge of human rights law, international environmental law, or trade law translates into respect for international law generally. Finally, his assumptions about the effects of reputation again fit quite neatly with the body of regime theory that places great weight on maintaining a reputation for credibility as a lasting incentive for international cooperation.

The ongoing round of trade negotiations is referred to as the Doha Development Round (DDR). The Doha Ministerial Declaration mentions the term “development” 46 times, with different connotations, all of them implying either economic growth or economic development. This is the “classical” definition of development: economic growth is seen as the motor for economic development which should, in turn, improve social conditions in poor countries. Intellectual evolution has prompted a broader concept of development, incorporating other essential aspects such as democratic political practices, reduction of poverty and discrimination, institutional evolution, social development and sustainable development. The implications of this intellectual shift are felt in current practices at the United Nations and other development agencies, particularly the World Bank. At the WTO, however, development remains synonymous to economic growth. Should the concept of “development” be redefined also at the WTO? Moreover, to make progress toward “development” (re-defined or not), does special and differential treatment as it is currently understood in the WTO remain the main instrument? Data shows that special and differential treatment has not offered the expected gains. Must alternatives to S&D treatment (or even to trade as the engine for economic development) be considered? Or rather, must S&D treatment be made more specific and prominent in trade agreements? Where lay the interests of developing countries and what are the best strategies to achieve those interests inside and outside the WTO?

Perspectives from the Use of Force, International Humanitarian Law and International Human Rights Law.

This panel will consider how the responsibility for responding to the decisions of international tribunals is allocated among the branches of the U.S. federal government and the governments of other nations. After
the International Court of Justice decided Avena, holding that the Vienna Convention on Consular relations entitled 51 Mexican nationals on death row in the United States to a hearing, the President took the position that, under the U.S. Constitution, the responsibility for determining whether and how to comply with the ICJ's ruling rested neither with the courts nor (exclusively) with Congress, but with the President.

There has been increasing attention paid to the relevance of sex and gender in international law. These subjects are no longer the sole province of feminist academics but have been infusing the norms of international law and its organizations. The Panel of both academics and practitioners in international law will look back on what has been happening in this respect and will look forward to consider the potential and problems of asking questions about sex and gender in international law so as to create a just world under law. Have sex and gender become central concerns in our discipline, or marginalized interests? What does the future hold for gender analysis in international law?

Revolution (like terrorism) represents a moment of extraordinary force which stands outside or before the law. Yet international law seems nonetheless to have a secret sympathy with the romance of revolution, indicated perhaps by the presence of self-determination as a legal principle and later a right, or by the new enthusiasm for intervention to bring about regime change. And as Philip Allott insisted throughout the seminar on his work published in the European Journal of International Law, “We are living in revolutionary times”. Or are we? This roundtable discussion will address a series of questions about the relations between law, war, force and revolution. How has international legal doctrine understood, produced or regulated the bases upon which the foundational norms of legal systems undergo change? What part do the rules on the use of force play in this history? Is the revolutionary task of replacing capitalism as a system an urgent demand or an anachronistic irrelevance? What does the revolutionary narrative, driven by the oedipal desire to kill the father and replace him with the regime of the brothers, offer the sisters? Are we living through an era in which the relationship between violence, force and the grounds of law is undergoing its own revolution?

The early years of the 20th century were characterized by a move to formal international institutions, with large numbers of international lawyers working as problem-solvers through international administration and its national partners. Is the early 21st century likely to witness a move away from such institutions and, if so, toward what? Panelists will consider the growing number of informally-created institutions with selective membership (much favored in US policy), the current state of international bureaucracy and of the United Nations, the prospects and significance of regional institutionalization in the developing world, and the kinds of institutions needed or not needed in future global governance.

There is no doubt that environmental protection has become a common concern at the international, regional and local levels. International environmental law since its emergence in the 1970s has expanded tremendously, while affirming its own features as well as expanding into other areas of law. However, a fair question to ask ourselves is whether International environmental law as developed can meet all the challenges facing humankind. Is it forceful enough to impose itself in the face of important economic and political interests? Are the institutions strong enough to voice the environmental concerns? Are the norms and principles precise enough to influence states' and other actors's behavior?

This Roundtable discussion will look at the burgeoning effort in legal education to expose all students to international law and transnational legal issues. It will focus on an initiative involving faculty at a number of law schools, including Pacific McGeorge, to facilitate consideration of international law and transnational problems in basic law school courses, such as Contracts and Criminal Law. This includes the development of teaching materials for use in this new environment. The Roundtable will touch on the intellectual challenges that this project has posed for author, teacher, and student. The session will begin with a facilitated discussion among Roundtable members to be followed by general discussion.

This panel will consider the scope of the U.S. President’s Commander in Chief power in the struggle against Al Qaeda and the military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. Issues to be discussed include the role of international law in limiting the President’s constitutional authority, the scope of the President’s power to use military tribunals to try violations of the laws of war, the judicial enforceability of the Geneva Conventions and other pertinent treaties, and more generally the proper role of the courts in reviewing Executive wartime actions.

The HIV/AIDS pandemic has taken an unprecedented toll on our global society, especially in sub-Saharan Africa. Some 40 million people worldwide are now infected with the virus, and more than 3 million people died just last year. What are States' obligations in responding to this pandemic? Specifically, what are the respective obligations of sub-Saharan African States, and of other States, in "a just world under law"? What are the limits of the existing international human rights framework in protecting vulnerable individuals and groups? To what extent are so-called "second- generation" rights (social, economic and cultural rights), which include the right to health, justiciable?

This panel would explore the basic question of who owns post-conflict justice. Specifically, does the international legal community’s interest in showing no impunity to transgressors trump the local community’s interest in negotiating a peaceful resolution? Are these interests reconcilable? This panel would explore these issues using the developments in and lessons from Rwanda, Bosnia, Sierra Leone, East Timor and more recently, northern Uganda. Of particular interest is the emergence of hybrid models for achieving justice, such as the case of Sierra Leone, in which the legislation underlying the special tribunal expressly provides for a truth and reconciliation commission.

The law of international trade (GATT/WTO) is traditionally perceived as the result of a bargaining process. In this process, countries exchange trade concessions driven by self-interest. At the same time, they do share an underlying agreement that liberalized trade is normatively desirable as it increases overall welfare; and developed nations have granted special treatment to developing countries. Now that the law of the WTO has expanded both in width and depth does this framework remain valid/sufficient? Given the persisting divide between rich and poor, both between and within member countries of the WTO, is there a need for a more sophisticated theory of justice? What theory of justice is most appropriate at the international level (as opposed to the domestic level of national polities)? Should the WTO, or international law in general, focus only on wealth creation (by enhancing trade opportunities) or also engage in the process of redistribution (through, for example, transfers of assets from rich to poor)? What are the lessons, in this respect, from the largely failed attempts by developed countries to set up a New International Economic Order through the United Nations; and the limited success of special and differential treatment granted to developing countries in the GATT/WTO?

The International Court of Justice is the preeminent international tribunal in the world. At the same time, recent cases including Oil Platforms, Avena and the Wall Advisory Opinion have given rise to controversy over the reasoning of its judgments, the adequacy of its fact-finding, the politicization of its proceedings, and the impartiality of its judges. Most States do not accept its compulsory jurisdiction, and the proliferation of international tribunals suggests that States are looking to the availability of other fora for matters that could be brought before the Court. This Panel will present an analysis of the Court by scholars and practitioners who have studied and appeared before the Court. A member of the Court will comment on the issues facing the Court as seen from within.

International lawyers have arguably paid insufficient attention to fundamentalisms, where fundamentalisms are understood as “political movements of the extreme right, which, in a context of globalization… manipulate religion… in order to achieve their political aims.” (Marieme Hélie-Lucas) The language of fundamentalisms speaks across religious (and other) boundaries about movements within many traditions. Many of these movements are seen by some as forwarding agendas which threaten basic human rights norms. In fact, experts have argued that they represent one of the major obstacles to the advance of women’s human rights at the dawn of ASIL’s second century. Yet, they sometimes employ the language of religious freedom to defend their cause, claims recognized by some, raising profound challenges for international human rights law. Is the term “fundamentalisms” (as opposed to alternatives like religious extremism/radicalism/intolerance) useful and appropriate? Does international law afford tools for conceptualizing fundamentalisms and appropriate responses thereto? What is the impact of fundamentalisms on international human rights law? How do we engage in this discussion universally so as to avoid the phenomenon described by one commentator as Islam becoming the trope for religion? What can other disciplines offer to international law’s encounter with these issues?

The issues of what role law plays in promoting development, and how different countries, development institutions and scholars conceptualize this relationship continues to be a matter of intense debate. How has the formulation of the Millennium Development Goals affected the practice of law and development, if at all? Scholars and practitioners approach the broad questions of law and development from a variety of perspectives: from a law and society perspective, or a law and economics perspective; or from working on a particular legal regime such as bankruptcy; or from assessing the impacts of law and development practices on specific groups-indigenous peoples, women. What different insights are provided into the broader questions raised by law and development by these approaches, and where do we now stand in our understanding of these crucial issues?

The panel will focus on the relationship between the doctrine of self-execution (and non-self-execution) of treaties and the broader question of when treaties are enforceable in domestic courts. For example, there is disagreement over whether a non-self-executing treaty can be applied via the Charming Betsy canon, and whether treaties should be presumed to be self-executing or non-self-executing. Additionally, when it is clear that a treaty is self-executing, there is controversy about what exactly that means. Faced with concededly self-executing treaties, some courts and scholars have maintained that treaties, even though self-executing, do not create judicially enforceable rights or a private right of action, issues that other courts and scholars believe are addressed by self-execution doctrine. This panel will attempt to sort out the difficult issues raised by this “most confounding” doctrine.

Researching International Law from Outside the United States

This plenary session addresses our own responsibility, as international lawyers and advocates, to bring about "a just world." Recent controversies, many related to the "war on terror," have led international lawyers to re-examine their obligations. Some have stepped out of the ivory tower or private sector to join the public debate, for example by opposing the war in Iraq through legal argument or defending the treatment of detainees in Guantánamo Bay. Others, working for governments, argued that their proper role was to provide the best legal case for their clients without regard to basic policy choices. We will therefore close the meeting by considering our individual capacity, whether in academia, government, international organizations, nongovernmental organizations, or the private sector, to contribute to justice in the international arena.