Panels/Lectures

State Building I: Issues of Choice, Creation and Legal Justification

This is the first of two panels addressing the phenomenon of state-building. It will identify and analyze issues of concern before such missions are undertaken. Why are certain states chosen for reconstruction initiatives and not others? What is the process by which the missions are designed? What is the legal justification for international actors engaging in projects of social engineering? Do special concerns arise for cases of belligerent occupation?

Moderator: William Slomanson , Thomas Jefferson School of Law
Panelists: Eyal Benvenisti, Tel Aviv University; Ambassador Hans Corell,
Stockholm (former Under-Secretary-General for Legal Affairs, United Nations);
Elizabeth
Cousens, International Peace Academy; Ralph Wilde, University College London, University of London

Voices from the Outside: Sovereign Equality, International Law, and the Imbalance of Power
Sponsored by The Liu Institute for Global Issues, University of British Columbia

In international law, the dominant voices tend to be those of the United States and the larger European states. These nations are often considered the most powerful in the world, yet in number and in population they constitute a minority in the global community. This discussion will explore whether international law would be set on a different course if the real majority of states were given a voice commensurate with the portion of the global community they represent. Do these states share fundamental views, or are they divided, particularly with respect to the nexus formed by power, politics, and international law? Do they see the sovereign equality of states as a help, a hindrance, or an illusion in the construction of the international legal order? In preparation for this discussion, several questions were submitted to selected non-U.S. and non-EU international legal scholars to elicit evidence of the common and divergent views of international law held outside the U.S. and Europe. Having studied the responses, this panel will present and analyze the main concepts gleaned from them, and then open the discussion to participation from the floor.

Moderator: James A. Gresser , U.S. Department of State
Principal Presenter: Michael Byers , University of British Columbia
Respondents: Manuel Becerra, National Autonomous University of Mexico;
Vikram Raghavan, The World Bank; Judge Akua Kuenyehia,
International Criminal Court

Reflections on the 2003 Supreme Court Term

In its October 2003 term, the U.S. Supreme Court issued decisions addressing a wide range of issues relevant to international law, to U.S. foreign relations law, and to the Court’s use of foreign law. Some of the cases received considerable media attention, such as those concerning the legal status of “unlawful combatants,” the detention of foreign nationals at Guantánamo, and the Alien Tort Statute. Other cases were less noticed but no less significant. This panel will engage in a stimulating roundtable discussion of the meaning and significance of the Court’s jurisprudence.

Chair: Sean D. Murphy, George Washington University Law School
Panelists: Jennifer Martinez, Stanford Law School; Michael Ramsey,
University of San DiegoLaw School; Ralph Steinhardt, George
Washington University Law School

Threats, Challenges and Change: The Secretary General’s High Level Panel

United Nations reform is said to be like the weather: everyone talks about it, but no one can do anything about it. What are the prospects for meaningful reform in the wake of the High Level Panel on Threats, Challenges, and Change established by UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan after the Iraq crisis in 2003? If implemented, would such reforms avoid Iraq-style division in the future?

Lecturer: Lt. General (Ret) Brent Scowcroft, The Scowcroft Group (former
National Security Adviser to former Presidents Ford and Bush)
Commentators: Ian Johnstone , Tufts University; David M. Malone, Foreign
Affairs, Canada
Moderator: John Carey, Editor, United Nations Law Reports

Panels/Lectures/Smaller Group Sessions

Is International Law Useful to the United States?

Discussions of whether the United States should adhere to international legal obligations, or enter into new obligations, often focus on the benefits to others. Claims are made that American adherence would “level the playing field,” set an important example for other states, and enhance the legitimacy of international institutions. Many fewer claims involve benefits to the United States itself. This debate, to be conducted in a Lincoln-Douglas format, will address the question directly: Are American interests and foreign policy objectives enhanced by adhering to international norms? Or, as the dominant power in international society, is the United States made worse off when it subjects itself to legal constraints?

Moderator: Ambassador Richard N. Gardner, Columbia University School of Law;
Senior Counsel, Morgan Lewis LLP
Panelists: Jack L. Goldsmith III, Harvard Law School; Harold H. Koh, Dean,
Yale Law School

Domestic and International Developments Relating to the Death Penalty

Legal, political and moral issues raised by capital punishment increasingly divide the world. The imposition of death sentences by military commissions in the U.S., the influence of capital punishment on extradition and the rendition of suspects, the death row phenomenon, and the evolution of the customary international law of human rights are all subjects of disharmony among state and non-state actors. This panel will review recent developments relating to capital punishment in international and domestic law and consider their consequences for a world in disorder.

Moderator: Sandra Babcock, Attorney-at-Law, Minneapolis
Panelists: Philip Sapsford QC, Goldsmith Chambers; Brian Tittemore, Inter-
American Commission on Human Rights; Richard Wilson, American University
Washington College of Law

International Claims Litigation I – Is Rough Justice Too Rough?

In post-conflict situations, tribunals are established to resolve residual state-to-state and state-private party claims. In recent years, such tribunals’ jurisdiction, authority, and purposes have varied in significant respects. Nevertheless, a central, shared objective has been to end or avoid recurrence of armed conflict, and to provide justice to those affected. The panelists will provide a variety of perspectives on the extent to which such tribunals have accomplished these ends and recommend how best to structure such tribunals in the future.

Moderator: Virginia C. Dailey, Hunton & Williams LLP
Panelists: John R. Crook, Multinational Force and Observers, Rome, (formerly
with the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal); Monica Hakimi, Iraq Property Claims
Commission, U.S. Department of State; B. Donovan Picard, Hunton & Williams
LLP

The “New” Regime for Foreign Direct Investment

With over 2000 bilateral investment treaties, an increasing number of regional agreements (including the investment chapter of the NAFTA), specialized treaties such as the Energy Charter, and a rising number of arbitral judgments and pending investor-state disputes, the rules governing foreign direct investment are undergoing robust re-examination. A new kind of international law regime may be emerging —one without a single institutionalized focus like the WTO or a single appellate body, and instead dependent on decentralized, privatized adjudication. Such a regime raises serious questions about the proper regulation of the public sphere. The lecture will explore the promise and perils of entangled treaty and custom in this setting, focusing on the emerging tensions between national and international dispute settlers and investor rights versus public values.

Lecturer: José E. Alvarez, Columbia University School of Law
Commentator: Francisco Orrego Vicuña, Santiago, Chile
Moderator: Barton Legum, Debevoise & Plimpton LLP

Democratic Norms and Regional Stability: Global Challenges and Responses in the Americas

Representative democracy is one of the founding pillars of the Organization of American States. This panel tracks and critically evaluates the potential roles for general public international law and the democratic lex specialis of the Inter-American system, addressing such questions as: Are international or regional organizations empowered to intervene to bring about democratic changes, and, if so, based upon what (or whose) criteria? Should regional democratic norms be implemented in a robust manner or will gentle persuasion be more successful? Can strong regional powers legitimately engage in pro-democratic intervention? Can weaker states or regional organizations—such as the Caribbean Community—challenge such unilateralism?

Moderator: David S. Berry, University of the West Indies
Panelists: Alberto Borea, Ambassador of Peru to the OAS; Timothy D. Rudy,
Secretariat for Legal Affairs, OAS; Christopher Sabatini, National Endowment for
Democracy; Stephen J. Schnably, University of Miami School of Law

Theoretical Makeover of International Law

The following Call for Papers was circulated by e-mail to the ASIL membership on behalf of the International Theory Interest Group. The deadline for submission is January 5, 2005. Additional information is available on the ASIL Web site. “Over the last century, our understanding of the world order, including the role of the state, the nature of sovereignty, and the importance of non-state actors, has changed dramatically. International law is being called upon to deal with a greater variety of problems than ever before. These developments challenge many of the theoretical bases of international law. Where does the theory of international law go from here?”

Moderator: Bryan F. MacPherson, Citizens for Global Solutions
Panelists: William Bradford, Indiana University School of Law;
Frank J. Garcia, Boston College Law School; Andrew T. Guzman,
University of California at Berkeley School of Law; Eugene Kontorovich,
George Mason University School of Law

Panels/Lectures/Smaller Group Sessions

Combating Terrorist Uses of the Internet

The use of computers to commit criminal offenses such as fraud and distribution of child pornography challenges international society. Although such abuses pose continuing national and transnational security threats, another threat is on the rise: the Internet as a tool of terrorist groups. Many such groups have established themselves online, taking advantage of the Internet’s speed, low cost, anonymity, and ease of access to recruit, communicate, and plan. The panel will examine the efficacy of existing international and municipal measures and policies being used to combat this growing threat, and whether and how additional preventive measures should be developed and applied.

Moderator: Ashley Deeks, U.S. Department of State
Panelists: Susan W. Brenner, University of Dayton School of Law; James Lewis,
Center for Strategic and International Studies; Barbara Berman, Counter
Terrorism Section, U.S. Department of Justice

Universal Civil Jurisdiction – The Next Frontier?

Modern international law recognizes as an imperative the need to end impunity for certain categories of heinous conduct, such as genocide, torture, and crimes against humanity. In pursuit of that objective, many assert that a state may now exercise universal jurisdiction to prosecute those crimes even when they take place outside its territory and do not involve its nationals. Much less consideration has been given to the authority of a state to provide civil remedies to victims of these crimes. Prompted by recent developments, including the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, this panel will examine the civil dimension of universal jurisdiction.

Moderator: Donald Francis Donovan, Debevoise & Plimpton LLP
Panelists: Menno Kamminga, Maastricht University; Luc Reydams, University of Notre Dame; Beth Van Schaack, Santa Clara University School of law;
Lorna McGregor, State Immunity Project Coordinator, REDRESS

Alternative Perspectives on the Independence of International Tribunals

If international courts and their decisions are at least somewhat independent of politics, then law-making by international courts has a potential to shape state behavior. Conversely, if international court decisions and compliance with them are driven exclusively by politics, then international law offers little hope of contributing to world order. This panel will offer competing ways to conceptualize the central question and alternative answers to it, and will suggest the implications of each for the role of international courts and judges.

Moderator: Richard Steinberg, University of California at Los Angeles School of
Law
Panelists: Karen Alter, Northwestern University; Heiner Schulz, University of
Pennsylvania; Judge Rosalyn Higgins, International Court of Justice;
Eric Posner, The Law School, The University of Chicago

The Administrative Law Frontier in Global Governance

A great deal of intergovernmental or transnational practice that is normative —involving rules, principles, legal-style reasoning and argument, and legal-style institutions, whether or not it is formally called “law” —is not satisfactorily explained by the classic catalogue of international law sources. One example is the use by administrative bodies (intergovernmental bodies, hybrid or private transnational bodies, and some national institutions addressing transnational issues) of an increasingly common set of principles in making decisions. Understanding this body of practice demands more than international law (jus inter gentes), but an answer may be found in older conceptions of the law of nations (jus gentium).

Lecturer: Benedict Kingsbury, New York University School of Law
Commentator: Pierre-Marie Dupuy, European University Institute
Moderator: Laurence Boisson de Chazournes, University of Geneva

Translating Emotional Attachments into Hard Cash

In recent years, innovative financing mechanisms have been used to promote development in poor countries and underprivileged communities. Some of these include micro-credit arrangements, procedures for funding micro-credit schemes, and government bonds that seek to capitalize on the emotional attachments that potential bondholders have to the bond issuer (such as Resurgent India Bonds). Are these mechanisms successful in generating capital? What are the legal and political challenges that face these financing arrangements? Do they contribute to resolving significant social problems and promoting sustainable development?

Chair: Daniel Bradlow, American University Washington College of Law
Panelists: Lan Cao, William and Mary Law School;
Anupam Chander , University of California School of Law at Davis; Lee Buchheit, Cleary, Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton; Deborah Burand, Washington, DC

From the perspective of high level government officials, is international law a tool, an obstacle, or merely irrelevant? As a follow-up to last year’s popular panel featuring eight former U.S. State Department Legal Advisers, this panel will bring together distinguished former Legal Advisers to states around the world who will discuss the role that their office and international law played in time of international crisis. The panel will be in short-answer “cross-fire” format to ensure a lively and wide-ranging discussion.

Moderator: Michael P. Scharf, Case Western Reserve University
Discussants: Sir Franklin Berman, Essex Court Chambers; Conrad K. Harper, Of Counsel, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett; Pemmaraju Sreenivasa Rao, Former Legal Adviser, Government of India, Amb. Leonid Skotnikov, Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the UN Office and other international organizations in Geneva; Madame Hanqin Xue, Ambassador of the People’s Republic of China to the Kingdom of the Netherlands; Amb. Seifeselassie Lemma, Permanent Mission of Ethiopia to the UN

Panels/Smaller Group Sessions

State Building II: Issues of Design and Implementation

This is the second of two panels addressing the phenomenon of state-building. It will examine the many issues surrounding the design, scope and functioning of state-building missions. These include the mix of international actors appropriately participating in the missions; the models of governance advanced by the missions; how to foster the rule of law; how various reforms are sequenced, including when elections should be held; and the degree of deference shown to local officials.

Moderator:

Muna B. NduloProfessor of Law, Director of the Institute for
African Development, Cornell Law School

WTO Appellate Body Roundtable
Sponsored by Baker & Hostetler

The establishment of the World Trade Organization’s Appellate Body was one of the key institutional innovations in the WTO Agreement of 1994, and possibly the one with the most far-reaching legal and political implications. The Appellate Body is now ten years old, an anniversary that provides a timely opportunity to consider its contributions toward achieving the rule of law in world trade. This session features five original members of the Appellate Body who will join in a public discussion for the first time.

Moderator : Steve Charnovitz, George Washington University Law School
Commentators: John H. Jackson, Georgetown University Law Center; Cherie O. Taylor, South Texas College of Law
Former Members of WTO Appellate Body: James Bacchus, Greenberg Traurig PA; Claus-Dieter Ehlermann, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP; Julio Lacarte-Muro, Uruguay; and Mitsuo Matsushita, Seikel University College of Law, Tokyo

Executive Power in Wartime

Does the President, as commander in chief, have the constitutional authority to authorize violations of the international legal rules regulating the conduct of warfare (jus in bello)? Panel members will address this and related questions, such as whether there is a meaningful distinction between rules that regulate the methods of warfare and rules governing the humane treatment of prisoners. Does it matter whether those legal rules are embodied in a treaty to which the U.S. is a party? Should international law be a factor in construing constitutional separation of powers? What are the implications for world order/disorder of an approach to constitutional interpretation that endows the President with the legal authority to violate fundamental norms of humanitarian law?

Moderator: David Sloss, Saint Louis University School of Law
Panelists: Robert Delahunty, University of St. Thomas Law School; David Golove, New York University School of Law; David Rivkin, Baker & Hostetler; Ingrid
Wuerth, University of Cincinnati College of Law

Does Customary Humanitarian Law Contribute to Order or Disorder in the Regulation of Modern-Day Conflicts?

In a world where traditional forms of inter-state armed conflict are the exception rather than the rule, how do the principles and rules of customary humanitarian law contribute to the regulation of conflicts that provide the most pressing challenges to peace and security? If international law cannot resolve issues raised by traditional forms of conflict, what can it offer in answer to the new challenges of terrorism or guerilla warfare, or the involvement of non-state actors in conflict situations—be they rebel factions, mercenaries, or private security forces? If we cannot even define some of these problems—such as "terrorism"—how can the international community deal with them effectively? What mechanisms are or may be available to avoid the descent further into anarchy and disorder?

Moderator: Edward R. Cummings. U.S. Department of State
Panelists: Philip Allott, Trinity College, Cambridge University; Jean-Marie
Henckaerts, International Committee of the Red Cross; Hays Parks, U.S.
Department of Defense

Parallel Proceedings in International Litigation and Arbitration

What are the consequences when different companies in a corporate structure bring parallel claims before different arbitral tribunals against the same State Respondent based on the same facts (Lauder and CME cases)? Or when the same company brings claims against different States before different arbitration tribunals (Société Générale de surveillance cases)? Should it be possible for an investor to bring a case against a host state under one Bilateral Investment Treaty dispute-settlement provision and, at the same time, for the host state to bring a claim before an international tribunal against the investor’s home state under a different dispute-settlement provision in the same BIT? This panel will assess whether the different awards issued in such cases create disorder in the international adjudicatory system and, if so, how order should be restored.

Moderator: Carolyn Lamm, White & Case LLP
Panelists: Stanimir Alexandrov, Sidley Austin Brown & Wood; Alejandro Escobar, Herbert Smith; Mark Friedman, Debevoise & Plimpton LLP;

Panels/Lectures/Smaller Group Sessions

Is There a Role for International Law in the Middle East Peace Process?

The obstacles to Middle East peace appear intractable. What role can international law play in the search for negotiated solutions? If the parties agree to submit charged issues to binding arbitration, does the recent ICJ advisory opinion on the Israeli barrier provide useful guidance? If binding arbitration is ultimately selected, to what extent could the Egypt-Israel arbitration in the Taba case serve as a model?

Moderator: Nassib G. Ziadé, World Bank Administrative Tribunal
Panelists: Georges S Abi-Saab, Emeritus Professor, Graduate Institute
of International Studies, Geneva; Daniel Bethlehem, QC, Director,
Lauterpacht Research Centre for International Law, University of
Cambridge; Vaughan Lowe, Chichele Professor of Public International
Law, Oxford University; Aaron D. Miller, President, Seeds of Peace and
former U.S. Middle East peace negotiator.

Immunity and Accountability: Is the Balance Shifting?

The UN Convention on State Immunities nears submission, and litigation arising from the 9/11 attacks proceeds through the U.S. court system. Both the Convention and the 9/11 litigation provide occasion to reexamine the balance struck by immunity doctrines between the prerogatives of states and the need for accountability. This panel will examine issues of sovereign immunity, diplomatic immunity, and head-of-state immunity in the new settings in which they have arisen and in the light of both national practice and international law.

Moderator: George Bermann, Columbia University School of Law
Panelists: Roger Alford, Pepperdine University School of Law; Gerhard Hafner,
Institute of International Law and International Relations; David Stewart,
U.S. Department of State

International Coalitions of the Willing

International cooperation outside the peace and security area has started to include "coalitions of the willing" in place of, but pursuing goals similar to, formal intergovernmental organizations. In some cases, not only states but also NGOs and individuals establish and participate in these coalitions. Examples range from the Quartet in the Middle East Peace Process to the Global AIDS Fund, to the Proliferation Security Initiative, to the Financial Action Task Force. This panel will examine why such coalitions develop, their legal status and whether and in what circumstances they prove more fruitful than traditional modes of inter-state cooperation.

Moderator: D. Stephen Mathias, Multinational Force and Observers, Rome
Panelists: Theodore S. Greenberg, The World Bank; Leonard Spector, Monterey
Institute of International Studies; David Sullivan, Global Fund to Fight AIDS,
Tuberculosis and Malaria

Testing the Limits of International Law – Responding to the Crisis in Darfur

As the humanitarian crisis has escalated in Darfur, many have called for an international response. However, there has been much debate about what the appropriate response ought to be, raising the question of whether international law has the necessary tools and strength to resolve situations like that in the Sudan. The debate surrounding Darfur is testing the reach and limits of international law, including the norms of international criminal law (in particular regarding genocide), the applicability of international law to non-state actors, norms of international humanitarian law, and principles of humanitarian intervention. This panel will address the reach and limits of international law in responding to this crisis

Moderator: Peter Bechtold, U.S. Department of State
Panelists: Jerry Fowler, U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, Committee
on Conscience; Gerald Martone, International Rescue Committee,
Director of Emergency Response; Charles Snyder, Assistant Secretary,
Bureau of African Affairs, U.S. Department of State

Exploring the Breakdown of the Public-Private Divide in International Law and Law-Making

Recent years have witnessed an erosion of the distinction between public international law—modeled on state-to-state interaction—and private international law, as the domain of purely private interaction between private actors. Prominent examples of this phenomenon include the increasing significance of substantive norms of public international law in private litigation, the increasing use of public or quasi-public international law litigation vehicles to enforce private rights; and the increasing significance of private actors (especially private interest groups) in the creation of both public and private international legal norms. The discussants will examine this breakdown in the distinction between public and private international law and ask: was it a distinction that mattered, and what do recent trends reveal?

Moderator: Hannah Buxbaum , Indiana University School of Law at Bloomington
Panelists: Sarah Cleveland, University of Texas; Ms. Motoko Aizawa
International Finance Corporation; Peter D. Trooboff, Covington & Burling;
Todd Weiler, Expert Consultant at NAFTAlaw.org

New Voices Forum: The Role of Domestic and International Institutions in the Shaping of International Law

A Call for Papers to the ASIL membership sought proposals from those at an early stage of their careers who are engaged on projects relevant to the
Annual Meeting's theme. Nearly 60 submissions were received from 15
countries, from ASIL members affiliated with law firms, NGOs,
international organizations, government and universities. The proposals
covered the gamut of major issues in international law today. Four papers
were selected for presentation in this Forum, from which the Moderator
then derived the theme for discussion: The institutions called upon to
adhere to and implement international law are increasingly diverse, yet
interrelated. The Panel will focus on how this complex system shapes the
direction of international law and whether it strengthens or weakens its
effectiveness. These four promising "New Voices" will address aspects of
the question from the perspective of their research, considering the
interaction of domestic and international tribunals, the shifting of
governance from public to private institutions, and whether new
institutions are needed to provide a forum for minority communities and
values.

Moderator: Dinah Shelton, George Washington University Law School
Panelists: Elena A. Baylis, University of Pittsburgh School of Law,
"Minority Rights, MInority Wrongs"; William Burke-White, Woodrow
Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University,
“Pushing the Limits of International Law: Double-Edged Tribunals and
the Domestic Political Effects of International Courts"; Laura Dickinson,
University of Connecticut School of Law, "Contracted Government?
Privatizing Foreign Affairs and the Problem of Accountability Under
International Law "; Jenia Iontcheva Turner, Southern
Methodist University, Dedman School of Law, "True Complementarity:
Mixed Panels and Joint Prosecutions at the ICC"

Panels/Lectures/Smaller Group Sessions

The Chameleon of Corporate Social Responsibility: Changing Shapes and Challenges

Globalization, privatization, deregulation and international regulatory cooperation create both opportunities and challenges for multinational enterprises. In seizing those opportunities, corporations face multiple layers of laws and regulations, as well as a dizzying number of standards, guidelines and corporate codes. In the absence of coherent legal standards, do current efforts to implement corporate social responsibility enhance order for civil society or do they impose western-style norms and values in circumstances where they are not appropriate? Are current initiatives solid foundations for the future or simply diversions towards a dead end?

Moderator: Gary Klein, Piper Rudnick LLP
Panelists: Terry Collingsworth, International Labor Rights Fund; Martin Lutz,
Hunton & Williams LLP; Lawrence E. Mitchell, George Washington University Law
School

The Regulation and Extraction of Intelligence in a Comparative Perspective

The 9/11 Commission Report raised significant questions about how U.S. intelligence agencies are structured. Less consideration has been given to how those agencies are regulated. This panel will discuss how different countries have dealt with the division between internal and external surveillance, the relationship between intelligence and law enforcement agencies, and the accountability of intelligence agencies to elected officials.

Chair: Simon Chesterman, New York University School of Law
Panelists: Jayanth K. Krishnan, William Mitchell College of Law; Jacqueline E.
Ross, University of Illinois College of Law; Kim Lane Scheppele, University of
Pennsylvania; John M. Smith, Deputy General Counsel for Intelligence, U.S.
Department of Defense

Late-breaking Issues and the International Criminal Tribunals

International criminal law is developing at an exceptionally rapid pace, spurred by the creation of new international, hybrid, and domestic tribunals. This panel of experts will discuss late-breaking issues in international criminal law that are emerging from these tribunals. One focus will be the necessary reliance of these tribunals on governmental, international organization, and NGO assistance and cooperation to accomplish their missions.

Moderator: David Kaye, Deputy Legal Counselor, U.S. Embassy, The Hague
Panelists: Payam Akhavan, Senior Fellow, Orville Schell Center for Human
Rights, Yale Law School (former Legal Adviser, Office of the Prosecutor,
International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia); Sylvia Fernandez,
Office of the Prosecutor, International Criminal Court; Larry Johnson, Office of the
President, International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia

Globalization, Development and Intellectual Property: New Challenges and New Opportunities

The pressures of globalization and new technologies have increased tensions among nations disparately affected by transborder trade and investment flows. These tensions are especially acute in the area of intellectual property rights. At the same time, the centrality of intellectual property in the knowledge economy has greatly increased the demand for intellectual property protection and the pressures for functional reforms to cope with these new demands. This lecture and commentary will address these challenges and opportunities, focusing both on the World Intellectual Property Organization’s development agenda and on the mechanisms available to enhance the functionality of the intellectual property system.

Lecturer: Francis Gurry, Deputy Director General, World Intellectual Property
Organization
Commentator: Debora Halbert, Associate Professor of Political Science,
Otterbein College
Moderator: Jonathan Band, Morrison & Foerster LLP

American Exceptionalism

American Exceptionalism in Treaty Behavior
The Panel posits and explores the hypothesis that the American approach to international legal regimes differs in significant ways from those of other liberal democracies. Panelists will be asked to discuss American foreign policy behavior in the area of treaty negotiations and ratification, reservations, understandings and declarations (RUDS), as well as strategies to promote and defeat international agreements across a range of substantive areas (arms control, the laws of war, climate change, trade, human rights, and others). A wider discussion with participation from the audience will follow.

Moderators: Antonia Chayes, Visiting Professor, Fletcher School of Law and
Diplomacy, Tufts University; Sven M. Spengemann, Privy Council Office,
Government of Canada
Panelists: Jacqueline Bhabha. Harvard Law School; Andrew Moravcsik,
Princeton University; Edward A. Parson, University of Michigan;
David Scheffer, George Washington University Law School

AB-ILA Executive Committee Meeting

Panels/Lectures/Smaller Group Sessions

Legal Ethics and the War on Terror: the Role of the Government Lawyer

What is the proper role of lawyers advising governments engaged in the “war on terror”? Do profound threats to national security alter or emasculate the ethical standards applicable to legal judgments on such issues as the use of force, the treatment of detainees and the nature of occupied rule? Can we reasonably expect government lawyers to advise their clients that acts deemed essential to preventing terrorist attacks are legally impermissible? Or does loosening ethical standards render legal advice effectively indistinguishable from policy prescriptions? This panel, which includes former high-ranking attorneys in the U.S. Executive Branch, explores these and related issues.

Moderator: Judith Miller, Williams & Connelly LLP
Panelists: Viet Dinh, Georgetown University Law Center; Scott Horton, Patterson,
Belknap, Webb and Tyler LLP; Michael F. Lohr, Rear Admiral, Judge Advocate
Generals Corps, U.S. Navy (Ret), and Judge Advocate General of the Navy, 2002-
2004

International Law in Times of Empire

This panel situates contemporary assertions of a U.S. imperium in historical context. How has international law responded in the past to gross disparities in power between nominal equals? What can be learned from the role of metropolitan law in empire, and of imperial law in the metropolis? And what are the implications of empire or hegemony for international institutions and international morality?

Chair: Miriam Sapiro, Summit Strategies International
Panelists: Lauren Benton, New York University; David Hendrickson, Colorado
College; Lauri Mälksoo, University of Tartu, Estonia

Weapons of Mass Destruction, International Institutions, and World Order

One of the Bush Administration's priorities is to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The participants in this debate will consider the merits of the Administration's use of international institutions to achieve this goal. Are the formal international institutions, in particular the IAEA, effective, or will more progress be made through more informal structures such as the Proliferation Security Initiative? What is the utility of international organizations in addressing proliferation problems, and do non-state actors help or hinder the process? The participants will also discuss options for addressing the current proliferation "tough cases" such as Iran and North Korea.

Moderator: Antonio Perez, Catholic University School of Law
Panelists:Rose Gottemoeller, Senior Associate, Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace (former Assistant Secretary for Nonproliferation and
National Security, U.S. Department of Energy); Steve Rademaker, Assistant
Secretary for Arms Control, U.S. Department of State

International Claims Litigation II – A Case Study on the UNCC

Established by the Security Council in 1991 to compensate claims for damage resulting from Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990, the United Nations Compensation Commission has processed an unprecedented number of claims by governments, international organizations, corporations and individuals. As the UNCC nears completion of its claims review work, this roundtable brings together experts with a range of unique perspectives concerning the UNCC’s creation, mandate and operations. The discussants will assess the achievements of the UNCC and the contribution it has made to the development of international law and the sustenance of world order.

Moderator: Jeremy Carver, Clifford Chance LLP
Panelists: Ronald Bettauer, Deputy Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State; L.
Yves Fortier , Ogilvy Renault ; Mojtaba Kazazi , Chief, Governing Council
Secretariat,
UNCC; John Lonsberg, Bryan Cave LLP; Michael Raboin, Deputy Executive
Secretary, UNCC; Michael Schneider, Lalive & Partners; Norbert Wuehler,
Director for
Claims Processing, International Organisation for Migration

Trafficking in Humans

Human trafficking is a major source of political, social, and economic insecurity for States and for individuals. It is also a serious human rights violation. Yet highly fractured debates over appropriate strategies for combating this transnational crime challenge the ability of the international legal system to foster a consistent and effective response. This panel will examine these tensions and consider a range of critical issues, including the role of competing transnational legal regimes, the effects of disparities in power, resources, and capacity among countries in their ability to generate and enforce legal rules, and the competing priorities of countries of destination and origin in combating human trafficking.

Chair: Janie Chuang, American University, Washington College of Law
Panelists: Lou DeBaca, U.S. Department of Justice; Martina Vandenberg,
Jenner & Block; Stephen Warnath, Director, NEXUS Institute to Combat
Human Trafficking; Maureen Walsh, General Counsel, Commission on
Security and Cooperation in Europe;Peggy Kuo, New York Stock Exchange

Panels/Lectures/Smaller Group Sessions

The European Union’s New Ambitions

The EU is a unique legal entity, a supranational body that continues to expand the scope of issues with which it contends and the number of states within its fold. Given its expanding influence in the areas of foreign policy, security, and law enforcement, is the EU emerging as the new leader in the development of international law? Will the EU as a cohesive entity in multilateral institutions and treaty negotiations be a decisive force in determining how the institutions are run and how treaties are written? How are the U.S. and other non-EU states responding to these developments? The panel will discuss whether the usual paradigms of diplomatic interaction and legal relations have been supplanted and, if so, by what new paradigm.

Moderator: Evan Bloom, Counsel to the Inspector General (former Attorney-
Adviser, European Affairs, U.S. Department of State)
Panelists: Francesca Bignami, Duke University School of Law; Pieter-Jan Kuijper,
European Commission; Per Lachmann, Special Legal Adviser, Royal Danish
Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Protagonist or Pawn? The Private Contractor in Foreign Affairs
Sponsored by Partners Attorneys & Counselors

Private contractors are increasingly playing sovereign roles. Where business relationships are intertwined with state-to-state relations, both contractors and contracting states are often in uncharted territory. What mechanisms exist for regulating these contractors’ activities in foreign jurisdictions? What happens if the contractor acts contrary to international legal standards? Who is liable for their actions? Which laws apply, and in which fora, when there are disputes involving these contractors? To what extent are states using public procurement as tools of international relations?

Moderator: Robert Nichols, Piper Rudnick LLP
Panelists: Charles Allen, U.S. Department of Defense; Susan Burke, Montgomery
McCracken Walker & Rhoads LLP; Sharon Steele, Corporate Counsel,
Halliburton Co.

Sovereignty: Essential, Variegated or Irrelevant?
This panel will examine the venerable but essential issue of state sovereignty in light of the atomized and conflicting trends in international law highlighted by the Annual Meeting’s theme. The speakers will analyze the contemporary meaning of sovereignty in light of some of the central normative claims present in this debate. These include those of developing states seeking protection against interference in economic and political processes, European states now enmeshed in multiples webs of treaty relationships affecting virtually all areas of national policy, human rights advocates seeking to internationalize previously domestic questions, and the United States, which frequently claims a capacity to achieve national goals without the assistance of international norms and institutions.

Moderator: Gregory H. Fox, Wayne State Law School
Panelists: Kenneth Anderson, American University Washington College
of Law; Georg Nolte, University of Munich; Brad R. Roth,
Wayne State University; Helen Stacy, Stanford Institute for
International Studies, Stanford University

Torture, Violence and the Global War on Terror

In 2004, the international community confronted a profound challenge to the prohibition of torture. While senior U.S. administration officials described the physical abuse of Iraqi detainees at Abu Ghraib as “atrocities” involving “cruel” and “inhuman” treatment, the International Committee of the Red Cross and others described the same conduct as “tantamount to torture.” These developments raise a host of questions: Does the United States practice torture in Iraq and, more broadly, in the so-called Global War on Terror? To what extent do U.S. policies promote the use of torture? Are existing international norms sufficiently robust to address such acts?

Lecturer: SIR Nigel Rodley, University of Essex, former UN Commission on
Human Rights Special Rapporteur on the Question of Torture
Commentator: Oren Gross, University of Minnesota Law School
Moderator: Charles H. Brower II, University of Mississippi School of Law

Sovereignty and the State in Asia: The Challenges of the Emerging International Order

Until the dawn of European colonialism, the Asian world order was made up of the transacting boundaries of several ancient civilizations. This order was challenged by European colonialism, which spread to Asia the 19 th century European conception of sovereignty that emphasized nonintervention. After World War II, Asian countries mobilized this conception as a weapon for national independence and, later, to mask their attitudes to human rights. During the Cold War, Western countries consolidated a more inclusive and porous notion of sovereignty and began to construct many of the multilateral institutions we know today. Asian countries resisted these trends and regional institutions have not flourished. This panel will consider several themes that impinge on the notion of the state and sovereignty in Asia, including international security, trade and human rights.

Chair: Michael C. Davis, Chinese University of Hong Kong
Panelists: Tom Ginsburg, University of Illinois; Victoria T. Hui, University of
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; C. Raj Kumar, City University of Hong Kong
Tom Ginsburg, University of Illinois

Special Interest Group Programs and Business Meetings

International Environmental Law

International environmental law has developed apace over the last thirty years. From an ad hoc collection of soft law declarations and regional agreements, there are now over 200 multilateral agreements, complemented by an increasing number of principles that have fully emerged as customary international law. The maturity of this development is reflected in environmental law’s presence in other areas of international law. Non-environmental treaties incorporate environmental concerns, while international dispute settlement bodies regularly refer to international environmental law in their judgments. This horizontal growth has created challenges for states in regulating contemporary global issues. The interdisciplinary nature of international law can also result in the subordination of international environmental law to other areas. The panel will assess how international environmental law is meeting such new challenges in an epoch of ever more complicated international legal relations.

Moderator: Kevin Gray, Senior Policy Analyst, Environment Canada, and
Co-Chair, International Environmental Law Interest Group
Panelists: Joseph W. Dellapenna, Villanova University School of Law; Donald
McRae, University of Ottawa, Common Law Section; Jacob D. Werksman, The
Rockefeller Foundation

Human Rights Interest Group Business Meeting

International Economic Law Interest Group Business Meeting