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.