From the editors of the William Mitchell Law Review:
The William Mitchell Law Review is conducting a nation-wide student note competition. Students are invited to submit case notes or essays on any subject related to national security. The Law Review staff will evaluate all the submissions, and one winning entry will be published in the forthcoming issue. All entries must be received by December 1, 2011.
Many thanks to Director Peter Schneck and the faculty of the Summer School for giving permission to share these valuable reading lists.
The reading list for Workshop 1, entitled “The Complex Relation between Culture and Law: Methods, Concepts, Approaches,” was posted earlier.
Detailed workshop descriptions can be found here (scroll down for links).
Workshop 2: From Human Rights to Civil Rights to Cultural Rights
Convened by: Helle Porsdam & Cindy Holder
- Anaya, S. James. Indigenous Peoples in International Law. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2004. Read p. 129-48.
- Jones, Peter. “Human Rights, Group Rights and Peoples’ Rights.” Human Rights Quarterly 21.1 (1999): 80-107.
- Porsdam, Helle. “Divergent Transatlantic Views on Human Rights: Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights.” From Civil to Human Rights: Dialogues on Law and Humanities in the United States and Europe. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2009. Read p. 92-113.
- —. “Divergent Transatlantic Views on Human Rights: The Role of International Law.” From Civil to Human Rights: Dialogues on Law and Humanities in the United States and Europe. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2009. Read p. 114-35.
- —. “Transatlantic dialogues on copyright: cultural rights and access to knowledge From Civil to Human Rights: Dialogues on Law and Humanities in the United States and Europe. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2009. Read p. 136-64.
- Raz, Joseph. “Rights and Individual Well-being.” Ratio Juris 5.2 (1992): 127-42.
- Reidel, Laura. “What are Cultural Rights: Protecting Groups with Individual Rights.” Journal of Human Rights 9 (2010): 65-80.
- Supreme Court of Canada , R v Van der Peet  2 S.C.R. 507
This weekend I attended (and live-tweeted) “Law and War: An International Humanitarian Law Workshop,” a two-day training for law and graduate students. It was held at the University of Virginia School of Law and co-sponsored by the ICRC, the American Red Cross, and the U.S. Army’s JAG School.
Among the highlights was Kenneth Anderson‘s presentation on the use of drones and targeted killing as part of the allied counterinsurgency in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Anderson raised some interesting conceptual issues about contemporary warfare: Does war have boundaries? When an armed conflict moves from one location to another, which laws of war govern? Is there, in Anderson’s words, a “legal geography” of war?
The law of armed conflict (LOAC) is based upon classification of conflicts, starting with the distinction between international (state-on-state) and non-international (all other) armed conflicts. Civilian protections and combatant privilege don’t kick in until a conflict has met the threshold for either category, and the rules differ substantially between the categories. Consequently, location and intensity of fighting as well as identity of the participants are key to a LOAC analysis.
A common view, according to Anderson, is that armed conflict is located wherever its participants are. If an armed conflict authorized to take place in Afghanistan spreads to Pakistan, say, through the use of U.S. unmanned aircraft (drones), it is unclear which, or whether, LOAC rules apply. And if the U.S. were to, say, have the CIA rather than uniformed armed forces control those drones, it is unclear whether the actions even fall under the umbrella of LOAC. If LOAC does not apply, then what law governs? Is the U.S. operating in a legal void?
This is one example of how modern warfare, with its fuzzy geographic boundaries and blurred distinctions between soldiers and civilians, confounds LOAC.
My interest, as a student of literature, lies in how we conceptualize and narrate war when the traditional elements of a war narrative no longer exist. Where is war set? What is a front line? Who is a combatant and who is a civilian? To the extent that LOAC follows entrenched understandings of war, sovereignty, and combatant status, it is a window into the structure of the war narrative. When war as the law describes it ceases to resemble war on the ground, interesting things happen to the stories we tell about war. More to come on this.
I’m intrigued by the Books NGram Viewer, a Google Labs tool that allows you to graph the prevalence of certain published words or phrases over time. The tool offers a potentially interesting starting point for investigating the historical relationship between two different, but intersecting, concepts.
For example, searching the phrases “international law” and “human rights” in English-language books, published in 1800-2008, generated this chart:
What interests me most are periods in which “human rights” is more prevalent than “international law,” as well as periods of sharp change in the prevalence of each term. This includes an earlier-than-I-expected bump for “human rights” in the 1830s, and a steep rise in the prevalence of “human rights” from around 1975 to 2000; during both periods, “international law” remained fairly flat, while “human rights” apparently gained in currency. (Pardon me while I google the 1830s. . . . Ah, the Indian Removal Act.)
Certain trends are easily explained (e.g., a peak for “international law” in the late 1910s, correlating with the formation of the League of Nations). But I wonder what to make of the pronounced drop-off in the term “human rights” after approximately 2001: any relation to September 11 and the ensuing Global War on Terror? Must investigate further.
So much for catching up on reading for classes today.