W&L Professor of Practice James Pannabecker was recently interviewed in the Financial Fraud Law Blog in a piece entitled “Mortgage Lenders Facing a Potential Regulatory Cliff, Banking Law Expert Says.” In the interview, Pannabecker suggests that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau made a mistake by not issuing a detailed mortgage disclosure rule, doing a disservice to both the industry and consumers by failing to comply with a Dodd-Frank directive calling for final regulations before January 21, 2013. The interview is available at www.financialfraudlaw.com/lawblog/mortgage-lenders-facing-potential-regulatory-cliff-banking-law-expert-says/4236.
On Thursday, November 29, W&L Law Professor Susan Franck made two presentations entitled Tracking Trends in Investment Disputes: The New Data.
The first presentation was to the World Bank’s International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes, which is the leading institution for the resolution of investment treaty disputes.
The second presentation was a joint presentation to the United States Department of State’s Office of the Legal Advisor and the United States Trade Representative. The previous generation of research was used by the U.S. Department of State Report of the Subcommittee on International Economic Policy Regarding the Model Bilateral Investment Treaty in generating the 2012 U.S. Model BIT.
Here is the abstract of both presentations:
Despite the global economic crisis, international investment is on the rise and the number of investment treaties, which contain ex ante agreements requiring states to arbitrate alleged treaty violations, continues to increase. The convergence of these factors means that approximately 68% of foreign investment, approximately US$13 trillion, is now protected by at least one international investment agreement (IIA) and subject to arbitration. As disputes follow investment and the related legal rights, it is no surprise that investors have exercised their legal options. Yet there has been dissatisfaction with ITA, and some make assertions about systemic integrity with little (or no) data to back up their claims. This presentation will provide an antidote by exploring the current status of ITA by offering an empirical assessment of data that is current to 2012. It will focus on key elements including the institutional actors (investors, states and non-disputing parties), institutions involved, the lawyers pursuing claims, the amounts investors claimed, outcomes, time required to secure outcomes, and the fiscal costs of pursuing ITA. The objective of the presentation is to provide information to promote a lively and informed policy debate about the future of international investment law and dispute resolution.
Data related to this material is forthcoming in Professor Franck’s book with Oxford University Press: Investment Treaty Arbitration: Myths, Realities and Costs.
Jesus College, Oxford
Shaw Foundation Junior Research Fellowship in Law
Jesus College, Oxford invites applications for the Shaw Foundation Junior Research Fellowship (JRF) in Law, tenable for three years from 1 October 2013.
QUALIFICATIONS: The JRF is open to those intending to pursue research in Law, who are at an early stage of their academic career, typically at post-doctoral level.
SALARY/BENEFITS: The salary is on points 29-31 of the national pay spine, starting with point 29 (currently British Pound 29,249 p.a.). Free meals in College, USS pension, a College study room equipped with computer and printer, and an annual research allowance of British Pound 850 are also offered. The post is generously fully funded by The Shaw Foundation.
APPLICATIONS/FURTHER INFORMATION: Further information on the JRF may be accessed from the Jesus College website at http://www.jesus.ox.ac.uk/fellows-and-staff/vacancies/academic, or obtained from:
Mrs Helen Gee
Oxford OX1 3DW
to whom applications should be sent by 21 January 2013.
Jesus College is an equal opportunities employer.
Here is an IntLawGrrls blog post from W&L Law Professor Mark Drumbl on the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda’s genocide conviction of Pauline Nyiramasuhuko:
Much of the literature on gender and conflict focuses, appropriately, on women as victims of violence. Women, however, may also act as agents of violence, including mass atrocity, during conflict situations.
A paper I am writing explores this latter reality through the conviction of Pauline Nyiramasuhuko, Rwanda’s former Minister of Family and Women’s Development. Trial Chamber II of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda sentenced Nyiramasuhuko (above, center) to life imprisonment on June 24, 2011. (credit) At the time of her conviction, she was 65 years old.
I first prepared this paper for a fantastic conference on Gendering Conflict and Post-Conflict Terrains that IntLawGrrls contributors Fionnuala Ní Aoláin, Naomi Cahn andDina Haynes organized at the University of Minnesota Law School this past May. Drawing from wonderful feedback generated at the conference, the paper was updated. Now available at SSRN, the paper, entitled “‘She makes me ashamed to be a woman’: The Genocide Conviction of Pauline Nyiramasuhuko, 2011,” will appear in the Michigan Journal of International Law next year.
Nyiramasuhuko was prosecuted jointly with five other defendants, including her son,Arsène Shalom Ntahobali (who also was given a life sentence). All the defendants were from Butare, a préfecture in southern Rwanda. The defendants became colloquially known as the “Butare Group” or the “Butare Six.” The other four defendants received sentences of 25 years, 30 years, 35 years, and life.
Nyiramasuhuko is the ICTR’s only female accused. She is, moreover, the only woman tried and convicted by an international criminal tribunal for genocide, and the only woman tried and convicted by an international criminal tribunal for rape as a crime against humanity.
The only other woman convicted by a post-Cold War international criminal tribunal (the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia) is Biljana Plavšić. A leading Bosnian Serb politician with de facto control and authority over members of the Bosnian Serb armed forces, Plavšić pleaded guilty in 2002 to one count of persecution (crimes against humanity). She was sentenced in 2003 to eleven years’ imprisonment.
Each of the Butare Six defendants has appealed the convictions. Appeal proceedings are underway. It is anticipated that the ICTR will complete all its work by December 31, 2014, though no concrete time line has been established in the Butare Six case.
My article explores the intersections between gender and justice in the strategies of participants in the proceedings against Nyiramasuhuko and, more tellingly, in public portrayals thereof.
The judgment itself, 1,500 pages in length and available here, is gender-neutral in terms of its depiction of Nyiramasuhuko. She is presented as a perpetrator indifferently from her male co-perpetrators.
Public portrayals of Nyiramasuhuko, in contrast, exude problematic essentialisms, stereotypes, and imagery of women and mothers. These caricatures emerge at two distinct levels:
► First, they are invoked by the media to sensationalize and spectacularize the trial itself – in short, to titillate.
► Second, they are instrumentally invoked to favor strategic operational outcomes.
For example, those stakeholders who condemn Nyiramasuhuko’s conduct turn to her status as woman and mother to accentuate her personal culpability and individual deviance (i.e. she is a worse perpetrator, a greater disappointment, and a more shocking offender because she is a woman, mother, and grandmother). Those who defend her conduct, including Nyiramasuhuko herself, pretextually invoke tropes rooted in imagery of womanhood and motherhood to emphasize the impossibility of her culpability (i.e. she can’t be a perpetrator, in particular of rape, because she is a woman, mother, and grandmother).
Nyiramasuhuko and her son Ntahobali are not the first parent/child defendants before the ICTR. In 2003, an ICTR Trial Chamber convicted Reverend Elizaphan Ntakirutimana, a Seventh-Day Adventist pastor (now deceased), and his son, Gérard Ntakirutimana, a physician, of genocide. Whereas the Ntahobali and Nyiramasuhuko proceedings tended to become telegraphed to the public as “mother and son,” the proceedings concerning the Ntakirutimanas tended to become telegraphed as “pastor and son.” When it came to the elder parent figure, Ntakirutimana was reduced to his profession, not his fatherhood. Nyiramasuhuko, on the other hand, was reduced to her motherhood, not her profession. Her case is not presented as “Minister and songénocidaires,” nor is Ntakirutimana’s case presented as “father and son génocidaires.”
Nyiramasuhuko’s trial and conviction also offer a number of important lessons for the development and effectiveness of international legal interventions in post-conflict spaces.
A need arises to assess the role of femininities and masculinities in the metastasis of atrocity. Recognizing women as agents of violence, as bystanders to violence, as resisters of violence, as well as victims of violence, informs a more nuanced understanding of atrocity and, thereby, solidifies deterrent aspects.
The division between victims and victimizers is not always that clear.
The proceedings against Nyiramasuhuko also reveal the limits to criminalization in the process of transitional justice more generally, and important components thereof, such as emboldening the status of women in post-conflict societies. To be sure; the status of women has been emboldened in contemporary Rwanda. Women sit in the Rwandan Parliament in percentage numbers that well exceed the percentage of women in the U.S. House of Representatives or Senate and that also transcend international averages. Discriminatory land laws have been pared back. Women’s enrolment in education has substantially increased. One way to consolidate these advances for Rwandan women is to demystify those Rwandan women – such as Nyiramasuhuko, and others prosecuted nationally – who perpetrated atrocity.
But women’s advances also need to be demystified, as well.
What women actually do in public roles and as public officials matters greatly. The autocratic nature of Rwanda’s government should not be obscured; neither should the fact that empowered women enthusiastically support this autocracy and thrive within it. Women’s rights can expand in contexts where other human rights may shrink, shrivel, or remain under siege. Gender relations can equalize while other civic rights – freedom of expression and freedom of association, for example – wither.
It is also crucial to hone in on which women have seen their opportunities expand in the post-conflict phase. In contemporary Rwanda, arguably, it is the rights of educated anglophone former émigrées that have become most robustly actualized, whereas the rights of women genocide survivors – largely francophone – remain underachieved.
Just as the role of women during atrocity calls out for more careful and less assumptive or categorical analysis, so, too, does the role of women as change agents after atrocity.
Here is a story from The Los Angeles Times in which W&L Professor Tim Jost–a leading expert on health care law–is quoted:
The Supreme Court rectified an oversight Monday and gave a Christian university in Virginia a chance to argue in a lower court two claims that were not considered in June when the justices upheld President Obama’s healthcare law.
Lawyers for Liberty University say the law violates the Constitution by requiring large employers to pay a tax if they do not provide health insurance to their full-time workers.
No one has seriously disputed that the federal government has broad power to regulate employers, and the justices did not even consider this claim earlier this year. Instead, they debated whether Congress could require an individual to buy insurance or pay a tax, the so-called individual mandate. The court upheld that requirement in a 5-4 decision.
Liberty’s lawyers also say “forced funding of abortion” under the law violates the school’s right to religious liberty. Obama administration officials say the law does not require funding of abortions, and district judges have rejected the claim.
Nonetheless, because Liberty University’s claims had not been heard or decided, the justices issued a one-paragraph order allowing the university to raise these claims before the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va.
Last month, the Obama administration told the justices it had no objection to such an order. The high court’s move does not suggest, however, that the justices are reconsidering the issue.
“It’s a frivolous argument. Congress had regulated wages and benefits issues under the commerce clause for decades,” said Timothy Jost, a health law expert at Washington and Lee University in Virginia.
Employers with more than 50 full-time employees will be required, starting in 2014, to offer health insurance that meets new minimum standards of coverage.
Jost holds the Robert L. Willett Family Professorship of Law at the Washington and Lee University School of Law.
On Wednesday, November 14, W&L Law Professor Susan Franck presented her work to UNCTAD’s Division of Investment and Enterprise, http://unctad.org/en/pages/DIAE/DIAE.aspx, in the Palais des Nations in Geneva, which is a portion of UNCTAD dedicated to exploring issues related to international investment and sustainable development, in an effort to understand the scope of and implications for investment treaty dispute resolution and conflict management. The presentation built on Professor Franck’s recent research that will shortly be forthcoming in the American Journal of International Law, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2156965, which explored initial data about amounts claimed and awarded in investment treaty disputes. Given recent major cases such as Occidental v. Ecuador, in which Ecuador was held liable for nearly $2 billion – http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-05/occidental-awarded-1-77-billion-in-ecuador-contract-dispute-1-.html – there is renewed interest in this type of arbitration. Professor Franck’s research is designed to explore whether cases such as Occidental are typical or aberrational and the normative implications of those determinations. In a two-hour presentation, Professor Franck explored the newest generation of data that is current to 2012 to provide a holistic assessment of investment treaty dispute resolution. The presentation covered issues related to 272 awards rendered up to 2012. With 517 variables, this means the research is now capable of analyzing more than 140,000 pieces of individual data to offer a more sophisticated systemic analysis of the system of investment arbitration. Data related to this presentation is forthcoming in Professor Franck’s book with Oxford University Press: Investment Treaty Arbitration: Myths, Realities and Costs.
Susan Franck joined the faculty as an Associate Professor in 2008. Professor Franck’s teaching and scholarship relates to international economic law and dispute resolution.
W&L Professor David Bruck recently participated in oral arguments before the South Carolina Supreme Court on behalf of his client, Billy Wayne Cope. The Herald of Rock Hill, S.C. covered the proceedings in an article on November 13, 2012. Here is an excerpt:
The fate of Billy Wayne Cope , convicted of raping and killing his own 12-year-old daughter in a 2001 crime that he confessed to but claims he did not commit, now rests with the S.C. Supreme Court .
Cope’s lawyer, David Bruck , claimed defiantly Tuesday to the state’s highest court that Cope “did not get a fair trial” in 2004. Bruck said the other man convicted in the crime, a sexual predator named James Edward Sanders , is the sole monster.
. . .
The Supreme Court , which spent about 45 minutes grilling Bruck and Zelenka, made no decision Tuesday. A decision could be reached in weeks or months.
. . .
Only Bruck, Zelenka and the five justices spoke. The Supreme Court hearing was a legal fistfight, with the justices repeatedly interrupting the lawyers and demanding answers about the confessions and more. It will take a majority – three of the five justices – to overturn any conviction and potentially order a new trial.
Nobody disputes that Cope was home with his three daughters when Amanda, the oldest, was brutally attacked.
. . .
In the hearing, the justices first heard from Bruck, the Virginia law professor who specializes in claims of wrongful convictions. In 2004, the trial judge refused to allow Cope’s defense attorneys to tell the jury about all of Sanders’ previous rapes and break-ins. Not being able to tell the jury that Sanders was a serial sexual predator, Bruck argued, gutted the defense case.
. . .
“To say that was a fair trial…That simply was not true,” Bruck stated.
The justices then turned to Zelenka, from the attorney general’s office, who claimed that the other crimes Sanders committed were not “sufficiently similar” and, therefore, should have stayed out of the trial. The trial judge’s decision in 2004 not to allow the jury to consider Sanders’ other crimes was “a harmless error,” Zelenka claimed.
But Bruck pounced, describing that claim as “a retreat” by prosecutors who fought to keep Sanders’ sexual deviance away from the jury.
“There is no way that this was harmless,” Bruck argued.
The justices were clearly concerned about the evidence excluded in the 2004 trial. Justice Costa Pleicones stated that excluding some of the evidence “deprived Mr. Cope the opportunity to present a defense.”
David Bruck is a Clinical Professor of Law and Director of the Virginia Capital Case Clearinghouse at Washington & Lee University School of Law.
As Asia’s Global Law School, the Faculty of Law of the National University of Singapore (NUS) is committed to fostering research and teaching excellence among young legal scholars. We are pleased, therefore, to invite applications for the position of Post-Doctoral Fellow in AY2013-2014. Successful applicants will commence their Fellowships at the start of August 2013 and conclude them at the end of July 2014.
BENEFITS: Successful Post-Doctoral Fellows will have the following privileges:
1. Fellows will be appointed to the full-time position of Post-Doctoral Fellow at NUS on a one-year contract, with the possibility of renewal, at the Faculty’s discretion, up to a maximum term of 2 years, with a fixed remuneration of S$78,000. This sum is inclusive of stipends for housing and living expenses.
2. Fellows will be reimbursed for a return economy class airfare (by the most economical and direct route) up to a maximum of S$2,000 to and from Singapore.
3. Fellows will conduct research in their fields of interest and will be supported by full NUS library privileges.
4. Fellows may be given the opportunity to present their research in the Faculty of Law’s Research Seminar Series (RSS) and other Faculty seminars.
1. Subject to the standard NUS terms as to leave, Fellows will be expected to be in residence in the Faculty throughout the term of their appointment.
2. Fellows will be expected to conduct research during the term of their appointment. Such research may include, but is not limited to, the writing of articles for publication in refereed journals, contributing to book chapters in edited collections, and preparing a monograph or other book for publication.
3. Fellows may be expected to teach or co-teach one elective course per annum during the term of their appointment.
4. Fellows may, additionally, be expected to assist in the organization of a colloquium or other events for graduate students.
SELECTION CRITERIA: The selection committee will consider the following criteria in making an appointment to the position of Post-Doctoral Fellow at NUS:
1. The applicant must be of exceptional calibre, having attained a doctoral degree in law which must have been awarded during the two-year period 31 December 2010 to 31 December 2012.
2. The principal selection criterion will be the applicant’s potential for excellence in research. An existing record of publication in top journals or participation in research projects are examples of evidence of such potential.
3. An important criterion will also be the proposed programme of research of the applicant. This may include, but is not limited to, preparing the completed doctoral research for publication as a monograph.
4. The selection committee will also consider the alignment of the proposed research with the NUS Law School’s research strengths and priorities. Apart from the core curriculum, in which NUS has long held significant strengths, these also include: Corporate and Financial Law, Asian Law and Legal Systems, International and Comparative Law, Constitutional and Criminal Law, Maritime and Aviation Law, Family and Child Law, and Intellectual Property and Technology Law.
APPLICATION PROCEDURE: Applicants are required to submit a detailed curriculum vitae, outlining their research plans for the next two years. The application should be supported by two references from academic referees. Applicants should arrange for their referees to send their references to the address below by the closing date.
The closing date for the receipt of applications and references is 31 December 2012. Applicants will be notified within two months of the deadline on the status of their applications. All correspondence should be addressed to:
The Office of Vice Dean, Research
Faculty of Law, National University of Singapore
469G Bukit Timah Road
Call For Papers: University of North Carolina’s Kenan-Flagler Business School Conference on Tax-Efficient Supply Chain Management
April 25 & 26, 2014, Chapel Hill, NC
Organizers: Eva Labro, Ed Maydew, Douglas Shackelford, Jayashankar Swaminathan
University of North Carolina’s Kenan-Flagler Business School invites manuscripts for a conference on Tax-Efficient Supply Chain Management, April 25 & 26, 2014, Chapel Hill, NC. The purpose of this conference is to bring together outstanding scholars from operations management, accounting, economics, finance, law, and related fields plus managers, engineers, tax advisers, accountants, lawyers and others from leading companies to discuss the rapidly changing landscape in tax-efficient supply chain management (TESCM).
OVERVIEW: Increasingly, multinationals are attempting to integrate global tax planning into the overall management of their supply chain. This integration affects all aspects of the firm, including the location and movement of activities, functions and people, and the control and allocation of risks. TESCM is designed to produce flexible tax planning that is operationally-driven and able to deliver long-term reductions in the firm’s effective tax rate and other taxes. Geographical reconfiguration of a global supply chain must consider aspects, such as potential gains and losses in terms of production and logistics costs, time and cost benefits due to co-location as well as implications for supply chain partners and customers. Since operations and tax management have historically been positioned as occupying different silos, in many firms this integration is difficult to envision, let alone implement. Because companies and their advisors view these TESCM restructurings as proprietary and confidential, little is known about the extent to which they have changed both supply chain management and tax planning.
TOPIC: Since this topic has been largely unexplored, we invite empirical, theoretical, and experimental papers on any angle related to tax-efficient supply chain management. In this novel emerging field of inquiry, we anticipate and encourage new and original thought that moves beyond the traditional approaches in international transfer pricing, which have ignored the supply chain management literature, and those in supply chain management, which have ignored tax considerations. We look forward to a lively and highly interactive conference with at least six papers.
PAPER SUBMISSION PROCEDURE: Please submit an electronic version of the paper no later than February 1, 2014 to Professor Douglas Shackelford at firstname.lastname@example.org. Paper selection will be finalized by February 25, 2014. Travel and lodging expenses for all presenters will be reimbursed.
The conference is sponsored by the UNC Tax Center.
Conducting Empirical Legal Scholarship Workshop
Presented By University of Southern California Gould School of Law and Washington University Law
May 22-24, 2013
The 12th Annual Conducting Empirical Legal Scholarship workshop will take place at the University of Southern California Gould School of Law. The workshop is for law school faculty, political science faculty, and graduate students interested in learning about empirical research and how to evaluate empirical work. Leading empirical scholars Lee Epstein and Andrew Martin will teach the workshop, which provides the formal training necessary to design, conduct, and assess empirical studies, and to use statistical software (Stata) to analyze and manage data. Participants need no background or knowledge of statistics to enroll in the workshop.
Lee Epstein, http://lawweb.usc.edu/who/faculty/directory/contactInfo.cfm?detailID=70057, Provost Professor and Rader Family Trustee Chair in Law and Political Science at University of Southern California, is a leading empirical legal scholar and a Fellow of the American Academy of Political and Social Science and American Academy of Arts and Sciences. She has co-organized and co-led this annual empirical scholarship workshop for the past eleven years. Professor Epstein has received 10 grants from the National Science Foundation for her work on judicial politics and has also authored, co-authored, or edited more than 100 articles and essays, as well as 14 books. Her empirical research focuses on U.S. Supreme Court, as well as constitutional courts abroad.
Andrew D. Martin, http://adm.wustl.edu, Professor of Law and Political Science, and Director of the Center for Empirical Research in the Law at Washington University, specializes in political methodology and has written widely on American political institutions, including the Supreme Court and the Courts of Appeals. He has co-organized and co-taught the empirical scholarship workshop with Professor Epstein for the last eleven years. Professor Martin has received grants from the National Science Foundation for his work on the U.S. Supreme Court, and his research has appeared in a number of outlets, including the Journal of Legal Studies; Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization; California Law Review; Columbia Law Review; North Carolina Law Review; and other law reviews as well as leading social science and applied statistics journals.
REGISTRATION: Tuition for the Empirical Scholarship Workshop is $850, which includes all session materials, temporary access to statistical software (STATA), two lunches, three continental breakfasts, and one evening reception. You will need a laptop for this workshop. A check for $850 made payable to USC Gould School of Law must be included with the registration form. Registration and payment should be received by May 10, 2013.
FURTHER INFORMATION: Please visit http://law.usc.edu/EmpiricalWorkshop for more information.