 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
NEWSLETTER(Page 10)
Main Index
Index:
* IBA hails start of ICCs first trial as landmark development in international law
* ICC issues a warrant of arrest for Omar Al Bashir,
President of Sudan
* INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF NGOs
* 2009 Activities
* 2009 Summer Program on International Arbitration
* IBAHRI alarmed at recent changes to Iranian legislation curtailing the independence of bar associations
* IBAHRI concerned at lack of legality of mass trials in Iran
* International Conference on Competition Law
* Lord Bingham addresses the Rule of Law Symposium
* IBA hails start of ICCs first trial as landmark development in international law
| 26/01/2009 |  |
Mark Ellis, IBA Executive Director, commented: The 26th of January 2009 will stand as an historic day for international law. The start of the first ICC trial marks a major step towards realising the vision of a group of nations that, more than ten years ago, signed the Rome Statute establishing the worlds first permanent international court. It signalled to the international community that impunity for genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity will not be tolerated and that victims will see justice done according to the highest standards of international law.
The Lubanga trial will also mark another first in international criminal proceedings. Ninety-three victims have thus far been granted the right to participate in the case, the first time at an international level that victims will be allowed an independent voice in the courtroom. The IBA welcomes the approach adopted by the trial judges in implementing a system which allows victims legal representatives to participate without unduly delaying the trial. Given the length of Mr Lubanga's pre-trial detention the IBA considers it important for the trial to be conducted expeditiously and with full respect for the rights of the defendant.
The Lubanga trial is also expected to bring increased public attention to the phenomenon of child soldiers, a pervasive feature of conflicts in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and other parts of the world. While noting the progress made by the ICC Registry in carrying out outreach programmes in the DRC leading up to the trial, the IBA continues to urge the ICC to ensure that the information about the trial is properly disseminated to the affected communities as well as to the general public. Justice Richard Goldstone, Co-Chair of the IBAs Human Rights Institute and former Prosecutor at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, said: Starting today outreach to affected communities and public information to the wider public have taken on new urgency if the ICC is to ensure that justice is not only done but also seen to be done. The potential impact of this moment in the continuing fight against impunity is enormous and the Court must not lose this opportunity to make its work known and understood by the public.
Click here to watch live stream video of the court proceedings.
http://www.ibanet.org/Human_Rights_Institute/ICC_Outreach_Monitoring/ICC_Lubanga_trial.aspx
ENDS
For further information please contact:
Romana St. Matthew - Daniel
International Bar Association
Press Office
10th Floor
1 Stephen Street
London W1T 1AT
United Kingdom
Direct Line: +44 (0)20 7691 6837
Main Office: +44 (0)20 7691 6868
Mobile: +44 (0)7940 731915
Fax: +44 (0)20 7691 6544
E-mail: romana.daniel@int-bar.org
Website: www.ibanet.org
Notes to the Editor
Background
Thomas Lubanga Dyilo is allegedly the founder and former President of Congolese political party the Union des Patriotes Congolais (UPC) and was allegedly the Commander-in-Chief of its military wing, the Forces Patriotiques Pour la Libration du Congo (FPLC) between September 2002 and late 2003.
The FPLC played a key role in the Ituri conflict in the northeast of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) during this time. The conflict was the result of tensions between two ethnic groups in the region the Hema and the Lendu during which an estimated 60,000 people were killed and half a million displaced. The UPC and FPLC purported to represent the Hema ethnic group during the conflict.
Thomas Lubanga Dyilo came under ICC investigation following a referral by the DRC government in March 2004, inviting the ICC to exercise jurisdiction over events there. An arrest warrant for Mr Lubanga was issued by the Pre-Trial Chamber in February 2006 for offences relating to the use of child soldiers. The DRC authorities surrendered Mr Lubanga to the ICC in March 2006 and he made his initial appearance before the Court shortly thereafter.
The charges against Thomas Lubanga were confirmed by the Pre-Trial Chamber in January 2007 and the case subsequently referred to the Trial Chamber.
In June 2008 the Trial Chamber suspended the proceedings against Mr Lubanga, judging that it was impossible to hold a fair trial as the Prosecutor had not disclosed a large amount of potentially exculpatory evidence. The stay was lifted in November 2008 following complete disclosure of the evidence to the Trial Chamber. The Chamber proposed that the trial commence on 26 September 2009.
Thomas Lubanga Dyilo is now being tried for the following charges of war crimes:
Conscripting children into armed groups;
Enlisting children into armed groups;
Using children to participate actively in hostilities.
In line with Article 68(3) of the Rome Statute, which affords an opportunity for victims to directly participate in proceedings, the Trial Chamber has granted 93 alleged victims the right to take part in the trial. This is significant in that it marks the first instance in international proceedings that victims are able to play a direct role. These persons will be able to tender evidence and to question witnesses throughout the course of the trial.
Thomas Lubanga will be represented at trial by French lawyer Catherine Mabille.
For additional information, please consult the IBA website at: http://www.ibanet.org/Human_Rights_Institute/ICC_Outreach_Monitoring/ICC_DRC_Lubanga.aspx
Up
Main Index
* ICC issues a warrant of arrest for Omar Al Bashir,
President of Sudan
http://www2.icc-cpi.int/NR/exeres/0EF62173-05ED-403A-80C8-F15EE1D25BB3.htm
ICC-CPI-20090304-PR394
Situation: Darfur, Sudan
Press Release: 04.03.2009
Today, Pre-Trial Chamber I of the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued a warrant for the arrest of Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir, President of Sudan, for war crimes and crimes against humanity. He is suspected of being criminally responsible, as an indirect (co-)perpetrator, for intentionally directing attacks against an important part of the civilian population of Darfur, Sudan, murdering, exterminating, raping, torturing and forcibly transferring large numbers of civilians, and pillaging their property. This is the first warrant of arrest ever issued for a sitting Head of State by the ICC.
Omar Al Bashirs official capacity as a sitting Head of State does not exclude his criminal responsibility, nor does it grant him immunity against prosecution before the ICC, according to Pre-Trial Chamber I.
According to the Judges, the above-mentioned crimes were allegedly committed during a five year counter-insurgency campaign by the Government of Sudan against the Sudanese Liberation Movement/Army (SLM/A), the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) and other armed groups opposing the Government of Sudan in Darfur. It is alleged that this campaign started soon after the April 2003 attack on El Fasher airport as a result of a common plan agreed upon at the highest level of the Government of Sudan by Omar Al Bashir and other high-ranking Sudanese political and military leaders. It lasted at least until 14 July 2008, the date of the filing of the Prosecutions Application for the warrant of arrest for Omar Al Bashir.
A core component of that campaign was the unlawful attack on that part of the civilian population of Darfur belonging largely to the Fur, Masalit and Zaghawa groups perceived to be close to the organised armed groups opposing the Government of Sudan in Darfur. The said civilian population was to be unlawfully attacked by Government of Sudan forces, including the Sudanese Armed Forces and their allied Janjaweed Militia, the Sudanese Police Force, the National Intelligence and Security Service and the Humanitarian Aid Commission.
The Chamber found that Omar al Bashir, as the de jure and de facto President of Sudan and Commander-in-Chief of the Sudanese Armed Forces, is suspected of having coordinated the design and implementation of the counter-insurgency campaign. In the alternative, it also found that there are reasonable grounds to believe that he was in control of all branches of the apparatus of the State of Sudan and used such control to secure the implementation of the counter-insurgency campaign.
The counts
The warrant of arrest for Omar Al Bashir lists 7 counts on the basis of his individual criminal responsibility (article 25(3)(a)) including:
five counts of crimes against humanity: murder article 7(1)(a); extermination article 7(1)(b); forcible transfer article 7(1)(d);
torture article 7(1)(f); and rape article 7(1)(g);
two counts of war crimes: intentionally directing attacks against a civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities article 8(2)(e)(i); and pillaging article 8(2)(e)(v).
Findings concerning genocide
The majority of the Chamber, Judge Anita Ušacka dissenting, found that the material provided by the Prosecution in support of its application for a warrant of arrest failed to provide reasonable grounds to believe that the Government of Sudan acted with specific intent to destroy, in whole or in part, the Fur, Masalit and Zaghawa groups. Consequently, the crime of genocide is not included in the warrant issued for the arrest of Omar Al Bashir. Nevertheless, the Judges stressed that if additional evidence is gathered by the Prosecution, the decision would not prevent the Prosecution from requesting an amendment to the warrant of arrest in order to include the crime of genocide.
Cooperation of States
The Judges directed the Registrar to prepare and transmit, as soon as practicable, a request for cooperation for the arrest and surrender of Omar Al Bashir to Sudan, and to all States Parties to the Rome Statute and all United Nations Security Council (UNSC) members that are not party to the Statute, as well as to any other State as may be necessary.
The Judges found that, according to UNSC resolution 1593 and articles 25 and 103 of the UN Charter, the obligation of the Government of Sudan to fully cooperate with the Court prevails over any other international obligation that the Government of Sudan may have undertaken pursuant to any other international agreement.
Pre-Trial Chamber I also found that the Government of Sudan has systematically refused to cooperate with the Court since the issuance of warrants for the arrest of the Sudanese Minister for Humanitarian Affairs, Ahmad Harun, and a regional Janjaweed militia leader, Ali Kushayb, on 2 May 2007. As a result, the Judges emphasised that, according to article 87(7) of the Statute, if the Government of Sudan continues to fail to comply with its cooperation obligations to the Court, the competent Chamber may make a finding to that effect and decide to refer the matter [...] to the Security Council.
Furthermore, the Judges noted that the dispositive part of UNSC resolution 1593 expressly urges all States, whether party or not to the Rome Statute, as well as international and regional organisations to cooperate fully with the Court.
Information concerning ''ICC issues a warrant of arrest for Omar Al Bashir, President of Sudan''
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For further information please contact Ms Laurence Blairon, Spokesperson, at
+31 (0)70 515 87 14 or +31 (0) 6 46 44 88 89 or at laurence.blairon@icc-cpi.int.
Interviews can be arranged in English or French. In order to request such interviews, please call Mr Fadi El-Abdallah (French and Arabic media) at +31 (0)70 515 91 52 or Ms Kerry Picket (English media) at +31 (0)70 515 91 30.
Press Releases
Audiovisual
Up
Main Index
* INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF NGOs
This event will be exploring the potential of a practical approach that will unleash and nurture the human capacity to create, collaborate and change positively, the world at large.
What are the
objectives of this meeting? The meeting will provide a medium where participating individuals and NGOs will convene to address and discuss ways of improving key Humanitarian issues and topics with much emphasis on Human Rights, Gender Equality, Peace and Security,Social and Economic Development, Youth and Children, Health Education, Ethics and Value and Environmental Protection. Participating NGOs will have direct access to grants by International Donor Agencies.
Encouraging countries with a longer experience in implementing
strategies .
The opening Lecture will be held by Dr.(Mrs.) Artemisia Franco who is the President of the Center for Human Rights Research and Development,Maputo - Mozambique. The program will include:
* Thought-provoking plenary
* In-depth breakout and dinner sessions for
strategy-development
* Capacity and skills-building sessions; and
* Debates to stimulate discussion.
In addition to the main program, the meeting will also host book launches, artistic and cultural activities, exhibitions, plenty of space and opportunity for informal networking and alliance building. All plenary and selected breakout sessions will have interpretation into English,Spanish and French.
Who can participate? What happens if more than 200 participants apply? Anyone who is a member of an NGO, Professionals in related fields,Students Unions, Lecturers of Universities and Community based organizations, the Clergy as well as women and youth development groups can apply to participate.
If more than 200 people apply (as we anticipate), a global selection committee will select a representative 200 from among the applicants.This committee will ensure that the participants at the meeting are truly international and represent a diverse range of interests,issues, and regions. The events will take place at Abba Queens Gate Hotel London.
I can't afford the cost - Can you help? Richard Dolls Foundation has set up an Access Fund to support the travel costs for all qualified participants. How do I apply, and when is the deadline? All Interested organizations should send an email to the Local Organizing Committee.Participants MUST be a group of 1-3 persons to qualify for registration.
Contact Person:
Rev.(Dr.) George Solomon
Email: richarddolls_foundation@hotmail.com
TEL: = +44-7024060920
Regards,
Local Organizing Committee
Richard Dolls Foundation
Up
Main Index
* 2009 Activities
| International Commercial Arbitration in the Americas: Procedural, Evidentiary, and Current Issues | |
Sincerely,
Horacio A. Grigera Naón
Director, International Commercial Arbitration Program
American University Washington College of Law
Washington, DC
2009 Activities
March 4, 2009:
International Commercial Arbitration in the Americas: Procedural, Evidentiary, and Current Issues
The conference is co-organized with the Inter-American Bar Association (IABA) in cooperation with the
International Centre for Dispute Resolution (ICDR) of the American Arbitration Association (AAA) and the Inter-American Commercial Arbitration Commission. Speakers include: Jay L. Alexander, Baker Botts, LLP; Luis Alfredo Araque, Araque Reyna Sosa Viso & Pittier; Carlos Bianchi, Arbitrator and Mediator; Daniel E. Gonzalez, Hogan & Hartson LLP; Raul E. Herrera, Arnold & Porter; Horacio Grigera Naón, International Arbitration Program, WCL; Lucinda A Low, Steptoe & Johnson; Luis Martinez, International Centre for Dispute Resolution, AAA; Marcelo Muriel, Mattos Muriel Kestener Advogados; Henry Saint Dahl, Inter-American Bar Association; Lorena Perez, International Arbitration Law Committee, IABA; and John H. Rooney, International Arbitration Law Committee, IABA and Shutts & Bowen LLP. This event is free and open to the public, however, registration is required. 3 CLE Credits will be applied. MORE
May 26 - June 11, 2009
International Arbitration Summer Session
Taught by leading practitioners and arbitrators from throughout the world, the International Arbitration Summer Session focuses on theoretical and practical aspects of international arbitration and provides insights on the practice of international arbitration and the handling of arbitration cases. 12 CLE credits per course (14 if NY)
Course offerings Include: Nuts and Bolts of International Commercial Arbitration; Investor-State Arbitration: Current Developments; International Arbitration and Choice-of-Law Issues; Advanced Seminar: Practical Skills and Cross-Examination in International Arbitration and Salient Issues in ICC Arbitration. A Spanish alternative to the Nuts and Bolts, Arbitraje Comercial Internacional will also be offered.
Faculty experts include: Jose Astigarraga, Astigarraga Davis; Jean Kalicki, Arnold & Porter LLP; Claudia Frutos-Peterson, ICSID; Ronald Goodman, Foley Hoag LLP; Loukas Mistelis, School of International Arbitration, Centre for Commercial Law Studies, Queen Mary, University of London; Eduardo Silva Romero, Dechert LLP; David Wagoner, International Arbitration Chambers; as well as a team of ICSID experts.
October 13-16, 2009
Sixth Annual Seminar on International Commercial Arbitration: How to Handle a BIT Arbitration
This four-day intensive seminar based on a mock arbitration case will provide critical skills and practical insight into handling BIT arbitration cases primarily under the auspices of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID).
Co-sponsored with the International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC); American Arbitration Association (AAA); and International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID). MORE
News from the Washington College of Law
Professor Robert K. Goldman Appointed to Leadership Roles at ICJ
The Washington College of Law is proud to announce that Professor Robert K. Goldman has been elected a commissioner on the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), a non-governmental organization headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland that is composed of up to 60 lawyers dedicated to ensuring respect for international human rights standards and the rule of law. Goldman was also elected to serve on the executive committee of the ICJ. MORE
WCL Students Head to Vienna for International Commercial Arbitration Competition
Washington College of Law students will travel to Vienna, Austria to participate in oral arguments in the 16th Annual Willem C. Vis International Commercial Arbitration Moot on April 3-9, 2009. Returning to coach the team are James Boykin and Jennifer Toole. This marks WCLs second year of participation in the event. WCL placed in the top 20% and J. Hess received third place for the Best Individual Oralist Award last year in WCLs inaugural run. The competition will bring together 233 teams of law students from all over the world to study and train in international commercial law and arbitration through advocacy on behalf of a client in an international business dispute. MORE on the competition.
Founders Celebration 2009 Kicks Off January 10
The Washington College of Law offers an exceptional and diverse array of conferences and lectures during our annual Founders' Celebration, January May 2009. In March, events include the 11th Annual Grotius Lecture ''Focusing on the Good or the Bad: What Can International Environmental Law Do To Accelerate the Transition to a Green Economy '' featuring Achim Steiner and the conference on ''Financial Regulation Looking Beyond the Financial Crisis.'' Visit the Founders web site for information on all programs and how to register and/or receive CLE credit.
Register for WCL's 2009 Summer Programs
The Washington College of Law's Summer Programs will feature opportunities for both law students and attorneys to focus on specialized are as of the law such as Human Rights, Health Law, International Arbitration, and Environmental Law while getting the chance to network with leaders in these growing fields. Participants can experience the best of the nation's capitol or an inspirational trip abroad, all while gaining critical skills and legal expertise from leading practitioners. Find out more at our Summer Programs web site.
Sign up now to receive WCL's monthly e-newsletter, @WCL
International Arbitration Program - 4801 Massachusetts Avenue, NW-Washington, DC 20016-8181 - 202-274-4321 - arbitration@wcl.american.edu
Unsubscribe mail@iranbar.org
Up
Main Index
* 2009 Summer Program on International Arbitration
Dear Friends and Colleagues,
Essential to success in international commercial arbitration is a sound understanding of arbitration fundamentals, an exposure to the complexities of the international arbitration practice, and access to a broad professional network.
Beginning Tuesday, May 26, American University Washington College of Law in Washington, DC, will provide practitioners and law students with these keys to advancement in international arbitration practice through the 2009 Specialized Summer Program on International Arbitration. The program includes course offerings on arbitration topics of significance across the globe, including fundaments in international commercial arbitration, investor-state arbitration, choice-of-law, cross-examination, the U.S. Federal Arbitration Act, and ICC arbitration.
I invite you to take note of our 2009 activities and encourage you to consider attending those applicable to your practice. CLE credit is available for all our events. For more information, please contact is at (202) 274-4321 or arbitration@wcl.american.edu.
Sincerely,
Horacio A. Grigera Naón
Director, International Commercial Arbitration Program
American University Washington College of Law
Washington, DC
2009 Activities
May 26 - June 11, 2009
International Arbitration Summer Session
Taught by leading practitioners and arbitrators, the International Arbitration Summer Session focuses on theoretical and practical aspects of international arbitration and provides insights on the practice of international arbitration and the handling of arbitration cases. Find out more about earning 12 CLE credits per course (14 if NY).
Course offerings Include: Nuts and Bolts of International Commercial Arbitration; Investor-State Arbitration: Current Developments; International Arbitration and Choice-of-Law Issues; Advanced Seminar: Practical Skills and Cross-Examination in International Arbitration and Salient Issues in ICC Arbitration. A Spanish alternative to the Nuts and Bolts, Arbitraje Comercial Internacional will also be offered.
All courses are taught by leading practitioners in the field, including: Stanimir Alexandrov, Sidley Austin LLP; Jose I. Astigarraga, Astigarraga Davis; Nigel Blackaby, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP; Janis Brennan, Foley Hoag LLP; Marinn Carlson, Sidley Austin LLP; Claudia Frutos-Peterson, Curtis Mallet-Prevost, LLP; International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID); Ronald Goodman, Foley Hoag LLP; Jennifer Haworth McCandless, Sidley Austin LLP; Suzana Medeiros Blades, Arnold and Porter LLP; James Mendenhall, Sidley Austin LLP; Jean Kalicki, Arnold & Porter LLP; Loukas Mistelis, School of International Arbitration, Centre for Commercial Law Studies, Queen Mary, University of London.; Eduardo Silva Romero, Dechert LLP; David Wagoner, International Arbitration Chambers; as well as a team of ICSID experts.
Monday, June 1, 2009, 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. and 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.
The U.S. Federal Arbitration Act in Practice: Overview, Selected Issues, and a Case Study
The seminar will cover the structure of the U.S. Federal Arbitration Act, how it works in practice, current ''hot topics'' in the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in the United States and will include a brief case study of the U.S. courts role in an international commercial arbitration dispute between U.S. and Latin American companies involving a commodities shipment from a third country. This new offering will be taught by Janis Brennan, Partner, Foley Hoag LLP. Find out more about earning 4 CLE credits.
Thursday, June 4, 2009, 5:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.
Cross-Examination in International Arbitration
Led by Jos I. Astigarraga, partner at Astigarraga Davis, this four-hour practical seminar will take up the art of cross-examination in international arbitration proceedings and cover cross-examination techniques, scope of cross-examination, the role of the tribunal in controlling cross-examination, cross-examination styles and dealing with advocates from different legal cultures. The seminar is geared towards domestic and foreign practitioners working in the area of international arbitration, corporate counsel, and arbitrators. Practicing lawyers involved in international trade and dispute resolution will also benefit from the training. Find out about earning 3.5 CLE credits.
October 13-16, 2009
Sixth Annual Seminar on International Commercial Arbitration: How to Handle a BIT Arbitration
This four-day intensive seminar based on a mock arbitration case will provide critical skills and practical insight into handling BIT arbitration cases primarily under the auspices of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID).
Faculty experts include: Henri Alvarez QC, Fasken Martineau DuMoulin; Sir Frank Berman, Essex Court Chambers; Nigel Blackaby, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer; Gabriel Bottini, Attorney General's Office; Claudia Frutos-Peterson, Curtis Mallet-Prevost, LLP; Jason Fry, International Chamber of Commerce, International Court of Arbitration (ICC); John Gardiner, Skadden Arps; Miriam Harwood, Curtis, Mallet-Prevost LLP; Ahmed Sadek EL-Kosheri, Kosheri, Rashed & Riad; Luis Martinez, International Centre for Dispute Resolution (ICDR); Andrea Menaker, White & Case; James Mendenhall, Sidley Austin LLP; Betty Southard Murphy, Baker & Hostetler, LLP; Lluis Paradell, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer; Antonio Parra, International Council for Commercial Arbitration; Paul S. Reichler, Foley Hoag LLP; Brigitte Stern, Professor Paris I; Margrete Stevens, King & Spalding LLP; Andres Rigo Sureda, International Arbitrator; Nassib Ziad, ICSID.
Co-sponsored with the International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC); American Arbitration Association (AAA); and International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID).
November, 5 2009, 5:30pm
Fourth Annual Lecture on International Commercial Arbitration
The annual lecture was developed to offer an eminent figure in international arbitration a platform on which to share his or her ideas on novel issues and current trends in international arbitration with practitioners in an academic forum. This year, Mr. Jan Paulsson, principal consultant and co-head of the international arbitration and public international law groups at Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, will deliver the lecture on a current topic in the international commercial arbitration field. Find out more about the Annual Lecture.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
News from the Washington College of Law
WCL Students Compete in International Commercial Arbitration Competition in Vienna
Washington College of Law students traveled to Vienna, Austria to participate in oral arguments in the 16th Annual Willem C. Vis International Commercial Arbitration Moot in April 2009. The competition brought together 233 teams of law students from all over the world to study and train in international commercial law and arbitration through advocacy on behalf of a client in an international business dispute. This marked WCL's second year of participation in the event. The team continued its successes from the previous year with an Honorable Mention for Best Claimant's Brief. Find out more about the competition.
WCL Adjunct Joins Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle LLP
The International Arbitration Program is pleased to announce adjunct professor Claudia Frutos-Peterson, formerly Counsel at the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), has joined the international arbitration group of Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle, LLP as a consultant in the Washington, DC office. Professor Frutos-Peterson will continue to teach International Commercial Arbitration in the Fall and Spring as well as the Spanish course Arbitraje Comercial Internacional during the program's summer session.
Register for WCL's 2009 Specialized Summer Programs
As it does every summer, WCL will feature opportunities for both law students and attorneys to focus on specialized areas of the law such as Human Rights, Health Law, International Arbitration, and Environmental Law while gaining critical skills and legal expertise from leading practitioners. Find out more about our Specialized Summer Programs.
**Sign up now to receive WCL's monthly e-newsletter, @WCL
International Arbitration Program - 4801 Massachusetts Avenue, NW-Washington, DC 20016-8181 - 202-274-4321 - arbitration@wcl.american.edu
Unsubscribe mail@iranbar.org
Up
Main Index
* IBAHRI alarmed at recent changes to Iranian legislation curtailing the independence of bar associations
| 20/07/2009 |  |
The International Bar Associations Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI) is alarmed by the recent amendment to the Law on the Independence of the Iranian Bar Association that effectively brings bar associations in Iran under the control of the Judiciary.
The IBAHRI received reports that the new legislation severely curtails the independence of bar associations in Iran by establishing a new commission that will be controlled by the Judiciary. This new commission will have the power to determine competence and qualifications of new lawyers and lawyers who wish to serve on the board of directors of bar associations, to administer bar exams and to grant licences to lawyers.
Bar associations in Iran met and issued a resolution condemning the amendment, arguing that it violates the Law on the Independence of the Iranian Bar Association by eliminating the guarantees of independence in the law as previously drafted.
The IBAHRI joins the bar associations in Iran in objecting to the amendment as totally compromising independence of bar associations in Iran.
Martin Solc, Co-Chair of the IBAHRI said, This amendment is a violation of the United Nations Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers by fundamentally disregarding the imperative to have an independent legal profession and by subjecting Iranian lawyers to ultimate control of the Judiciary. Moreover, we are deeply concerned that this amendment gives the Judiciary control over the leadership and management of bar associations, eliminating any self-governance or independence.
This amendment eviscerates the independence of bar associations in Iran, compromising their ability to represent their clients and silencing any opportunity to be critical of the government, said Justice Richard Goldstone, IBAHRI. Co-Chair, Lawyers cannot adequately and properly perform their duties whilst subject to governmental controls over their qualifications and ability to practice.
ENDS
For further information please contact:
Romana St. Matthew - Daniel
International Bar Association
Press Office
10th Floor
1 Stephen Street
London W1T 1AT
United Kingdom
Direct Line: +44 (0)20 7691 6837
Main Office: +44 (0)20 7691 6868
Mobile: +44 (0)7940 731915
Fax: +44 (0)20 7691 6544
E-mail: romana.daniel@int-bar.org
Website: www.ibanet.org
Related Taxonomy
Bar Associations
IBA Human Rights Institute
Up
Main Index
* IBAHRI concerned at lack of legality of mass trials in Iran
| 18/08/2009 | |
The IBAHRI is concerned by reports that lawyers representing defendants have been denied access to their clients, to prosecution case documents and to knowledge of the dates of trials, as well as to the courtrooms where trials are being held. In addition, the IBAHRI has received reports that lawyers who speak out against the trials are likely to face prosecution themselves.
Martin Solc, Co-Chair of the IBAHRI, said: These trials are a direct violation of both Irans international obligations as well as its own constitution. They fail to meet any minimum fair trial standards. Lawyers must be able to defend their clients free from persecution or fear of prosecution. It is imperative for lawyers to have full access to their clients, full access to case materials and the right to represent their client at trial.
Any trials that take place in Iran must ensure defendants are guaranteed their fundamental rights as enshrined in the Iranian Constitution and in international law, said Justice Richard Goldstone, Co-Chair of the IBAHRI. The IBAHRI urges the Iranian authorities to put an end to the trials and release those who have been imprisoned arbitrarily without charge of a specific criminal offence.
ENDS
Up
Main Index
* International Conference on Competition Law
Iranian Bar Association
No.3 Zagros Street
Argentine Square
Tehran15149, Iran
International Conference on Competition Law
6 -7 November 2009, Hotel Meridien, New Delhi, India
Dear Sir
I have pleasure in inviting you to address & participate the first ever International Conference on Competition Law in New Delhi on 6-7 November 2009. The Conference is being held by the International Academy of Law in association with UKs World Council for Corporate Governance and Indias Institute of Directors.
The theme of the conference is Competition Law An Effective Tool for Making Markets Work for Inclusive Growth. Details are on the website of www.wcfcg.net.
Competition law is the fastest growing area of economic laws in the emerging economies. 108 countries have already adopted it. India got a new competition law in January 2003 in the form of the Competition Act, 2002. The Competition Commission of India has come into effect from 20 May 2009 for the enforcement of the provisions against anti-competitive agreements and abuse of dominance.
The conference will be attended by Indian and International companies, Law firms, Chambers and Industry associations, Academics and students of competition Law, Competition authorities, appellate authorities, other regulatory, enforcement bodies and judiciary. The conference, therefore, offers a huge opportunity for sharing state of the art information on the development and practice of competition law worldwide as also networking with the experts and movers and shakers in the world of Competition Law.
An outline programme of the conference is enclosed. It gives an idea of the topics to be covered but is not exhaustive and your suggestions would be welcome. Should you wish to present a paper we would request you to send us an abstract of 100 words with a CV and photographs as soon as possible. The deadline for submission of abstracts is 31 August 2009.
All papers presented at the conference will be published in advance and made available to participants. Therefore, the deadline for submission of papers for those wishing to have their papers included in the proceedings is 30 September 2009. Paper submission guidelines are available on website www.wcfcg.net.
Should you need any further information, please do not hesitate to contact at sushil@iodonline.com
I look forward to welcoming you at the conference.
Yours sincerely
P N Bhagwati
Chairman, International Academy of Law
Former Chief Justice of India
Member, UN Human Rights Committee
M-64, Greater Kailash, Part-II
New Delhi 110048,
India
Tel:- +91 11 41638719, Fax:- +91 11 29217475
Email:- sushil@iodonline.com
Web:- www.wcfcg.net, www.iodonline.com, www.goldenpeacockawards.com
Up
Main Index
* Lord Bingham addresses the Rule of Law Symposium
| The IBA Annual Conference, 9 October 2009 | |
Introduction by Francis Neate, Co-Chair, IBA Rule of Law Action Group
Our first speaker after the break is Lord Bingham, just retired as the Senior Member of the House of Lords, thats the top judicial position in England. I was rather glad to read in the daily conference news two days ago, when he was interviewed, that he started thinking about the rule of law, according to the interview, he started thinking about it in 2006. That pleased me because I started thinking about it in 2005. So I was quite pleased about that. On the other hand having read what hes written so far about it, hes undoubtedly thought about it a lot more deeply and a lot more efficiently than I have so far. And its a great honour for us to have him here today and I hope that hes going to tell us what, in his view, the rule of law actually consists of. This is a problem that Im trying to get the Association as a whole to wrestle with. It seems to me that weve got to the stage where saying were all in favour of the rule of law is not quite enough. We ought to be working out together what that actually means and there must be characteristics of the rule of the law that we can all agree and adhere to. And that is a task that I think is eminently suitable for the IBA. So without more ado, Lord Bingham.
Lord Bingham
Thank you very much Francis and thank you ladies and gentlemen for giving me the great privilege of addressing this conference. I hope youll forgive me if my approach to the subject is rather oblique. But I thought you would all get bored to tears if I simply repeated the lecture thats in the book.
In 1772 a question arose before the highest court in Scotland on a technical question of Scots law. James Boswell, the famous biographer of Doctor Johnson, who was an advocate at the Scots Bar, consulted Johnson on this point. Johnson was not a lawyer but a great sage and a man with a fascination for the law. And the question that concerned them was whether the highest court in Scotland, the Court of Session, had been so flexible in its approach to the particular point at issue as to leave the law on the subject completely uncertain. Because nobody knew what they would decide next time. So Boswell asked Johnson for his opinion and Johnson, although not, as I say, a lawyer, dictated an opinion, which contained a couple of paragraphs that I hope youll bear with me if I read; theyre rather long.
What Johnson said was this: the advantage which humanity derives from the law is this. That the law gives every man a rule of action and prescribes a mode of conduct, which will entitle him to the support, and protection of society. That law may be a rule of action it is necessary that it be known. It is necessary that it be permanent, and stable. The law is the measure of civil right, but if the measure be changeable the extent of thing measured never can be settled. To permit a law to be modified at discretion is to leave the community without law. It is to withdraw the direction of the public wisdom by which the deficiencies of private understanding are to be supplied. It is to suffer the rash and ignorant to act at discretion and then to depend for the legality of that action on the sentence of the judge. He that is thus governed lives not by law but by opinion; not by a certain rule to which he can apply his intention before he acts. But by an uncertain and variable opinion, which he can never know, but after he has committed the act on which that opinion shall be passed. He lives by a law, if a law it be, which he can never know before he has offended it. To this case may be justly applied that important principle misera est servitus ubi jus est aut incognitum aut vagum. A society in which rights are unknown or doubtful is no better than slavery.
Its a matter of record that Boswell was so impressed by this opinion of Johnsons that he included it in his written submission to the Court of Session who, in their turn, detected that what they described as more than an ordinary hand had contributed. And one of the judges, not being particularly polite to his colleagues, said that to submit an opinion of this quality was to cast pearls before swine. Now Johnson was not of course propounding a theory of the rule of law. It was a concept that had yet to be articulated; and I dont suggest for a moment that these remarks of his cover the whole field of what we would now consider to be covered by the rule of law. But I do suggest that in this passage that Ive read, there are three insights that are fundamental and deserve further thought.
The first is, and he puts this as youve heard quite expressly, the law exists for our protection and support. Now one may say that is completely obvious, why does anybody need to point it out. But I think to most people in most countries the reaction is to regard the law as a negative thing; a body of rules that stops us doing what we might want to do and puts it us at some sort of disadvantage. And it is of course true that the law forbids us doing certain things on pain of criminal penalty. It obliges us to part with some of our hard won income by way of tax; it stops us building what we want where we want; etc, etc. And we accept this because we dont want crimes committed against us. We recognise that the cost of financing the state needs to be shared and therefore should fall on almost everybody. And we derive the benefit that other people dont spoil our amenity and our view by building ugly buildings that we have to look out on.
But the much more important aspect I suggest is this: that laws wisely made and effectively enforced are safeguards of the rights and freedoms that are most precious to all of us. Ones mind immediately goes for example to the right not to have our lives unlawfully taken away; the right not to be subjected to torture or brutal treatment; the right to protection of our personal liberty save in very limited and defined circumstances. The right to a fair trial, with all that that implies in terms of a defendants right to know the case against him; a defendants right to an opportunity to prepare his defence if necessary with professional help. A defendants right to challenge the case and the witnesses against him; a defendants right to have the cause determined by an independent and impartial tribunal.
In the early 21st century we might say well for goodness sake, rights of this kind have a very long history; surely we can take them for granted. Surely the assertion of rights such as these can be of antiquarian interest only. But our recent history does remind us, in a very stark way, of how misplaced such a complacent view would be. We think of disappearances in black sites and secret prisons round the world. We think of the tolerance of torture and ill treatment even in countries where such conduct has long been abhorred. We think of arbitrary, unexplained, indefinite and unchallengeable deprivations of liberty. We think of curtailment of or abrogation of fair trial safeguards in the name of national security.
And there are I would suggest two lessons in particular that recent history brings home to us. The first is that we cannot rely on public opinion as an adequate safeguard of fundamental human rights, because experience shows that public opinion is easily recruited in favour of repressive measures and the dilution of legal protections. And the beguiling assurance is always given, youve nothing to fear if youre doing nothing wrong. And so the law-abiding majority acquiesces in abrogation of human rights in the belief that it will only affect other people and they deserve it anyway.
And the second lesson as I would suggest is this: that we cannot rely on parliamentary opinion as a safeguard of fundamental human rights either, because in times of fear and threat and public anxiety there are no votes in moderation, or very few. And the understandable temptation for political leaders is to respond to the public and media clamour in favour of tougher measures to prevent what is seen as the threat.
Johnsons perception is surely correct. Those who are not shown to have acted unlawfully are entitled to the support and protection of society; his expression. We would wish I think to add a coda to that and say, well, even if people have broken the law, that doesnt render them outlaws; they have rights too. And that is a view that although he didnt express it, Johnson himself would undoubtedly have endorsed.
I turn then to what I suggest is Johnsons second insight in the passage that I quoted: that the laws by which we are governed should be known or, one would add, at least knowable. The rule of law clearly requires that we obey the law; to do that we must know what the law is or at any rate, be able to find out what it is without undue difficulty and expense. There should be no problem of course; laws are made and proclaimed publicly. Theyre not or shouldnt be secreted in some bureaucratic pigeonhole. And so one may say that this again is a self-evident truth, and of course its true that in almost all countries there is a parliamentary assembly, however named, which is the main law-making authority. And so one may say no problem here.
But the reality, I suggest, is somewhat different in many countries and I can take my own, the United Kingdom, as an example. The sheer volume of laws churned out in statutes and ministerial orders makes it very, very difficult and sometimes almost impossible to find out what the law actually is. With 5,000 to 6,000 pages of primary legislation and about double that in statutory instruments made under the authority of statute.
And perhaps youll permit me to tell a story, which is very recent and nothing to be proud of, but it is alas true. A defendant was accused of smuggling tobacco into the United Kingdom. He pleaded guilty and a non-custodial penalty was imposed upon him. But the prosecution applied, as they were entitled to do, for a confiscation order to confiscate a sum of money equivalent to the benefit that he was said to have derived from his smuggling. And their entitlement to this order depended on his having evaded duty, customs duty, which he was legally liable to pay. HE resisted the making of a confiscation order; prosecutor was present at the trial; defence counsel was present at the trial. And there was full argument as to whether the judge should make the order or not. But the judge concluded that it was proper to make an order under the relevant statutory instrument. And he made an order confiscating the sum of 66,000 from the defendant; thats quite a significant sum even in euros.
The defendant appealed against the making of the confiscation order to the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal. Prosecution again represented; defence represented by counsel; full argument before the Court, which reserved its decision. On mature reflection it decided to uphold the order and it prepared a judgment dismissing the appeal. In accordance with the ordinary practice, the judgment in draft was circulated to the parties before formal delivery. And by pure chance the draft of the judgment happened to cross the desk of someone in the Customs and Excise who knew that the regulation under which this order had been made had been revoked seven years earlier.
Now this was brought to the attention of the Court of Appeal. There was a further hearing and the appeal was allowed. Now as you will Im sure gather, the revocation of the order was not known to the trial judge, nor was it known to counsel on either side that appeared before him. It wasnt known to the judges of the Court of Appeal or to again counsel on either side. But this was not the result of any careless oversight or omission on the part of the judges or counsel. The truth was that there was no database, no search engine, no textbook, no publication in which this fact could have been elicited.
Now that is I think a very clear example of violation of Johnsons rule. But I dont point the finger of accusation at legislators or ministers or officials alone. Because my own view is, and I think this is a much greater problem in common law countries than civil law countries. My own view is that judicial decisions can have the effect of obfuscating the law because of their length and because of their prolixity. And I think they not infrequently make the task of discovering what the law is much harder. Again I can give you an example, although its a rather shorter one.
There is one point of principle, quite an important point of principle, which has been before the House of Lords on three different occasions. I just interpolate that its not as Francis said, the highest court in England; its the highest court in the United Kingdom. That is just a tease really. But this point has been before the House of Lords on three different occasions; its given rise to 15 reasoned opinions running to many hundreds of paragraphs, and some hundreds of pages of law reports. And I dont believe that anybody with their hand on their heart or their mind addressed to the problem could say that at the end of this huge outpouring of talent, the law was at all clear. Or for that matter, finally settled.
It is surely necessary, as Johnson said, that the law should ordinarily be predictable; you should know with reasonable clarity in advance what it is that you must or more particularly must not, do. Otherwise youre reduced to what Jeremy Bentham called dog law. When your dog, he said, does anything you want to break him of, you wait until he does it and then beat him for it. But Johnson was right: that law may be a rule of action it is necessary that be known.
Johnsons third insight, derived from the passage that I read, I suggest is this: that legal rights and liabilities, criminal or civil, should ordinarily be governed by laws publicly made and publicly promulgated. And not by the exercise of an undirected discretion, whether it be that of a minister or an official or a judge. Thus whether I have committed an offence should depend on the application of a law that defines clearly and sufficiently comprehensively what conduct is criminal and what is not. There should be no room for any discretionary judgment by a prosecutor or a judge. It shouldnt be open to them, let alone a policeman or a security service agent, to decide that my conduct is reprehensible and deserves punishment, unless the law so provides. Similarly whether I am entitled to a state benefit for example depends on the law and not on the decision of a relevant official.
The reason, of course, is that an undirected discretion opens the door to arbitrariness, which is anathema to the rule of law. It also opens the door to inequality of treatment. One person could be prosecuted or denied a benefit because they were a member of a disfavoured minority subject to discrimination on grounds of race or colour or political opinion or religion or gender or sexual propensity or status as an alien or whatever it may happen to be. Another person escapes prosecution or is granted the benefit because theyre a member of the dominant, favoured majority. Any inequality of treatment of that kind has similarly to be regarded as anathema to the rule of law.
Of course the rule of law, as I would suggest, does not require that the law should be applied with unwavering inflexibility. Nor would I share Johnsons view that it should be permanent, because I think and most of us would think that its very important that the law should develop slowly, to keep in touch with the times. And there are exceptional situations, which can arise in which some relaxation of strict rules is not only appropriate but highly desirable. An example that springs to my mind is the case of an immigrant, seeking entry to the country, who can show overwhelming, compassionate for admission, but cant satisfy the strict letter of the immigration rules. I would think it unfortunate if in such a situation the authorities had no scope to make a discretionary decision.
What matters surely is that the scope of the discretion should be understood and defined so that like cases are broadly treated alike. And this again is a rule as I think Johnson very, very neatly expressed in the passage that I read when he said: to permit a law to be modified at discretion is to leave the community without law. It is to withdraw the direction of that public wisdom by which the deficiencies of private understanding are to be supplied.
Now I said earlier that Johnson was not attempting to give a comprehensive analysis of what we would now think of as the rule of law; it would have been expecting a great deal of him. And I would just mention without even myself attempting to be comprehensive that there are two aspects that I regard as vital, which Johnson didnt touch on.
The first is the principle that all should be bound by and entitled to the benefit of the law of the land, whether theyre private citizens or ministers or officials or prime ministers or presidents or police officers or soldiers or whatever. At the heart of the rule of law surely is the principle that the law binds everyone including the powerful and the mighty. And I would add particularly the powerful and the mighty. So the rule of law operates as a constraint on the exercise of public power and gives effect to the principle enunciated by a curious man called Dr Thomas Fuller in 1733: be you never so high, the law is above you.
And the second insight that I suggest Johnson didnt touch on but which we would wish to include in any short list of principles is that the rule of law applies on the international as well as on a national plane. Of course its accepted that its the duty of private citizens or public officials to comply with the law of the land, subject to legal sanction. If they transgress thats something wed most of us accept. But it is equally the duty of public officials and governments to ensure that the state complies with its obligations in international law, whether theyre obligations deriving from treaties or conventions, of which there are now dozens and dozens. It is the duty of any state party to comply. Whether it be international or customary law it is again the duty of the state to comply.
Whether it be the obligations of the United Nations Charter it is the obligation of the state to comply. And we have regrettably seen, Ive touched on this before, the fruits of non-compliance in extraordinary rendition, in resort to torture at Guantanamo, in neglect of the Geneva Conventions as they apply to combatants and civilian populations. And in the resort to force without, as I would suggest but I know this is highly controversial, the authority of the United Nations. We have lived recently in times when a feeling of insecurity has been abroad in the land, where in many countries, not least that in which we are, the population has been subjected not only to threats but to appalling violence. We have had to live through times in which fear, in the old phrase, has stalked the land. But it is, I suggest, in times like these, that the Rule of Law becomes not just important, but fundamental. We live in a world divided by race, language, wealth, religion, political opinion, and so on, but the core principles of the Rule of Law unite more of us, probably, than any other single set of principles. Its the nearest, I suggest, we can get to a universal secular opinion than religion. And its something of which I think we, as lawyers, are entitled to regard with pride, because it means that our vocation is not just a way of earning a living, although of course, it is that, and often a rather good living. But it does actually mean that we are by maintaining and fighting for the Rule of the Law, contributing to the peace and civilisation of the world. Thank you.
Up
Main Index
2003 Iranian Bar Associations Union
No. 3, Zagros St., Argentina Sq., Tehran, Iran
Phone: +98 21 8887167-9 Fax: +98 21 8771340
Site was technically designed & developed by Nima Norouzi