AALL 2015 Recap: FCIL-SIS Spirit Award Winners

By: Teresa Miguel-Stearns

The Spirit of the FCIL-SIS Award is presented each year to members whose work furthers our mission, serves the entire FCIL-SIS, and inspires other to act. This year, three colleagues were awarded the Spirit of the FCIL-SIS.

Susan

Susan Gualtier – Susan is the Foreign, Comparative, and International Law Librarian at Louisiana State University and has been an active member of the FCIL-SIS since she began her work as an FCIL librarian four years ago.  She has been instrumental in getting DipLawMatic Dialogues up and running, and has tirelessly pursued contributions to the blog along with co-editor, Loren Turner. She has initiated new features of the blog including FCIL Research Instruction and film reviews.  She also is excellent about publicizing the blog both via the listserv and via Facebook, thereby greatly helping improve FCIL-SIS’s presence in high traffic social media venues. She is the new Co-Chair of the Publicity Committee (with Loren Turner) and is a founding member and Chair of the Customary and Religious Law Interest Group (CARLIG).

JootJuiceaek Lee – Jootaek is a Senior Law Librarian and Research Librarian for Foreign, Comparative & International Law at Northeastern University Law Library. Jootaek has served as Chair of the Nominating Committee; he contributed to the Mexican Law and Legal Research Guide; he has presented numerous times at AALL including as a panelist on Land Grabbing: Accessing Information to Protect Property Rights of Indigenous People and at the Diversity Symposium in 2014, and on Korean Legal Research in 2013. Jootaek is always cheerfully willing to take on any task that is asked of him and exemplifies the true spirit of our organization.

PolicastriJoan Policastri – Joan is the Collection Services and Research Library at the William A. Wise Law Library at the University of Colorado School of Law. She has worked in the area of Indigenous Peoples Law for many years and is the Chair of the Indigenous Peoples Law Interest Group.  At virtually every AALL conference, you will find Joan participating in a panel (such as Land Grabbing: Accessing Information to Protect Property Rights of Indigenous People in 2014 or delivering a research guide or bibliography related to Indigenous Peoples. She also volunteers to lead activities (such as the Jurisdictions Joint Meeting) and interest groups without fail.

AALL 2015 Recap: Customary and Religious Law Interest Group Meeting

By Susan Gualtier

Front page of CARLIG flyer distributed at FCIL-SIS Exhibit Hall table.

Front page of informational flyer distributed at the FCIL-SIS Exhibit Hall table.

The Customary and Religious Law Interest Group (CARLIG) met on July 19 at 11:30 as part of the FCIL-SIS Jurisdictions Interest Groups Joint Meeting. The group briefly discussed the year’s progress, which included acquiring approximately 35 members in My Communities, developing several programming proposals for the 2015 conference, and publishing an article in AALL Spectrum describing the group’s formation, purpose, and goals. The majority of the discussion then focused on 1) improving communication with the group’s membership in order to generate better response to the My Communities posts; 2) increasing the number of blogging and book review opportunities on customary and religious law topics and soliciting participation by the group’s members; and 3) developing and prioritizing additional projects for the coming year.

CARLIG intends to continue proposing conference programming, and brainstormed a few ideas for the 2016 conference. The group discussed the possibility of putting together a panel of librarians and researchers who are currently working on comprehensive online portals or printed bibliographies of religious law resources. Kelly Buchanan, of the Library of Congress, also shared some preliminary information relating to an Islamic law program to be held at the Library of Congress in December. The group discussed potential opportunities for collaboration between CARLIG and the Library of Congress staff, which has been working on increasing the number of available customary law and religious law resources.

In addition to planning substantive programming, the group decided that CARLIG’s primary focus over the upcoming year should be to create teaching/research toolkits for customary law and for each of the major religious law systems. The purpose of these toolkits will be to encourage more librarians to incorporate customary and religious law research into their FCIL research classes or their presentations in substantive law classes. CARLIG will also work on some of the ideas proposed at the 2014 conference, including creating bibliographies of core resources for use in collection development, and identifying the major library collections in customary law and in each of the major religious law systems.

AALL 2015 Recap: Chinese Legal Information: Availability, Accessibility and Quality Control

By Alex Zhang and Anne Mostad-Jensen

NewAALLClogoSmallHave you ever been tasked with finding an English translation of a recently enacted ordinance in Hong Kong when all of your colleagues in the Hong Kong office on the other side of the world are asleep in their beds? Have you been asked to help a member of the law journal reverse engineer and decipher an esoteric citation to a Chinese regulation that has been translated into English? Have you ever been asked by your favorite law professor to figure out whether the State Council of the People’s Republic of China has translated its open government information regulation into English?

The Asian American Law Librarians Caucus (AALLC) program on Chinese legal information, held on Monday, July 20 from 4:30pm to 5:30pm, was designed to help you to handle these problems and others like them that you may have already encountered or will likely encounter in the future. Alex Zhang, from the University of Michigan Law Library, and Anne Mostad-Jensen, from the University of North Dakota Law Library, explored some of the most practical yet important issues related to English translations of Chinese primary legal materials, such as availability, accessibility and quality control.

Before using any English translation of primary legal materials of any jurisdiction, it is important to understand and fully appreciate the characteristics of the legal system and infrastructure. The Chinese legal system is a mixed legal system composed of the socialist civil law system of Mainland China, the common law system of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR), and the civil law system of Macao Special Administrative Region (Macao SAR). Each section has its own official language that directly impacts the authority and availability of English translations of primary legal materials. For example, in Mainland China, the official language is Mandarin Chinese nationwide. As a result, English translations, regardless of its issuing organ, are only for informational purposes. On the other hand, English and Chinese are both official languages of HKSAR and therefore, English and Chinese versions of primary legal materials issued by the official governmental entity are considered equally authoritative. Macao SAR is unique in the sense that Chinese and Portuguese are both considered as official languages. Consequently, English translations are of informational purposes only.

The different legal systems and framework also impact the availability and accessibility of English translations of primary legal materials in all three jurisdictions. With English as one of the official languages, English versions of primary legal materials of Hong Kong SAR are the most accessible among the three jurisdictions. Legislation in both English and Chinese is available through HKSAR Department of Justice Bilingual Laws Information System. The website also provides glossaries of legal terms prepared by the Law Drafting Division of the Department of Justice. Similarly, Hong Kong Judiciary’s Legal Reference System provides the full text of court decisions in English.[1]

The PRC government is making progress toward making its laws available in English. Both the National People’s Congress and the State Council have been publishing English translations of selective laws and regulations since the late 1970s. Furthermore, both branches have made laws and regulations in English available online. For example, the National People’s Congress launched the online database Laws and Regulations in English in 2006. Its Chinese Law database also provides English translations of certain laws and regulations when available. Commercial vendors, such as Chinalawinfo, Westlaw China and Lexis China all provide extensive English translations of primary legal materials from Mainland China.

Users may have the least luck when it comes to finding English translations of Macao laws and regulations. Both Chinese and Portuguese versions of the laws and regulations of Macao are readily available at the Macao SAR Legislative Assembly website, but English versions are not included on the website. The Government Printing Bureau of Macao does make English translations of certain major codes available at its official website, including both the Commercial Code and the Industrial Property Code.

On the other hand, making translations available does not necessarily indicate the quality of the translations. Translation is hard. Legal translation is even harder. Deborah Cao claims “the sources of legal translation difficulty include the systematic differences in law, linguistic differences and cultural differences.”[2] Olga Burukina argues that legal translators are constantly challenged with “time and quality issues as well as a number of contradictions” related to time, systems, terminology, meaning, etc.[3]

Relying on a misleading translation is worse than not relying on a translation at all. Therefore, both presenters spent time discussing issues and concerns with the quality of the currently available English translations of all three jurisdictions. The presenters provided concrete examples of some of the major concerns, such as inconsistency, lack of officially issued bilingual legal terminologies for Mainland China and Macao SAR, and omissions and additions of words from the version in the source language. At the end of the presentation, presenters also shared tips and strategies for using English translations of Chinese primary legal materials with the audience. If you would like to receive a copy of the presentation materials by email, please feel free to contact Alex Zhang (zxm@umich.edu) or Anne Mostad-Jensen (anne.mostadjensen@law.und.edu).

[1] HKSAR judicial decisions are issued either in Chinese or in English, with a majority of cases still issued in English. Judicial decisions of jurisprudential value originally issued in Chinese are translated and made available in English as well. See http://legalref.judiciary.gov.hk/lrs/common/ju/tjpv.jsp.

[2] Deborah Cao, Translating Law 23 (Multilingual Matters, 2007).

[3] Olga Burukina, The Legal Translator’s Competence, 5 Contemporary Readings in Law and Social Justice 809, 810–812 (2013).

AALL 2015 Recap: “International Attorneys and LL.M. Students: Filling Research Gaps”

By Alexis Fetzer

scalesThe late Sunday afternoon session entitled “International Attorneys and LL.M. Students: Filling Research Gaps” targeted librarians working with international students in an instructional setting. Each speaker presented on his or her experience working with foreign LL.M. students.

The first of the three speakers was Jinwei Zhang, Reference and Instructional Technologies Librarian at the University of Tennessee School of Law. Ms. Zhang had a unique experience in that she had been a foreign LL.M. student herself. She began by discussing some of the unique challenges instructors face in teaching these students, such as language barriers, cultural differences, and introducing a new legal system. One cultural difference that Zhang emphasized was a reluctance to ask questions in class. Many of these students are coming from learning environments in which they are not encouraged to interrupt a lecturer with comments or questions. It is important to be patient and encouraging of these students in order to get them to open up in class. One suggestion offered was instituting more one on one meetings with students in order to get them comfortable talking to instructors and to answer any questions that they are too uncomfortable to pose before an entire class.

Nina Scholtz, Head of Reference Services & Instruction Coordinator at Cornell University Law School, was the second of three speakers. Ms. Scholtz spoke on her experience as an academic law librarian instructing LL.M. students in legal research in their Principles of American Legal Writing course. In this course she instructs students in four class sessions and then works with students individually on their research for writing projects.

One challenge she highlighted was the difficulty in overcoming language barriers for legal citation abbreviations. It is important for instructors to keep in mind that what appears to make sense in the English speaker’s mind as an abbreviation for a court or publication may not always translate clearly to the foreign student. An instructor should look for ways to make this easier for students to understand and should be able to point to resources that can assist students in abbreviating or deciphering abbreviations of citations.

Scholtz shared one of the exercises she performed with her students, entitled “Thinking like a Common Law Lawyer.” This exercise focuses on the factual analysis that needs to take place before students can begin tackling legal research. Students are tasked with finding the basis of the case, generating search terms, and looking to other synonyms and antonyms of those terms. After the class performs this exercise together as a whole, students are broken up into smaller groups and given the same type of assignment with a different fact pattern.

The final speaker was Furman Scott DeMaris, Research Services Librarian at Reed Smith LLP, who spoke of his experience as a firm librarian when Reed Smith took on several Chinese LL.M. students as apart of work-study program with Temple University School of Law. One thing the firm did was to offer research refreshers and training for these students. Mr. Demaris found that it was important to let these students know that the librarians were there to assist them, because otherwise they might not have identified the librarians as a resource. Research guides were also offered to students on topics such as how to avoid research pitfalls and how to perform cost effective research. One challenge in hosting these LL.M. students was that, because they were guests rather than employees, they could not be given access to all of the firm’s resources. At the end of their time with Reed Smith, the students were asked to give a presentation on Chinese Law. This was a great way take advantage of the special knowledge of these foreign educated attorneys and to educate the firm’s attorneys on a foreign legal system.

After the final speaker, attendees were asked to discuss amongst members seated at their table the challenges in training foreign attorneys in an LL.M. instructional program or similar setting. The microphone was then opened for attendees to share and for the speakers to answer any questions.

AALL 2015 Recap: European Union Information Workshop

By Alyson Drake

EU InfoI was lucky enough to attend AALL 2015’s preconference workshop on EU Information, along with the rest of a sold out crowd. Our speaker was Ian Thomson, who serves as both the Director of the European Documentation Centre at Cardiff University and the Executive Editor of European Sources Online. While not a complete EU novice, I learned about a host of new (to me) resources beyond EUR-Lex that will be a huge aid next time I teach our International and Foreign Legal Research course or have patrons come with EU questions.

Rather than give a summary of the topics discussed, I thought I would highlight ten resources I didn’t previously know about that will be helpful to those out there researching European Union-related issues.

1.  ECLAS (European Commission Libraries Catalogue)

ECLAS is a major bibliographic index to help researchers find EU publications, treatises, journal articles and more on topics of interest to the EU. ECLAS provides hyperlinks to full text if freely available.

ECLAS

2.  Registers of Documents

The Registers of Documents from European Union institutions are a fantastic research tool for finding unpublished EU information not available in other EU-focused search engines and databases. Each of the registers includes documents relating to its activities, as well as official documents sent to it by other institutions and EU member states. The three main bodies of the EU, the European Parliament, the European Commission, and the Council of the European Union each have their own register.

3.  European eJustice Portal

Use European eJustice Portal to find links to information aimed at many different audiences (citizens, businesses, legal practitioners, and judges). Among other resources, researchers can find EU member state legislation and case law, as well as information on the legal processes in each EU member country.

ejustice4.  European External Action Service

Use the EEAS to find summaries of and information on the European Union’s relations with every country.

5.  IATE: Interactive Terminology for Europe database

IATE is the official database for interpreters of the EU. Researchers can enter an important term for their research and find the translation in over 20 languages.

iate6.  European Parliamentary Research Service

The EPRS, the European Parliament’s internal research department, provides the European Parliament with analysis and research on policy issues important to the European Union, in the form of briefings on current topics.

7.  IPEX (InterParliamentary EU Information Exchange)

IPEX provides access to reports from national parliaments concerning EU legislative proposals and initiatives.

8.  Dec.Nat—National Decisions

Dec.Nat helps researchers find court decisions from the national courts of member states concerning issues related to EU law.

9.  Euro|topics

Euro|topics translates articles from EU member country sources from their original language into German, English, and French. It provides an interesting way to get into the mindsets of media in other countries. Their “Main Focus” section gives articles on one hot topic of the day and then provides a list other news items of note.

eurotopics10.  Europe on the Internet

For more help finding useful websites and databases for information on the European Union, see Thomson’s own Europe on the Internet. It’s incredibly comprehensive and covers a great deal of what attendees were shown at the workshop.

Book Review: Emerging Challenges in Privacy Law, Comparative Perspectives

By Christina GlonEmerging Challenges - cover page

Emerging Challenges in Privacy Law, Comparative Perspectives (Norman Witzleb, et al., eds, Cambridge University Press 2014). 477p. incl. index.  Hardcover $165.00

Emerging Challenges in Privacy Law, Comparative Perspectives is a collection of essays adapted from programs presented at the “Emerging Challenges to Privacy Law: Australasian and EU Perspectives” conference held in February 2012 at Monash University in Melbourne, Australia.  To accommodate for the fast-moving development of privacy issues, a few essays have also been specifically commissioned for inclusion in this collection to provide broader coverage of the big issues developing since early 2012.  While there is a decidedly heavier focus on European fundamentals, Australian history and/or advances in privacy protections are also discussed in several of the essays.

The collection is organized in six parts and provides a little bit of something for anyone interested in privacy and data protection around the globe.  Some topics covered are quite broad (Privacy and the Internet), while others are very narrow in focus (protecting the anonymity of young people in Anti-Social Behaviour Orders).  Additionally, the collection offers a nice balance of discussions on theory and the abstract (“[Convention 108] is the only global data protection treaty we are ever likely to see”) as well as detailed discussions about the nuances contained in some privacy arenas (the five categories of “intrusion on seclusion” violations).  Finally, several of the essays provide much-needed historical context for the development of privacy frameworks in many different areas of privacy law because it is truly impossible to understand where we are and where we should go with privacy law without first exploring where we have been and how we got to where we are today.

Part I of the collection provides an overview of both the Australian and European Union data protection frameworks from three different perspectives – that of Australian Privacy Commissioner (Timothy Pilgram), of the European Data Protection Supervisor (Peter Hustinx), and finally of an Australian privacy advocate (Nigel Waters, Principal, Pacific Privacy Consulting).  All three “agree on the challenges facing data privacy law reform” and the importance of enforcement of data protection laws, however, there is significant disagreement on successful expansion of those laws and enforcements over territorial / jurisdictional boundaries and consistently defining and protecting these rights on a global scale.

Part II provides the much needed fundamentals of the primary documents that have shaped privacy protections in the European Union.  Specifically, Chapter 5 examines the architecture of privacy protection in EU through the exploration of current privacy rights and the documents that granted and guarantee those rights (pre-2012 reform proposals).  Documents discussed include the well-known European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) as well as the formal adoption of the more recent Charter of Fundamental Rights (2009).  Discussions also touch on “data protection” in conjunction with Convention 108 (1981), Directive 95/46/EC (1995), and continue up to the proposed reforms offered in January 2012.

Chapter 6 focuses on one particular document (Convention 108) and provides food-for-thought about how far privacy protections can really evolve globally.  Renowned author and scholar, Professor Graham Greenleaf proffers, “[Convention 108] is the only global data protection treaty we are ever likely to see” because no other organization (save the UN) has the capability nor the desire to draft such a global document and current efforts to update and globalize Convention 108 could eliminate the need for an additional global document.

Part III of this collection gets into the real nitty-gritty of some very specific privacy violations.  First, Chapter 7 addresses privacy beyond the unwanted dissemination of private information to that of “physical privacy.”  Professor Moreham explores the patchwork of legislative, criminal, and common law measures in England to prevent this “intrusion on seclusion” (including several “slippery slope” examples of each of the five categories of intrusion – unwanted listening and audio recordings; unwanted watching, following, photographing and/or filming; unwanted access to personal documents or files (hardcopy or electronic); unwanted access to home and personal belongings; and harassment).  In Chapter 8, Professor Michael Tilbury explores several alternative modes of protection from intrusion based in tort law and weighs the pros and cons of creating new causes of action in tort law and/or implementation of a “privacy rights-based model” to specifically enumerate privacy “wrongs.”

Part IV continues this in-depth analysis by examining surveillance frameworks in the United Kingdom, Australia, and the United States (Chapter 10) and the creation of Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (UK) and Prohibited Behaviour Orders (Australia) (Chapter 11) to prohibit “publication of anything that could identify that a young person has been involved in criminal proceedings” (page 229) in order to uphold the longstanding tradition of protecting the anonymity of young people.

Part V deals extensively with privacy issues and the Internet.  Chapter 12 dives deep into development of the Internet, “privacy-invasive and privacy-enhancing features” of the Internet, and the effects (if any) the proposed Data Protection Regulation may have on the future of the Internet.  Chapter 13 deals explicitly with the “right to be forgotten” in the EU data protection framework.  Chapter 14 compares and contrasts privacy models in the European Union, Australia, the United States, Malaysia, Singapore, and finally, Chapter 15 explores cloud computing in the European Union generally and in Germany, specifically.

Part VI circles back to the media and how the courts in the United Kingdom and Australia should balance the rights of the media and free speech with the rights of the public and witnesses to privacy.  It is unfortunate that these two chapters were moved to the end of the collection as they provide the perfect complement to Parts III and IV.  Chapter 16 explores the use of anonymity orders to protect (from media disclosure) those involved in judicial proceedings, while Chapter 17 deals explicitly with interlocutory orders in defamation actions.

This collection of essays offers a robust dialog of past, present and future successes and challenges of privacy protections around the globe.  It is an excellent collection for gaining a well-rounded understanding of the trailblazing European Union privacy frameworks and offers a mix of hope and cautionary tales to help us move forward in our united and global quest to find balance in privacy rights frameworks.

AALL should rejoin IFLA

By Claire M. GermainIFLA

In March 2015, the AALL Executive Board decided to stop AALL representation at IFLA (the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions).  We are asking for your support to call on the AALL to reconsider for the following reasons:

  • IFLA is the leading international body representing the interests of library and information services and their users. It is the global voice of the library and information profession, the only one recognized by the United Nations and its specialized agencies with over 1500 members (many of them associations and institutions) in 150 countries.
  • Within AALL, involvement with IFLA is especially important for the FCIL SIS, the Government Relations Office and Copyright Committees, as it provides a venue for advocacy on all information policy issues at the global level, as well as an educational forum where librarians can learn from one another, collaborate, and develop “best practices.”
  • AALL representatives have been active in the Section.  Several have served as elected members of the Standing Committee of the Law Libraries Section, and one has risen to the position of Chair.  They have ensured that AALL members learn about IFLA programs and resources by regularly publicizing IFLA activities through the FCIL SIS Newsletter and Listserv.
  • AALL members have made the IFLA Law Libraries section what it is today: thriving and focused on the AALL agenda in terms of information policy and the law librarian profession.  For example, every IFLA conference has offered programs on digital authentication of official legal publications from all over the world to increase global access.  And the theme of this year’s conference is: Dynamic Libraries:  Access, Development, and Transformation.  Now is not the time for AALL to quit IFLA.
  • AALL members are currently engaged in a project with the IFLA Standards Committee to discuss a possible authentication standard for official legal publications at the global level.  This should be of utmost interest to AALL’s efforts in that direction.
  • In August 2016, IFLA will be held in Columbus, Ohio, attracting some 4,000 librarians, including law librarians.  This is an excellent opportunity for AALL to be involved and prepare programs and satellite meetings.
  • We all realize that we live in a time of globalization.  AALL cannot deny the role that it is expected to play in a time of international integration and cooperation.  AALL risks looking provincial and short-sighted, not only in the eyes of other library organizations, but among its own members who are continually expected to maintain international awareness of legal matters.
  • AALL needs to be represented at this policy-making body.

Additional Information on the Relationship between AALL and IFLA

  • Approximately twenty-five years ago, AALL began supporting the attendance of the President and/or the Executive Director to represent AALL at the IFLA Annual Meeting. Later the Association became an IFLA member in the National Association category. This involvement led to AALL’s instrumental contribution to the establishment of an IFLA Law Libraries Section, which was first proposed in 2001, received approval in 2005, and included officers, a Standing Committee, and a growing membership by 2007.
  • At that time, AALL made the decision to appoint an AALL member to serve a three-year term as the designated representative to IFLA.  Claire Germain served from 2007 until 2011.
  • After 2009, AALL decided (for budgetary reasons) to withdraw its National Association membership in IFLA. Since then AALL has participated by providing its appointed representative with a Personal Affiliate membership. Sally Holterhoff completed her three-year term as AALL Representative to IFLA in July 2014.
  • Anne Burnett was appointed for a three-year term, but the AALL Executive Board decided to stop the personal affiliate membership in March of 2015, without any consultation with the Representative, the FCIL SIS Section, or the membership at large.

We believe that the AALL’s decision to withdraw its membership from IFLA was short-sighted and should be revisited.  In a time of increased globalization, it is now more important than ever for AALL to have a voice in shaping international policy matters concerning libraries and access to information.

Respectfully submitted by current and former IFLA  Law Libraries Section Standing Committee Members:

Anne Burnett, University of Georgia Law Library

Marisol Floren, Florida International University Law Library

Blair Kauffman, Yale Law Library

Robert Newlen, Library of Congress

Radu Popa, New York University Law Library

Claire Germain, Chair, IFLA Law Libraries Section