ASIL 2019 Recap: Fragmentation in International Data Protection Law

By Caitlin Hunter

In Fragmentation in International Data Protection Law, panelists discussed the rapidly spreading and often contradictory laws protecting consumer data, incorporating the perspectives of corporations (Geff Brown, Microsoft), consumer activist groups (Carolina Rossini, Access Now), academia (Peter Swire, Professor of Law and Ethics at Georgia Tech), and government (Justin Antonipillai, formerly of the Department of Commerce and currently of WireWheel). Here are five key take-aways:

  1. Data protection laws have gone from a parochial European phenomenon to a global trend.

Traditionally, European countries have been particularly active in pushing for data protection, as shown most recently in the EU’s enactment of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). However, laws are spreading rapidly, with over one hundred countries implementing some sort of protections. All four of the BRICs countries have adopted or are considering data protection laws and the U.S. Congress is increasingly debating the issue. U.S. states are also passing data protection laws, including the recently enacted California Consumer Privacy Act and initiatives to pass laws in Vermont, Washington, and Massachusetts.

ASILFragmentation AccessNow homepage.PNG

Website of AccessNow, a consumer activism group, where panelist Carolina Rossini works.


2. Data’s move into the cloud means that data protection laws anywhere affect data everywhere.

Today, users anywhere may be accessing data on a server located anywhere and, as a result, domestic or regional data protection laws impact the entire world. U.S. organizations scrambling to comply with the EU’s GDPR are familiar with this, but the impact flows in the opposite direction, too. Before the recent passage of the U.S. CLOUD Act, a police officer who was investigating a local crime in the EU but needed evidence from a server in the U.S. might have to wait a year or more to get a warrant form a U.S. judge under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. These concerns are not hypothetical- as a Belgian audience member heatedly complained, Microsoft’s Skype is currently fighting for its right not to provide wiretaps ordered by Belgian courts.

ASILFragmentation GDPR.PNG

GDPR website

 

 

  1. Fragmentation between data protection laws stems from different regions’ fundamentally different privacy frameworks.

European countries view privacy as a basic human right, enshrined in their Constitutions, the European Convention on Human Rights, and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. This contrasts sharply with the U.S.’s strong emphasis on freedom of information. Typically, Americans assume that personal data can be used, unless there is a justification for prohibiting it, while Europeans assume that personal data cannot be used, unless there is a justification for permitting it. One panelist reported that an EU official privately confided that big data is probably illegal under the GDPR. If this conflict is not resolved, it will upend industries that have premised their future on massive use of big data.

ASILFragmentation WireWheel homepage.PNG

Website of WireWheel, where panelist Justin Antonipillai works.

 

  1. Compromises have broken down.

For years, U.S. companies and European countries accommodated their conflicting frameworks through a deal in which U.S. companies publically pledged to comply with EU data protection laws, allowing the U.S. Federal Trade Commission to take action against the companies for misrepresentation under U.S. law if the companies violated EU law. However, the future of this deal is in doubt, as the EU grows increasingly concerned with privacy. In 2015, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) struck down the original version of the deal, called the U.S.-E.U. Safe Harbor, in Maximillian Schrems v Data Protection Commissioner, C-362/14. Although the U.S. Department of Commerce quickly negotiated a new deal, now dubbed the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield, Schrems challenged the new deal, too, and it is again headed back to the ECJ, its future dubious. If the ECJ decides that U.S. privacy protections remain inadequate, this will impact not only tech companies in the U.S. but in any country that does not share the EU’s high level of privacy protection.

  1. Consistent laws are needed- but not necessarily uniform laws.

The fragmentation of data protection law has left tech companies scrambling to reconcile hundreds of conflicting laws. Within the U.S., many now advocate for a single, national data protection law, including the Chamber of Commerce and panelist Justin Antonipillai. However, even panelist Geff Brown of Microsoft believed that it was not only unlikely but undesirable to push for uniform laws internationally. Instead, he encouraged countries to develop a global forum that would allow them to create laws that reflect their own values but are consistent enough to be interoperable.

ASIL 2019 Recap: The Law (and Politics) of Displacement

By Meredith Capps

ASILdisplacement.jpg
On Thursday, March 28, Jill Goldenziel of Marine Corps University moderated a discussion on legal and political challenges surrounding forced displacement, which is at an all-time high. Panelists included Itamar Mann of the University of Haifa; Daniel P. Sullivan of Refugees International; Alice Farmer, the Legal Officer for UN Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)in Washington, D.C.; and Kristina Campbell, a clinical faculty member at the University of the District of Columbia.

Mann discussed some history of international law governing displaced persons, including the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne, which, in part, facilitated population exchange and redistribution between Greece and Turkey. In the human rights era following the World Wars, the forced movement of groups of persons became “the paradigm of a criminal act,”  with freedom of movement established in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and forced movement of populations prohibited in the Geneva Conventions. Mann identified the movement of Syrians out of Greece as a current challenge, and climate change as the impetus for movement a future issue.

Sullivan discussed the displacement of the Rohingya from Myanmar to Bangladesh, where roughly 1 million people now reside in camps. Rendered stateless in Myanmar as “illegal Bengalis,” the Rohingya are also not protected as refugees in Bangladesh (who has considered moving some to a disaster prone island in the Bay of Bengal). Despite clear evidence of criminal activity by Myanmar officials, an ICC referral may be blocked by Russia and China, and fact-finding missions and target sanctions have failed to impact change.

Farmer noted that with only 1/4 to 2/3 of displaced persons presently returning to their home state, traditional displacement solutions are no longer viable. Though some characterize migration north from Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador as economic migration, current patterns suggest a forced displacement, and UNHCR takes the position that many of those fleeing violence in these regions satisfy refugee criterion. The number of families migrating is particularly significant, and suggests that deterrence is ineffective. These changes in the nature of persecution test of weaknesses in international law, with adjudicators inconsistent in their approach to defining “refugee,” and burden sharing conversations amongst states fraught. While UNHCR is working to increase capacity in the Mexican asylum system and facilitate local integration, its capacity remains vastly below that of the U.S.

Campbell discussed U.S. immigration family detention centers, a new concept established during the mid-2000s. Per the Flores settlement agreement regarding detention conditions for minors, immigration authorities should preference release of minors to parents, and maintain humane, non-secure facilities. She described the few family detention centers in the U.S., and her clinic’s work assisting families in those centers, including credible fear reviews. Campbell said that the Trump administration’s June 2018 executive order did not, in fact, alter its zero tolerance policy that facilitated family separation, and it has no plan to reunite families separated as a result.

The panelists discussed several recurring, fundamental issues during the question-and-answer period. One was the idea of repatriation, with efforts to repatriate Rohingya during the 1970s cited as an effort that failed due to lack of political will, and safety concerns on the part of the group itself; when root causes remain unaddressed, repatriation is not a viable option. Domestic courts do, at times, enforce international norms to protect displaced persons, citing the East Bay Sanctuary Covenant case, but judicial enforcement can generate a backlash. Terminology used to characterize a situation can also either boost or diminishing political will. For example, when an NGO or state uses “ethnic cleansing,” rather than genocide or “crimes against humanity,” public sense of urgency may diminish. Conversely, frequent use of the term “crisis” or “surge” by advocacy groups and the media may desensitize the public.

Goldenziel also discussed the Global Compacts for Refugees and Migration, nonbinding agreements negotiated by many states, including the U.S., and adopted by the UN General Assembly, but whose status under international law is unclear. Negotiations resembled those for a treaty, with some states lodging statements similar to RUDs, and some states appear to consider it forceful despite its nonbinding status. The U.S. withdrew from the compact, citing sovereignty concerns.

ASIL 2019 Recap: Late Breaking Panel: BREXIT and International Law

BrexitBy Marylin Raisch

Moderator: Oonagh Fitzgerald, Director of the International Research Program, Centre for International Governance Innovation, Ontario, Canada

Speakers: Robert Howse, New York University School of Law; Jessica Simonoff, U. S. Department of State; Sir Michael Wood, 20 Essex Street Chambers; Joao Rodrigues, European Parliament Liaison Office

The fact that the very day of this panel at ASIL was originally “Brexit Day,” that is, the day the UK Parliament was to exit the European Union, says a great deal about Brexit and the crisis at the nexus of international and constitutional law that it represents. However, it may happen April 12 if she cannot get her plan passed on this day, which would have given the UK until May 22nd instead.[1] (Or, as of this writing, at the end of this year if Labour cannot join up? Who knows…). This late-breaking panel was scheduled to end at 10:30 a.m., when the straw polling in Parliament on Prime Minister Teresa May’s proposal was to begin. And so it goes. (We learned soon after the panel session broke up that the proposal failed).

After briefly reviewing the timeline from the referendum in 2016, moderator Oohagh Fitzgerald provided a summary of the U.K. Supreme Court Decision of R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2017 UKSC 5]  (January 24, 2017). This is notable since the ruling of the court established that the UK executive could not just notify the European Council of its intention to withdraw from the EU; as with other UK treaties, an Act of Parliament would be required to permit that communication. (There is now in fact a European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017 as of Royal Assent dated March 16, 2017). With at least this basic context in place, and some reference to the role of House of Commons speaker Bercow in requiring substantial changes before another vote on the same matter could take place, the Moderator posed a series of questions to the panel.

  1. What is the state of international law in the UK in light of BREXIT? Does it demonstrate that international law is working as it should?

Panelists articulated several perspectives on this excellent question and seemed to cover the range from internationalist to newer reassertions of sovereignty. For example, Sir Michael Wood, who participated in negotiation of the UK treaty of access to the EU in his time as an EU-focused lawyer, stated that EU law is not really autonomous. It is embedded in treaties and so it is largely part of public international law. The issue of Northern Ireland, and the UK ideally remaining in some sort of customs union to avoid a hard border, may become one of rules of interpretation. There is disagreement between the UK and the EU on whether the art. 50 withdrawal mechanism operates to contract the UK out of even customary international law rules. While Sir Michael pointed out that some MPs think “fundamental” and “unforeseen” changes in circumstances are manifested in the backstop situation, and Brexiteers (pro-Brexit MPs and ministers) think this might permit departure from the Brexit agreement (and its backstop under art. 62 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties), he is not sure that this would be so. (Brexiteers want to prevent an eternal tie to the customs union). Many are skeptical that evidence of concern over an issue such as that, expressed in advance, could ever allow that issue to be called “unforeseen.” This panelist shared that skepticism, as he is more of an internationalist and former lawyer working with the UN International Law Commission and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

A different view was taken by the panelist from the current US State Department. Jessica Simonoff viewed Brexit as an outsider and saw it as not about development of supranational governments but rather as showing the ongoing significance of national identity. The rules are developed by consent, as underscored by the ability to depart from a treaty.  International law is alive and well because even after the UK delegated some of its international negotiating authority to the EU, it now can re-familiarize itself with some international law rules.

Professor Howse of NYU Law then contributed insights from international economic law as he pointed out that the UK would still be under the multilateral rules of the WTO. The logistics of new trade agreements and the hard border are not like the arrangements around which supply chains are organized. Pro-Brexit forces seem to him not to understand how new globalized trade actually works now, and a hard Brexit would create initial chaos with serious shortages of goods, at least temporarily. He also commented on the politics of Brexit, which he attributed in part not to a return to lost sovereignty, but to the work of elites using populism for political career advancement.

Panelist Rodrigues quipped that he “owns” his hat as EU bureaucrat. However, he prefers the term civil servant, a profession her noted ironically was established by the British.  The EU is an international organization, but one created by a body of laws that has a constitutional nature. He sees Brexit not really a legal question, because it is allowed under the treaty in the procedure outlined by the UK case. Moreover, a case went to the European Court of Justice on the issue of unilateral withdrawal from the Brexit process, and it was ruled permissible if done democratically. So the legal part is all sorted. But he asked the political question of how does a member state get itself to a decision to leave? What is disturbing is that here we are on Brexit Day and there is no clear manifestation of British will. International law is well; political process in Britain is not.

  1. May cannot use crown prerogative per the Miller case, in this instance of a treaty, but now can she not move ahead with a statute in place?

Sir Michael Wood pointed out that even with some of the specific legal hurdles surmounted, the situation carries huge implications for UK constitutional law and there should never have been a referendum. While the rule of law and the idea that a minister cannot put same issue to vote twice in same Parliament is the same rule that in UN from parliamentary procedure.  Treaties are executive and Parliament is not usually part of negotiations. In this case it has led to big problems.

Ms. Simonoff and Professor Howse, sharing a US perspective, observed that whether the UK is able to pull out of treaty has been moved to Parliament as a matter of constitutional law. Simonoff then compared the process to NAFTA withdrawal and Congressional involvement in those types of agreements. Howse noted and agreed that NAFTA would need some Congressional action for withdrawal. For WTO withdrawal, he speculated, were it to be contemplated, it would have to be based on resolutions of Congress, because the provision for review works through a Congressional process.

Rodrigues noted that there the Task Force on Article 50 Negotiations website was quite transparent, and indicated publicly what they would or would not accept. The EU 27 were united in how to deal with situation. Unlike Professor Howse, however, he thought populism played a crucial role.

  1. Is there a new bilateralism? Will getting out of massive relationship make the UK able to enter into such new agreements? Moderator Fitzgerald noted that European Council President Tusk thought bridging gap between any popular vote and orderly obligations needs to be worked out ahead and we have not seen that here in concrete plans for a new arrangement.

While Sir Michael Wood observed that the EU is not really multilateralism of the usual kind, Jessica Simonoff of US State thought that while bilateralism may simplify a discussion, a treaty negotiation is never really bilateral, as there are other voices in the room. Actions in the UK will always affect the EU. Contracts in many areas will be affected in the realm of private parties (for example, phone roaming fees now in EU after Brexit).

Professor Howse noted that ironically the less-discussed fall-back rules for the UK is a much bigger WTO multilateralism. The EU has now proven that it is a community of choice and right to depart is a real right. Euro-skeptics can now be shown that this is not like the old Soviet Union (to exaggerate) and that the EU made a good faith response. In his role as the EU civil servant on the panel, Mr. Rodrigues agreed that the EU will have to be flexible and negotiate a new trade agreement with the UK itself, so that is certainly bilateral.

  1. Q and A from the attendees consisted of three main questions:
    1. Will there be a way to adjudicate new disputes if there is a hard Brexit?
    2. Will the Good Friday Agreement and human rights in general be respected through some inclusion of the EU treaties’ principles on fundamental freedoms, and equality before the law, as applied in Ireland/N Ireland?
    3. Can the panel address what can be fairly referred to as a dishonest referendum? It was a dishonest vote: had it been between Remain and a version of Brexit, Remain would have won. The referendum was not an exercise in democratic will because no specific version of withdrawal was proposed.

The panelists answered all three questions together. Sir Michael Wood does think that temporary fixes will be used in a hard Brexit regarding air travel etc. He mused that the UK is paying to leave, and what if they say won’t pay if EU does not approve withdrawal agreement? Ms. Simonoff agreed that now that more information available, a second referendum could be good idea and not anti-democratic. Professor Howse thought democracy was manifested in the first vote, but people are also free to change their minds. Joao Rodrigues stated that the EU just sees it as done deal. Some provisional measures were taken by Council and Parliament to address a no-deal Brexit, such as in areas of customs, pharmaceuticals, etc., about 18-20 special measures, in fact. He thinks financial obligations of the agreement will come into the negotiations for a new UK- EU trade agreement, and rights of citizens as between the two jurisdictions will also play a part. He bases this on the UK rebate on fees that Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher negotiated in the 1980s as manifestation of UK exceptionalism; they got it in 1984, so perhaps now as well.

As the panel ended and everyone left ready to check phones for news of the impending vote, all panelists- and attendees, no doubt- seemed to agree that whatever else it may be, Brexit has been good for stimulating interest in international law, and very good for lawyers.

 

[1] Update and Brexit timeline summary from a research report posted at the official Parliament website: “In a referendum held on 23 June 2016, the majority of the UK electorate voted to leave the European Union.

On 29 March 2017, in writing to European Council President Donald Tusk, the Prime Minister formally triggered Article 50 and began the two-year countdown to the UK formally leaving the EU (commonly known as ‘Brexit’).

The UK has long been expected to leave the European Union at 11pm on 29 March 2019.  However, following a House of Commons vote on 14 March 2019, the Government sought permission from the EU to extend Article 50 and agree a later Brexit date.

On 20 March 2019 the Prime Minister wrote to European Council President Donald Tusk, asking to extend Article 50 until 30 June 2019.

Following a European Council meeting the next day, EU27 leaders agreed to grant an extension comprising two possible dates: 22 May 2019, should the Withdrawal Agreement gain approval from MPs next week; or 12 April 2019, should the Withdrawal Agreement not be approved by the House of Commons.”

 

ITA-ASIL 2018 Recap, Part II: Diversity and Inclusion in International Arbitration Conference

By Rachael SmithInt_lComArb_Wordle_Word_Cloud__on_Navy__2016

This is Part II of a two-part series.

Next up at the conference was Defining the Issues, with panelist Professor Anna Spain Bradley, Melinda N. Hodgson, and Professor Anne Marie Whitesell, moderated by Professor Won Kidane.

Professor Anna Spain Bradley (Assistant Vice Provost for Faculty Development and Diversity, University of Colorado Law School, Boulder, Colorado) started with the question, what is the meaning of diversity?  To answer this question, she began with a series of questions.  First, she asked “why is diversity challenging?” Then she questioned why historically people of color are not part of the creation of the arbitration process; instead, men from mainly Anglo-European nations are representing the world.  There is also the issue of party selection, which means that arbitrators’ appointments are not permanent, so each panel creation is a new start.  She then moved on to “why diversity is important?” noting briefly that it is good for business as it cultivates innovation, adds legitimacy to the process, and reflects more broadly the norms throughout the world.  Next she asked, “what do arbitrators look like?”–a hard question to answer as it cannot be answered without talking about identity.  Identity is created in context; after all, who we are is not about discrete boxes, but rather an intersectionality of many categories.  In addition, identity is a legal definition in the United States.

Taking all of the above questions into account, she inquired about “how . . . these factors interact with decision making and implicit biases.”  Professor Bradley examines these issues through the lens of neuroscience.  Especially in the case if implicit bias, the link between fear response, as processed by the amygdala, and the emotions linked with decisions has been clearly documented.  The most familiar example is the Project Implicit, commonly known as the Harvard implicit bias test.  In this context, it is fair to say there are no humans, and no arbitrators, who are truly color or gender blind.  However, there are steps that one can take to relearn this cognitive process to allow for a better decision-making process.  The test, which is open and free on-line, can be used as a tool to enhance the decision-making process and to examine the role power plays in the decision-making process.

Next Professor Anne Marie Whitesell (Professor and Director of International Dispute Resolution Programs, Georgetown University Law Center, Washington, D.C.) addressed the role institutions play in international arbitration diversity.  She started with a brief history of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), noting key dates and developments – see the ICC’s website for details of the history.  As part of the historical context, the standard by which those who practiced in the field were judged by was if “he was of good sense and sound judgment.”  Currently the ICC does collect the percentage of women who are selected as arbitrators.  She noted that while institutions like the ICC can and do take the lead in ensuring diversity, they are limited by the requirements of the case – i.e. each case requires a certain set of skills and expertise.  However, when women are not selected, the impact on their future ability to gain opportunities, which will allow them to develop and diversify their skills in international arbitration, are still more adversely impacted; without opportunities to demonstrate their skills and expertise, they cannot gain the needed experience.  Lastly, she noted that while institutions, like the ICC, are an important part of the change, they are not the only actors and that other parties need to address this issue.

Mélinda N. Hodgson (Foley Hoag LLP, New York) reviewed the role of the practitioner.  At its most simple, they need their clients to act on their advice.  Clients will only do so if they trust the experience, qualifications, and substantive and subject expertise of their attorneys, along with their record of accomplishments and ultimately their efficiency in the arbitral process.  One way to address this is to broaden the access to objective data.  This would answer the clients’ need to find a diverse pool of practitioners– as it would address not just gender diversity but also cultural and regional diversity.  This would also provide the type of objective record of experience and the documentation of accomplishment of those practitioners who are unknown to a client.  This added knowledge would also make the pledge of taking an extra five minutes of creating a list of characteristics more powerful.

Professor Whitesell concluded the panel with a discussion of the power dynamics of the arbitral tribunal itself.  Generally, the presiding arbitrator holds a key role.  They are expected to be the most persuasive,  as well as to help create consensus.  They are expected to have experience, professional respectability, and to be held in high regard within the international arbitration community.  If they are not diverse, there is more of a likelihood of lack of diversity.  As previously mentioned, this is a reflection of unconscious biases of choosing those who look like oneself.  Having outlined the problem and various components that lead to a lack of diversity, the next step was how to address these issues.

The next panel, A Critical Look at Solutions, with panelist Lucy Greenwood, Professor Catherine A. Rogers, Professor Nassib G. Ziadé, was moderated by Caroline S. Richard and had many recommendations.  The panel started with Caroline S. Richard (Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer US LLP), who outlined a list of instructions.  First, take the time to do the needed research and use the tools that are available – everything from the taking an extra five minutes to using institutional databases (e.g., ICC).  Second, take the proactive steps of challenging oneself instead of using the defense of what is already familiar; instead shift focus to who would be the best fit for the needs of the arbitration in terms of the nature of the case and for the needs of the clients.  Lastly, international arbitration has always been “global” as a practical matter, but the representation of regional powers and emerging markets improves particular expertise and adds legitimacy to the arbitration process.

Lucy Greenwood (GreenwoodArbitration, Houston, Texas) reemphasized the points above as the right thing to do in themselves, but also as part of better business practices.  She stated that international arbitration requires cooperation by all the parties.  One way to ensure cooperation and participation in the arbitration process is to reflect the diversity of the case and parties.  Diversity of the groups has the added benefit of challenging groupthink; with a diverse group, the calculations of risk and the mitigation of risk are improved as they challenge underlying assumptions that could be incorrect.

Greenwood also discussed how unconscious biases could be seen in the percentage of women – 16 percent is the diversity ceiling.  This is not to be confused with merit – the 16 percent does not reflect the relative pool of women, in either the number of women or the number of qualified women within that pool.  For an excellent and more detailed discussion of the lack of diversity with statistical information, see Getting a Better Balance on International Arbitration Tribunals (28 J. London Ct. Int’l. Arb. 653(2012) (full text freely available)) and the update to the article above, Is the Balance Getting Better? An Update on the Issue of Gender Diversity in International Arbitration (31Arb. Int’l.413 (2015)).

Greenwood also discussed how inclusion is another way to address lack of diversity, by welcoming newcomers to the field.  Through conferences, moot court competitions, young arbitration groups and publications (most importantly, newcomers as authors and co-authors), the field will reflect more of the pool of qualified women in this field.  This also creates more opportunity for new practitioners to demonstrate their competence in a complex field.

Richard, the moderator, then asked, what role institutions play in creating solutions.  Professor Nassib G. Ziadé (Chief Executive Officer, Bahrain Chamber for Dispute Resolution (BCDR-AAA), Manama, Kingdom of Bahrain), answered first and stated that in fact they do have a role, but it is important not to forget the role of parties and counsel.  He also pointed out that these steps would also address the issue of legitimacy, as more diversity of practitioners means fewer conflicts of interests and less requirements of the wearing of different hats at the same time.  Institutions are also involved in the development of the next generation through training and guidance, which can create diversity based on experience and a solid record of accomplishment.  He next discussed the use of codes of conduct to address the issue of parties reporting their own data.  Institutions can also improve the overall transparency process by making their appointment process more transparent.  He concluded by noting that while there is still a lot of work to be done, notably there is evidence that once an arbitrator from a diverse background is selected they are given a fair chance.

Professor Catherine A. Rogers (Pennsylvania State University – Dickinson School of Law and the School of International Affairs, Founder and Executive Director, Arbitrator Intelligence, State College) agreed with the need for more information.  She went on to discuss how academia and the overall education process can help.  She mentioned how U.S. law students are not encouraged to go abroad as part of their legal education, unlike many law students from other countries.  This means that U.S. law students do not have the advantage of gaining some familiarity with another legal system.  This lack of investment by academia in international arbitration is also reflected by the dearth of scholarships or even the utilization of internships to support and cultivate the next generation.

Professor Rogers next discussed how the use of data about an arbitrator can be problematic; for example, in the law firm context, the same list of names is recycled over and over again.  While using a pre-approved list seems efficient, an important evaluation process is bypassed.  It is important to evaluate the object of the case and consider the needed characteristics of the arbitrators to meet the needs of the case.  This issue can be corrected with better collection of information to address the issue of gender diversity, multilingual competency, and regional diversity.

Richard mentioned how using the Harvard biases test makes it easier for all to see objectively the problem of unconscious biases.  Once this issue is known and objectively verified, it is easier to take concrete steps.  These steps include internet training, but also the use of external groups such as Alliance for Equity to hold training sessions.  This could create better business practices, which tend to generate more business, which is better for all.

Professor Rogers ended the panel with two observations.  One, the meaning of diversity is rapidly evolving, and two, international arbitration is getting more complex and more nuanced.

Due to time limitations, Professor Susan D. Franck (Chair, ITA Academic Council, American University Washington College of Law, Washington, D.C.) remarks were brief but concise.  She stated that there is no one size fits all for solutions to creating more diversity.  Arbitration institutions, as well as clients (either nations or commercial parties), all need to determine how to best utilize the pledge.  Lastly, all in the field of international arbitration can be the change that will bring more diversity to the field.

For some more readings on this topic of diversity and international arbitration, see the Selected Papers and Articles from the conference.  For background and basic introduction on international arbitration, Redfern and Hunter on International Arbitration is an excellent resource.  A resource for more information about practitioners in the field of international arbitration is The Culture of International Arbitration and the Evolution of Contract Law, by Joshua Karton.  Lastly, for a quick oral history about both the book above, and the history of international arbitration, see interviews with Mr. Redfern and Mr. Hunter (freely available online).

ITA-ASIL 2018 Recap: Diversity and Inclusion in International Arbitration Conference

By Rachael Smith

The Diversity and Inclusion in International Arbitration half-day conference presented by the Institute for Transnational Arbitration (ITA) Academic Council, and the American Society of International Law (ASIL) took place on April 4, 2018.  This conference was the first of its kind to examine the legitimacy of international arbitration in the context of the lack of diversity of practitioners selected to participate in international arbitration proceedings.  Does the current selection of practitioners reflect the wide range of regional practices; and do they reflect the pool of practitioners?  If not, what are some practical and actionable steps those who participate can take, in this very specialized field, within the larger field of global commerce?

As noted by the introductory speakers, Abby Cohen Smutny (Chair, ITA Advisory Board, White & Case LLP, Washington, D.C. and Lucinda A. Low (President, ASIL, Steptoe & Johnson LLP, Washington, D.C.), that this conference was taking place was itself an important step, as it moves the discussion of this issue beyond anecdotal concerns.  The approach of this conference was to first have the keynote speaker outline the issues; then to review academic scholarly work on this topic in order to understand why and how the lack of diversity is a problem; and finally, but importantly, develop some practical solutions.

The first question of why diversity is important was addressed by the keynote speaker Lucy F. Reed (Professor and Director, Centre for International Law, National University of Singapore, Singapore).  The answer at its most simple is because the world of international arbitration is global in its application and the world is diverse.  The second question is whether there is diversity; and again, the answer simply put is no.  Alternatively, a more nuanced answer to the same question is not as much as there should be.  To understand the lack of diversity in the larger context, what is the equation that leads to this result of low diversity?

The equation in this case is: caution + habit + bias = low diversity.

“Caution,” in this context, stems from the nature of international arbitration cases.  International arbitration cases are generally of some magnitude in terms of the amounts in controversy potentially at stake, cannot be appealed, and are relatively easily and quickly enforceable.  Parties involved are reasonable in wanting to entrust the arbitral process to those with experience.  Part of the lack of experienced practitioners stems from the history of international arbitration.  Originally the field was not well developed or even seen as a real field due to the view that this field was both very risky and soft (i.e. the law was governed less by the application of law and more by industry practices and commercial considerations–coupled without any surety of success).  There were few who were practicing in this field.  Historically, the pool was small and generally was made up of white, Western men.  This is important, because it leads into the next element in the equation, which is “Habit”.

As matter of habit, one tends to select those they already know and who are a reflection of themselves.  Times have changed for the field of international arbitration.  Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) have become more common, and specialized tribunals are not so unheard of (e.g., the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal).  In addition, the number of women who have entered the legal field has changed, yet this fact is not reflected in the selection of arbitrators.  One step that has been taken to address lack of diversity is the Equal Representation in Arbitration (ERA) Pledge.  One of the elements of the ERA pledge is to take an extra five minutes when thinking of that initial list of potential arbitrators – as there are women and non-European practitioners with solid experience, but who may not be as well known and who could be added to the list of names.  Of course, just a name included in a list does not equal diversity.

Another step taken to address lack of diversity being taken by the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) is to release of all the names of the arbitrators involved in a proceeding, with the identifying information about the case removed.  This is enough information to get an overview of the expertise of those arbitrators involved in the proceedings.  This has resulted in slightly better numbers of women when an institute chooses an arbitrator.  Nonetheless, when a party makes a choice of an arbitrator, women are still underrepresented.  However, the pledge, the five-minute rule, and the release of names are some steps that help remove the issue of habit that is a hindrance without a point.

The last element in the equation is “Bias”.  Biases can be both conscious and unconscious.  Biases stem from what is familiar, especially when it is unconscious, so there is a stronger likelihood of selecting those who are most like oneself.  In international arbitration proceedings, many in the position of making the key choices tend to be white Western men.  Avoiding these biases of selecting those most like oneself requires affirmative research about the pool of arbitrators and public information more readily available about them.

A final point concerns the challenges of the field, as a whole.  There can often be many qualified applicants for few positions.  Newcomers need to know that persistence, patience, and realistic expectations are key to opportunities in this field.  She concluded with the counter equation “Inclusion + Patience + Persistence = Better diversity.”

Next, Conference Commentator, Gonzalo Flores (Deputy Secretary-General, International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), Washington, D.C.), started with some history of the lack of women in international arbitration.  Initially there was the lack of women in the field of law, then the lack of discussion of gender issues, and then a lack of transparency of the number of women in international arbitration.  Today, the discussion has expanded to include a combination of issues such as the inclusion of women, newcomers, and non-Anglo/Europeans with solid experience in international arbitration.  One of the steps to address this issue is an example from the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID).  ICSID has created a database that allows one to search arbitrators, conciliators, and ad hoc committee members.  ICSID also publishes the statistics of caseloads for each year.  From these reports, it is now easier to track how much the situation is changing.

 

Come back tomorrow for Part II of our recap of the ITA-ASIL Diversity and Inclusion in International Arbitration Conference.

ASIL 2018 Recap: International Law and the Global Governance of Migration

By Rachael Smith

Professor Alexander Aleinikoff  (Zolberg Institute on Migration and Mobility, The New School, New York) started with a brief statement about the progress of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).  He mentioned the seventy years of practice, and billions of dollars spent on resettlement, along with a legal regime for refugees, as signs of progress.  However, what he found troubling was the phenomenon of a “second exile”; that as per established refugee law, the first nation a refugee arrives in is where they must stay.  The legal options for migration to another nation are limited to none, and going back to their country of origin is not a viable option.  While there are legal arguments and policy reasoning for this, these do not address the possible negative impact on both refugees and the nations.  For example, the first country may be ill equipped for resettlement, e.g. Syrian refugees in Turkey.

The UN General Assembly has begun to address this weakness as part of their overall Global Compact on Refugees.  They have drafted for release mid to late this year a way for nations to share the responsibility as one way to address this issue.  Among the possibilities would be special passports that would allow refugees the possibility of travel to resettle.  In addition, there would be something akin to a “full faith and credit” of accepting refugees as part of economic development with other countries, such as in the case of Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs).  This would balance the questions of national sovereignty in accepting refugees with being a second or third choice for the placement of refugees.  This would also allow those who have jobs and can self-support the ability to travel as a way to encourage self-sufficiency and economic development.  His last point was how this could create a more coherent regional approach to the resettlement of refugees, for not only the European Union nations, but could be used as a model for other Western nations.

migration

The panel for the “international Law and the Global Governance of Migration” session at the ASIL 2018 Annual Meeting.

Alice Thomas (Refugees International, Washington, DC) discussed how climate change could be both a major factor and one of many factors in migration.  In addition, climate change can be both a slow and a sudden process – for example rising sea levels and small islands or extreme weather that produces floods and landslides. Under the current legal framework, many people affected by climate change are classified as either economic migrants or internally displaced people – but not as refugees.  This has meant the approach has been an event-by-event system (e.g. in the United States the Temporary Protected Status granted to Haitians).  Currently, things are slowly changing but the focus has been more on adapting in place – how can nations help their own citizens stay in place (e.g. support to build homes that can withstand storm surges).

Michelle Leighton of the International Labor Organization (ILO) started her discussion with a description of the current conversation around immigration–that for many nations the general nature has been toxic.  She noted that most of the dialog is one of fear and an “us versus them” as a way to frame the debate.

She went on to say that the immigration debate is at a crossroads.  Nations can choose the path of seeing immigration as a benefit.  One way to do this is to focus on the immigration recruitment process for employment.  This is one way to combat issues like global human trafficking and the exploitation of workers.  This would also allow for better knowledge of the national and international employment recruitment processes.  This could mean better collection of data, along with a better matching of skill sets to the labor market needs.  This system could also foster better cross-border cooperation.  In addition, this could help navigate the sovereignty question by emphasizing that this is voluntary. She ended by noting how this would also create a path to social justice, as this issue is global in nature.  The ILO, with its 187 members, represents an already voluntary legal framework and can work in partnership with the UN.

Jean-Christophe Dumont (World Bank) started with how migration can be framed as part of broader issues of criminal justice and crime control.  The use of coercion and exploitation in the migration process has been linked to organized crime and terrorism– especially as they target the most vulnerable in a community, basically ensuring no reports will be made to a nation’s authorities.

Guest worker programs are one way to combat this issue.  Through them, the focus can expand to both skilled and unskilled labor.  This is important as unskilled labor is less regulated than the skilled labor market, which tends to be more highly regulated.  One current issue is that there is no one centralized institution to help monitor and regulate guest worker programs.  Depending on the nation, the regulatory framework may not even be present for local labor markets.  In addition, the current immigration and labor market debates and discussions are not about protections of workers.

One of the vulnerabilities of workers is the use of debt in the employment recruitment process as a way to exploit workers.  Debtors are vulnerable to a wide range of exploitation–both of themselves and potentially family members (either with them or in their home country).  Debtors are also seen as voluntary in their participation–despite the fact that their debt is of such enormity that it will likely never be paid off.

Jean-Christophe Dumont ended by discussing how the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has set trends for countries to co-operate by addressing immigration for the long term.  This would allow for better migration policies as well as innovation-–such as the use of Block Chain as a way to verify the identity of refugees.

ASIL 2018 Recap: Legal Education and Professional Training in the Culture(s) of International Law

By Gabriela Femenia

On the final morning of the 2018 ASIL Annual Meeting, Anthea Roberts (Australian National University) moderated a nuanced panel discussion of the significance of global differences in legal education and professional training of international lawyers, considering their evolution over time and their impact on the practice and efficacy of international law, from both Western- and non-Western perspectives. The panel comprised Bryant Garth (UC Irvine School of Law), Lucy Reed (National University of Singapore Faculty of Law), Natalie Reid (Debevoise & Plimpton, LLP), and Carole Silver (Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law).

ASIL Saturday Panel 1.jpg

Panel for the Legal Education and Professional Training in the Culture(s) of International Law at ASIL’s 2018 annual meeting.

The first point of discussion was legal education practice and the channels through which people in different countries come to the practice of law. Anthea Roberts presented some initial thoughts based on her recent book, Is International Law International? (2017), observing that legal education used to be a primarily national endeavor, with a small amount of movement at the graduate levels, but we are now seeing more people crossing borders to study law. While the majority still do so for the LLM degree, there is increasing study at the first-degree level. Roberts made two general points about the flow of students. First, the flow is asymmetrical: students go from the periphery to the core, and from non-western regions to the west, with most returning home to practice and bringing with them both ideas and materials. Second, there are clearly different cores for legal study (principally Anglophone, Francophone, and Russophone), and there are distinctive patterns of students from certain countries going to certain countries. Lucy Reed and Natalie Reid shared their own experiences both as former law students following similar trajectories to the core to obtain the necessary credentials for desired careers, as well as educators working with such students. Reed noted that there is a guided, funded outflow of students from China to the West in all fields, with China particularly interested in bringing back students trained in international economic law and law of the sea. There is no equivalent outflow from the U.S. of students sent abroad or investment in training lawyers in those fields, and it remains difficult to convince law faculty in the U.S. and Singapore that international law should be integrated into instruction. As a result, Asia is more present in international law practice than the U.S., and Reed suggested the consequence of this disparity is a more level but not necessarily more forward-looking playing field in international law.

Carole Silver observed that in some senses law education is wonderfully internationalized, but the program that most students attend, the LLM, is somewhat segregate as a result of being a one-year program, most of which do not allow students to participate in 1L courses, clinics, or moot courts.  LLMs do benefit from being part of diverse international classes, but there are limits on interacting with U.S. students, and there is often pushback from those students to hearing about how things are done in the LLMs’ home countries. As a result, more international students are enrolling in JD programs, and in those cases the flows are not from the periphery to the core. A quarter of foreign JD students go from Canada to the U.S., and 60% of all foreign JDs are from Canada, China, and Korea. Those students face some trouble integrating because they’re not American, and they tend to also distance themselves from LLMs because they’re not “international” students. They also put more effort into course selection, generally choosing business concentrations because transactional practice is easier to break into than litigation. Silver concluded that while there is a huge inflow of students to the U.S., there is also segmentation and social isolation at the micro level.

Bryant Garth reminded those present that, historically, the flow of students reflected colonial relationships, e.g. Commonwealth students getting to know each other in London, with a more recent substitution of the U.S. for those colonial relationships.  U.S.-style law schools are also now being established around the world, so the flow of students is no longer necessarily from one country to another, while there is increasing international competition for students, both in order to impart values and to obtain the tuition revenue.

The panelists then discussed the challenges faced by graduates returning to their home countries from the core. Reed pointed out that international law books are rarely available in Asia in the necessary languages, and many are still by the former colonial masters. Libraries are insufficient in many areas. New academics must also work alongside older colleagues who are not interested in changing their teaching, while at the same time facing pressure to publish in global journals in order to secure tenure, which prevents them from engaging with their local communities. Garth added that publication in international journals is difficult if the young professor does not buy into U.S.-dominated paradigms, further limiting the inclusion of local perspectives. Reid observed that the influence of U.S. perspectives plays out in practice as well; U.S. cases and sources are cited even if they are not the best examples, in order to resonate with an American audience, and most sources will be in English even if they’re not U.S. sources..

Anthea Roberts asked the panelists what could be done to address these challenges in legal education. Silver suggested intentionally requiring international students to offer specific contributions in class. Several panelists offered the Jessup competition as a model for bringing together students to develop a common language and toolkit.

Garth asked the panel to what extent the field of international law had been affected by the globalization of law firms. Reid noted that it depended on the field, e.g. in international investment there has been a significant impact because the multinational firms guide the development of the law by picking the arbitrators who then create it. Reed added that cross-border transactions were more affected by big firm mergers than international law was.

In the brief time remaining, audience members solicited suggestions from the panel on how professors can improve international law classes.