Announcement: FCIL-SIS (Informal) Book Discussion Group at AALL Annual Meeting

By Dan Wade

disarray_0The FCIL-SIS Book Discussion Group will meet at the Annual Meeting on Monday between 12:15 and 2:00p.m. We are gathering at the AALL Annual Meeting Registration Desk at 12:15p.m.

The book under discussion this year is A World in Disarray, by Richard Haass (New York: Penguin, 2017). Haass has been President of the Council of Foreign Relations since 2003. After graduating from Oberlin and receiving his M.Phil and D.Phil from Oxford, Haass worked for the Department of State and the Department of Defense. Between 2001 and 2003 he served the George W. Bush Administration by assuming the dual role of Director of Policy Planning at the State Department, where he became a close adviser to Secretary of State Colin Powell, and United States Special Envoy for Northern Ireland, for which he received the Department of State’s Distinguished Service Award. The book under discussion is Haass’ twelfth book, and it very much follows the line of thinking set out in probably his best known work, The Reluctant Sheriff,  in which he writes, “what will prove crucial is the ability of the United States to persuade others to adopt and abide by its preferences—and the will and ability of the United States to act as sheriff, to mobilize itself and others to insist on them when resistance emerges.” (p.44). In the present book he mellows some and invokes the principle of sovereign obligation, where a state works towards meeting the interests of other states. In the final chapter he addresses the issue of our country in disarray. (No, it is not about Donald Trump’s foreign policy.) Here he calls for more military spending. You can imagine how that analysis sits with this Connecticut Yankee and ordained minister (emeritus) of a historic peace church, e.g., Friends and Mennonites. The book does have value. I thought the discussion of R2P and United States debt were two of the high points.

I believe our group will be smaller this year, and if you are interested in foreign policy, world order, and international relations, please feel free to join us, even if you haven’t read the book. I will reserve a couple of extra places at the lunch table.

Cuban Law and Legal Research: A Snapshot During the Deshielo (Congelado?) – Monday, July 17, 2017, 9:45 a.m., Austin Convention Center, Room 18AB

By Julienne Grant

IMG_9721 (003)“The history of the United States and Cuba encompass[es] revolution and conflict, struggle and sacrifice, retribution and now reconciliation. It is time now for us to leave the past behind. It is time for us to look forward to the future together.”

-President Barack Obama, March 22, 2016, Havana, Cuba

 

“Therefore, effective immediately, I am canceling the last administration’s completely one-sided deal with Cuba.” 

-President Donald J. Trump, June 16, 2017, Miami, Florida

 

“Again, the United States Government resorts to coercive methods of the past, adopting measures to intensify the blockade, in force since February 1962, which not only causes damage and deprivation to the Cuban people and constitutes an undeniable obstacle to the development of our economy, but also affects the sovereignty and interests of other countries, inciting international rejection.” (Julienne E. Grant, translation)

-Declaration of the Revolutionary Government, June 16, 2017, Havana, Cuba

 

When I drafted a proposal last fall for an AALL program on Cuba, I envisioned a continuation of the dramatic deshielo (thaw) of relations between the U.S. and Cuba. Specifically, I assumed there would be a progression of the rapprochement that former President Obama alluded to in his speech in Havana on March 22, 2016.  What I didn’t foresee while crafting the program were the most recent proclamations by President Trump and the Cuban government.  Trump’s June 16th announcement in Miami that backtracks some of the previous administration’s initiatives has halted the thaw a bit. As such, this program is perhaps more appropriately a snapshot during the deshielo congelado (frozen thaw). However U.S.-Cuba relations can now be characterized, though, Cuba is on the cusp of dramatic changes, and it’s a hot topic.

Please join Dr. Marisol Florén-Romero (Florida International University), Teresa Miguel-Stearns (Yale), and me (Loyola University Chicago) as we first explore this enigmatic jurisdiction from a law librarian’s perspective. Our program will include a brief overview of the somewhat unwieldly nomenclature of Cuban law, as well as a short assessment of English-language sources that can provide insight into Cuba’s legal landscape. In addition, Teresa will offer a quick summary of her experience purchasing legal materials in Havana last year.  Accompanying the program is a useful 26-page handout that will be available for download.

Our featured speaker, however, is Professor Jorge R. Piñon, whose talk is titled “Cuba Business Scenarios:  Challenges and Opportunities,” certainly a timely topic in what is an extremely fluid political and economic environment.   Professor Piñon is the Interim Director of The University of Texas at Austin, Center for International Energy & Environmental Policy, and the Director of its Latin America & Caribbean Energy Program.

Professor Piñon is also recognized as an expert on Cuba’s energy sector, as well as on the island’s future economic transitional challenges and opportunities.  He is an advisor and a member of the Cuba Task Force at The Brookings Institution and co-author of “Cuba’s Energy Future: Strategic Approaches to Cooperation,” Brookings Institution Press, 2010.

Hope to see you on Monday for what is sure to be a lively, engaging, and enlightening hour!

 

The Social Responsibilities Special Interest Section Carbon Offset Project: Making a Difference in Global Climate Change

By Erin Gow

As the AALL 2017 conference approaches and you mark your calendars for all the great FCIL related sessions and events taking place in Austin this year, why not take a moment to consider contributing to the Social Responsibilities Special Interest Section Carbon Offset Project? This is a great opportunity to come together with librarians from other sections across AALL to make an international difference.

Climate change is a truly global issue, with international laws and treaties addressing a range of environmental issues that must be tackled beyond the borders of any single nation. This year the SR-SIS is providing an opportunity for everyone to make a difference to the international crisis of climate change by making a donation of just $6 to offset the carbon impact of travelling to the 2017 AALL conference. In addition to making a difference by offsetting carbon emissions, this year’s project also has a direct impact on the lives of people in Uganda, by providing cook stoves that are safer and cleaner than the toxic fires many families currently have to rely on to cook their meals. Visit www.aallnet.org/sections/sr/projects/Travel-Offset-Project.html to find out more about the project and to make a donation.

SR-SIS

Schedule of FCIL Events in Austin

2017-AALL-Annual-Meeting-Logo

Hello FCIL-SIS!  Are you ready for Austin next month?  We certainly are!

As we approach the 2017 AALL Annual Meeting in Austin, we encourage you to keep an eye on the blog and to follow us on Twitter for coverage of FCIL-SIS programming both during and after the conference.  

Also, PLEASE consider volunteering to recap a program (or two).  The recaps are super helpful for readers unable to attend the Conference (and for those of us who rely on recaps posted in the blog archives to refresh our dismal memories!).  If you are interested in volunteering to recap any of the events listed below, please contact Loren Turner (lturner@umn.edu) or Alyson Drake (alyson.drake@ttu.edu).

FCIL-SIS Events

2017 AALL ANNUAL MEETING, AUSTIN

Saturday, July 15

5:00 pm – 6:30 pm: Exhibit Hall Ribbon-Cutting/Opening Reception. Stop by the FCIL-SIS exhibit board!

Sunday, July 16

7:45 am – 8:45 am: FCIL-SIS Electronic Resources Interest Group Meeting (ACC Room 8B)

9:00 am – 10:15 am: Opening General Session (ACC-Grand Ballroom D-G)

11:30 am – 12:30 pm: Global Energy Law: Perspectives from North America and Africa (ACC Room 18AB)

1:00 pm – 2:15 pm: FCIL-SIS Jurisdictions Interest Group Joint Meeting (ACC Room 4C)

5:15 pm – 6:15 pm: FCIL-SIS Foreign Selectors Interest Group Meeting (ACC Room 7)

6:15 pm – 6:45 pm: FCIL-SIS Standing Committees Joint Meeting (Hilton Room 402)

Monday, July 17

7:00 am – 8:30 am: Business Meeting (Hilton Room 400)

9:45 am – 10:45 am: Cuban Law and Legal Research: A Snapshot during the Deshielo (ACC Room 18AB)

3:30 pm – 4:30 pm: FCIL-SIS Teaching Foreign & International Legal Research Interest Group Meeting (ACC Room 5B)

4:45 pm – 5:45 pm: FCIL-SIS Schaffer Grant Presentation: Rosemarie Rogers presents: I am the River and the River is Me  (ACC Room 8C)

6:00 pm – 7:00 pm: International Attendees Joint Reception (Hilton Governor’s Ballroom Salon B)

Tuesday, July 18

7:30 am – 8:15 am: FCIL-SIS Education Committee Meeting (Hilton Room 404)

 

austin

#IALL2016 Recap: Law Reporting in England 1550-1650

512 The_bookkeeper_by_van_Dijk

By: Jim Hart

After Professor Reynolds presentation, Diversities among Common Law Nations, Emeritus Professor Sir John Baker and Professor David Ibbetson spoke on the historical development of modern precedent and case reporting.  Although the two differ superficially, they are in fact deeply intertwined.  It may be said that they both spring from the same origin: changes in the theory of authority in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.

Professor Baker began with the origins of case reporting in England, as we know it, between 1550 and 1650.  The story begins at the end of the series of Year Books in 1535.  When Edmund Plowden entered the Middle Temple in 1538, he began compiling reports of cases and continued this practice throughout his career.  These reports were published as Plowden’s Commentaries in 1571. They were the first of the nominate reporters and differed in important respects from the Year Books.

Although the Year Books had been anonymous, Plowden published his Commentaries under his own name.  He had found out that someone had quickly and carelessly copied his notes and intended to publish them.  He was forced to publish them under his name to secure the credit for his assiduous work.  Indeed Plowden felt it necessary to apologize for putting out his reports in his own name.

A more substantive departure from the Year Books is his decision to include only considered decisions (decisions of particular importance that set precedent) in his reports.  Although he copied the Latin so that readers could see the pleadings, he translated them into law French because of the wide-spread doubt that the common law could be expressed satisfactorily in English.

But his greatest departure was recording cases after judgment because this is what the profession wanted.  The Year Books had recorded cases before trial, which is why they had not included many things that we now take for granted.   This is why the Year Books seem so inconclusive.  To the compilers of the Year Books, the judgment was considered legally uninteresting in comparison with the material that preceded it such as the pleadings, the issue, the arguments, etc.  At this time the judicial system was not designed primarily to elicit decisions, but to frame the points that were to be referred to a jury.  Judges’ rulings concerned procedure and were spoken in court so they were not available for copying.  By Plowden’s time things had changed.  The profession wanted to know how and why a case ended as it did.  It seems to me that this is the most important point made in Professor Baker’s talk.  For it was the development of the idea of precedent both on the Continent and in England at this time, as Professor Ibbetson was to explain next, that led to the changes in the legal system that the  profession’s need for a new kind of reporter.

Finally there were two other new, important practice adopted by Powden. Unlike the Year Books, Plowden also consulted those who were involved in the case to ensure accuracy and he included the judgment, which the Year Books could not have done because they reported cases before judgment.  The judgments were set in a different type so they wouldn’t be confused with the reports.

Plowden set a high standard and there was never to be another volume quite like it.  Most of what Plowden included is to be found in today’s reports. Indeed Plowden’s departures from the Year Books were the origin of our view of what a good report should include.  What we now call the judgment includes the judge’s informal statement of the case, the facts of the case, the legal question, the arguments presented in court, references to the authorities, and the reasons for the conclusion.

The second most important point that Professor Baker made, in my opinion, was that there was a continuous line of reporting that began with Plowden and continued through Dyer and Coke.  This line formed the tradition that the future nominate reports continued.

The work of the next reporter, Dyer, was published posthumously.  Sir James Dyer began gathering his reports in the 1530s, before Plowden had begun.  He left his manuscripts to his two nephews who were law students.  The published edition was taken straight from Dyer’s notebooks.  Although it included over a thousand entries, it left a lot out, e.g, cases that might embarrass a living person, cases that Plowden had already covered, and matters too sensitive to make public for reasons of state.  Within twenty-five years of their publication, the notebooks were in the possession of Sir Edmund Coke who cited them often.

It was common for judges to keep jottings in notebooks at this time as aids to memory.  The exception to this was Edmund Coke whose work was published in eight volumes.  He began taking notes in the 1570s and began making them available to others in the next decade.  The earlier notebooks were essentially the story of Coke’s rise in the bar.  Coke embellished and amplified on many of the cases.   In 1616 he was charged with inaccurate reporting and assigned to correct them.  Francis Bacon volunteered to help with the task.  In the very next year Bacon was made Lord Chancellor and banned Coke from Westminster.  He did, however, put forward a proposal to hire three lawyers to report on the cases at Westminster at a salary of £100 a year.  Although there were never more than two reporters, Bacon had revived the old custom.  He appointed lawyers to do the reporting because they did a better job than judges.  Before the reports were published, the reporters checked with the judges.  Bacon’s scheme continued Coke’s reports up to 1619 when there was a hiatus in reporting until 1621.

This presentation outlines the origins of the nominate reporters and our own systems of law reporting.  But many of them are still in manuscript form.  As the summary of Professor Baker’s presentation states, “Law reporting was to remain a matter of private initiative until the end of the eighteenth century, and many of the best reports…have still not been published.  Anyone seeking to trace the evolution of a legal doctrine or practice before about 1700 must regard manuscript reports as an essential recourse.”

#IALL2016 Recap: Humans as Service? Regulating Work in the Sharing Economy

Employment in the Shring Economy

By: Charles Bjork

Session Six of IALL’s 35rd annual course on international law and legal information in Oxford featured a talk by Associate Professor Jeremias Prassl of the Oxford University Law Faculty on the following topic: Humans as a Service?  Regulating Work in the Sharing Economy.

Professor Prassl began by describing the phenomenon known as the “collaborative,” “sharing,” or “gig” economy.  This phenomenon relies on crowdsourcing, a term coined by Jeff Howe of Wired magazine in 2006 to describe a business model in which online providers (platforms) outsource everything from project financing to the performance of specific tasks to large groups of individuals (crowds).  Examples of crowdsourcing platforms disrupting established business models include Uber and Lyft (taxi services) and airbnb (hotels).  Jeff Bezos, the CEO of Amazon.com, has stated that it is his ambition to use the provision of “humans as a service,” his term for crowdsourcing, to disrupt all types of conventional industries.

From the consumer’s perspective, the sharing economy offers several advantages, notably more providers of services at a lower cost, and the opportunity to incentivize better service through rating systems.  From the service provider’s perspective, the sharing economy also offers concrete benefits, such as the possibility of earning extra income, greater flexibility in the scheduling of work, and the opportunity to be one’s own boss by becoming a “micro-entrepreneur.”  However, as Prof. Prassl noted, the sharing economy is analogous to an iceberg.  The benefits are readily apparent on the surface, but hidden dangers lurk below the waterline.

The biggest downside of the sharing economy for service providers is that there is no guarantee that steady work will be available when needed.  Even when work is available, competition may drive down the price that providers can charge.  Thus micro-entrepreneurs may find themselves working long hours for low, unpredictable pay.  Micro-entrepreneurs also face legal uncertainties.  Will they be eligible for workers’ compensation if they are injured while performing a gig?  Not if they are classified as independent contractors, rather than employees.  What about liability insurance for negligent acts?  Most individual auto insurance policies don’t provide coverage when an Uber driver uses her vehicle to carry passengers for hire.

Consumers also face hidden downsides.  Rating systems are subject to manipulation and don’t guarantee good service.  In addition, platform owners, such as Uber, almost always require users to not to hold them liable for the negligence or fraudulent conduct of service providers as a condition of downloading the platform owner’s app.  Few users bother to read this fine print before downloading.  Consequently, a platform user who is injured or defrauded by a service provider may have no recourse other than to sue the service provider as an individual, rather than the platform owner with the deeper pockets.  If the service provider isn’t covered by liability insurance, there is a real danger that he may turn out to be judgment-proof.

Platform owners insist that they should not be subject to conventional employment laws because their new technologies are transformative.  Uber, for example, is actively lobbying to exempt itself from being subject to minimum wage and unemployment insurance laws.  Professor Prassl contends that, from a legal perspective, “gigs,” “tasks,” and “orders” are indistinguishable from conventional employment.  The technology may be novel, but the issues that it raises are not new.

The sharing economy can be seen as the continuation of longstanding trend among employers to shift more and more risks on to workers.  Individuals may find themselves working almost non-stop during periods of high demand, or risk being dropped by platform owners if they fail to make themselves available, and then go for long stretches with little or no work when demand is low.  Thus fluctuations in the business cycle are now born by workers rather than employers.  These practices undermines the conventional social contract whereby employers make long-term commitments to employees, providing them with a steady income and benefits, in return for a stable, better trained, and more highly motivated workforce.

Moving forward, the challenge will be to bring the new employment opportunities created by the sharing economy within the legal framework of conventional employment law.  Platform owners need not be required to provide the same level of legal protections and benefits to service providers that would be expected of a conventional employer, but some baseline level of protections and benefits should be required in order to create a more level playing field among conventional businesses and novel service providers.

#IALL2016 Recap: Guy Goodwin-Gill on Refugee Law

Goodwin-Gill 2
By: Amy Flick

Our program on Wednesday, August 3 included a program on “International Refugee Law: Where it Comes From, and Where It’s Going.” This was a timely topic this year, and our speaker was an expert on the subject.  Guy Goodwin-Gill practices as a barrister from Blackstone Chambers in London and has served as Legal Adviser in the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, as an advisor to United Kingdom Parliament Committees on asylum and immigration control, as Professor of asylum law at the University of Amsterdam, as Professor of international refugee law at All Souls’ College of Oxford University, and as founding editor and Editor-in-Chief of the International Journal of Refugee Law.

Goodwin-Gill noted that refugee law developed along with international organizations, so he began with historical background as important to understanding refugee law. The first High Commissioner for Refugees, Fridtjof Nansen, was appointed when the International Committee of the Red Cross wrote to the League of Nations in 1921 about Russian refugees needing attention in the displacements that followed World War I and the Russian Revolution. Nansen identified identification documents as a primary need to allow refugees to travel and find work, so he persuaded states to issue “Nansen passports.” Rather than returning refugees to dangerous environments, he concentrated on allowing states to allow resettlement and employment. The earliest refugee law focused on Russian refugees, but there were three million refugees in need of resettlement after World War I. Aid was provided in a piecemeal fashion as individual groups in need were identified.

In 1933, the League appointed James Grover McDonald as High Commissioner for Refugees to work with the growing number of Jewish refugees from Germany. He found that governments were unwilling to deal with the causes of the refugee crisis and resigned in 1935, with a famous letter of resignation, noting that “conditions in Germany which create refugees have developed so catastrophically that a reconsideration by the League of Nations of the entire situation is essential.”  Goodwin-Gill asserted that the challenges of earlier decades in refugee law are still those of today, where governments need to lead the way and do not.

In 1946, at the first session of the United Nations General Assembly (at the Central Hall Westminster in London), the refugee problem was the second most debated issue, after peace and security. Refugee law “took off” in 1948 with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and its recognition of the right of persons to seek asylum. Politics are always involved in refugee law, and early refugee law was informed by Cold War politics, with United States policy important in setting the direction of the law. The 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees was adopted by a United Nations conference and was signed in July 1951. Goodwin-Gill pointed out that the convention is on the status of refugees, concentrating on how refugees are treated, not on the bigger picture of the conditions creating refugees. States sought to limit their obligations, and definitions of who is a refugee were limited to those outside their own country, with a well-founded fear of persecution.

Goodwin-Gill began work with High Commissioner Sadruddin Aga Khan in 1976, and he recommends Aga Khan’s lectures on refugee law at the Hague Academy of International Law as reading for law students. Under Sadruddin Aga Khan, the UNHCR expanded its jurisdiction beyond Europe, encouraged self-sufficiency, and encouraged repatriation and aid to refugees who do return. States were still reluctant to recognize the reasons for refugees to remain, and Aga Khan encouraged mediation of international disputes and recognized that underdevelopment is as much of an issue as conflict. As co-chairman of the Independent Commission on International Humanitarian Issues in 1986, Aga Khan pushed for a new international humanitarian order, with a report on international cooperation to avert new flows of refugees that Goodwin-Gill recommends.

Before the 1980s, there was little writing on “aliens” and the movement between states, but in the 1980s there was an explosion in the literature on refugee law, including Goodwin-Gill’s own book, a fourth edition of which is in the works now.  There was also an explosion of jurisprudence on refugee law that hadn’t existed before, but states wanted procedures for determining refugee status.

In current refugee law, Goodwin-Gill finds that there has been an over-judicialization of refugee law, approached on a case-by-case basis. Human rights jurisprudence has contributed to more progressive thinking on refugees, with human rights law, international humanitarian law, and refugee law all cross-referenced.

The challenges of 2016 include the inability of the European Union states to develop a coherent response to the crisis, which is smaller than earlier crises like that of the 1930s. EU states have been reluctant to provide practical help, wanting someone else to be responsible.  Goodwin-Gill argues that there is need to focus on the practice of states. There should be collective action of the European Union, which has principles of cooperation in its treaties. Its failure to respond has left people in limbo and has been a major political failure. The European Union has promised migration agreements to developing countries but has failed to deliver. Forty years after his work with the UNHCR, the world is facing the same challenges. How Europe, and the world, work through the current issues will influence the future of refugee law.