Wednesday, December 29, 2021
Save the date for virtual discussion onComing Out in the International Workplace
Thursday, January 13, 2022
5:00-6:30 p.m. Eastern USA
Please join a candid, informal discussion on the risks and benefits of coming out in the international legal workplace. We'll address issues of concern to LGBTQ+ lawyers and law students, including: Will being out in the workplace affect my career prospects? What if my practice takes me to jurisdictions where homosexuality may be illegal? We will also discuss what support transnational employers should provide for their LGBTQ+ employees. GIN members and allies will share some experiences and practical advice on these questions in an international online meeting.
Sponsored by:American Bar Association International Law Section / Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Network (GIN) In cooperation with:- ABA Commission on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity- ABA Litigation Section / LGBT Law & Litigator Committee
(mew)
December 29, 2021 | Permalink | Comments (0)
Each year, Scribes—The American Society of Legal Writers—sponsors a competition to recognize an outstanding note or comment written by a law student who is associated with a student-edited law review or journal. This award has the distinction of being the only national award for student authors that places no limitation on subject matter.
Scribes hopes that your journals will enter this year’s competition by submitting an outstanding student note or comment that has been, or will be, published between June 1, 2021, and May 31, 2022. The competition will be judged by the Scribes Law Review Committee. The winning journal and the author of the winning note or comment will each receive a plaque.
The deadline to submit a nomination for this year’s award is January 29, 2022. For more information and an entry form, please contact scribeslegalwriters@gmail.com.
December 29, 2021 | Permalink | Comments (0)
Tuesday, December 28, 2021
The University of Michigan Law School invites junior scholars to attend the 8th Annual Junior Scholars Conference, which will take place in person on April 22-23, 2022 in Ann Arbor, Michigan. The conference provides junior scholars with a platform to present and discuss their work with peers, and to receive detailed feedback from senior members of the Michigan Law faculty. The Conference aims to promote fruitful collaboration between participants and to encourage their integration into a community of legal scholars. The Junior Scholars Conference is intended for academics in both law and related disciplines. Applications from graduate students, SJD/PhD candidates, postdoctoral researchers, lecturers, teaching fellows, and assistant professors (pre-tenure) who have not held an academic position for more than four years, are welcomed.
Applications are due by January 10, 2022.
To apply, please submit an abstract of no more than 500 words reflecting the unpublished work that you wish to present and a copy of your CV through the online submission form by January 10, 2022. Please submit all files as Microsoft Word documents. Please name the documents using the following format: Last name – First name – The nature of the document you are submitting (whether it be abstract, CV or funding). For example, the name of the abstract you are submitting would be: VAN DIJCKE – HANNAH – ABSTRACT. Selection will be based on the quality and originality of the
abstract as well as its capacity to engage with other proposals and to foster a collaborative dialogue.
Decisions will be communicated no later than February 9, 2022. Selected participants will be required to submit final papers by March 23, 2022, so that they may be sent to your faculty commentator and
circulated among participants in advance.
There seems to be a backup plan if the conference can't go live or if a particular presenter is unable to travel. And there's also some travel money available if you are otherwise unable to make the trip to Michigan.
Hat tip to Muhui Shi.
(mew)
December 28, 2021 | Permalink | Comments (0)
Sunday, December 26, 2021
Vacancy Announcement for the Post of Assistant Dean for Graduate & Experiential Education – JSW Law
Assistant Dean for Graduate & Experiential Education
Founded in 2015 by His Majesty the King, the Jigme Singye Wangchuck School of Law (JSW Law) is the first and only law school in the Kingdom of Bhutan. JSW Law is a small law school, with approximately 20 full‐time faculty and between 100‐125 undergraduate law students. Pursuant to its Royal Charter, JSW Law is dedicated to educating Bhutan’s future legal professionals, producing high‐quality research in law and allied fields, and providing service to the community and the nation.
JSW Law seeks an experienced legal academician to join its faculty on a three‐year contract (non‐tenure track) basis to design and roll out the law school’s nascent Master of Laws (LL.M.) programs and to oversee the compulsory tenth‐semester internship program. The ideal candidate will also co‐teach the law school’s first‐year sequence in legal writing and research and the upper-class courses in Moot Court and Oral Advocacy.
The expected start date for this position is July 1, 2022. The candidate would be required to relocate on a permanent basis to Bhutan.
More information about the law school is available on our website at https://www.jswlaw.bt/
Click here for more information.
Hat tip to Michael Peil
Mark E. Wojcik (who has lived in Bhutan and taught at the Law School, and who can tell you it's a great place!)
December 26, 2021 | Permalink | Comments (0)
Sunday, December 19, 2021
The Association of American Law Schools (AALS) will hold its 2022 Annual Meeting online from January 5-9, 2022. Most U.S. law schools have paid a flat-rate fee that allows their faculty to register and participate in the Annual Meeting at no individual costs to the professor. The AALS website has a full list of law schools whose faculty members can take advantage of this opportunity to participate in the Annual Meeting.
To assist blog readers who will be attending the AALS Annual Meeting, we'll post lists (we're calling them "dance cards") of international and comparative law panels and events. We hope you find it helpful.
AALS 2022 Annual Meeting
Comparative Law Dance Card
January 5-9, 2022 (Online)
All times are Eastern Standard Time
Wednesday, January 5, 2022
11:00 a.m. – 12:15 p.m. (EST). Comparative Law, Co‐Sponsored by East Asian Law & Society, International Human Rights, and Law, Medicine and Health Care, Did Democracy Stumble? Pandemic Lessons from Around the Globe
By the end of 2021, COVID-19 would have been with us for almost two years. While the pandemic may be under control at that point, legislative and policy recommendations are also needed for the long “build-back’ of a better post COVID world. How have legal and political systems responded to ongoing challenges presented by the pandemic to democracy, human rights, and rule of law? What best practices can be gleaned from a comparative perspective on how governmental authorities have responded in the face of a public health crisis?
3:10 – 4:25 p.m. (EST). Comparative Law, Works in Progress on Comparative Law
Thursday, January 6, 2022
11:00 a.m. – 12:15 p.m. (EST). Law in the Americas, Co‐Sponsored by Comparative Law, International and Comparative Legal Research
This program will provide attendees with research strategies and tools for international and comparative legal research, with a special focus on law in the Americas and the Caribbean.
3:10 p.m. – 4:25 p.m. (EST). Legal History, Co‐Sponsored by Comparative Law, Using Historical Context Across the Law School Curriculum in Response to January 6th, 2021
Exactly one year ago on January 6th, 2021, the United States experienced a presidential transition that was not peaceful. How can law school professors help the next generation's guardians of justice and the rule of law to become aware of the fragility of those ideals? This panel gives examples from courses in Criminal Law, Business Associations, Corporate Tax, Property, Civil Procedure, and Professional Responsibility of past attempts to threaten the institutions that form the bulwark of our legal system and those elsewhere and of past efforts to neutralize those threats.
Friday, January 7, 2022
2:00 – 3:00 p.m. (EST). Comparative Law Section Networking Session.
Take a break from formal programming and join your colleagues from the Section on Comparative Law for informal conversation.
Sunday, January 9, 2022
11:00 a.m. – 12:15 p.m. (EST). Real Estate Transactions Co‐Sponsored by Comparative Law, International Real Estate
“Finance without Law: China’s Extralegal Overseas Debt Market” - new scholarship related to the Evergrande situation, and practical perspectives on cross-border real estate transactions in the European Union.
4:45 p.m. -- 6:00 p.m. (EST). Section on East Asian Law & Society, Co-sponsored by the Section on Comparative Law. Academic Freedom and Scholars at Risk in East Asia.
In theory, academics can engage in intellectual debate, rigorous research, and open publication without fear of censorship, retaliation, or professional censure. Yet with the rise of illiberal politicians, and the retrenchment of authoritarianism in many parts of the world, academic freedom is sacrificed for political expediency. Scholars, journalists, and academics have been detained, sued under vague theories such as picking quarrels or posting negative information, and occasionally indicted under capacious interpretations of criminal defamation. This panel examines recent developments in China, Hong Kong, and South Korea related to academic freedom.
(mew)
December 19, 2021 | Permalink | Comments (0)
Thursday, December 16, 2021
Temple University School of Law is seeking to hire a Practice Professor of Law (Legal Research & Writing for International LLM Students) and Director, International Writing Center
Minimum Education and Experience:
JD required, additional degree in Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages preferred, as well as demonstrated scholarly potential and experience teaching legal research and writing to international Master of Laws (LLM) students.
Job description:
The primary teaching responsibility of the professor is Legal Research & Writing (LRW) for international LLM students (fall and summer semesters), LRW II for international students (spring semester), and, as needed, guided research. The professor will teach a section of 20-30 international LLM students and hire adjuncts as needed for additional sections.
The courses integrate legal analysis, research, advocacy, communication skills, and an argument before federal judges based on briefs students prepare. The professor will present course material during the assigned course times, hold office hours, provide detailed feedback on writing assignments, assign grades, and coordinate any other requirements related to course instruction.
As director of the International Writing Center, the director will manage the Center, hire and train tutors, ensure writing support for all international LLM/SJD students and visiting research scholars at the law school, and develop and perform the Center’s academic and skills support programming.
To apply:
Women and minority candidates are encouraged to apply. Applicants must submit a resume and cover letter by January 28, 2022 to intllaw@temple.edu.
Temple University values diversity and is committed to equal opportunity for all persons regardless of age, color, disability, ethnicity, marital status, national origin, race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, veteran status, or any other status protected by law.
Hat tip to John Smagula, Assistant Dean of Graduate and International Programs
(mew)
December 16, 2021 | Permalink | Comments (0)
Wednesday, December 15, 2021
We are pleased to share with you the following Guest Blog Post from Professor Bashar Malkawi, Global Professor of Law at the University of Arizona.
(mew)
The "Economic and Trade Agreement between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the People's Republic of China," known as the Phase One Deal, entered into force on February 14, 2020. Through this agreement, China would, among other things, make structural reforms, open its financial services, and strengthen intellectual property. As a part of this deal, China pledged to buy at least $200 billion more U.S. goods and services over the course of 2020 and 2021. However, after almost two years, complaints have arisen about China not meetings its obligations under the Phase One Deal. According to some statistics, China has reached only sixty two percent of that target. Thus, the current state of affairs presents the question of compliance and enforcement under the Phase One Deal.
Flaws in the deal’s provisions present a very important question: is the Phase One Deal effective enough or are other measures needed to resolve market issues between China and the United States?
According to the provisions of the Phase One Deal, the U.S. and China agreed to an innovative approach for the compliance and enforcement of their agreement. Chapter Seven of the Phase One Deal details the steps needed to ensure effective implementation of the agreement. The Phase One Deal created the Trade Framework Group to discuss the implementation of agreement, led by the United States Trade Representative, a designated Vice Premier of the People’s Republic of China, and a Bilateral Evaluation and Dispute Resolution Office for each party. As in a typical trade agreement, a complaining party can submit an appeal to the Bilateral Evaluation and Dispute Resolution Office of the party complained against when there is an issue regarding the agreement. If this issue is not resolved, then the matter can be raised to the designated Deputy United States Trade Representative and the designated Vice Minister.
The Phase One Deal provides that if the concerns of the complaining party are not resolved at the level of the United States Trade Representative and the designated Vice Premier of the People's Republic of China, then "the Parties shall engage in expedited consultations in response to the damages or losses incurred by the Complaining Party. If the parties reach consensus on a response, the response shall be implemented. But if the “Parties do not reach consensus, the Complaining Party may resort to taking action, including by suspending an obligation under this Agreement or by adopting a remedial measure in a proportionate way that it considers appropriate.”
Thus, one of the issues with the Phase One Deal emerges when Article 7.4 permits either party—but of course for all practicality, it is the U.S.—to unilaterally retaliate by suspending an obligation or by adopting a remedial measure in a “proportionate way,” with the purpose of preventing the escalation of the situation and maintaining the normal bilateral trade relationship, as long as the action was taken in good faith. The language used creates room for wide interpretation, such as "proportionate way" and "good faith." Rather than achieving the purported goals of the Phase One Deal of managing trade in a peaceful manner, the dispute resolution language may lead to escalation of trade tensions between the U.S. and China. This is exacerbated by the fact that, according to the Phase One Deal, it is the complaining party who determines whether there is a violation of the agreement, as there is no independent panel or tribunal that makes this determination. The Phase One Deal is not clear on the remedial measures that can be taken by the complaining party, whether it is the suspension of tariff or quota concessions or imposing additional tariffs and for how long these measures can be taken. In sum, the U.S. can unilaterally determine whether a violation has occurred and subsequently, the duration of the suspension of concessions and the severity of this suspension.
The question of whether it is expected of both parties—but mainly the U.S.—to take unilateral measures to enforce the Phase One Deal remains. Although statements made by U.S. officials indicate that this is likely, thus far, evidence shows that enforcement under the Phase One Deal may not happen for several reasons. First, when the U.S. takes action, China can either accept the remedial measure, along with a promise not to retaliate, or withdraw from the Phase One Deal. The latter option is more harmful than taking the remedial measure itself. Second, from an economic perspective, any targets achieved under the deal are better than nothing or, worse, reverting to trade wars with China. Third, from a geopolitical perspective, there are few, if any, alternative venues to force China to abide by its trade obligations. The World Trade Organization (WTO) is in bad shape, especially its Appellate Body, "the crown jewel" of the organization, which has the final say on trade disputes. Furthermore, it is doubtful whether the Phase One Deal can be legitimate under WTO rules. The WTO Agreement on Safeguard, provides that:
"A Member shall not seek, take or maintain any voluntary export restraints, orderly marketing arrangements or any other similar measures on the export or the import side. These include actions taken by a single Member as well as actions under agreements, arrangements and understandings entered into by two or more Members. Any such measure in effect on the date of entry into force of the WTO Agreement shall be brought into conformity with this Agreement or phased out."
Clearly, measures such as bilateral voluntary export restraints, orderly marketing agreements, and similar measure that limit imports of certain products are prohibited under WTO rules.
In addition to the question of whether the Phase One Deal can and will be enforced, there is the question of whether the substance of the deal itself is sound and legitimate. As it stands, the purpose of this deal is, essentially, to manage trade instead of to correct market problems between the U.S. and China. This is evidenced by the fact that one of the main provisions of the deal is to have China engage more heavily in trade with the U.S.. This provision of the deal can be attributed to the misdiagnosis of the market issues between these two countries by former US President Donald Trump. According to Trump, the root of the market issues between the U.S. and China was the trade deficit. However, managing trade in order to attempt to improve the trade relationship between the U.S. is the wrong approach and “distracts from the engagement necessary to address the costly incompatibilities of the Chinese economic system with the more market-oriented economies of the U.S., European Union, Japan, and other like-minded countries”.
This is not to say that the deal does not contain useful provisions. For example, in the Phase One Deal, China pledged to increase the enforcement of intellectual property law violations, to remove technical barriers to trade, and to allow additional market access. Although these aspects of the deal can be the foundation for future progress, certain integral flaws cannot be overlooked and it cannot be said that managing trade—micro-managing, even—is the solution to trade issues between the U.S. and China.
In conclusion, putting aside the political rhetoric, opening the Phase One Deal to re-adjustment and negotiations seems to be the most plausible option in the short term. The Phase One Deal has been a success, despite the flaws in the deal's text. For example, some elements of the deal that are worth preserving and building upon are “China’s pledge to strengthen enforcement against intellectual property law violations and its vow to expand opportunities for foreign investment in markets like financial services.” Although no country should be forced to import from another country, China was, nevertheless, willing to import from the U.S. in increased quantities, at least, making the sentiments behind the deal, and the intent to resolve market issues and the trade war with the U.S., valid. Thus, the U.S. should re-attempt to establish diplomacy and negotiations. Not only would it benefit the U.S. to have intellectual property protections honored in China, but it would give the U.S. more investment opportunities in the future and help alleviate the ill effects of the trade war.
Guest Blog Post from Professor Bashar Malkawi, Global Professor of Law at the University of Arizona
December 15, 2021 | Permalink | Comments (0)
Tuesday, December 14, 2021
Calling all law school academics - the 2022 Association of American Law Schools (AALS) annual meeting is almost here! There are many great international law programs planned. In particular, the AALS International Law Section is sponsoring the following programs:
1. The Challenges and Opportunities of Teaching International Law Responses to the Climate Change Crisis
This pedagogy-focused discussion will take place on Sat, Jan. 8, 2022 at 4:45 (Eastern). It features Dean Hari Osofsky (Northwestern) as moderator and Professors David Hunter (American), Deepa Badrinarayana (Chapman), and Lisa Benjamin (Lewis and Clark) as panelists.
2. State Responsibility to Address Racism
This timely discussion will take place on Saturday morning, Jan. 8, at 11 am (Eastern). It features Professor Victoria Sahani (Arizona State) as moderator and speakers Patricia Galvao Teles from the UN International Law Commission, Gay McDougall from Fordham Univerity School of Law, and Anna Spain Bradley, UCLA School of Law.
In addition, the International Law Section is sponsoring a virtual Networking Session from 1-2 pm (Eastern) on Saturday, Jan. 8 as well.
There are many more excellent programs relating to international law sponsored by sections on International Human Rights, European Law, Comparative Law, East Asian Law & Society, and much more. Be sure to check on the full program on the AALS Annual Meeting website.
(cgb)
December 14, 2021 | Permalink | Comments (0)
Monday, December 13, 2021
The Global Legal Monitor from the Law Library of Congress carried the news that the United Arab Emirates (UAE) announced that federal government departments will change their weekly working hours effective January 1, 2022. Under the new system, public sector employees at the ministerial level will work a four-and-a-half-day workweek. The Emirates News Agency has stated that this decision comes as part of the UAE government’s efforts to enhance work-life balance.
The new system allows federal government workers to work eight hours, between 7:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., which is 90 minutes longer than under the current Monday-through-Thursday working hours. On Friday, the working hours will be from 7:30 a.m. to noon. Options for working from home on Fridays and for flexible work hours will also be amended.
Click here to read more about the new UAE Working Hours.
Hat tip to the Law Library of Congress.
(mew)
December 13, 2021 | Permalink | Comments (0)
Friday, December 10, 2021
Today, December 10, 2021, marks the 73rd anniversary of the day when the U.N. General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration on Human Rights.
(mew)
December 10, 2021 | Permalink | Comments (0)
Thursday, December 2, 2021
The Barry ACS Student Chapter & Law Review and the Texas A&M University School of Law have extended the Call for Papers for the Seventh Annual Constitutional Law Scholars Forum. The Call invites scholarly proposals at any stage before publication on the following topics: Constitutional Law, Ethics, or Technology in Law Practice. Multiple proposals may be submitted. The Forum provides an opportunity for international and national scholars to vet their work-in-progress in a welcoming, supportive environment. The Forum is not accepting proposals from students at this time. Participants may present in person or virtually.
The deadline to submit proposals has been extended to January 1, 2022.
Conference location: Barry University Dwayne O. Andreas School of Law Campus in Orlando, FL is located within proximity to recreational activities—Universal Studios, Disney World, Epcot Center, Sea World, world class golf courses, and beaches. Orlando offers an average temperature of 72-78°F in February/March.
There are no conference fees, and meals are provided on Friday, the conference day.
Submissions:
(cgb)
December 2, 2021 | Permalink | Comments (0)
