Faculty Channel • Et. Seq: The Harvard Law School Library Blog

852 RARE: From Paper Plates to Sticky Notes, Documenting Student Activism

Historical & Special Collections (HSC) has been working hard since the spring of 2016 to collect material that helps tell the story of student life at Harvard Law School (HLS), most recently in the form of the HLS Community Capture Project. Given our focus on archiving student action, it was very exciting to find a nondescript, cardboard box tucked away in the Library’s art office, contained objects from a student protest in 1987.

On the front of the box scribbled in pencil were notes made by Bernice Loss, the School’s first art curator. Loss, a trained artist (and spouse of HLS faculty member Louis Loss) started to look after the School’s art collection in the early 1970s. In 1977, she was named the first HLS art director, later becoming the curator of the art collection and a member of the Library’s Special Collections Department (created in 1985). Loss’ inscription reads: 1987 / Paper Plate Faces / (To protest too many male faces in collection). Inside are more than 50 papers plates with images and slogans written in marker meant to highlight the larger number of white, male portraits and the lack of women and professors of color. According to Loss’ notes, these plates were placed in the hallways of Austin Hall, on books in the Austin Hall north classroom; on the frames of pictures in Langdell Hall; as well as a few other locations on campus.

Piece of paper and 4 plates

A sign and examples of the paper plates recently rediscovered.
Harvard Law School Library, Historical & Special Collections

During her tenure, Loss worked to diversify the portrait collection, overseeing the acquisition of portraits of women and people of color including Judge Ruth Abrams (LL.B. 1956), Florence Allen, Clarence Clyde Ferguson, and George Lewis Ruffin (LL.B. 1869). However, then as now, the collection was predominantly made up of portraits of white men.

Like the notes students placed “beside portraits of black faculty, expressing appreciation for their pedagogy, scholarship, and character” in response to the vandalism of photographs of Black faculty members (and later archived by HSC), these paper plates are extremely ephemeral, making it all the more exciting that they have survived more than 30 years. They also raise interesting questions regarding their storage and preservation, as well as the ethics of collecting student protest material. Did students consider what would happen to the plates after they put them up? Were they involved in the transfer of material to the Library? How does one care for paper objects that are more 3-D than flat?

The plates and their accompanying material will now be formally accessioned and made available to anyone who would like to see them.

If you were a student involved in this protest, we would love to hear from you and learn more about this action and how the HLS community responded.

Coming to Historical & Special Collections on June 1: HOLLIS Special Request

On June 1, 2018, Harvard Law School Library’s Historical & Special Collections (HSC) will begin using HOLLIS Special Request!

HOLLIS Special Request allows you to request material to view in our reading room and to request reproductions of HSC’s materials. HOLLIS Special Request replaces paper registration and request forms, and will make it easier for you to keep track of appointment and reproduction requests. Appointments in HSC’s reading room, the Root Room, are available Tuesday-Friday between 10:00 and 5:00.

Use HOLLIS Special Request to:

  • Submit requests to use HSC material in our reading room via links in the Harvard Library catalog, HOLLIS
  • Submit orders for reproductions including digital scans of Harvard special collections materials
  • Track the status of your requests in a single location
  • Access detailed information about past requests

Many Harvard special collections and archives already use HOLLIS Special Request. Once you have created an account you can use it to request material from all participating Harvard libraries and keep track of your requests in a single location.

To get started, create your HOLLIS Special Request account now!

Here’s a quick tutorial to help you get started, and some FAQs about using HOLLIS Special Request and HSC’s collections. We are excited about HOLLIS Special Request and look forward to going live on June 1!

Scanning Nuremberg: “Your child belongs to us already.”

Post by Matt Seccombe, May 7, 2018

During April I analyzed the documents in seven IMT prosecution document books, covering 245 documents and 770 pages of material. The subjects covered diverse elements of the “Common plan or conspiracy” charge (count 1), including totalitarian control, education and youth, propaganda, purges and terrorization, labor, and suppression of Christian churches. The material reflects the prosecution’s central argument, that the war crimes and crimes against humanity (counts 3 and 4) were derivative of the primary crime—the war of aggression (count 2)—and that the entire Nazi regime was a common plan to take control of Germany and mobilize it for that war.

Tactics: While the main story of the rise to power is familiar, partly due to the trial’s function in presenting the record to the world, some of the details are surprising. Beyond thuggery in the streets, some of the early measures were more subtle. One affidavit described a tactic used by Goebbels in Berlin: “Once, in order to disrupt the premiere of the film ‘All Quiet on the Western Front,’ he had white mice smuggled into the theater and then set them free; this caused an indescribable panic among the female moviegoers.”

Militarization: The evidence confirms the theme that the regime was dedicated to war from the outset and that it worked systematically to militarize every element of German society. The take-over of the trade unions in May 1933 was not simply a matter of controlling the organizations. It extended to the reorientation of work, as reflected in the rhetoric: Nazi activists in workplaces were the “Factory Troops,” and workers became “Soldiers of Labor.”

The message was pervasive in the Hitler Youth organizations: “He who wants to live should also fight!” “Fight is the highest aim of youth.” “For Hitler we live, For Hitler we die.” (By the way, Hitler Youth organizations operated in many countries outside Germany, including the United States.)

The indoctrination extended to young children, including one very young boy who was visited by a monitor at home. She told him, “You must grow up and be a big boy so you can fight for the Fuehrer.” He replied, “I don’t like to fight.” The lesson was repeated.

Hitler himself made the point most emphatically. In a speech in November 1933 he addressed those who had opposed him and would never support him. That no longer mattered, he told them: “Your child belongs to us already”

The HLS Library holds approximately one million pages of documents relating to the trial of military and political leaders of Nazi Germany before the International Military Tribunal (IMT) and to the twelve trials of other accused war criminals before the United States Nuremberg Military Tribunals (NMT). We have posted five trials so far (NMT 1 through NMT 4 and NMT 7) and have completed digitization of all the documents and transcripts. 

We are now engaged in the process of analyzing, describing and making machine readable the remaining trials’ materials in preparation for posting them to the Web. We hope to complete this work as soon as possible based upon available funding.  For more information about this project, please contact Jocelyn Kennedy.

Summer Renovations Coming to a Library Near You!

We are improving our spaces to improve our services!

Beginning May 2018, the HLS Library will undergo renovation to bring our Research Services, Teaching, Learning, & Curriculum Solutions, and administrative staff closer to you, our users! Our renovations will occur over two summers, and our renovated spaces will include updated technology in our study rooms; open collaborative spaces; new private talking spaces; and easy access to library experts on the 2nd and 3rd floors of Langdell Hall.

During the Summer of 2018, we will renovate Langdell 3 South and Langdell 2 South. Our second renovation aka Phase 2 will take place during summer 2019 (more about this below).

Here’s our tentative schedule for phase 1:

Friday, May 18: Langdell 3 South will be walled off for the start of the renovation

Friday, May 25: The Lemann Lounge will be walled off for construction immediately after Commencement.

Construction will take place throughout the summer.

October 2018: Research Services and Teaching, Learning, & Curriculum Solutions will move from the fourth and fifth floors of Areeda Hall to the renovated area in Langdell 3 South. The renovated space will include an open, collaborative area and three group study rooms with improved technology.

Library Administration will move from the fifth floor of Areeda Hall to the south side of Langdell 2.

What about the art?

Don’t worry–paintings and sculptures in affected areas will be stored or relocated in the Library to prevent any damage during renovation.

What about noise?

We will do everything we can to minimize the sound and disruption during renovation. However, there is always some disruption and noise. All heavy construction will finish by 10am each day. We’ll have plenty of earplugs available and noise-canceling headphones available for check out at the Circulation Desk on a first-come, first-served basis.

What if it’s still noisy or I have a question or suggestion? 

Please email hlslweb@law.harvard.edu.

What about the Reading Room?

We love the Reading Room just the way it is! No changes are planned.

How do I find a book?

Check our guide to finding items at the HLS Library, which is being updated regularly. If you still can’t find something, just ask.

What about Phase 2?

We will start planning for Phase 2 in late summer. We value your input! Please watch your email, library and student org space bulletin boards, and our lightning lesson table for opportunities to participate in the planning. We’ve done some preliminary research with student groups and can tell you that the area will remain student-focused for study and collaboration. Have thoughts now? Email hlslweb@law.harvard.edu.

How can I stay up to date on what’s happening?

Watch this blog space and our social media for periodic progress reports.

Are you really excited about the renovations?

Yes, we’re super excited about getting more collaborative and modular space that will bring us closer to our community. We can’t wait to welcome you to our new and improved Research Services, TLC, and Library Administration areas in October!

Voting With Your Feet? Better Check Protocol First…

Today we’re sharing an addendum to our Scanning Nuremberg series written by document analyst Judith Haran.

Post by Judith Haran, May 3, 2018

I’ve been analyzing documents for the HLS Nuremberg Project for a year now, and I’ve seen a lot of odd and often disturbing tales: stories of slave labor on a scale difficult to imagine, starvation, beatings, even kidnapping of children from lands to the east of the Third Reich. My task for the past three months has been to read through and index transcripts of the “Industrialist Trials”—the trials of the directors of Krupp (armament makers), I.G. Farben (a huge chemical conglomerate, whose product line included Zyklon B) and the Flick concern (a coal/steel industrial empire). The transcripts are long, up to 13,000 pages in the case of the Krupp trial, and can get repetitive at times. But the stories they tell are endlessly fascinating.

April was devoted to the Krupp trial. Over two hundred witnesses testified between November 1947 and the following June. In addition to ‘hearing’ what the witnesses had to say (which included accounts of people being locked inside steel cabinets, beaten with shovels, and dying in air raids after being excluded from shelters), I find that some of the juiciest tidbits come from ‘eavesdropping’ on conversations between the judges and the attorneys . . .endless arguments over admissibility of evidence, techniques of cross-examination (apparently not part of the European tradition), and other points of legal strategy. But the atmosphere, as far as this reader can tell, remained cordial and professional . . . most of the time.

Members of the defense counsel watch and listen as evidence is presented against their clients in the Justice Case. Left to right: Dr. Alfred Schilf of Ansbach defending Herbert Klemm; Dr. Erich Wandschneider of Hamburg-Othmarschen defending Curt Rothenberger and Dr. Heinrich Grub of Nurnberg defending Ernst Lautz.

Members of the defense counsel watch and listen as evidence is presented against their clients in the Justice Case, one of the current war crimes trials at Nurnberg directed against the former Nazi judges and public prosecutors. Left to right: Dr. Alfred Schilf of Ansbach defending Herbert Klemm; Dr. Erich Wandschneider of Hamburg-Othmarschen defending Curt Rothenberger and Dr. Heinrich Grub of Nurnberg defending Ernst Lautz. olvwork376096

Three American jurists ran the Krupp trial: Judge Anderson of Tennessee, Judge Daly of Connecticut, and Judge Wilkins of Seattle, Washington. Anderson, the official presiding judge, ran a tight ship. However, a major upheaval in his otherwise peaceful courtroom occurred on trial day 21, a cold, damp day in January, 1948. Perhaps it was the ongoing lack of decent food in the city, or the sub-par accommodations. Perhaps the heat, which wasn’t that great to begin with, wasn’t working that day. In any event, the tensions that had been simmering beneath the surface since the start of the trials in 1945 finally came to a boil. Alfred Schilf, counsel for defendant Friedrich Janssen, lost his composure.

 

After listening to the prosecution present written evidence for all of a Friday morning, Herr Schilf tried to raise a point about an issue from the day before. Judge Daly, who was presiding that day, interrupted him. Things quickly began to get heated. Schilf got angry and attempted yet again to speak. Daly shot him down harshly: “There will be no further discussion on that.”

Schilf, however, wouldn’t give up.

“Your honor, I protest that I am not permitted to go on. . .”
“Did you hear me say, counselor, that there will be no further discussion on this question?”
“Yes, and I protest against this ruling and request that a decision of another court. . .”
“You will please take your seat or I will order you removed from the courtroom.”
“Ich bitte darum,” (I ask you to) replied Schilf, with an acid tone of voice (as it later emerged in testimony).
“All right, you can remove yourself, then,” the judge replied.1

Schilf left the courtroom in a huff, and the prosecution continued presenting written evidence for the next few hours. After 47 additional pieces of evidence had been presented, Judge Daly finally noticed that none of the twenty-odd members of the defense team were present in the courtroom, remarking “They perhaps folded their tents.” He sent the marshal out to round them up. It took thirty minutes to find them.

What happened next came as a shock to the defense team. Daly found that twelve of them had left deliberately and announced that these twelve were to be held in contempt of court. Asked why they had left, a spokesman for the group told the judges, “An injustice had been done to our honor.” Daly ordered the marshal to arrest the leaders of the group and to keep them in prison for the weekend.

One of the accused tried to speak, through the interpreter. Daly was having none of it.

“No, you are not going to say anything. You are in contempt of this Tribunal, and you’re not going to say anything until you’ve purged yourself.” It was late Friday afternoon; Daly adjourned the court until Monday. Over the weekend, newspapers around the world ran the story about the arrest of the German lawyers.

The offenders all trooped back into court on Monday morning. The presiding judge read them the riot act, accusing them of openly challenging not only the Tribunal’s authority, but also the authority of all of the nations currently occupying Germany. After he said his piece, the “trial within a trial” began.

Otto Kranzbuehler, the brilliant (and bilingual) leading defense attorney, who’d been absent on the fateful day, was appointed to represent the accused. His first motion, to have the case heard by a different tribunal, was quickly overruled. He called Schilf to testify. Together they examined Friday’s events in minute, excruciating detail. Schilf had taken umbrage over Daly repeatedly interrupting him, and insisted that in his 25 years of legal practice, neither he nor anyone else he knew had ever been removed from a courtroom.

6 Krupp Lawyers Jailed by Court: New York Times article about the incident, January 17, 1946.

6 Krupp Lawyers Jailed by Court: New York Times article about the incident, January 17, 1946.

Translation difficulties, as it turned out, accounted for some of the misunderstanding. Differences between German and American court protocol and expectations accounted for much of the rest. Grievances were aired; explanations were made on both sides. Apologies were asked for and given, first by Schilf, and then, as Monday dragged on into Tuesday, by most of the others involved. Only one, Guenther Geisseler, held out, refusing to apologize or even admit to any wrongdoing.

At the end of the two days of testimony, Kranzbuehler summarized the events, as well as German legal custom, for the Tribunal.  The American judges must have been surprised to hear that it was perfectly legal in Germany for counsel to walk out of the courtroom in protest, and that lawyers of that country were never found “in contempt” for any reason. Unfortunately for the lawyers in question, that country, the Germany they had grown up in, lay in ruins around them. Another sixteen months would have to pass before its successor state, the Federal Republic of Germany, was officially founded in May 1949.

It was Wednesday before the bench announced that it would accept the apologies of the five lawyers (graciously, one hopes), but would disqualify Geisseler, the intransigent one, from continuing in the case. The larger trial got underway again, and the transcript continues on (and on, and on) for another eleven thousand pages. I’m happy to report that after January 16th, with the exception of a few snide remarks (on both sides), everyone behaved themselves just fine.

Judith Haran is a graduate student in Library and Information Sciences who works part time as a document analyst for the Nuremberg Project at HLS. She also writes fiction about WW2, and maintains a blog at judithharan.com. She posts on Twitter as @judithharan.

1 William Manchester, The Arms of Krupp, New York, Little Brown, 1968, 651-652.

In addition to Manchester’s book, the following are useful sources on the trials:

  • Taylor, T. (1992). The anatomy of the Nuremberg trials: A personal memoir­­­­­­­­­­­­. New York, NY: Knopf.
    An insider account written years later by the Chief Counsel of the US prosecution team.
  • von Knieriem, A. (1959). The Nuremberg Trials. Chicago: Henry Regnery Co.
    A legal analysis of the trials, from point of view of a German lawyer. Translated from the German. The author, who was general counsel to IG Farben, was himself tried and acquitted after the war.

The HLS Library holds approximately one million pages of documents relating to the trial of military and political leaders of Nazi Germany before the International Military Tribunal (IMT) and to the twelve trials of other accused war criminals before the United States Nuremberg Military Tribunals (NMT). We have posted five trials so far (NMT 1 through NMT 4 and NMT 7) and have completed digitization of all the documents and transcripts. 

We are now engaged in the process of analyzing, describing and making machine readable the remaining trials’ materials in preparation for posting them to the Web. We hope to complete this work as soon as possible based upon available funding. For more information about this project, please contact Jocelyn Kennedy.

New website for Library Bicentennial Exhibit – Collections | Connections

The Harvard Law School Library is pleased to announce the launch of the companion website for its Bicentennial exhibit:

Exhibit logo

 

 

 

 

The website is arranged around the six themes of the exhibit: Keepers of MemoryPreserving Legal Heritage, Global Citizens, Promoting Justice, Supreme Court Clerks and Their Justices, and Library as Lab. It features items from the physical exhibit, as well as additional content from the Library’s collection of more than 2 million items.

Learn how the Library preserves the continuing story of the Harvard Law School community: faculty, students, alumni, and staff who are moved to question, prepared to reason, and called to act.

http://bit.ly/hls200exhibit

Book Talk: Cass Sunstein, Legal Reasoning and Political Conflict, Second Edition, Monday, April 9, at noon.

The Harvard Law School Library staff invite you to attend a book talk and discussion in celebration of the recent publication of Legal Reasoning and Political Conflict, Second Edition by Cass R. Sunstein (Oxford Univ. Press, Mar. 16, 2018).  Professor Sunstein is the Robert Walmsley University Professor, Harvard University.  This talk is co-sponsored with the Harvard Law Students for the Rule of Law.

Copies of Legal Reasoning and Political Conflict, Second Edition will be available for sale courtesy of the Harvard Law School COOP and Professor Sunstein will be available for signing books at the end of the talk.

Sunstein_Legal Reasoning

Monday, April 9, 2018, with lunch
Harvard Law School WCC 2036 Milstein East B (Directions)
1585 Massachusetts Ave., Cambridge, MA

About Legal Reasoning and Political Conflict, Second Edition

“In Legal Reasoning and Political Conflict, Cass R. Sunstein, one of America’s best known commentators on our legal system, offers a bold, new thesis about how the law should work in America, arguing that the courts best enable people to live together, despite their diversity, by resolving particular cases without taking sides in broader, more abstract conflicts. Professor Sunstein closely analyzes the way the law can mediate disputes in a diverse society, examining how the law works in practical terms, and showing that, to arrive at workable, practical solutions, judges must avoid broad, abstract reasoning. He states that judges purposely limit the scope of their decisions to avoid reopening large-scale controversies, calling such actions incompletely theorized agreements. In identifying them as the core feature of legal reasoning, he takes issue with advocates of comprehensive theories and systemization, from Robert Bork to Jeremy Bentham, and Ronald Dworkin. Equally important, Sunstein goes on to argue that it is the living practice of the nation’s citizens that truly makes law.

Legal reasoning can seem impenetrable, mysterious, baroque. Legal Reasoning and Political Conflict helps dissolve the mystery. Whether discussing abortion, homosexuality, or free speech, the meaning of the Constitution, or the spell cast by the Warren Court, Cass Sunstein writes with grace and power, offering a striking and original vision of the role of the law in a diverse society. In his flexible, practical approach to legal reasoning, he moves the debate over fundamental values and principles out of the courts and back to its rightful place in a democratic state: to the legislatures elected by the people.

In this Second Edition, the author updates the previous edition bringing the book into the current mainstream of twenty-first century legal reasoning and judicial decision-making focusing on the many relevant contemporary issues and developments that occurred since its initial 1996 publication.” — Oxford University Press

About Cass R. Sunstein

Cass R. Sunstein is currently the Robert Walmsley University Professor at Harvard. From 2009 to 2012, he was Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. He is the founder and director of the Program on Behavioral Economics and Public Policy at Harvard Law School.  Professor Sunstein has testified before congressional committees on many subjects, and he has been involved in constitution-making and law reform activities in a number of nations.

Mr. Sunstein is author of many articles and books, including Republic.com (2001), Risk and Reason (2002), Why Societies Need Dissent (2003), The Second Bill of Rights (2004), Laws of Fear: Beyond the Precautionary Principle (2005), Worst-Case Scenarios (2001), Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness (with Richard H. Thaler, 2008), Simpler: The Future of Government (2013), Why Nudge? (2014), Conspiracy Theories and Other Dangerous Ideas (2014), Valuing Life: Humanizing the Regulatory State (2014), Constitutional Personae: Heroes, Soldiers, Minimalists, and Mutes (2015), Choosing Not to Choose: Understanding the Value of Choice (2015), Wiser: Getting Beyond Groupthink to Make Groups Smarter (2015), The World According to Star Wars (2016), #Republic: Divided Democracy in the Age of Social Media (2017), and Impeachment: A Citizen’s Guide (2017). He is now working on group decisionmaking and various projects on the idea of liberty.

More About Legal Reasoning and Political Conflict, Second Edition

“The best of American legal theory has attempted to explain and justify an approach focusing on the features of individual cases and avoiding reliance on rigid rules. Sunstein’s book not only offers the most comprehensive attempt to defend particularistic decision-making in all of its manifestations, but also gives the most powerful defense. Defenders of rules, categories, and abstraction will have a formidable task in trying to penetrate the armor of Sunstein’s normative defense of particularistic decision-making.” — Frederick Schauer, David and Mary Harrison Distinguished Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law

“Cass Sunstein’s book makes a significant addition to our understanding of how the law works and of the nature of law itself. He explains in lucid prose, with many concrete examples, the components of good (and bad) legal reasoning and how they contribute to the outcome of legal controversies. Sunstein’s ideas, which combine keen insight, common sense, and a vast knowledge of legal materials, are sure to prompt discussion….The book will be of great value to scholars as well as to those who are beginning the study of law.” — Lloyd L. Weinreb, Dane Professor of Law, Emeritus, Harvard University Law School

“[Sunstein’s] carefully nuanced description of the kind of reasoning employed in law, a process often mysterious to outsiders, is the best I’ve seen, and captures the way judges actually make decisions in most cases….Professor Sunstein has provided an articulate and comprehensible entry into the intellectual world of lawyers and judges…. Anyone who wishes to learn what ‘thinking like a lawyer’ is all about should read this book.” — The New York Times Book Review

Book Talk: Is International Law International?, Tuesday, April 3, at noon.

The Harvard Law School Library staff invite you to attend a book talk and discussion for Is International Law International?  by Anthea Roberts, (Oxford Univ. Press, Oct. 16, 2017) and Winner of the ASIL 2018 Certificate of Merit for a preeminent contribution to creative scholarship.  Anthea Roberts is Associate Professor in the School of Regulation and Global Governance (RegNet) at the Australian National University. The panel discussion will include: Anthea Roberts, Naz K. Modirzadeh, founding Director of the Harvard Law School Program on International Law and Armed Conflict (PILAC) and Harvard Law School Professor of Practice; and Mark Wu, Assistant Professor of Law, Harvard Law School. This talk is co-sponsored with the Harvard International Law Journal.

Is International Law International?

Tuesday, April 3, 2018
Harvard Law School WCC 2036 Milstein East B (Directions)
1585 Massachusetts Ave., Cambridge, MA

About Is International Law International?

“This book takes the reader on a sweeping tour of the international legal field to reveal some of the patterns of difference, dominance, and disruption that belie international law’s claim to universality.

Pulling back the curtain on the “divisible college of international lawyers,” Anthea Roberts shows how international lawyers in different states, regions, and geopolitical groupings are often subject to distinct incoming influences and outgoing spheres of influence in ways that reflect and reinforce differences in how they understand and approach international law. These divisions manifest themselves in contemporary controversies, such as debates about Crimea and the South China Sea.

Not all approaches to international law are created equal, however. Using case studies and visual representations, the author demonstrates how actors and materials from some states and groups have come to dominate certain transnational flows and forums in ways that make them disproportionately influential in constructing the “international.” This point holds true for Western actors, materials, and approaches in general, and for Anglo-American (and sometimes French) ones in particular.

However, these patterns are set for disruption. As the world moves past an era of Western dominance and toward greater multipolarity, it is imperative for international lawyers to understand the perspectives and approaches of those coming from diverse backgrounds. By taking readers on a comparative tour of different international law academies and textbooks, the author encourages them to see the world through the eyes of others — an essential skill in this fast changing world of shifting power dynamics and rising nationalism.” — Oxford University Press

About Anthea Roberts

Anthea Roberts is Associate Professor in the School of Regulation and Global Governance (RegNet) at the Australian National University. She specializes in public international law, investment treaty law and arbitration, and comparative international law. Anthea previously taught at the London School of Economics as well as Columbia and Harvard Law Schools. She is on the Editorial Boards of the American Journal of International Law, ICSID Review, and the Journal of World Investment and Trade, and blogs for EJIL: Talk! She has twice won the Francis Deák Prize for the best AJIL article by a younger scholar. Anthea serves as a Reporter for the Restatement (Fourth) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States, and has experience serving as an arbitrator, counsel, and expert in international disputes.

Panelists

Naz Modirzadeh

 

 

 

Naz K. Modirzadeh, founding Director of the Harvard Law School Program on International Law and Armed Conflict (PILAC) and Harvard Law School Professor of Practice

Mark Wu

 

 

 

Mark Wu, Assistant Professor of Law, Harvard Law School

 

More About Is International Law International?

“Roberts turns a beguilingly simple question into a globe-trotting, multi-method quest for a map of international law’s players and meanings. Simultaneously irreverent and serious-minded, Roberts develops an original research agenda that takes her and the reader through the migratory flows of international lawyers around the world, the divergent methods through which they are educated, and the different professional tracks through which they are socialized. The book does not just dissolve international law’s myths of universality; it is a nascent sociology of the field of international law and the beginning of a new field of comparative international law. In an era in which Western dominance over international law no longer looks certain, this book provides the tools for a more nuanced understanding of international law’s politics, revealing the deeper meanings and stakes of current debates.” – ASIL 2018 Book Awards Committee

“According to a common stereotype, international lawyers are cosmopolitans. In this truly remarkable inquiry, Anthea Roberts shows that their cosmopolitanism remains hostage to a world of nation-states. For Americans in particular, it is disturbing to learn how international law in their country remains parochial. International lawyers across the spectrum in the United States emerge from a particular intellectual sociology, from their professionalization in their practice, even when they speak in a universalist voice – in the languages they (do not) learn, to the textbooks they use, and from the foreign affairs and national security law from which they approach the field, to the concrete positions on matters such as humanitarian intervention they take. Roberts has written a masterpiece.” – Samuel Moyn, Professor of Law, Yale Law School

“This book is a must-read for every international lawyer and negotiator. It thoroughly deconstructs the notion that there is a uniform college of international lawyers who all think alike. It helps us to reflect on our own background and the frame within which we think, and to also recognize and understand the ‘others.’ This is of utmost importance at a time when international legal cooperation is threatened.” – Anne van Aaken, Professor for Law and Economics, Legal Theory, Public International Law, and European Law, University of St. Gallen, Switzerland

“Asking the disarming question of whether ‘international law is international,’ Anthea Roberts takes readers on an ingenious tour of the global flow of people and ideas in international law, the role of nationalism and transnational hierarchies in creating unequal and ‘divisible colleges,’ and the implications for foreign policy and for the future of international law. The book is built on painstaking research into the educational background of international law scholars, where they publish and in what languages, how international law casebooks and treatises differ both within the ‘west’ and from the materials in China and Russia. It is a stellar contribution to international law, the study of globalization and legal education, comparative law, international relations, and the sociology of legal knowledge.” – Bryant Garth, Chancellor’s Professor of Law and Co-Director, Center for Empirical Research on the Legal Profession, University of California, Irvine School of Law, United States

“Roberts has raised a fundamental issue that both international lawyers and decision-makers cannot afford to ignore in this era of shifting power. This issue is whether international law is ‘international,’ as people might have taken for granted for decades or centuries, and how the ‘international’ is likely to evolve with the rise of new great powers, like China. Her perspective is absolutely unique… What Roberts exhibits, through this book, is not only the strength of her academic insight but her ability to recognize and understand the perspectives of others.” – Cai Congyan, Professor of international law of Xiamen University School of Law

“The results of Anthea Roberts’s investigation sound an alarm for all stakeholders in the field of International Law: the author calls on all of us to recognize the necessity of tearing down the mask of ‘internationality’ from the discipline in its current state and paves the way for changes towards a truly international International Law. Thoughtful and inspiring.” – Vera Rusinova, Professor of the Chair for Public and Private International Law, National Research University, The Higher School of Economics, Russia

“Roberts’s groundbreaking study brings important and new insights into the sociology of the production of international law. It charts the regional and cultural islands that dot this supposedly cosmopolitan sea and provides a deep critique of the field’s universalist aspirations/pretensions. It is essential reading for anyone interested in the international law project, whether working from the inside or as an external observer.”- Paul Stephan, John C. Jeffries, Jr., Distinguished Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law, United States

“For a French international lawyer who by necessity has to work in (at least) two languages and navigate different cultural universes, there is no doubt that international law is indeed international, as a crucible of diverse legal cultures. Yet, as Anthea Roberts’s (both intrepid and convincing) book demonstrates, in fact international law needs to be more international and less imperialist in the ways it is formed, practiced and conceptualized. From that perspective, Roberts’s invigorating analysis of national approaches to international law provides a salutary reappraisal of the law of nations that will no doubt frame the field in the future.” – Mathias Forteau, Professor of Public Law, University of Paris Ouest, Nanterre La Défense, France

“International law is full of myths. One of these is the global, universal character of the discipline that distances it from narrow national interests and mindsets. Anthea Roberts’s book investigates this myth in depth and shows how, contrary to the self-depiction of much of the discipline, international legal scholarship differs heavily across countries, is shaped by national traditions and institutional structures, and often follows patterns of dominance in the international system. This is a major achievement that should lead us to ask major questions about international law in a different light. Perhaps the most pressing of these – is international law distinct from international politics, and how? – will now have to be tackled in a far more nuanced way. Thinking about international law will never be quite the same again.” – Nico Krisch, Professor of International Law, the Graduate Institute Geneva, Switzerland

“Anthea Roberts’s book has the potential of re-defining how we think about international law and its realities, both beyond and within the West. It shows us the field of international law in a new light and will open new directions for international legal research in the coming decades.” – Lauri Mälksoo, Professor of International Law at the University of Tartu, Estonia and the author of Russian Approaches to International Law (OUP 2015)

“Anthea Roberts’s book can be compared to a high-quality aerial picture of national and regional international law academias that live on the same planet as neighbours, but barely acknowledge each other’s existence and language. A product of excellent research and very thoughtful observation, the book speaks of differences, yet one of its aftertastes is a sudden sense of how similar all the nationalized approaches are in their parochiality. Roberts destroys the myth of universality only to open a way to genuine understanding of similarities in each other.” – Maria Issaeva, Managing Partner, Threefold Legal Advisors, Russia

“I enjoyed reading this book tremendously and have kept coming back to the staggering view of the international law world it offers over again. I am very serious when I say that nothing in the field will be quite the same after this book has been published. It is such an eye-opener.” – Martti Koskenniemi, Professor of International Law (University of Helsinki), and Director, Erik Castrén Institute of International law and Human Rights

“Instantly, it is a classic that anyone who wants to reflect on the field must read… The central virtue of Professor Roberts’s study is that it is brilliantly and rigorously empirical, based on an extraordinary survey of how training, scholarship, and service in international law actually take place across the world… Both hard-bitten realists about the endurance of international struggle and idealists who hope for a more unified humanity must now start with Professor Roberts’s book.” – Sam Moyn, Lawfare

“Roberts’s new book, marshals an extensive body of original research to suggest that there are significant cross-national variations in the ideological and doctrinal content of international legal education… The [book’s] implications are far-reaching, and I truly view the book as required reading for anyone interested in international law.” – Ryan Scoville, Lawfare

“This provocative and yet very simple question unleashes a distruptive conceptual earthquake: what if that right that we consider universal par excellance was not international at all?… Although the answers to these provocations might seem obvious, their implications are far from being predictable – if only we take them seriously into account as Anthea Roberts does.” – Francesca Iurlaro, Guerra e Diritto Internazionale

Explore (and watch!) the history of the Ames Moot Court Competition!

The Ames Moot Court competition has been around for over 100 years, and thanks to a lot of hard work from both HLS Library and HLS Communications staff you can now explore that 100+ year history online!

The Ames Moot Court Competition website contains a history of the competition, the judges who have participated over the decades, best oralist and best brief winners, and recordings of many of the competitions dating back to 1974. One of the most exciting outcomes of this project is exposing footage of U.S. Supreme Court justices speaking from the bench—something that we don’t normally have the privilege to experience unless we’re at the Supreme Court in person!

The video below features Deval Patrick (HLS ’82), the former Massachusetts governor who won best oralist that year (skip ahead to 1:23:40 in the video to see him speak!), and a young Howell Jackson (HLS ’82) when he was also a student here. Professor Jackson was on the opposing team, which won best overall brief. The judges that year were Hon. Henry J. Friendly (HLS ’27), U.S. Court of Appeals for The Second Circuit, whose papers are held by Historical & Special Collections; Hon. Patricia Wald, U.S. Court of Appeals for The District of Columbia Circuit; and Hon. Nathaniel Jones, U.S. Court of Appeals for The Sixth Circuit.

Book Talk: Nazi-Looted Art and the Law: The American Cases, Wednesday, March 28, at noon.

The Harvard Law School Library staff invite you to attend a book talk for Nazi-Looted Art and the Law: The American Cases by Bruce L. Hay (Springer, Jan. 25, 2018). Bruce L. Hay is Professor of Law at Harvard Law School.

Wednesday, March 28, 2018
Harvard Law School WCC 2036 Milstein East B (directions)
1585 Massachusetts Ave., Cambridge, MA

Nazi-Looted Art and the Law

About Nazi-Looted Art and the Law: The American Cases

“This book offers a clear, accessible account of the American litigation over the restitution of works of art taken from Jewish families during the Holocaust. For the past two decades, the courts of the United States have been an arena of conflict over this issue that has recently captured widespread public attention. In a series of cases, survivors and heirs have come forward to claim artworks in public and private collections around the world, asserting that they were seized by the Nazis or were sold under duress by owners desperate to escape occupied countries. Spanning two continents and three-quarters of a century, the cases confront the courts with complex problems of domestic and international law, clashes among the laws of different jurisdictions, factual uncertainties about the movements of art during and after the war, and the persistent question whether restitution claims have been extinguished by the passage of time.Through individual case studies, the book examines the legal questions these conflicts have raised and the answers the courts have given. From the internationally celebrated “Woman in Gold” lawsuit against Austria to lesser-known claims against Germany, Hungary, Spain, and museums and private collections in the United States, the book synthesizes the legal and evidentiary materials and judicial rulings in each case, creating a coherent narrative of proceedings that are often labyrinthine in complexity. Written by a leading authority on litigation and procedure, the book will be of interest to readers in various fields of the humanities and social sciences as well as law, and to anyone interested in the fate of artworks that have been called the “last prisoners” of the Second World War.” — Springer

About Bruce Hay

Professor Hay’s primary field is legal procedure, including civil litigation, conflicts of law, and dispute resolution. His latest book, Nazi-Looted Art and the Law (2017), examines the intricacies of the American courts’ adjudication of Holocaust-era restitution claims, which raise myriad problems of domestic, international and foreign law as well as difficult evidentiary questions. He is also interested in the economic analysis of law, including the economics of litigation, liability, and insurance. Before joining the Harvard faculty he clerked at the United States Supreme Court, and practiced law with Sidley Austin LLP in Washington, DC, specializing in appellate cases. He studied at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, l’Université d’Aix-en-Provence, and Harvard Law School.

%d bloggers like this: