DOCSLIB.ORG

Statement of Interest 1

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Statement of Interest 1 STATEMENT OF INTEREST 1 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT 4 ARGUMENT 9 A. In Passing the Refugee Act of 1980 Congress Unambiguously Intended To Ensure That U.S. Law Is In Conformity With The 1967 Protocol By Which the United States Is Bound. CONCLUSION 30 Cases Ali v. Ashcroft, 213 F.R.D. 390 (W.D. Wash. 2003) 13 Aquamar, S.A. v. Del Monte Fresh Produce, N.A., 179 F.3d 1279 (11th Cir. 1999) 15 Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984) 9, 10, 12 Chew Heong v. United States, 112 U.S. 536 (1884) 13 Filartiga v. Pena-Irala, 630 F.2d 876 (2d Cir. 1980) 15 Flores v. Southern Peru Copper Corp., 414 F.2d 233 (2d Cir. 2003) 15 INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421 (1987) passim INS v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407 (1984) 10, 12 Kim Ho Ma v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 1095 (9th Cir. 2001) 14 Lauritzen v. Larsen, 345 U.S. 571 (1953) 13 MacLeod v. United States, 229 U.S. 416 (1913) 13 Marincas v. Lewis, 92 F.3d 195 (3d Cir. 1996) 11 Murray v. Schooner Charming Betsy, 6 U.S. (2 Cranch) 64 (1804) 10, 12 United States v. Schiffer, 836 F. Supp. 1164 (E.D.Pa. 1993), aff'd, 31 F.3d 1175 (3d Cir. 1994) 13 United States v. Smith, 18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) 153 (1820) 15 Weinberger v. Rossi, 456 U.S. 25 (1982) 13 Board of Immigration Appeals In re A-H-, 23 I. & N. Dec. 774 (A.G. 2005) passim Statutes 8 U.S.C. ? 1231(b)(3)(B)(iv) 6 International Court Decisions Attorney General v. Zaoui, Dec. No. CA20/04 (N.Z. CA Sept. 30, 2004) 24, 25, 27, 28 Betkoshabeh v. Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs, 157 A.L.R. 95 (Austl. FC, July 29, 1998), rev'd on grounds of mootness, (1999) 55 A.L.D. 609 (Austl. FFC, July 20, 1999) 27 “NSH” v. Home Sec'y, [1988] Imm. A.R. 389 (Eng. C.A.) 27, 28 Suresh v. Minister of Citizenship & Immigration, S.C.C. No. 27790 (Mar. 8, 2001) 18, 19, 23 Suresh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2002 SCC 1 (Can. 2002) 25, 27 Other Authorities Atle Grahl-Madsen, Commentary on the Refugee Convention 1951 (UNHCR 1963) 24 D.J. Harris, Cases and Materials on Internation Law (Street & Maxwell 5th ed. 1998) 16 Deborah E. Anker, Law of Asylum in the United States (1999) 11 Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status (UNHCR 1979) 16 Human Rights First (former Layers Committee for Human Rights), “Safeguarding the Rights of Refugees under the Exclusion Clauses: Summary Findings of the Project,” International Journal of Refugee Law, Special Supplementary Issue (2000) 20 James C. Hathaway, The Law of Refugee Status (rev. ed. 1998) 10 James C. Hathaway, The Rights of Refugees Under International Law (Cambridge Univ. Press 2005) 24 Paul Weis, The Refugee Convention, 1951: The Travaux Preparatoires Analysed with a Commentary by Dr. Paul Weis (Cambridge Univ. Press 1995) 24 Restatement (Third) of the Law of Foreign Relations ? 114 (1987) 10, 12 Sir Elihu Lauterpacht & Daniel Bethlehem, The Scope and Content of the Principle of Non-refoulement, Opinion (UNHCR June 20, 2001) 28 Sir Elihu Lauterpacht & Daniel Bethlehem, The Scope and Content of the Principle of Non-refoulement (UNHCR Feb. 2003) 23 Statute of the International Court of Justice, 59 Stat. 1031 (1945) 15 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, May 23, 1969, 1155 U.N.T.S. 331; 8 I.L.M. 679 (1969) 16, 19 Wayne R. LeFave & Jerold H. Israel, Criminal Procedure (2d ed. 1992) 27 STATEMENT OF INTEREST The Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinic (“HIRC”) is a clinical program of Harvard Law School, operated in collaboration with Greater Boston Legal Services. HIRC represents victims of human rights abuses in applying for U.S. refugee and related protections. Its Women Refugees Project, an internationally recognized program, does groundbreaking work on women's international human rights and political asylum claims. HIRC has authored numerous federal court briefs on key issues of asylum protection, and written extensively in the area. Its faculty director, Deborah Anker, has written the leading treatise, Law of Asylum in the United States. HIRC has an interest in correct development and application of the law in the area of domestic and international refugee protection. Human Rights First has worked since 1978 to protect and promote fundamental human rights and to ensure protection of the rights of refugees. The organization, which also operates one of the largest and most successful pro bono asylum representation programs in the country, bases its refugee protection work on the international standards of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, and other international human rights instruments, and advocates adherence to these standards in U.S. law and policy. The Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, the oldest international migration and refugee resettlement agency in the U.S. and the migration arm of the organized American Jewish community, advocates on behalf of refugees, asylum seekers, and immigrants, and for a strong United States government policy to offer safe haven to victims of persecution. Kurdish Human Rights Watch, Inc. is a human rights non-governmental organization with community-based affiliates that is dedicated to assisting people with limited resources and accessibility to achieve self-sufficiency and greater integration in their communities and overall society. The Washington Defender Association's Immigration Project's mission is to defend and advance the rights of non-citizens within the criminal justice system, non- citizens facing the immigration consequences of crimes, and non-citizens facing the detrimental impacts of selective state and federal enforcement policies post-9/11. The Jesuit Refugee Service USA, in conjunction with Jesuit refugee agencies worldwide, is committed to serve and defend the cause of refugees, and so has a vested interest in the parameters of laws, regulations, and jurisprudence that place refugees, asylees, and migrants at risk. The Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service has been the U.S. Lutheran expression of service to refugees and migrants in America since 1939. Jacqueline Bhabha is the Jeremiah Smith, Jr. Lecturer at Law and Executive Director of the University Committee on Human Rights Studies, Harvard University. Heather MacKenzie is a private immigration lawyer and Senior Lecturing Fellow, Duke University School of Law. Deborah M. Weissman is Professor of Law and Director of Clinical Programs, University of North Carolina School of Law. Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia is a private immigration attorney and Adjunct Professor of Law at Washington College of Law, American University. Natsu Taylor Saito is Professor of Immigration and International Human Rights Law, Georgia State University. Lynne R. Feldman is Adjunct Professor, University of Illinois Law School, and a partner with Erwin, Martinkus, and Cole, Ltd., concentrating in immigration and naturalization matters. David B. Thronson is Associate Professor of Law and Immigration Clinic Co-Director, Boyd School of Law at University of Las Vegas. Anna Marie Gallagher is an international refugee and migration lawyer, a consultant to the Jesuit Refugee Service, and the author of the Immigration Law Service 2d, Thomson West's immigration and nationality treatise. Joseph A. Vail is Associate Clinical Professor and Director of the Immigration Clinic, University of Houston Law Center. Ann Benson is the Directing Attorney for the Washington Defender Association's Immigration Project. Bridgette Carr is Assistant Clinical Professor of Law, Asylum and Immigrant Rights Law Clinic, Ave Maria School of Law. James P. Eyster is Assistant Clinical Professor of Law, Ave Maria Law School. Professors Harvey Kaplan and Maureen Sullivan are former adjunct professors at Northeastern School of Law. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT At issue in this case is a new, unprecedented, and legally unsustainable interpretation by the Attorney General of a federal statute setting out the legal rights of refugees. The Attorney General's interpretation effectively would empower United States immigration authorities to remove a refugee to a country in which it has been established he or she would likely face persecution, based solely on the speculative assertion that the refugee may present a non-substantial danger to the United States were he or she permitted to remain. The Attorney General's interpretation is inconsistent with the plain language of the statute and with the longstanding and uniform construction (domestically and in other common law countries) of the international treaty that the federal statute was intended to implement. The Attorney General's interpretation was, furthermore, arrived at through an interpretive process that is at odds with basic principles of statutory interpretation of treaty-implementing statutes. Amici submit this brief to urge the Court to reject the Attorney General's interpretation. The provision at issue is Section 241(b)(3)(B)(iv) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the “INA”), 8 U.S.C. ? 1231(b)(3)(B)(iv). That provision was enacted to conform domestic law to the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, 189 U.N.T.S. 150 (“the Convention”), a 1951 treaty whose obligations bind the United States through the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 606 U.N.T.S. 267 (“the 1967 Protocol”) to which the United States is a signatory, and through the domestic implementation of the Protocol. The Convention broadly protects the interests of refugees. Most important here, its central provision, known as the “non-refoulement” obligation, provides that a person whose life or freedom would be threatened on account of certain statuses or beliefs must not be removed from the country of refuge to a country where they would likely be exposed to persecution.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Sir Elihu Lauterpacht QC Issue : Vol
    Transnational Dispute Management www.transnational-dispute-management.com ISSN : 1875-4120 TDM 3 (2018) - Sir Elihu Lauterpacht QC Issue : Vol. 15, issue 3 Published : April 2018 Introduction Professor Maurice Mendelson QC 2 Sir Elihu Lauterpacht QC and the Settlement of Maritime Disputes Judge D.H. Anderson CMG 5 Sir Elihu Lauterpacht and the Lauterpacht Centre for International Law at the University of Cambridge Professor Eyal Benvenisti, Dr. Sarah Nouwen and Dr. Michael Waibel 8 Elihu Lauterpacht, LCIL and the Lauterpacht Tradition Sir Elihu Lauterpacht QC Judge James Crawford AC 11 (1928 - 2017) Board Member in Memoriam Influencing International Law without Dispute Professor Robert McCorquodale 19 Sir Elihu Lauterpacht: a Celebration of his Life and Work - Some Remarks on Eli's Academic Writings on International Litigation Professor Iain Scobbie 21 Sir Elihu Lauterpacht QC: the Practitioner as Publicist Sir Michael Wood QC 25 © Copyright TDM 2018 TDM Cover v6.1 Introduction Professor Maurice Mendelson QC* ELIHU LAUTERPACHT was a valued member of the Editorial Board of TDM1, and we decided that it would be appropriate to mark his passing in 2017 with a few reminiscences by some of those who knew and admired him. I would like to express my sincere thanks to those who took the time out of their busy schedules to write the tributes that follow. *** Elihu (known to all as Eli) was born in London in 1928, the only child of Rachel (née Steinberg) and Hersch Lauterpacht, Jewish immigrants from central and Eastern Europe. Despite his foreign origins, Hersch was to become, not only Whewell Professor of International Law at Cambridge University and a knight of the realm, but one of the leading international lawyers of his generation, and certainly one of the most imaginative and most admired.
    [Show full text]
  • Elihu Lauterpacht, LCIL and the Lauterpacht Tradition James
    Elihu Lauterpacht, LCIL and the Lauterpacht Tradition James Crawford AC* My focus here is Eli’s relation to what is still thought of as the Lauterpacht tradition of thinking about and doing international law, a tradition largely identified with his father, Hersch Lauterpacht, scholar and judge – but which Eli contributed to perpetuating and consolidating.1 Precisely because Hersch’s contribution is even now so well-known, nearly 60 years after his death, it seems appropriate to focus first on Eli’s own, distinct, career. This one can in part recall by listing the various things he started or continued and which are in many cases now institutions, which embody new ideas or which at least evoke strong memories. This account is of course merely indicative. First there was judging and arbitrating. He was once appointed an ad hoc judge in a case before the International Court, in the early stages of Bosnian Genocide. His separate opinion in that case (in some respects a dissenting opinion) is notable for its analysis of the role of the ad hoc judge. He said… consistently with the duty of impartiality by which the ad hoc judge is bound, there is still something specific that distinguishes his role. He has, I believe, the special obligation to endeavour to ensure that, so far as is reasonable, every relevant argument in favour of the party that has appointed him has been fully appreciated in the course of collegial consideration and, ultimately, is reflected – though not necessarily accepted – in any separate or dissenting opinion…2 * © James Crawford, 2017.
    [Show full text]
  • Conversations with Professor Sir Elihu Lauterpacht Postscript
    Conversations with Professor Sir Elihu Lauterpacht Postscript Date: 30 May 2008 Between January and May 2008, Sir Elihu was interviewed seven times at his home in Herschel Road Cambridge to record his reminiscences of seventy years of his own, and his father’s associations with the Faculty. The interviews were recorded, and the audio version is available on this website with this transcript of those recordings. The questions and topics are sequentially numbered in the six interviews for use in a database of citations made across the Eminent Scholars Archive to personalities mentioned therein. Interviewer: Lesley Dingle (questions and topics are in bold type) Sir Elihu’s answers are in normal type. Comments added by LD, in italics. All footnotes added by LD. 183. Sir Eli, you have told me of your concern at having failed to speak appreciatively of the many people who’ve helped you in your career. I wonder whether you would like to say something by way of a postscript to your interviews? Well, what I’m about to say is to be contrasted with the six interviews that we’ve already had. These interviews were all relatively extemporary, they weren’t specially prepared. I did not speak from a prepared script, but what I have to say now has been more carefully thought out. As I read over the transcript of the six preceding interviews, I was struck by the dominating focus of their attention to what I, myself, have done over the years. This was, perhaps, inescapable as the questions that I was asked were about me and the answers were, accordingly, limited.
    [Show full text]
  • East Timor's Case in the ICJ: Will the Court Decide Whether
    East Timor’s Case in the ICJ: Will the Court Decide Whether Spying Violates International Law? Ashley Deeks - Lawfare - 22 January 2014 http://www.lawfareblog.com/2014/01/east-timors-case-in-the-icj-will-the-court-decide-whether- spying-violates-international-law/#.UuA4w6XOhhA In December, East Timor initiated a case against Australia in the International Court of Justice. The facts are out of a Tom Clancy novel. In short, East Timor alleges that Australia bugged an East Timorese cabinet office during bilateral negotiations about an important maritime treaty (the 2002 Timor Sea Treaty) between the two countries, in order to gain intelligence about East Timorese strategy and negotiating positions. East Timor initiated arbitration against Australia, claiming that Australia’s alleged bugging during negotiations rendered the Timor Sea Treaty invalid. That arbitration is private (i.e., closed). That brings us to the ICJ case. East Timor further contends that on December 3, 2013, officers of the Australian Security Intelligence Organization, pursuant to a warrant issued by the Australian Attorney General, raided the office of East Timor’s Australian lawyer in Canberra and seized documents, a laptop, an iPhone, and a thumb drive. Some of those documents related to the pending arbitration. But news sources report that the raid also was an attempt to seize information that may have revealed information about the Australian bugging scheme, including statements by a former Australian intelligence officer disclosing Australian national security information to East Timor. For those interested, EJIL Talk has a useful post setting out additional factual details and background. East Timor’s filing for provisional measures in the ICJ “requests the Court to adjudge and declare .
    [Show full text]
  • TRINITY COLLEGE Cambridge Trinity College Cambridge College Trinity Annual Record Annual
    2016 TRINITY COLLEGE cambridge trinity college cambridge annual record annual record 2016 Trinity College Cambridge Annual Record 2015–2016 Trinity College Cambridge CB2 1TQ Telephone: 01223 338400 e-mail: [email protected] website: www.trin.cam.ac.uk Contents 5 Editorial 11 Commemoration 12 Chapel Address 15 The Health of the College 18 The Master’s Response on Behalf of the College 25 Alumni Relations & Development 26 Alumni Relations and Associations 37 Dining Privileges 38 Annual Gatherings 39 Alumni Achievements CONTENTS 44 Donations to the College Library 47 College Activities 48 First & Third Trinity Boat Club 53 Field Clubs 71 Students’ Union and Societies 80 College Choir 83 Features 84 Hermes 86 Inside a Pirate’s Cookbook 93 “… Through a Glass Darkly…” 102 Robert Smith, John Harrison, and a College Clock 109 ‘We need to talk about Erskine’ 117 My time as advisor to the BBC’s War and Peace TRINITY ANNUAL RECORD 2016 | 3 123 Fellows, Staff, and Students 124 The Master and Fellows 139 Appointments and Distinctions 141 In Memoriam 155 A Ninetieth Birthday Speech 158 An Eightieth Birthday Speech 167 College Notes 181 The Register 182 In Memoriam 186 Addresses wanted CONTENTS TRINITY ANNUAL RECORD 2016 | 4 Editorial It is with some trepidation that I step into Boyd Hilton’s shoes and take on the editorship of this journal. He managed the transition to ‘glossy’ with flair and panache. As historian of the College and sometime holder of many of its working offices, he also brought a knowledge of its past and an understanding of its mysteries that I am unable to match.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Conversations with Professor Sir Elihu
    1 Conversations with Professor Sir Elihu Lauterpacht Fifth Interview: The Nineties and new Millennium Date: 28th March 2008 Between January and May 2008, Sir Elihu was interviewed seven times at his home in Herschel Road Cambridge to record his reminiscences of seventy years of his own, and his father’s associations with the Faculty. The interviews were recorded, and the audio version is available on this website with this transcript of those recordings. The questions and topics are sequentially numbered in the six interviews for use in a database of citations made across the Eminent Scholars Archive to personalities mentioned therein. Interviewer: Lesley Dingle (questions and topics are in bold type) Sir Elihu‟s answers are in normal type. Comments added by LD, in italics. All footnotes added by LD. Sir Elihu. It‟s a great day today, because it‟s the first time in 15 months that I‟ve been able to even begin to get back to dealing with my father‟s biography, other things have just kept on intervening. Yes, that must be very satisfying. Bearing in mind his interests, I hope it will be! 100. Well, Sir Eli, we’ve come to the fifth talk in our interviews. Last week, we reached the mid 1990s. I wonder if we could begin today with the time when you were knighted in 1998. I wonder whether you have any recollections of the ceremony when you met the Queen? 1999. Yes, I have some recollection of a very pleasant occasion. I ought just to say that I do not know why I was knighted.
    [Show full text]
  • SPEECH ACTS and SPEAKER INTENTION in the CASE CONCERNING SOVEREIGNTY OVER the ISLANDS of SIPADAN and Llgitan
    SPEECH ACTS AND SPEAKER INTENTION IN THE CASE CONCERNING SOVEREIGNTY OVER THE ISLANDS OF SIPADAN AND LlGITAN Hafdza Burhanudccn School of Language Studies and Linguistics Faculty of Socia! Sciences and Humanities Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Abstract Language I:; frequently used as. a persuasive tool among countries as a dispute resolution mechanism either through diplomatic negotiation or through arbirrmion or adjudiccHioll mcchanism� such as the (mernational Court of Justice in The llague, The Ncther!and�. Inherent within language are a myriad of speech acts designed to convey either implicitly or explicitly the communiC<llive intent of Ihe speakers. involved. This paper seeks to highlight speaker inrclHion via the kinds of speech acts used in the language of Counsels representing Malaysia and Indonesia ill the case concerning sovereignty over the twO islands of Sipadan and Ligitan on June 3-12, 2002 at the InternatiOlHl1 Court of Justice. Data for this paper is extracted primmily from the verbatim records of Sir Elihu Lauterpacht, Q.C., C.B.E. \cad Counsel for Malaysia and Sir Arthur Watts, Q.C. Counsel for the Republic of Indonesia. Introduction and hackgfOund information The long standing dispute between the Government of Malaysia and the Republic of lndonesia concerning sovereignty over the islands of Sipadan and Ligitan came to an end on December 17,2002 when the International Court of 28 JOURNAL OF MODERN LANGUAGES Justice in The Hague awarded Malaysia the two islands by an overwhelming 16-1 majority The case involving international and local legal experts on both sides witnessed the emergence of various speech acts , all with the ultimate goal of effectively persuading the Court in their favour.
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Weapons in International Law and Politics
    Nuclear Weapons in International Law and Politics 10th Anniversary of the ICJ’s Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons. 16 March 2007 12.30-18.30 British Institute of International and Comparative Law, Charles Clore House, 17 Russell Square, London WC1B 5JP PROGRAMME Time 12:30−13:00 Registration 13:00−14:45 Session I: Revisiting the Advisory Opinion: Substantive Law The 1972 ICJ Nuclear Test Cases (New Zealand v France and Australia v France) and the 1994 Request by New Zealand for an Examination of the Judgement Professor Sir Elihu Lauterpacht QC, Lauterpacht Research Centre for International Law, University of Cambridge The Use of Nuclear Weapons and the Protection of the Environment During International Armed Conflict Dr Erik Koppe, Lecturer, Groningen University, Faculty of Law Right and Wrong, Then and Now: The Nuclear Weapons Advisory Opinion and Humanitarian Law Dr Robert Cryer, Reader, Nottingham University, School of Law 14:45−15:00 Break 15:00−16:45 Session II: Nuclear Weapons, International Law and Politics Nuclear Weapons and the Right to Self-Defence Dr Michael Byers, Canada Research Chair in Global Politics and International Law, University of British Columbia Great Powers, Law and Nuclear Weapons Dr Gerry Simpson, Reader in Law, London School of Economics (LSE), Law Department Nuclear Weapons and the UN Security Council Matthew Happold, Reader, University of Hull, Law School 16:45−17:00 Coffee/Tea Break 17:00−18:30 Session III: The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Regime System The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty: Time for Restructuring? Dr Daniel Joyner, Associate Professor, Warwick School of Law Realistic Options to Strengthen the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Dr Ian Anthony, Project leader of Non-Proliferation and Export Control Project (NEC), Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) Wine and Cheese Reception .
    [Show full text]
  • Maritime Boundary Disputes) (2020) London, UK – Faculty of Law
    Contact Information Tel: +44 207 380 3898 E-mail: [email protected] Employment Volterra Fietta, partner (2011 onward) London, UK Latham & Watkins, partner (2005 to 2011) London, UK and Paris, France Herbert Smith, partner (2001 to 2005) London, UK Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, associate (1996 to 2001) London, UK and Paris, France Public international law practice of Professor Sir Elihu Lauterpacht, junior (1994 to 1996) Cambridge, UK Academic Activities Victoria University of Wellington – Te Herenga Waka – Faculty of Law (Law of the Sea maritime boundary disputes) (2020) The Hague Academy of International Law – Special Course on Judicial Settlement of International Disputes: panel presentation “International Justice Today: Unity or Fragmentation?” (2019) New Zealand Law Foundation International Dispute Resolution Fellow (2017) - University of Auckland and University of Wellington, New Zealand University of London, UCL, Visiting Professor (1998 onward) London, UK – Faculty of Law (International Law of Foreign Investment/Natural Resources) University of London, SOAS and Kings College, Visiting Senior Lecturer (1998 onward) London, UK – Geopolitics and Boundaries Research Centre (International Boundary Law) Université de Paris X (1996 – 1999) Paris, France – Faculty of Law (The Law of International Organisations) University of Cambridge (1994 – 1996) Cambridge, UK – Faculty of Law (International Law); Fellow: Research Centre for International Law York University Centre for International and Strategic Studies, Fellow (1994 onward) Osgoode Hall Law School, York University, Assistant Professor (1992 – 1994) Toronto, Canada – Faculty of Law Education Organization of American States (1995) Rio de Janeiro, Brazil – Curso de Derecho Internacional; OAS Fellowship University of Cambridge, Trinity Hall (1991 – 1992) Cambridge, UK – LL.M.i; Cambridge Commonwealth Scholarship Osgoode Hall Law School, York University (1986 – 1989) Toronto, Canada – LL.B.; Dean's List University of Western Ontario (1983 – 1987) London, Canada – B.A.
    [Show full text]
  • HERSCH LAUTERPACHT: SOME REMINISCENCES George Barton*
    203 HERSCH LAUTERPACHT: SOME REMINISCENCES George Barton* We end this valedictory volume with some reminiscences by Dr George Barton QC himself. They were written at the request of Sir Elihu Lauterpacht at the time he was preparing the book E Lauterpacht The Life of Hersch Lauterpacht (University of Cambridge, United Kingdom, 2010). Shortly after the end of World War II, a fund was established for the endowment of a studentship, to be called the Humanitarian Trust Fund Studentship in Public International Law (the Studentship), at Cambridge University. The successful candidate was required to pursue a course of study in international law under the supervision of the Whewell Professor of Public International Law, who was then Professor Hersch Lauterpacht, and who had been one of the Electors of the Studentship. I was greatly privileged to be the first person elected to that Studentship. At the time I had completed BA and LLB degrees from the University of New Zealand, and was taking an LLM course at Victoria University of Wellington. One of my professors suggested that I should apply. Ailsa and I travelled to England in order to enrol at Cambridge at the beginning of the Michaelmas Term, 1948. One of our first concerns was to find satisfactory accommodation. Being married, residence in College was out of the question. By a series of coincidences we were able to obtain excellent accommodation in the house of Mr and Mrs TR Henn at 32 Millington Road, Newnham. Mr Henn (Thomas Rice Henn) was a senior tutor at St Catharine's College, Cambridge, a lecturer in the English Department, and a world authority on the poet William Butler Yeats.
    [Show full text]
  • REPORTER S P E C I a L N O 1 T U E S D Ay 1 O C to B E R 2013 Vol Cxliv
    CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY REPORTER S PECIAL N O 1 T UE S D AY 1 O C TOBER 2013 VOL CXLIV Deputy Vice-Chancellors appointed 2 Chairs of Syndicates, Boards, Committees, and other bodies appointed 2 Appointments Committees: Chairs appointed 3 Other appointment 4 Roll of the Regent House: Vice-Chancellor’s Notice 4 Preliminary list of members of the Faculties: Registrary’s Notice 5 Architecture and History of Art 5 Engineering 24 Asian and Middle Eastern Studies 5 English 26 Biology 6 History 28 Business and Management 11 Human, Social, and Political Science 30 Classics 12 Law 33 Clinical Medicine 13 Mathematics 35 Computer Science and Technology 18 Modern and Medieval Languages 37 Divinity 19 Music 39 Earth Sciences and Geography 20 Philosophy 40 Economics 22 Physics and Chemistry 40 Education 23 Veterinary Medicine 44 Proposed Roll of the Regent House: Registrary’s Notice 45 PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY 2 CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY REPORTER [S PECIAL N O . 1 Deputy Vice-Chancellors appointed THE OLD SCHOOLS. 1 October 2013 The Vice-Chancellor gives notice that he has appointed the following, in accordance with Statute D, III, 7(a), as Deputy Vice-Chancellors for the academical year 2013–14: Dr Jennifer Chase Barnes, MUR, Pro-Vice-Chancellor Professor Lynn Faith Gladden, T, Pro-Vice-Chancellor Professor John Martin Rallison, T, Pro-Vice-Chancellor Professor Jeremy Keith Morris Sanders, SE, Pro-Vice-Chancellor Professor Stephen John Young, EM, Pro-Vice-Chancellor Professor Anthony John Badger, Master of Clare College Professor Dame Athene Margaret Donald, R Professor Dame Ann Patricia Dowling, SID Lord (John Leonard) Eatwell, President of Queens’ College Mr Stuart Laing, Master of Corpus Christi College Mrs Sarah Squire, President of Hughes Hall Professor Dame Jean Olwen Thomas, Master of St Catharine’s College Professor Ian Hugh White, Master of Jesus College Chairs of Syndicates, Boards, Committees, and other bodies appointed THE OLD SCHOOLS.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Conversations with Professor Sir Elihu Lauterpacht Fourth Interview
    1 Conversations with Professor Sir Elihu Lauterpacht Fourth Interview: The Eighties Date: 20th March 2008 Between January and May 2008, Sir Elihu was interviewed seven times at his home in Herschel Road Cambridge to record his reminiscences of seventy years of his own, and his father’s associations with the Faculty. The interviews were recorded, and the audio version is available on this website with this transcript of those recordings. The questions and topics are sequentially numbered in the six interviews for use in a database of citations made across the Eminent Scholars Archive to personalities mentioned therein. Interviewer: Lesley Dingle (questions and topics are in bold type) Sir Elihu’s answers are in normal type. Comments added by LD, in italics. All footnotes added by LD. 66. Sir Eli, this is our fourth interview and we’ve reached the 1980s, an important decade for you personally. You became a reader in 1981, in 1983 you established a research institute which has become a world famous Lauterpacht Centre for International Law and in 1989 you became a CBE. Could you elaborate on this decade? Yes, well gladly because as you say it was quite a full decade. It was a decade following my return from Australia in 1978 and we dealt with that last time. At the end of the 70s I was elected an associate of the Institut de Droit International and I became a member of that body in the ordinary progression of advancement in 1983. 67. 1981. Malta & Tunisia/Libya continental shelf case. In the 1980s the first case I was involved in was the case between Malta and Libya and Tunisia.
    [Show full text]