History will be the focus of a number of panels at the Association of American Law Schools meeting this week in New York City. Panels include:
Thursday, January 3
Section on Socio-Economics
2:10 - 3:10 p.m.
Binary Economics and the History of Economic Thought
Murray Hill B, Second Floor, Hilton New York
Harold Channer, Producer, Conversations with Harold Channer, New York, New York
Larry Gell, President, International Agency for Economic Development, New York, NY
Sidney M. Greenfield, Professor Emeritus of Anthropology, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Scott Goldberg, President, Scott Goldberg Films, New York, NY
Demetri Kantarelis, Professor of Economics, Assumption College Economics and Global Studies Department, Worcester, Massachusetts
Robert E. Prasch, Professor, Middlebury College, Middlebury, Vermont
In this session, four economists explore the binary economic approach to (1) promoting sustainable, economic growth and (2) reducing inequality and poverty. The binary approach is to open capital markets to broaden the process whereby capital is acquired with the earnings of capital. The concept of binary growth holds that the promise of more broadly distributed capital acquired with the earnings of capital in the future will in the present both  profitably employ more fully existing capacity and  promote more sustainable economic growth. Professor Robert Prasch, whose specialities includes the history of economic thought, will present a paper that advances the concept of “binary growth” as a distinct theory of growth that is “new” to the history of economic thought. Professors Prasch, Angresano, Kantarelis, and Whalen will then explore the possible magnitude of binary growth and discuss the economic and legal issues and questions raised by the binary approach. Attention will also be given to ways in which binary principles may be taught along with other principles of economics in courses in law and economics.
Law and Economics: Under Cover of Science
Morgan Suite, Second Floor, Hilton New York
Susan D. Carle, American University Washington College of Law
David M. Driesen, Syracuse University College of Law
James R. Hackney, Jr., Northeastern University School of Law
Shubha Ghosh, Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law This session explores the history of the development of the Law and Economics by way of an examination of Professor James Hackney’s recent book entitled Under Cover of Science. Endorsed Judge Richard Posner and Professor Duncan Kennedy, Professor Hackney’s authoritative intellectual history describes the law and economics movement from the early days of the Republic to the present and argues that the incorporation of economic analysis into legal decision making is not an inherently objective enterprise, but rather often cloaks ideological determinations – particularly regarding the distribution of wealth – under cover of science. Professors Driesen and Carle will join the author in a discussion of the book.
Friday, January 4
10:30 a.m.- 12:15 p.m.
Section on Civil Procedure
Murray Hill A, Second Floor, Hilton New York
The Revolution of 1938 Revisited: The Role and Future of the Federal Rules
Moderator: Steven S. Gensler, University of Oklahoma Law Center
Making Effective Rules: The Need for Procedure Theory
Robert G. Bone, Boston University School of Law
The Revolution of 1938 and Its Discontents
Debra Lyn Bassett, The University of Alabama School of Law and Rex R. Perschbacher, University of California at Davis School of Law
Not Dead Yet
Richard L. Marcus, University of California, Hastings College of the Law
4:00 - 5:45 p.m.
Section on International Law Co-Sponsored by Section on International Human Rights
Sutton South, Second Floor, Hilton New York
A Century of Humanitarian Law (Hague 1907 - Darfur 2007): Successes and Failures - “A Report Card”
(Program to be published in American University Law Review “Special Edition”)
The Law of War: Criteria for a “Report Card”
Nicolas N. Kittrie, American University Washington College of Law
The Changing Challenges of War (1907-2007): How Has Humanitarian Law Responded?
Marco Sassoli, Professor, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland
Scoring Success and Failures: (a) Outlawry of War; (b) Regulating Non-International Armed Conflicts; (c) Protecting Civilians; and, (d) Controlling Weapons of Mass Destruction
Yoram Dinstein, Professor, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel
Implementing/Enforcing Humanitarian Law: Contrasting Military v. Criminal Models; Executive v. Judicial; Retribution v. Reconciliation
Harvey Rishikof, Professor, The National War College, Washington, DC
Dedoublement Analytique or Avoiding Making a Virtue of Ignorance" ("A Citizen's Observer's View of the U.S. Approach to the 'War on Terrorism'")
Benjamin Griffith Davis, University of Toledo College of Law
Restorative Justice in Societies Emerging from Civil War: The Viability of an Integrated Response to War Crimes Against Civilian
Jennifer Moore, University of New Mexico School of Law
The Challenge of Fragmentation of IHL regarding the Protection of Civilians -- An Islamic Perspective
Anicee Van Engeland, Jurist and Political Analyst, European University Institute, Max Weber Program, San Domenico, Italy
The main task of the panel will be to survey the changing challenges posed by war during the 20th Century, as a result of the dramatic changes in the characteristics of armed conflicts, and to assess the law’s responses.
The focus of the panel will be on how the law’s objectives and diverse protected communities (i.e., belligerents, sick and wounded, prisoners of war and civilians) have fared in view of the changes in the conduct of warfare and the law. The century’s dramatic developments, affecting both jus ad bellum and jus in bello, have included several noted conceptual and operational transitions:
From “Just War” to the “Outlawing” of War; From International Armed Conflicts” to “Intra-national and Transnational Conflicts”; From the Containment of Armed Conflicts (through the Principle of Distinction, Neutrality, etc.) to a resort to “Total War” (through strategic bombing, terrorism, etc.); From conventional weapons to weapons of mass destruction; From quasi-public (ICRC, etc.) and national policing of Humanitarian Law to international policing.
The panel, relying on both chronological and thematic approaches, will seek to assess the impact of these developments on Humanitarian Law’s functions in several conflict arenas, including Afghanistan, Chechnya, Iraq, Kashmir, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Sudan and former Yugoslavia.
4:00 - 5:45 p.m.
Section on Legal History
Regent Parlor, Second Floor, Hilton New York
New Voices in American Legal History
Moderator: Joseph Gordon Hylton, Marquette University Law School
Tomiko Brown-Nagin, University of Virginia School of Law
Risa L. Goluboff, University of Virginia School of Law
Daniel W. Hamilton, Chicago-Kent College of Law Illinois Institute of Technology
Kenneth W. Mack, Harvard Law School
Claire Priest, Northwestern University School of Law
The 1970’s and 1980’s saw a dramatic increase in both the number of legal history courses offered in American law schools and in the amount of historical scholarship done by law professors. Law professors with PhD’s in history or related fields, once a rarity, proliferated. Although the place of American legal history in the law school curriculum was secured, what to teach and how to teach it remain unresolved questions. Similarly, practitioners of “legal history” frequently have disagreed as to the content and methodology of their field.
This year’s panel is composed of four law professors, all of whom hold PhD’s in history and each of whom began law teaching after the year 2000. Each will comment on his or her reasons for pursuing research in law and history, the subject matter and nature of his or her own scholarly work, the role of legal history in the 21st century law school, and the future of legal historical scholarship.
Saturday, January 5
8:30 - 10:15 a.m.
Section on Minority Groups
Sutton North, Second Floor, Hilton New York
“In the Name of Love”: What Does Martin Luther King Mean on the 40th Anniversary of His Assassination?
(Program will be published in the NYU Review of Law and Social Change)
Lisa Chiyemi Ikemoto, University of California at Davis School of Law
Jose R. Juarez, Jr., University of Denver Storm College of Law
Margaret E. Montoya, University of New Mexico School of Law
Charles Ogletree, Harvard Law School
Wendy Brown Scott, North Carolina Central School of Law
Jennifer Marie Chacon, University of California at Davis School of Law
Frank Rudy Cooper, Suffolk University Law School
Emily M.S. Houh, University of Cincinnati College of Law
Camille Antoinette Nelson, Saint Louis University School of Law
Catherine E. Smith, University of Denver Storm College of Law
“Early morning April 4, shot rings out in the Memphis sky. Free at last! They took your life, they could not take your pride.” --U2, Pride (In the Name of Love)
On April 16, 1963, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote the following words in “Letter from Birmingham Jail”: “One may ask: ‘How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?’ The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that ‘an unjust law is no law at all.’ . . . . An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself. This is difference made legal. By the same token, a just law is a code that a majority compels a minority to follow and that it is willing to follow itself. This is sameness made legal. . . . Sometimes a law is just on its face and unjust in its application.”
As we approach the 40 th Anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s assassination on April 4, 1968, we, as lawyers and seekers of justice, must ask ourselves what his life, his message, and his movement mean today. Looking at the “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” are there still two types of laws today: just laws and unjust laws? If so, how does one, or rather how should one, distinguish between just laws and unjust laws in our current society? Additionally, what does the appropriation of Dr. King’s words for a backlash version of colorblindness signify for Dr. King’s intended message and whether it stands for “pride?”
This panel of ten scholars of diverse races, ethnicities, genders, and backgrounds will undertake the very important task of investigating and explicating the meaning of Dr. King’s message of non-violent struggle to law, lawyers, and justice today. Half of the panelists are more senior scholars, who either (1) participated in or are participating in social movements that stemmed from or are related to the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s, or (2) have a personal memory of the day that Dr. King was shot and killed. The other half of the panelists are more junior scholars, born on, around, or within five years of Dr. King’s death, who address the meaning of Dr. King’s legacy and message after his death and in their careers as lawyers.
1:30 - 3:15 p.m.
Section on Antitrust and Economic Regulation
Clinton Suite, Second Floor, Hilton New York
Moderator: Christopher R. Leslie, Chicago-Kent College of Law Illinois Institute of Technology
Daniel A. Crane, Yeshiva University Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
Harry First, New York University School of Law
James P. May, American University Washington College of Law
[There is no panel description in the on-line program.]