New mckinneylaw.iu.edu · Web view2021. 3. 1. · And so with that, the stage is yours, Professor...

Indiana International and Comparative Law Review Symposium International Law and Human Rights Under a New Administration https://mckinneylaw.iu.edu/events/current.html?eid=834

Thursday, February 25, 2021 @ 3pm EST CLE: 3.0 hours Distance Education Hours

14:49:23 (Please stand by for live captioning)

15:01:16

>> HOST: Hello, everyone. My name is Khoa Trinh. On behalf of the McKinney School of Law, thank you for joining us today.

15:01:31

Before I hand it over to the host with the most, we want to make sure that those in the audience seeking CLE credit are not dialed into this event via phone number.

15:01:43

Please make sure you are signed into your Zoom account via your computer or personal device in order for us to recognize your credits.

In order to log audience engagement for CLE purposes, you will see nine poll questions pop up throughout this evening.

Please be sure you answer them within two minutes.

And if you do not need CLE credits or you have no idea what I'm talking about, feel free to ignore the questions from the pop-up screen and they will disappear.

15:02:14

Finally, you will find on the bottom of your screen that the Q&A button is for your use, so please use that to submit questions you have for your speakers - who will reserve about 10 minutes at the end of their presentations to answer your questions.

15:02:30

We have an exciting agenda for you all today, so I will now hand it over to our emcee, Professor Frank Sullivan Jr.

Justice Sullivan served on the Indiana Supreme Court for 12 years prior to becoming Professor Sullivan in 2012 here at IU McKinney. He is an adored member of the IU community and we could not think of a better person to host to symposium.

15:02:55

https://mckinneylaw.iu.edu/events/current.html?eid=834

And so with that, the stage is yours, Professor Sullivan. I will mention that Professor Emmert had an immediate emergency and is not able to join us today. But we will proceed as usual.

15:03:07

>> Frank Sullivan: Thank you, Khoa Trinh. And good afternoon to all of you.

On behalf of Dean Karen E. Bravo, I am pleased to welcome you to the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law. And the annual symposium of the Indiana International and Comparative Law Review in which we will be considering international law and human rights law under a new administration.

15:03:40

I am Frank Sullivan, a teacher here at the McKinney School of Law, and have been honored by being designated as your master of ceremonies today.

It is altogether fitting that the McKinney School of Law is hosting this important discussion, for our law school is truly international in its perspective, in its curriculum, and in its constituencies.

15:04:13

You sense this from the moment you enter our building’s soaring Tuchman Bobrick atrium, decorated with scores of flags – each representing the nation of birth of a current McKinney student.

15:04:26

You encounter this when you meet our many students from around the globe, studying in our LLM and, to a lesser extent, MJ, SJD, and JD programs.

15:04:37

Students from large countries like China, Vietnam and Nigeria; and small countries like Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia and Eritrea.

15:04:48

And you realize this when you inspect the wide range of our course offerings in both public and private international law and our renowned and revered program in international human rights law, in which now more than 200 of our students have provided pro bono services in over 65 countries around the world.

15:05:11

I myself remember how proud I was of this law school after visiting such an intern in London one summer, certainly several years ago, who was working in a law firm defending deportation proceedings against HIV-positive immigrants who had entered the UK illegally in desperate attempts to obtain medical treatment.

15:05:36

And it's

15:05:37 fitting as

15:05:38 well that

15:05:39 this

15:05:39 symposium is

15:05:40 being

15:05:40 produced by

15:05:42 the Indiana

15:05:43 International

15:05:43 and

15:05:43 Comparative

15:05:44 Law Review,

15:05:45 which for 30

15:05:46 years has

15:05:48 published and

15:05:49 produced

15:05:50 scholarly and

15:05:51 practical

15:05:51 inquiry into

15:05:52 pressing

15:05:53 questions of

15:05:53 international

15:05:55 and

15:05:55 comparative

15:05:57 law through

15:05:57 both its

15:05:58 journal and

15:06:01 its annual

15:06:02 symposium.

15:06:02 And if I

15:06:03 might take a

15:06:04 point of personal

15:06:05 privilege,

15:06:06 I'd like to

15:06:07 acknowledge

15:06:08 my own

15:06:09 association

15:06:11 with the

15:06:12 IICLR almost

15:06:14 since its

inception.

15:06:14 One

15:06:15 of my very

15:06:16 first law

15:06:17 clerks when I

15:06:18 was a justice of

15:06:20 the Indiana Supreme

15:06:21 Court was a

15:06:22 very early

15:06:22 editor in

15:06:23 chief of the

15:06:26 IICLR,

15:06:27 Franklin E.

15:06:28 Breckenridge

15:06:29 Jr., now very

15:06:32 much an

15:06:33 international lawyer,

15:06:34 himself

15:06:34 practicing in

15:06:35 the UAE.

15:06:36 A decade later,

15:06:38 the IICLR

15:06:39 published my

15:06:40 LLM thesis on

15:06:43 the

15:06:44 celebrated

15:06:47 Pinochet case

15:06:49 under a

15:06:49 distinguished local

15:06:50 practitioner,

15:06:51 Tonya J.

15:06:51 Bond.

15:06:52 And since I've

15:06:53 been working

15:06:54 here at the

15:06:55 law school, I

15:06:56 have had the

15:06:57 good fortune

15:06:58 of participating

15:06:59 in one way or

15:07:01 another in

15:07:03 almost all of

15:07:05 the IA CLR's

15:07:06 annual

15:07:06 symposiums

15:07:07 including

15:07:09 today's.

15:07:10 And

15:07:10 today's

15:07:11 symposium

15:07:12 promises to

15:07:14 make still

15:07:15 another significant

15:07:16 contribution

15:07:16 to our

15:07:17 understanding

15:07:18 of pressing

15:07:20 questions of


15:07:21 law, thanks

15:07:22 to the

15:07:23 willingness

15:07:24 of two true


15:07:26 citizens to

15:07:28 share their

15:07:29 insights and

15:07:31 observations

15:07:33 with us.

15:07:34 Justice

15:07:34 Steven H.

15:07:36 David of the

15:07:37 Indiana Supreme

15:07:38 Court, former

15:07:40 Chief Defense

15:07:40 Council under

15:07:41 the military

15:07:42 Commissions

15:07:43 Act of 2006,

15:07:44 and an

15:07:45 adjunct professor

15:07:46 here at the

15:07:47 McKinney Law

15:07:48 School, and

15:07:50 the honorable

15:07:50 Michael

15:07:51 Kirby,

15:07:52 retired

15:07:52 justice of

15:07:53 the high

15:07:55 court of

15:07:56 Australia,

15:07:56 that nation's

15:07:57 court of last

15:07:58 resort, one

15:07:59 of the

15:08:00 world's best-known

15:08:01 and most

15:08:01 eloquent

15:08:03 human rights

15:08:04 advocates and

15:08:05 a particular

15:08:06 friend of

15:08:07 Indiana University

15:08:08 from which he

15:08:09 holds an

15:08:10 honorary

15:08:11 doctorate.

15:08:12 On behalf of

15:08:13 the McKinney

15:08:14 Law School

15:08:15 and the

15:08:15 Indiana


15:08:16 and


15:08:18 Law Review, I

15:08:20 want to thank

15:08:21 justice David

15:08:22 and Justice

15:08:24 Kirby for

15:08:24 spending

15:08:25 their time with

15:08:26 us today.

15:08:27 Before I

15:08:28 introduce

15:08:28 Justice

15:08:29 David, I want

15:08:30 to say to all

15:08:31 of the members of

15:08:33 our audience

15:08:33 that our

15:08:34 speakers plan

15:08:35 to talk for

15:08:36 approximately

15:08:37 50 minutes

15:08:38 and then be

15:08:39 available for

15:08:39 your

15:08:40 questions.

15:08:42 If you place your

15:08:43 questions in

15:08:44 the Q&A

15:08:45 function on

15:08:46 our Zoom app,

15:08:47 I will do my

15:08:48 very best to

15:08:49 ask them to

15:08:50 our speakers

15:08:51 at the

15:08:52 conclusion of

15:08:53 their

15:08:56 prepared

15:08:57 remarks.

15:08:59 Justice

15:08:59 Steven H.

15:09:00 David has

15:09:01 served on the


15:09:04 Court for the

15:09:06 last decade.

15:09:09 In his

15:09:10 announcement

15:09:10 appointing

15:09:11 Justice David

15:09:13 to the court

15:09:15 in 2010,

15:09:16 Governor

15:09:17 Mitch Daniels

15:09:18 said he

15:09:19 compiled a

15:09:20 highly

15:09:20 decorated

15:09:21 military

15:09:22 career during

15:09:23 which he was

15:09:24 tested in one

15:09:26 of the most

15:09:27 sensitive and

15:09:29 challenging

15:09:29 assignments

15:09:30 imaginable.

15:09:30 The

15:09:31 assignment of

15:09:32 which

15:09:33 Governor

15:09:34 Daniels spoke

15:09:35 was service

15:09:35 as Chief

15:09:36 Defense

15:09:37 Council under


15:09:39 commissions

15:09:40 act of 2006,

15:09:41 which meant

15:09:42 that Justice

15:09:44 David's

15:09:44 clients had

15:09:45 been all of

15:09:47 the detainees

15:09:48 at the

15:09:48 American

15:09:49 prison at

15:09:50 Guantanamo

15:09:52 Bay, Cuba.

15:09:53 To many, this

15:09:54 assignment

15:09:55 conjured up

15:09:56 memories of

15:09:57 John Adams

15:09:58 representing

15:09:58 the alleged

15:09:59 perpetrators

15:10:00 of the Boston

15:10:01 Massacre at

15:10:02 the dawn of

15:10:04 our republic.

15:10:06 The story of

15:10:07 Justice David's

15:10:08 service as


15:10:10 Counsel

15:10:10 cannot be

15:10:13 told in this

15:10:14 setting.

15:10:15 Suffice it to

15:10:16 say that

15:10:18 while he was

15:10:19 being considered to

15:10:20 the appointment

to the Supreme

15:10:21 Court, a military

15:10:22 colleague from the

15:10:24 Navy, no

15:10:24 less, wrote

15:10:25 to Governor

15:10:27 Daniels

15:10:28 saying that

15:10:28 Steve David

15:10:29 is a warrior

15:10:32 for the rule

15:10:33 of law.

15:10:34 That

15:10:35 probably says

15:10:37 it all, but

15:10:38 it doesn't.

15:10:40 His Chief

15:10:42 Defense

15:10:43 Counsel

15:10:44 service

15:10:45 aside, Steve

15:10:45 David has

15:10:46 been noted

15:10:47 for his

15:10:48 dedicated to

15:10:49 troubled

15:10:50 children and

15:10:51 children in

15:10:52 trouble as a

15:10:53 leading

15:10:54 Indiana

15:10:54 Juvenile

15:10:55 Court Judge.

15:10:56 And since his

15:10:57 appointment to our

15:10:58 state's court

15:10:59 of last

15:11:00 resort, he has

15:11:01 been a leader

15:11:02 in both the

15:11:03 development

15:11:04 of our

15:11:05 state's

15:11:05 jurisprudence

15:11:05 and in

15:11:06 improving our

15:11:08 state's legal

15:11:10 system.

15:11:10 Among his

15:11:11 most recent

15:11:12 initiatives

15:11:13 is an

15:11:13 ambitious

15:11:14 program

15:11:15 designed to

15:11:16 enhance

15:11:17 diversity,

15:11:18 equity, and

15:11:19 inclusion in

15:11:21 the Indiana

15:11:21 legal

15:11:26 profession. Justice David.

15:11:30

>> Justice Steven David: Well, good afternoon, everybody. Thank you, Professor Justice.

You, my friend, are one of this law school's greatest assets, and I'm happy to see on my tiny little

screen, my Hollywood Squares screen, Professor Emmert has been able to resolve his emergency, and

he's present.

15:11:48

So I'm going to go first and set up Professor Emmert and Chief Justice Kirby hopefully as the warm-up act for those two.

15:12:03

Thank you, first of all, to the International and Comparative Law Review for this international human rights symposium. And for hosting essentially what I'm

15:12:13 calling a

15:12:13 revival, a


15:12:15 revival, and

we'll talk a

15:12:16 little bit more about

that in a few

15:12:19 minutes .

15:12:20 Thank you --

personal thank

15:12:22 you to Khoa

15:12:23 and to Ariel for such a

15:12:25 kind invitation

15:12:27 and very kind

15:12:28 email.

15:12:28 I don't want to forget to

15:12:31 give you my disclaimer,

and that is

15:12:33 the opinions expressed

herein are

15:12:35 mine.

15:12:35 I'm not of the Robert H.

15:12:38 McKinney School of Law

15:12:39 and certainly not of

the Indiana Supreme

15:12:41 Court.

15:12:42 But I do have some

opinions, and I'll share

15:12:45 them with you in this

15:12:47 academic setting.

15:12:48 I want to focus

15:12:49 my comments -- indeed

15:12:51 focus my efforts on

15:12:52 all of you,

15:12:53 the audience, of

15:12:56 course, as is

15:12:57 expected, this

15:12:58 is my

15:12:59 opportunity

15:13:00 and Professor

15:13:01 Emmert's


15:13:02 and the chief

15:13:03 justice's opportunity

15:13:04 to hopefully

15:13:04 deputize you,

15:13:05 to recruit

15:13:07 you, to move

15:13:08 you a bit in

15:13:09 this area of human

rights, this broad

15:13:12 area of human rights.

15:13:13 And to share some things

maybe perhaps you

15:13:16 have not considered.

15:13:18 I want to talk to you

15:13:20 about what you might do,

15:13:21 what you can

15:13:23 do to influence not

15:13:24 only President

15:13:25 Biden's

15:13:25 administrative

policies on


15:13:26 human rights,

15:13:27 but what you

15:13:29 can do to

15:13:31 influence, to

15:13:34 change, to

15:13:35 prove human

15:13:35 rights right

15:13:36 here in the United

15:13:37 States.

15:13:38 Right here in the

15:13:39 state of

15:13:42 Indiana.

15:13:42 And while doing

15:13:43 so, influence

15:13:45 change, make

15:13:47 a difference

15:13:48 worldwide.

15:13:49 There's no

15:13:50 limit to the

15:13:51 ripple effect

15:13:52 that you, any one

15:13:55 of you, may

15:13:56 cause.

15:13:56 You might not

15:13:57 ever see the

15:13:58 full consequences

15:13:59 of your good

15:14:01 deeds, your

15:14:02 efforts

15:14:02 beyond a

15:14:04 particular

15:14:05 event or

15:14:05 cause or

15:14:06 client, but

15:14:07 it happens.

15:14:08 It really

15:14:09 does.

15:14:09 Trust me.

15:14:10 I'm also going

to focus my

15:14:12 comments on all of

you, the attendees,

15:14:15 because to me, you are

15:14:17 far and away

15:14:19 the most

15:14:19 critical

15:14:21 component.

15:14:21 You're the

15:14:23 future.

15:14:23 You are the

15:14:25 future.

15:14:26 You represent the

15:14:27 present and

certainly the

15:14:29 future of our

15:14:30 profession.

15:14:30 And we need

15:14:31 your commitment

15:14:32 and your

15:14:34 efforts to

15:14:35 make right

15:14:38 what isn't

15:14:38 right.

15:14:39 It was about

15:14:40 eight years ago, one of

15:14:42 the first classes I

15:14:43 taught as an

adjunct here

15:14:46 at McKinney

15:14:46 was contract

15:14:51 law for LLM

15:14:52 students.

15:14:52 And at the

15:14:54 end, near the

15:14:55 end of the semester, I

15:14:56 always asked them,

once we developed

15:14:58 that relationship,

so tell me.

15:15:00 Are you staying here?

15:15:02 Going to find a

15:15:03 job?

15:15:04 Going to go to

law school?

15:15:06 Further education?

15:15:07 Are you going back home?

15:15:09 And if you're going back

home, what do you want

15:15:13 to do?

15:15:14 I always got honest and

interesting responses.

15:15:16 Then I got one

from Mohamed that

15:15:19 I will never,

15:15:20 ever forget.

15:15:21 Mohamed was

15:15:22 and is from Saudi

15:15:23 Arabia.

15:15:23 Obviously, a

15:15:24 very smart

15:15:25 young man,

15:15:25 just like all of

15:15:27 the students

15:15:28 at McKinney,

15:15:28 very smart,

15:15:30 very

15:15:30 personable.

15:15:31 He

15:15:31 could have

15:15:32 easily stayed

15:15:33 in the United

15:15:34 States and

15:15:34 furthered his

15:15:36 education or

15:15:36 found gainful

15:15:37 employment.

15:15:38 I asked him,

15:15:39 so Mohamed,

15:15:40 what do you

15:15:41 intend to do?

15:15:42 And this is

15:15:43 what he said.

15:15:45 And I quote.

15:15:46 Professor David, in my

15:15:48 country, we

15:15:48 have many

15:15:49 humans but very

15:15:50 little

15:15:51 rights.

15:15:51 I'm going to

15:15:52 return to my

15:15:53 home country

and practice


15:15:55 law.

15:15:56 I told him that was one

15:15:58 of the most profound

15:16:00 statements I

15:16:00 had ever

15:16:01 heard, and I

15:16:02 could not have been

more proud of

15:16:05 a student of

15:16:06 mine than I

15:16:07 was and am of

15:16:08 Mohamed.

15:16:09 Maybe we should

15:16:10 have zoomed

15:16:11 with Mohamed today and

15:16:12 asked him how

15:16:13 that noble,

15:16:14 necessary,

15:16:15 difficult and

15:16:16 just plain

15:16:17 hard work is

15:16:18 going for

15:16:19 him.

15:16:19 So here we

15:16:21 are on

15:16:22 February

15:16:23 25th, 2021,

15:16:24 trying to get

15:16:25 out from

15:16:27 under a

15:16:27 pandemic, the

15:16:28 scope and

15:16:29 tragedy of

15:16:30 which we

15:16:30 never would

15:16:31 have imagined

15:16:33 in our

15:16:34 lifetimes.

15:16:37 Indeed, the

15:16:38 last one of

15:16:39 such evil

15:16:40 magnitude was

15:16:40 approximately

15:16:42 100 years

15:16:46 ago.

Add to

15:16:46 the pandemic,

15:16:47 400 years of

15:16:48 racial

15:16:48 injustice and

15:16:49 racism and

15:16:50 the 21st

15:16:51 century in

15:16:52 some respects

15:16:52 looks like

15:16:53 the 19th century or

15:16:54 the 18th century or

15:16:56 the 17th

15:16:57 century or

15:16:59 worse.

15:17:00 But we

15:17:01 have -- each

15:17:03 of you have

15:17:04 the


15:17:06 to be

15:17:06 something

15:17:07 more grand, to

15:17:08 be part of

15:17:09 something

15:17:10 more grander,

15:17:11 more fair,

15:17:13 more just for

15:17:15 all.

15:17:16 Justice

15:17:16 for all.

15:17:18 And to keep that

15:17:19 dream alive and to make

15:17:21 it a reality.

15:17:23 I hope and

15:17:24 firmly

15:17:26 believe that

15:17:26 each of us in

15:17:28 this place

15:17:30 and time, in

15:17:31 this moment,

15:17:32 that have not

15:17:33 suffered

15:17:33 injustices

15:17:34 are convinced

15:17:35 that injustice

15:17:35 suffered by

15:17:36 others can no

15:17:37 longer be

15:17:38 ignored, no

15:17:39 longer be

15:17:40 minimized,

15:17:42 can never be

15:17:43 rationalized,

15:17:44 and therefore must

15:17:45 be understood

15:17:46 and remedied.

15:17:47 We must have

15:17:49 dialogue and

15:17:50 education,

15:17:51 but talk must

15:17:52 translate

15:17:53 into action

15:17:55 and into

15:17:56 change.

15:17:56 When we

15:17:58 are willing to

15:17:59 admit that

15:18:00 tolerating

15:18:01 injustice is

15:18:02 just another

15:18:03 way to

15:18:04 sustain

15:18:04 injustice,

15:18:04 then we can

15:18:06 move

15:18:06 mountains.

15:18:08 Let me say

15:18:10 again,

15:18:11 tolerating


15:18:12 aiding and

15:18:13 abetting a

15:18:16 con spir cy

15:18:16 to commit

15:18:17 injustice.

15:18:18 A conspiracy to

15:18:19 sustain

15:18:19 injustice.

15:18:19 Whether it's

15:18:20 intentional,

15:18:22 reckless, or

15:18:23 just plain

15:18:24 negligent or

15:18:24 naive.

15:18:25 And let's be

15:18:27 frank, right?

15:18:28 Very few of

15:18:31 us, if any of

15:18:32 us, are not guilty of

15:18:34 some lesser-included

15:18:35 offense -- no

15:18:36 one's perfect.

15:18:37 Quit trying

15:18:37 to be perfect.

15:18:38 Just be the best you can

15:18:41 be and try a

15:18:42 bit harder tomorrow.

15:18:43 We can all be better

15:18:45 stewards of freedom,

better guardians of

15:18:47 justice, better

15:18:48 enemies of

15:18:49 injustice,

15:18:50 and anyone

15:18:50 can join this

15:18:52 Army of human

15:18:53 rights

15:18:53 advocate s.

15:18:54 Everyone is

15:18:55 welcome.

15:18:56 The old -- I

15:18:57 don't like to use that

15:18:59 phrase, that word

-- the more

15:19:01 experienced, okay, the

more experienced, the

15:19:03 young, the restless,

the rich, the

15:19:05 poor, the just getting

15:19:08 byers, Rs,

15:19:10 Ds, Is, Js,

15:19:11 Ks, reds,

15:19:12 whites,

15:19:13 yellows, all,

15:19:13 all are

15:19:14 invited, and

15:19:15 all can contribute,

15:19:16 and all have

15:19:17 a responsibility

15:19:18 .

15:19:18 So let's

15:19:19 rip these

15:19:20 labels off of

15:19:21 who does

15:19:22 support human

15:19:22 rights and who doesn't

15:19:24 support human

15:19:25 rights.

15:19:25 It's not about

15:19:27 being anti

15:19:27 anything.

15:19:28 It's about

15:19:29 being for

15:19:30 human rights.

15:19:32 Let's ensure

15:19:33 that we

15:19:33 identify and

15:19:34 focus and

15:19:36 frame the

15:19:37 issue and

15:19:38 just like that.

15:19:39 So thank

15:19:40 you for being here.

15:19:42 Perhaps you're curious.

15:19:43 Perhaps you're

committed.

15:19:44 Perhaps you're

conflicted.

15:19:45 Perhaps you want to do

15:19:47 something but aren't

exactly sure

15:19:49 what.

15:19:49 Maybe you're

15:19:50 hurting a bit

15:19:51 for those who

15:19:52 are hurting a

15:19:53 lot.

15:19:54 Maybe

15:19:54 you're a bit

15:19:55 too comfortable.

15:19:56 We invite you

15:19:57 to listen, to

15:19:58 learn, to ask.

15:19:59 Subsequently

15:20:00 talk, debate

15:20:01 about these

15:20:02 presentations,

15:20:05 learn, think,

15:20:05 reflect,

15:20:06 learn -- have I

15:20:08 said learn

15:20:08 enough?

15:20:09 I'm much smarter

today than I

15:20:11 was yesterday,

but I still

15:20:13 have so much to learn

about so many

15:20:16 things.

15:20:16 And that's okay.

15:20:18 It's okay.

15:20:19 We're all learning.

15:20:20 We're all works

in progress.

15:20:22 I'm not done

learning, and

15:20:24 I'm not done trying to

make a difference in

15:20:27 the lives of others.

15:20:29 Whether it's here in

Indiana, across the

15:20:31 United States, or

across the world.

15:20:33 We can all learn

a bit more,

15:20:36 do a bit more

just in our

15:20:38 everyday lives to

ensure human rights for

15:20:41 all humans,

15:20:42 right?

15:20:42 Advance the

15:20:45 slide,

15:20:45 please.

15:20:46 So I'm honored

15:20:47 and humbled

15:20:48 to work for

15:20:50 you.

15:20:50 I'm so proud to

be a graduate of

15:20:52 the Robert H.

15:20:54 McKinney school of law,

the best law school for

15:20:57 Indiana lawyers and

judges, and everybody

15:20:59 else that wants

to practice law.

15:21:01 This is my contact

information.

15:21:03 If you like,

my comments,

15:21:05 let me know.

15:21:06 If you don't,

let me know.

15:21:08 I need to

15:21:10 learn.

15:21:10 If you have questions or

15:21:12 if there's something

we're not able to discuss

15:21:15 today, reach out to me.

15:21:17 And within my lane,

I'll have that

15:21:19 dialogue with

15:21:21 you.

15:21:21 I'm available

for you because

15:21:23 the better you

15:21:26 are, the

15:21:27 better we

15:21:28 that we all

15:21:30 are.

15:21:31 Next slide.

15:21:32 Injustice

15:21:32 anywhere is a

15:21:33 threat to

15:21:36 justice

15:21:37 everywhere.

15:21:38 Everyone should

15:21:38 be familiar

15:21:39 with this quotation

15:21:41 from Martin

15:21:41 Luther King

15:21:42 Jr.

15:21:43 He was right.

15:21:44 Mohamed was

15:21:44 right.

15:21:45 What does this

15:21:46 mean besides

15:21:47 the obvious,

15:21:48 injustice

15:21:48 anywhere is a

15:21:49 threat to justice

15:21:50 everywhere?

15:21:51 Think about

15:21:52 it.

15:21:53 It's not just a statement

15:21:54 that we'd

15:21:55 better not be

15:21:56 complacent.

15:21:56 It's not just

15:21:58 a warning,

15:21:58 danger,

15:21:59 danger!

15:21:59 Don't get too

15:22:00 comfortable,

or you might

15:22:02 be the next

15:22:04 one to lose

15:22:05 rights.

15:22:06 It's

15:22:06 not just a

15:22:07 challenge.

15:22:08 It's a call

15:22:10 to action.

15:22:10 Vigilance,

15:22:12 vigilance,

15:22:12 vigilance.

15:22:13 I

15:22:13 was a soldier

15:22:14 for 28 years

15:22:17 of active and

15:22:18 reserve duty.

15:22:19 Three more years if you

15:22:20 add law school, four

15:22:22 more years if

15:22:23 you add ROTC.

15:22:24 I was commissioned

15:22:25 as a 2nd

15:22:26 Lieutenant, United

15:22:28 States Army

15:22:28 Infantry.

15:22:29 I've taken

15:22:29 more oaths to

15:22:30 support and

15:22:31 defend the Constitution

15:22:32 than most

15:22:33 people.

15:22:34 I've always been

15:22:35 prepared to

15:22:35 take a bullet

15:22:36 for this

15:22:37 country and

15:22:38 for any one

15:22:39 of you.

15:22:40 My wife is an

15:22:42 attorney

15:22:43 sailor, Iraq,

15:22:43 Guantanamo

15:22:44 Bay and on

15:22:45 and on.

15:22:46 Active duty

15:22:47 and reserve.

15:22:48 Active

15:22:49 reserve with

15:22:50 the grade of

15:22:51 05,

15:22:51 Commander,

15:22:52 sworn to

15:22:54 defend the

15:22:55 rule of law of

15:22:57 the United

15:22:57 States of

15:22:58 America.

15:22:59 With her life

15:23:00 if that is what

15:23:01 is necessary.

15:23:02 Now, I'm not here to

recruit any of you

15:23:05 for the military,

although that

15:23:07 would not be

a bad option.

15:23:09 I am here to

15:23:11 suggest that

this country

15:23:12 is far from

15:23:14 perfect.

15:23:14 And it's not

15:23:15 always the role

model for

15:23:17 justice and fairness.

15:23:18 But I'm here

saying I will

15:23:20 take this country as

is any time because as

15:23:24 bad as it may be on

any one particular

15:23:27 day, we, you, together,

us, can continue

15:23:29 to make a difference,

and I believe

15:23:32 we will make a

difference because our

15:23:34 country is founded

upon the rule of

15:23:37 law.

15:23:37 And just like myself,

my wife, my son,

15:23:40 my dad, my grandfather,

my brother-in-laws, my

15:23:43 father-in-law and

millions of others who

15:23:45 are expected

to be on duty

15:23:47 24/7 all of the time.

15:23:49 That's what soldiers

and sailors

15:23:51 and Marines

15:23:51 and Coastees

15:23:53 and Air Force

15:23:54 personnel do.

15:23:55 It takes all

15:23:56 of us, all of

15:23:57 you, to be on

duty all of

15:24:00 the time to preserve

15:24:01 justice for

15:24:03 all.

15:24:04 John

15:24:05 Mellencamp,

15:24:06 Hoosiers

15:24:07 singer/songwri

15:24:08 ter, all those

15:24:09 that know me

15:24:10 know I had to

15:24:11 work in some

15:24:13 Mellencamp or

15:24:13 country music

15:24:14 lyrics, or

15:24:16 both.

15:24:17 This song yish

15:24:18 your life is

15:24:19 now" see the

15:24:20 moon roll across the

15:24:22 stars.

15:24:22 See the seasons

turn like a

15:24:24 heart.

15:24:25 Your father's days

15:24:26 are lost to

15:24:27 you.

15:24:28 This is

15:24:29 your time to

15:24:30 do what you

15:24:31 will do.

15:24:31 Your life is

15:24:33 now.

15:24:33 Your

15:24:34 life is now.

15:24:35 In this

15:24:36 undiscovered

15:24:36 moment, lift

15:24:38 your head up

15:24:39 above the

15:24:40 crowd.

15:24:41 We

15:24:41 could shape

15:24:42 this world if you

15:24:43 would only

15:24:44 show us how.

15:24:45 Your life is

15:24:46 now.

15:24:47 Are you ready?

15:24:48 Your life is now.

15:24:50 Your time is now.

15:24:52 Or I promise you, your

time will come.

15:24:55 Will you be ready?

15:24:57 I say again,

your time will

15:24:59 come.

15:24:59 I promise you, it

may not be on a big

15:25:03 stage.

15:25:04 You may think you are

backstage or that you

15:25:07 just -- what you do

just doesn't matter.

15:25:09 But hear my words.

15:25:11 There are no close

-- there's no

15:25:14 such thing as close

in justice.

15:25:16 There's no almost

in justice.

15:25:18 There's no getting

better in justice.

15:25:20 There is either

justice or

15:25:21 injustice.

15:25:22 There are

15:25:22 either human

15:25:23 rights for

15:25:24 all or no


15:25:27 Fairness or

15:25:28 unfairness.

15:25:28 Either all

15:25:29 humans have

15:25:30 the same

15:25:30 critical

15:25:31 rights or

15:25:32 there are no


15:25:34 It just can't

15:25:36 be for some

15:25:37 and not for

15:25:38 all.

15:25:39 Your oath demands

it or we'll

15:25:41 demand it once

you take it.

15:25:43 Taking the oath

means what

15:25:45 you do with

15:25:46 that most professional

15:25:47 undertaking

15:25:48 of your life

15:25:49 matters.

15:25:49 And so what does

15:25:51 that oath mean?

15:25:52 Next

15:25:53 slide,

15:25:54 please.

15:25:54 That's the

15:25:55 lawyer's

15:25:55 creed.

15:25:56 It's

15:25:56 my gift to

15:25:58 you.

15:25:58 I won't

15:25:59 read it.

15:26:00 You

15:26:01 can read it.

15:26:03 But I will

15:26:04 mention it.

15:26:06 John Adams,

15:26:08 Belma

15:26:09 Lockwood,

15:26:10 Macon Allen

15:26:12 fought for

15:26:13 freedom,

15:26:15 justice.

15:26:16 They fought

15:26:16 against

15:26:17 violations of


15:26:20 You're all

15:26:20 familiar with

15:26:21 John Adams.

15:26:22 You'd better

15:26:27 know Belva

15:26:28 Lockwood.

15:26:28 Ran for

15:26:29 President of the United

15:26:31 States twice when women

15:26:32 could not vote.

15:26:33 Fought to get admitted

15:26:35 before the United

15:26:36 States Supreme

15:26:37 Court.

15:26:38 Fought

15:26:38 against

15:26:38 injustice.

15:26:40 Fought to

15:26:42 sponsor the

15:26:43 first African-American

15:26:43 attorney to

15:26:44 practice

15:26:45 before the

15:26:47 U.S.

15:26:48 Supreme

15:26:48 Court.

15:26:49 And


15:26:51 fought

15:26:52 injustice

15:26:52 unfortunately

15:26:53 his entire

15:26:53 life right

15:26:54 here in the United

15:26:56 States of

15:26:57 America.

15:26:58 Born in

15:26:59 Indiana.

15:26:59 Unfortunately had to move

15:27:01 away to find

15:27:02 better

15:27:03 opportunities.

15:27:04 Recognized

15:27:04 as the first

15:27:05 African-American lawyer

in the United

15:27:07 States and

15:27:08 the first

African-American

15:27:09 judicial

15:27:11 officer in

15:27:12 the United

15:27:13 States.

15:27:14 This

15:27:14 creed means

15:27:15 that you must

15:27:16 be in all of

15:27:18 the time, all

15:27:19 in all the

15:27:20 time.

15:27:21 Some

15:27:21 day s will be

15:27:22 better than others, and

15:27:24 some days will be just

15:27:26 plain God-awful.

15:27:27 Trust me, I know.

15:27:28 But don't let a bad day

deter you or a bad

15:27:32 experience deter you

from the glorious

15:27:34 cause of the practice

of law and

15:27:37 fighting injustice.

15:27:38 You must be all in

or you risk your

15:27:41 sense of self-worth

and self-respect.

15:27:43 Someone once said that


15:27:45 relatively

15:27:46 easy to bear.

15:27:48 It is justice

15:27:49 that hurts,

15:27:50 right?

15:27:51 It's

15:27:51 hard to fight

15:27:52 for something sometimes

15:27:54 than it is to

15:27:55 accept

15:27:57 something

15:27:57 unfair.

15:27:57 Unfortunately

15:27:58 true.

15:27:59 I urge you to fight.

15:28:01 I urge you to

take the road

15:28:03 oftentime less traveled.

15:28:04 The high road,

15:28:05 oftentimes

15:28:05 the hard

15:28:06 road.

15:28:07 I urge

15:28:08 you to be bold, speak

15:28:09 up, stand up

15:28:11 for injustice

15:28:12 everywhere,

15:28:14 anywhere,

15:28:15 anytime.

15:28:15 Stand up for

15:28:17 human right s

15:28:18 for all.

15:28:19 If we were to have

15:28:21 any legacy as

15:28:22 a human race,

15:28:24 that legacy must

15:28:24 be human

15:28:26 rights for

15:28:27 all.

15:28:28 It must

15:28:28 be one of

15:28:30 freedom and justice and

15:28:31 the rule of

15:28:33 law for all.

15:28:34 Not a few.

15:28:35 Not many.

15:28:36 Not most.

15:28:37 But all.

15:28:38 And not all who

15:28:40 live where I

15:28:41 live or you

15:28:42 live or look

15:28:44 like I do or some

15:28:45 of you or believe what

15:28:47 I believe or

15:28:49 worship how I

15:28:50 believe, but

15:28:51 all must mean

15:28:52 what it says,

15:28:53 all.

15:28:54 And let

15:28:55 me give you

15:28:56 some advice that

is hard to

15:28:58 hear and even

15:28:59 harder to follow.

15:29:00 Doing what is right,

15:29:01 especially as

15:29:03 it relates to

15:29:04 justice,

15:29:05 particularly


15:29:08 is not easy.

15:29:10 Doing what is

15:29:12 right is

15:29:13 hard.

15:29:13 Anyone

15:29:14 can do easy,

15:29:15 but usually

15:29:16 doing what is

15:29:17 right is not

15:29:18 easy.

15:29:18 Usually the

15:29:19 choice is between doing

15:29:20 what is easy

15:29:22 and doing what

15:29:23 is hard.

15:29:24 Doing what is

15:29:25 hard is usually the

15:29:27 right thing

15:29:27 to do.

15:29:29 When

15:29:30 fighting

15:29:30 injustices

15:29:30 anywhere even

15:29:32 on the

15:29:32 smallest of

15:29:33 matter, the

15:29:34 tiniest of

15:29:35 issue,

15:29:35 remember the

15:29:36 words of

15:29:37 Abraham

15:29:37 Lincoln in

15:29:38 his letter of

15:29:39 April 6th,

15:29:41 1859, to

15:29:42 Henry L.

15:29:42 Pierce who

15:29:43 was a

15:29:44 Massachusetts

15:29:44 Congressman.

15:29:45 He had

15:29:45 invited Lincoln to

15:29:47 come to

15:29:48 Boston.

15:29:49 And Lincoln was

15:29:50 writing to

15:29:50 decline the invitation.

15:29:51 But in that

15:29:53 letter he

15:29:53 articulated

15:29:54 his position

15:29:58 on slavery in

15:29:59 1859.

15:30:00 He was

15:30:00 fiercely

15:30:02 anti-slavery,

15:30:02 and he said

15:30:03 "those who

15:30:04 deny freedom

15:30:05 to others

15:30:06 deserve it

15:30:07 not for

15:30:08 themselves."

15:30:09 Not only was

15:30:10 he a lawyer,

15:30:11 a very good lawyer, a

15:30:13 President, a very

good one, but he

15:30:15 was also a human rights

15:30:17 lawyer and a

human rights

15:30:19 President.

15:30:19 He did not choose easy.

15:30:21 He did not

15:30:22 choose what

15:30:23 was politically

15:30:23 expedient.

15:30:24 He chose what

15:30:25 was right.

15:30:26 He

15:30:26 was often by

15:30:28 himself, and it

15:30:30 was hard.

15:30:31 It probably cost

15:30:33 him his life.

15:30:34 I cannot

15:30:35 imagine a

15:30:36 more noble

15:30:36 way to die

15:30:38 than for the cause

15:30:40 of justice,

15:30:41 of freedom

15:30:42 for all.

15:30:43 As an aside,

15:30:44 read the entire letter

15:30:46 sometimes.

15:30:46 It's full of gems of the

15:30:48 day.

15:30:49 Many of which are

very relevant

15:30:51 today.

15:30:52 But I

15:30:53 digress.


15:30:55 Thank you.

15:30:56 I included this

slide for several

15:30:58 reasons.

15:30:59 The most significant

reason is that we must

15:31:02 always retain our sense

of humor because

15:31:04 our sense of humor

is one of our relief

15:31:07 vows.

15:31:08 It's one of our best

coping mechanisms,


during COVID.

15:31:12 So you can see, yes, it

says "no photography,"

15:31:15 and, yes, I do know who

took the picture, and

15:31:18 no, I'm not going to

tell you who took the

15:31:22 picture.

15:31:22 I will tell you I passed

through that gate many

15:31:26 times.

15:31:27 I want to share some of

my experiences as Chief

15:31:30 Defense Counsel at

Guantanamo Bay.

15:31:32 Why?

15:31:33 Because they are

relevant to our subject

15:31:35 matter.

15:31:36 It is something that we

as Americans should be

15:31:39 aware of, and we as

lawyers should be very

15:31:42 aware of.

15:31:43 And finally, it

reinforces my point that

15:31:46 more life is now.

15:31:47 Your time is now.

15:31:49 Or your time will come.

15:31:51 Next slide, please.

15:31:53 My

15:31:53 father-in-law

15:31:54 was a World

15:31:55 War II

15:31:56 veteran,

15:31:57 22-year-old

15:32:00 -- 22-year

15:32:01 military

15:32:01 veteran.

15:32:02 And

15:32:03 this flag of

15:32:04 honor hung in

15:32:05 my office at

15:32:06 the state house when I

15:32:07 was chosen to

15:32:08 be the Chief Defense

Counsel,

15:32:10 right?

15:32:11 Human rights work

15:32:12 is hard.

15:32:13 Seeking justice

and fairness for

15:32:15 all is hard.

15:32:16 This flag honors the

15:32:18 victims of 9/11 and the

15:32:19 attack upon the United

States of America.

15:32:22 I purchased this shortly

after it was made

15:32:25 available as a

fund-raiser for the

15:32:27 victims' families.

15:32:28 It hangs proudly

15:32:29 in my office here in

15:32:31 Annapolis.

15:32:31 You can see the bottom

portion of it on the

15:32:35 screen.

15:32:35 It hung in my office

in the Boone County

15:32:39 Courthouse when I was

selected by the

15:32:41 secretary of defense to

be the Chief Defense

15:32:44 Counsel.

15:32:45 The most difficult

professional and

15:32:46 personal experience

of my life, and

15:32:48 I've had my share

of challenges.

15:32:50 When I was selected

to be the chief

15:32:53 defense counsel, I was

responsible for -- and

15:32:56 let me quote

just a small

15:32:58 portion of my job

15:33:00 description as chief

15:33:01 defense

15:33:01 counsel.

15:33:02 Supervise and

15:33:04 manage all

15:33:04 defense

15:33:05 activities,

15:33:06 personnel and

15:33:06 resources of

15:33:07 the office of

15:33:09 chief defense

15:33:10 counsel

15:33:10 unified

15:33:13 command,

15:33:13 facilitate

15:33:14 the proper

15:33:15 and zealous

15:33:16 representation

15:33:17 of all

15:33:18 accused refer

15:33:19 to a trial

15:33:20 before military

15:33:20 commissions,

15:33:21 support the

15:33:21 national security

15:33:22 strategy of

15:33:23 the United

15:33:24 States by

15:33:25 ensuring conforming

15:33:26 with the rule

15:33:27 of law and a

15:33:28 vigorous,

15:33:28 ethical,

15:33:29 adversarial

15:33:29 process that

15:33:30 will

15:33:31 withstand

15:33:31 domestic and


15:33:33 scrutiny.

15:33:34 I will stop

15:33:35 there.

15:33:36 It

15:33:37 went on and

15:33:39 on.

15:33:39 That

15:33:41 daddy I

15:33:42 mentioned,

15:33:43 when I was

15:33:44 mobilized, he

15:33:46 was 85.

15:33:47 And we were talking

about what I

15:33:50 was going to be doing.

15:33:52 He said, Stevie, he

called me Stevie, what

15:33:55 are you going to do?

15:33:57 And I said, Dad, I'm

going to be defending

15:34:00 the 9/11 terrorists.

15:34:01 And my father leaned

forward, and he got a

15:34:04 little grin, and he

said, "Well, don't work

15:34:07 too hard." And then he

sat back up and he said,

15:34:11 "Son, do your duty.

15:34:13 Son, do your duty."

We'll come

15:34:15 back to that in just a

15:34:18 moment.


15:34:19 So how did

15:34:20 all this go?

15:34:21 Well, that's

15:34:22 not a picture

15:34:23 of me

15:34:24 praying,

15:34:24 although I

15:34:25 did.

15:34:26 That's

15:34:27 me trying to

15:34:28 adequately respond to

15:34:29 the world

15:34:31 media and

15:34:32 reconcile the

15:34:33 rule of law,

15:34:34 our U.S.

15:34:35 Constitution,

15:34:37 justice, and

15:34:38 fairness,

15:34:38 reconcile all

15:34:40 that against

15:34:40 torture, lack

15:34:41 of

15:34:42 transparency,

15:34:45 fear of the


15:34:47 and our

15:34:47 legacy as a democratic

15:34:49 nation and world

leader in the fight

15:34:51 for human rights.

15:34:53 Any one of you want

15:34:54 to raise your

15:34:55 hand and

15:34:56 offer a good

15:34:57 explanation

15:34:58 or

15:35:00 reconciliation

15:35:01 of those?

15:35:02 I

15:35:03 did my best.

15:35:04 About two months into

15:35:06 my tenure as


15:35:09 Counsel in

15:35:10 2007 when this

15:35:11 was the

15:35:12 number one

15:35:13 legal mission

15:35:15 in the

15:35:16 military, I

15:35:17 wrote a

15:35:18 message.

15:35:18 I

15:35:19 sent a

15:35:20 message back

15:35:22 to the Boone

15:35:23 County Bar

15:35:26 Association.

15:35:27 You see, I

15:35:28 had created,

15:35:31 in 1995, a

15:35:32 CLE, one of

15:35:33 the first of

15:35:34 its kind local.

15:35:35 And we held it in

15:35:37 the courtroom

in Boone County,

15:35:39 invited local

attorneys and

15:35:40 out-of-County

15:35:40 Attorneys,

15:35:41 and actually

15:35:42 it's a pretty

15:35:43 darn good

15:35:44 CLE.

15:35:45 And I was going to miss

it for the first

15:35:48 time.

15:35:49 And I was writing to my

friends and colleagues

15:35:52 back in Boone County,

and it was ultimately

15:35:55 published later, but I

was trying to share with

15:35:58 them what I was doing

and what it was

15:36:01 like.

15:36:02 And I called

it "a message

15:36:04 from Judge David"

because I was

15:36:06 the mobilized

Judge David.

15:36:07 I'm going to read just a

15:36:10 portion of it to

15:36:11 you.

15:36:12 To put in perspective

15:36:13 what it was

15:36:14 like for me and

perhaps put in

15:36:17 perspective

15:36:17 what it's

15:36:18 like for many

15:36:19 people, not

15:36:20 us, but many

15:36:21 people who

15:36:22 may not

15:36:23 perceive the

15:36:24 system

15:36:24 they're in or

15:36:25 may not have

15:36:26 the access to

15:36:27 justice or

15:36:29 may not feel they

15:36:31 have the human rights

15:36:32 that you and

15:36:33 I have.

15:36:34 So I said, imagine

15:36:36 being the senior

15:36:37 partner in a

15:36:38 hastily organized

law school that

15:36:40 is understaffed,

underresourced

15:36:42 and exclusive

15:36:43 ly practices

15:36:43 criminal

15:36:44 defense work.

15:36:44 Imagine that

15:36:45 all of the cases you are

15:36:47 involved in have the

15:36:49 potential for a life

15:36:50 sentence,

15:36:51 while some

15:36:52 are brought

15:36:53 as capital in

15:36:54 addition to a

15:36:55 life sentence

allegation.

15:36:56 Now, imagine the court

15:36:57 system is brand-new

with rules

15:36:59 and

15:37:00 regulations

15:37:00 that might be

15:37:01 same or

15:37:02 similar to some

15:37:03 of those that you

15:37:05 have some experience

15:37:06 with.

15:37:06 But in

15:37:07 this new

15:37:08 system, there

15:37:10 are some new

15:37:12 laws, new

15:37:13 rules, new procedures

15:37:14 that you're

15:37:14 completely

15:37:15 unfamiliar

15:37:15 with.

15:37:16 And yes, there is

15:37:17 this interest

in, quote, in

15:37:19 the interest of

national security.

15:37:21 This issue that you

and your client

15:37:23 consequently may not

even have access

15:37:25 to some evidence shs

perhaps some exculpatory

15:37:28 evidence.

15:37:29 And you can't even share

all the evidence that

15:37:32 you have access

to with your

15:37:34 client.

15:37:35 I went to say and if

15:37:37 that's not enough,

consider that the judge

15:37:39 can admit evidence

obtained by torture,

15:37:41 although we don't

call it that.

15:37:43 We call it coerced

testimony or aggressive

15:37:46 interrogation or

enhanced interrogation

15:37:47 like, for example,

simulated

15:37:48 drowning, although we

15:37:50 don't tell them it's

15:37:51 simulated drowning.

15:37:52 We don't tell them

that they're not

15:37:54 going to be drowned.

15:37:56 All while the rest of

the civilized world of

15:37:59 which we consider

ourselves to

15:38:01 be a part of condemn

such action and certainly

15:38:04 would forbid the

evidence and testimony

15:38:06 obtained by it from

being used in a criminal

15:38:09 proceeding against the

person who was the

15:38:12 victim of such action.

15:38:14 And I went on to say the

fact that we are even

15:38:18 talking about this

torture in 2007 is

15:38:20 nonsense.

15:38:21 This is 2007 A.D.,

15:38:22 not 2007 B.C.

15:38:24 This is not the

dark, dark,

15:38:26 dark ages.

15:38:27 Do we really believe

that torture can

15:38:29 be justified?

15:38:30 I went on to say several

15:38:32 paragraphs later, my

point is that I firmly

15:38:35 believe that history

will look back on

15:38:37 this period, and either

15:38:39 the wealth of our great

15:38:41 nation or its

technological advances

15:38:42 will

15:38:43 define our

15:38:43 legacy.

15:38:44 Instead, how

15:38:45 this period

15:38:45 of history

15:38:46 will be

15:38:47 looked upon

15:38:48 will be

15:38:48 whether in a

15:38:49 time of national fear

15:38:51 and perceived

15:38:52 uncertainty,

15:38:52 we followed


15:38:54 law.

15:38:55 We practiced fundamental

15:38:56 principles of

15:38:57 due process

15:38:58 and

15:38:58 demonstrated

15:39:02 to the world

15:39:03 that we are

15:39:04 that shining

15:39:05 example on

15:39:07 the hill.

15:39:07 That human

15:39:08 rights apply

15:39:09 to all

15:39:09 humans.

15:39:10 Not

15:39:11 just

15:39:12 Americans.

15:39:13 Did we prove

15:39:14 ourselves that we are,

15:39:16 again, that

15:39:16 shining city

15:39:17 on the hill,

15:39:18 that great

15:39:19 experiment.

15:39:21 And even under

15:39:22 the most difficult

15:39:23 times did we

15:39:24 practice what

we had been

15:39:26 preaching to the world.

15:39:27 Or did we let

15:39:29 the fear --

15:39:30 our fear and our fear of


15:39:34 law consume

15:39:35 us and change

15:39:37 how we

15:39:38 practice?

15:39:39 I did say

15:39:40 thereafter, I've never

15:39:41 been more

15:39:42 proud to be a

15:39:44 lawyer.

15:39:44 I've

15:39:45 never been

15:39:45 more proud to be just a

15:39:48 little trial court

from Indiana being

15:39:50 asked to participate

in some small

15:39:52 way.

15:39:52 Fast forward to when I

15:39:54 returned home some 20

15:39:56 months later

15:39:56 and some 9

15:39:57 months after that, that

15:39:59 father of

15:39:59 mine, that

15:40:00 World War II

15:40:01 vet, that

15:40:02 retired military

15:40:03 officer, came

15:40:03 to me and he

15:40:05 said, "son, I

15:40:06 need to talk

to you." And

15:40:08 I'm thinking, he doesn't

15:40:09 say "son" unless

something bad

15:40:11 has happened.

15:40:12 He

15:40:13 said, "Son, I

15:40:14 have to tell

15:40:15 you what you

15:40:16 did was wrong.

15:40:17 They're all

15:40:19 terrorists.

15:40:20 They should be

15:40:21 shot.

15:40:22 I just had to

tell you that."

15:40:25 And I said, "Dad, you're

15:40:26 not the only

one who feels

15:40:28 that way.

15:40:29 Maybe we can talk about

this sometime, and

15:40:32 I can explain to

you some things you

15:40:35 might want to

consider," but we never

15:40:37 talked about that.

15:40:39 Not in the four years

after that before he

15:40:42 passed, I never had the

courage to have that

15:40:45 conversation with him.

15:40:46 I regret that.

15:40:48 I hope you never have

such regrets.

15:40:50 I urge you to find

the courage to

15:40:53 show up, to speak

up, to change

15:40:56 others' minds when

necessary, to

15:40:57 take a stand,

to do what is

15:41:00 right no matter

how hard it is to

15:41:03 fight injustice,

be it called

15:41:04 racial injustice or


15:41:07 violations.

15:41:08 If it is not

15:41:09 justice for

15:41:10 all, it is

15:41:11 not justice.

15:41:12 And each of

15:41:15 you have the


15:41:16 and the

15:41:17 obligation to

15:41:18 do something

15:41:19 about it.

15:41:22 Next slide,

15:41:23 please.

15:41:25 This is

15:41:25 Colonel

15:41:26 Lowry, he's one

15:41:27 of my best friends.

15:41:28 He's about to

15:41:29 retire.

15:41:30 He's also retired

15:41:31 Army colonel,

15:41:32 about to

15:41:32 retire from

15:41:33 his civilian employment.

15:41:34 He's wearing civilian

15:41:35 clothes and

15:41:37 military

15:41:37 clothes.

15:41:38 This

15:41:39 was an ad by

15:41:40 his company

15:41:41 for support

15:41:42 of military

15:41:42 forces,


15:41:44 reserves.

15:41:45 But note what

15:41:47 the ad says.

15:41:50 "Bulletproof,

15:41:52 undaunted,

15:41:53 unrelenting,

15:41:54 untouchable."

15:41:56 That's

15:41:57 Colonel

15:41:58 Lowery, but

15:41:59 that's also

15:41:59 who I believe

15:42:01 each of you

15:42:04 are.

15:42:04 I put Kermit here

15:42:06 to convey an

15:42:07 image I want you to be

15:42:09 familiar with.

15:42:10 I want you to aspire

15:42:12 to be, and that

15:42:14 is not to be

15:42:15 afraid of

15:42:16 being who you

15:42:17 want to be.

15:42:18 Being

15:42:19 bulletproof,

15:42:19 undaunted,


15:42:22 untouchable.

15:42:23 Particularly

15:42:26 in the cause

15:42:27 for justice.

15:42:27 Stand taller

15:42:28 than the

15:42:29 rant.

15:42:30 Be

15:42:31 tolerant.

15:42:32 Advocate with

15:42:33 passion.

15:42:34 Let mercy, be

15:42:35 humble, be

15:42:36 proud, bring

15:42:37 your "A" game

15:42:38 if you possibly can.

15:42:40 Do your best every

15:42:41 day.

15:42:42 If we're to have

15:42:43 any success fighting

15:42:44 injustice, combatting


15:42:46 violations,

15:42:48 seeking a

15:42:49 better world,

15:42:50 we must be

15:42:51 Kermit

15:42:53 Lowery-like,

15:42:54 bulletproof,

15:42:54 undaunted,


15:42:57 untouchable.

15:42:58 I love this

15:43:00 country.

15:43:00 Now, in any

15:43:02 given day, I might

15:43:03 be upset or disappointed

15:43:05 with her, but

I love her.

15:43:07 And I refuse to give

up on her or let anyone

15:43:10 else give up on her.

15:43:13 I still believe we,

the collective

15:43:15 we, are the best

last chance for

15:43:17 all that we stand

for and all that we

15:43:20 want for all

15:43:22 of the world.

15:43:23 Mohamed must

15:43:23 not do this

15:43:25 work alone.


15:43:30 This says

15:43:31 "the rule of

15:43:32 law" wrist band.

15:43:34 I'm wearing it

right now.

15:43:35 This is what it's

all about.

15:43:37 I've been wearing

it for over ten

15:43:40 years.

15:43:41 Well, not the one I'm

wearing right now but

15:43:44 one like it.

15:43:45 They're being worn

throughout Indiana and

15:43:47 across the United States

and in places like China

15:43:50 and Russia and Vietnam

and Brazil and Peru and

15:43:54 Thailand and South

Korea and

15:43:55 Mongolia and

Egypt and Saudi

15:43:57 Arabia, Ghana,

Nigeria and

15:43:58 on and on and

15:44:00 on.

15:44:01 As a lawyer, you are a

15:44:03 guardian of


15:44:06 law.

15:44:06 An jl

15:44:07 proevangelical

15:44:09 promoter of

15:44:10 it worldwide.

15:44:11 It is the

15:44:12 embodiment of

15:44:12 John Adams,

15:44:13 Abraham

15:44:14 Lincoln,

15:44:15 Belva

15:44:15 Lockwood,


15:44:17 and millions

15:44:18 of others,

15:44:19 just like you

15:44:20 who believe

15:44:21 in it and who

15:44:22 will fight

15:44:25 for it.


15:44:27 Leaders put

15:44:28 their name on

15:44:29 it.

15:44:30 Don't be afraid to put

15:44:32 your name on it.

15:44:33 You are well

trained, well

15:44:35 equipped.

15:44:36 Don't doubt your ability

15:44:37 to withstand storms and

15:44:39 challenges.

15:44:39 Don't be afraid

to stand up with

15:44:42 that wrist band and

what it means and what

15:44:45 you believe in and what

you've worked so hard to

15:44:48 earn.

15:44:49 So many people in this

world have given their

15:44:52 time, their talents,

their contributions,

15:44:54 financial and otherwise,

and their lives for

15:44:56 freedom, for

justice, for

15:44:58 all.

15:44:59 Isn't

15:44:59 it John

15:45:00 Mellencamp's

15:45:00 song, "you've

15:45:02 got to stand

15:45:03 for something, or

15:45:04 you'll fall

15:45:05 for anything

15:45:05 ?" It's one

15:45:06 of his songs,

15:45:07 right?

15:45:08 It's

15:45:09 a song from

15:45:11 1985.

15:45:12 1985, I know for some

15:45:13 of you that was

a long time

15:45:16 ago.

15:45:17 For some of us

not very long.

15:45:19 He's got a line in

that song, quote,

15:45:22 we've got to start

respecting this world,

15:45:24 or it's gonna turn

around and bite off our

15:45:27 face.

15:45:28 Now, there's a graphic.

15:45:30 Maybe that motivates you

to do more for justice

15:45:33 and more to fight

human rights.

15:45:35 So what's your choice?

15:45:37 Stand for something or

fall for anything.

15:45:39 When I was the

Chief Defense

15:45:41 Counsel, whenever an

individual was charged

15:45:44 on the military

commissions act, I would

15:45:46 be the one responsible

for taking

15:45:48 that charge information

15:45:50 to them in

15:45:51 their cell.

15:45:52 That was a challenge in

15:45:53 and of itself.

15:45:55 The first time

I did that, I

15:45:57 had a life-changing

experience.

15:45:59 I went to the detention

15:46:00 facility, went through

a very thorough

15:46:02 security check.

15:46:04 Of course, I

was wearing my

15:46:06 uniform, the camouflage

uniform with, of

15:46:08 course, my rank and

15:46:09 name, David.

15:46:10 That's what

15:46:11 it looked

15:46:12 like.

15:46:12 It was Velcro.

15:46:14 Very well yoeed

on the uniform.

15:46:16 The security forces

said, "Sir, you

15:46:18 can't go in there

with any personal

15:46:20 identification

or purposes.

15:46:21 You must remove

your name tag."

15:46:23 Obviously, for national

security reasons and

15:46:26 personal security

15:46:26 reasons, we

15:46:27 cannot use names or

15:46:28 anything that would

15:46:29 identify us,

15:46:30 could result

15:46:31 in harm to

15:46:32 us, our

15:46:33 families.

15:46:33 You never

15:46:34 know.

15:46:35 Strict

15:46:35 rules.

15:46:36 It makes perfect

15:46:37 sense.

15:46:38 The guard force

had numbers

15:46:40 on their uniforms.

15:46:41 And that

15:46:41 changed regularly.

15:46:43 So I removed

15:46:44 my name

15:46:45 strip.

15:46:46 Thank goodness for

15:46:47 Velcro, and

15:46:47 was escorted

15:46:48 to the cell

15:46:49 where I met the detainee

15:46:51 who had just

15:46:52 been charged.

15:46:53 On this first

15:46:54 occasion, the

15:46:54 detainee

15:46:55 spoke

15:46:56 English, so I did

15:46:58 not need an interpreter.

15:46:59 And as I walked into

15:47:01 the cell, I made

a decision.

15:47:03 I about up that

15:47:04 Velcro name tag David

15:47:06 back on my

15:47:07 uniform and

15:47:07 said, "good

15:47:08 morning.

15:47:09 My name is colonel Steve

15:47:10 David, I'm the

chief defense

15:47:12 counsel for the

military commissions.

15:47:14 My office and I will be

representing you before


commissions.

15:47:18 I'm here to read you the

charges and talk to you

15:47:22 about what we will do

next to defend you.

15:47:25 I will be assigning you

a specific defense

15:47:28 counsel soon, but I

wanted to meet you

15:47:31 personally and tell you

who we are and what

15:47:34 we're going to

do for you.

15:47:36 Can you remember the

most difficult, awkward,

15:47:38 uncomfortable

conversation you've ever

15:47:40 had with one of your

clients or you might

15:47:43 ever have with a

15:47:44 client?

15:47:45 Multiply that

by 10 or 100

15:47:47 or 1,000, I

15:47:48 think I may

15:47:49 be one up you

15:47:51 on you.

15:47:52 We can talk about that

someday if you'd like.

15:47:55 My point is,

15:47:56 fighting injustice,


15:47:58 every client you

15:47:59 have, put

15:47:59 your name on

15:48:03 it.


15:48:05 So where do

15:48:06 we go from

15:48:07 here?

15:48:07 What can I do?

15:48:09 What can you

15:48:10 do to make a

15:48:11 difference, to do your

15:48:13 part to

15:48:14 ensure human

15:48:15 rights or to

15:48:16 fight

15:48:17 injustice?

15:48:17 Fight against laws

15:48:19 that are

15:48:20 unfair,

15:48:20 practices

15:48:24 that are

15:48:27 unfair, here

15:48:27 nationally or

15:48:30 throughout

15:48:30 the world.

15:48:31 Let me make

15:48:33 one thing clear before

15:48:34 we talk about

15:48:37 this.

15:48:38 Number

15:48:39 one, you can

15:48:40 do this.

15:48:42 I

15:48:44 believe in

15:48:45 each one of

15:48:46 you.

15:48:46 If you're a McKinney

grad or going to

15:48:49 be a McKinney

grad, there's

15:48:51 a whole bunch

15:48:52 of us that

15:48:53 believe in

15:48:55 every one of

15:48:56 you.

15:48:56 You

15:48:58 need to

15:49:00 believe in

15:49:00 yourself.

15:49:02 So let me

15:49:04 share some

15:49:07 suggestions.

15:49:07 Number one.

15:49:08 You are not

15:49:09 responsible

15:49:10 for what is

15:49:11 going on in

15:49:12 the world as

15:49:13 it relates to


15:49:15 or lack

15:49:16 thereof.

15:49:16 You

15:49:18 are, however,

15:49:19 responsible

15:49:21 for what you

15:49:22 do to make

15:49:23 the world a

15:49:24 better place,

15:49:25 a more just,

15:49:28 a more humane

15:49:30 place.

15:49:31 Number two.

15:49:32 Remember the

15:49:34 world can be

15:49:35 a small place

15:49:36 as your

15:49:37 individual

15:49:37 client and

15:49:38 ensuring that

15:49:39 he or she is

15:49:40 treated

15:49:42 fairly and

15:49:43 justly, or it

15:49:44 can be as

15:49:45 large as the

15:49:46 greatest cause in

15:49:48 which you

15:49:49 will participate,

15:49:51 even if you

15:49:53 only contribute a

15:49:54 tiny bit to

15:49:56 that great

15:49:56 cause.

15:49:57 Racial

15:49:57 justice,

15:49:59 anti-racism,



15:50:02 work.

15:50:03 Pick

15:50:03 one or all or

15:50:05 find your passion.

15:50:06 But use your education,

15:50:08 your law

15:50:08 degree.

15:50:09 Not just for

15:50:10 yourself, to better

yourself, and

15:50:12 that's

15:50:13 perfect ly

15:50:13 acceptable.

15:50:14 You can make

15:50:16 a good life for

15:50:18 yourself.

15:50:19 But will you

15:50:20 try to make a

15:50:21 better life for as many

15:50:23 other people

15:50:26 as you

15:50:29 possibly can?

15:50:30 Use it in

15:50:32 part for the

15:50:33 greater good.

15:50:34 I quote

15:50:35 President

15:50:38 Franklin D.

15:50:38 Roosevelt years

15:50:40 ago.

15:50:40 "Freedom

15:50:41 means the

15:50:42 supremacy of


15:50:45 everywhere.

15:50:47 Our support

15:50:47 goes to those

15:50:48 who struggle

15:50:50 to gain those

15:50:51 rights or

15:50:52 keep them.

15:50:53 Our strength

15:50:54 is our unity

15:50:55 of purpose.

15:50:56 To that high

15:51:01 concept, there

15:51:03 is no end

15:51:04 save victory."

15:51:05 I say your

15:51:06 victories may be big.

15:51:07 Maybe your victories

15:51:08 will be

15:51:10 small.

15:51:10 It may take several of

15:51:12 those victories to

15:51:13 add up to

15:51:14 anything of any measure,

15:51:16 and that's

15:51:17 okay.

15:51:18 That doesn't

15:51:19 matter.

15:51:19 You

15:51:20 will and your

15:51:21 clients will

15:51:22 suffer

15:51:23 setbacks, may

15:51:23 suffer

15:51:24 disappointment

15:51:25 s, may suffer

15:51:27 frustrations,

15:51:27 right?

15:51:28 Work

15:51:28 through them.

15:51:29 Get over

15:51:30 them.

15:51:30 Let

15:51:32 them go.

15:51:33 Let

15:51:34 them be.

15:51:35 Sing the song

15:51:37 "Let It Be"

15:51:38 if you need

15:51:39 to.

15:51:40 Get over it.

15:51:41 Get beyond it.

15:51:43 My point is don't give

15:51:45 up.

15:51:45 Your first victory may

only be the planting

15:51:48 of a seed that you

will reap over time.

15:51:51 You may be successful in

getting someone a seat

15:51:54 at the table.

15:51:56 Maybe not a full meal

deal, but progress,

15:51:59 right?

15:51:59 One step closer to

your objective.

15:52:01 Big firm, small

firm, solos.

15:52:03 Unfortunately there is

plenty of work for all

15:52:06 of us in the

area of human

15:52:08 rights and ensuring

justice.

15:52:10 And it might not even be

15:52:12 called or referred

to as human

15:52:14 rights, but I

submit to you

15:52:16 if it's related

to justice, it

15:52:18 is promoting

15:52:19 and ensuring


15:52:22 Number three.

15:52:23 Never

15:52:23 underestimate

15:52:25 the power of

15:52:26 one.

15:52:26 One person, one

15:52:28 client, one issue, one

15:52:29 cause, one

15:52:32 challenge,

15:52:33 one

15:52:33 opportunity.

15:52:34 And number

15:52:36 four, never

15:52:37 underestimate

15:52:37 yourself,

15:52:39 right?

15:52:40 It was Mark

15:52:41 Twain who once said

15:52:42 keep away from people

15:52:48 who try to

15:52:50 belittle your

15:52:51 ambitions or

15:52:51 your dreams.

15:52:52 Small people always do

15:52:53 that because the

truly great people

15:52:55 make you feel that you,

15:52:57 too, can become great.

15:52:59 Let's face

15:53:00 it.

15:53:01 We're -- for all

15:53:02 practical purposes,

I'm a nobody.

15:53:04 I'm a kid

15:53:05 from

15:53:06 Ogleville,

15:53:06 Indiana.

15:53:07 Most

15:53:07 of you don't

15:53:08 even know

15:53:09 where that is.

15:53:10 And shouldn't.

15:53:11 And probably

15:53:12 don't care.

15:53:13 And shouldn't.

15:53:13 But I'm a kid

15:53:15 from

15:53:15 Ogleville,

15:53:17 Indiana.

15:53:18 11th, 12th,

15:53:19 13th

15:53:20 generation

15:53:20 Hoosier, I don't

15:53:22 know, but in

15:53:23 my particular

15:53:24 family, my

15:53:25 from

15:53:25 terminal, my

15:53:26 father's

15:53:26 direct line,

15:53:27 I'm the first

15:53:28 one to go to

15:53:30 college.

15:53:30 So we're a

15:53:32 little slow,

15:53:34 okay?

15:53:35 And my

15:53:35 grandfather and

15:53:36 grandmother on my

15:53:37 father's side, for all

15:53:38 practical purposes,

15:53:42 were

15:53:42 sharecroppers.

15:53:44 But if I can

15:53:46 go to college and I can

15:53:48 graduate from law school

15:53:50 and I can be

15:53:51 selected by

the Secretary

15:53:52 of Defense to

be the chief

15:53:54 defense counsel

and if I can get

15:53:57 elected by the people of

15:53:59 Boone County

15:53:59 and serve

15:54:01 them as a

15:54:02 trial court

15:54:03 judge, if I

15:54:04 can get

15:54:05 selected to

15:54:07 serve you on


15:54:09 Court, your

15:54:10 potential is

15:54:12 unlimited.

15:54:15 Not only to

15:54:16 define

15:54:16 success as

15:54:17 you define

15:54:17 success, but

while you're

15:54:19 doing that, make the

15:54:20 world a

15:54:21 better place.


15:54:31 Come back to

15:54:32 Abraham Lincoln,

15:54:33 right?

15:54:33 I circle back

15:54:34 to Abraham

15:54:35 Lincoln.

15:54:36 He said it.

15:54:37 I believe he meant it.

15:54:39 I believe him.

15:54:40 I believe in

what he said.

15:54:43 I hope you

15:54:44 do, too.

15:54:45 Now, remember

15:54:46 that human

15:54:47 rights

15:54:48 violations,

15:54:49 injustices

15:54:49 can be caused

15:54:51 by many

15:54:51 factors.

15:54:53 Ignorance,

15:54:56 anger, fear,

15:54:56 hatred,

15:54:56 oftentimes

15:54:57 learned

15:54:57 behavior.

15:54:58 So

15:54:59 as you fight

15:55:00 to right injustices

15:55:01 here and throughout

15:55:02 the world, think about

15:55:04 all the ways

in which you

15:55:06 can use your skill sets.

15:55:08 To change the

15:55:09 laws and change

the behavior,

15:55:11 change the perception,

15:55:12 change the

15:55:12 narrative,

15:55:14 change the

15:55:15 attitudes,

15:55:16 allay the

15:55:18 fears, lessen

15:55:20 the hate,

15:55:21 raise the

15:55:22 caring, and

15:55:23 do what is

15:55:24 right.

15:55:24 Failure is

15:55:27 not an

15:55:28 option.

15:55:29 In

15:55:29 many

15:55:30 respects, our

15:55:31 fight for

15:55:33 justice in

15:55:35 this country,

15:55:36 racial

15:55:36 justice, the

15:55:39 fight against

15:55:41 injustice,

15:55:42 this may be

15:55:43 our last great


15:55:45 to make a

15:55:47 difference.

15:55:49 You may be

15:55:50 called upon

15:55:52 to make that

15:55:53 difference.

15:55:54 I'm

15:55:55 optimistic.

15:55:56 I'm excited

15:55:57 about the opportunity

15:55:58 because I

15:55:59 believe in

15:56:00 us.

15:56:00 And I believe in

15:56:02 the power of

15:56:03 you.

15:56:03 Again,

15:56:04 failure's not

15:56:05 an option.

15:56:06 I hope you are

15:56:07 excited about the

possibilities

15:56:09 that await

15:56:09 you.

15:56:10 I hope that you are

15:56:12 excited to be

15:56:13 you with all

15:56:15 that you can

15:56:16 do.

15:56:16 Remember

15:56:17 I used the

15:56:18 word

15:56:19 "revival"

15:56:20 earlier?

15:56:20 Do you

15:56:22 remember,

15:56:23 right?

15:56:24 Merriam-Webster

15:56:24 define s

15:56:26 revival as an

15:56:27 act or

15:56:28 instance of

15:56:29 reviving such

15:56:31 as a renewed

15:56:32 attention to something.

15:56:33 Are you writing

15:56:34 this down?

15:56:35 Have you written

anything down

15:56:37 that I've said?

15:56:38 Just kidding.

15:56:39 I submit to you

15:56:41 that this symposium is

15:56:42 a good, old-fashioned

15:56:43 legal

15:56:44 revival.

15:56:44 A


15:56:47 revival.

15:56:47 If we were all

15:56:49 together, I'd

say, could I

15:56:50 get a hallelujah?

15:56:51 It's a renewed

attention to

15:56:53 something that -- think

15:56:55 about it -- it's really

15:56:56 -- there

15:56:57 really isn't

15:56:58 anything more important,

15:56:59 right?

15:56:59 Except for

15:57:01 our basic

15:57:02 personal

15:57:02 survival, our

15:57:03 love and

15:57:06 obligation to

15:57:07 our family

15:57:08 and our

15:57:08 faith, right?

15:57:10 Maybe those

15:57:11 three things.

15:57:12 What's

15:57:12 fourth?

15:57:13 I

15:57:14 mean, right

15:57:15 behind me

15:57:15 surviving, me

15:57:16 caring for my

15:57:17 family and my

15:57:18 faith, what

15:57:20 should be

15:57:21 number four?

15:57:22 Caring for

15:57:26 others, human

15:57:27 rights for

15:57:30 all.

15:57:30 Injustice

15:57:30 eliminated.

15:57:31 Justice for

15:57:32 all.

15:57:33 So please consider

15:57:34 keeping your

15:57:36 guard up and

15:57:37 your

15:57:38 interests in

15:57:40 human rights right

15:57:41 here in the

15:57:42 corner of

15:57:43 your dashboard.

15:57:44 You know,

15:57:45 imagine your

15:57:45 dashboard in

15:57:48 front of you

15:57:49 or your screen

15:57:50 somewhere so that it's

15:57:52 always in

15:57:52 your vision.

15:57:54 Maybe it's

15:57:55 not center

15:57:56 all the time,

15:57:57 but it's

15:57:58 always

15:57:59 somewhere right

15:57:59 here.

15:58:00 Where

15:58:01 am I on

15:58:02 justice?

15:58:02 Where am I on

15:58:04 human rights?

15:58:05 What am I

15:58:06 doing to ensure

15:58:07 justice?

15:58:08 What am I doing to

15:58:09 ensure that I am doing

15:58:11 everything I

15:58:12 can to live

15:58:16 my oath as an

15:58:17 attorney?

15:58:19 And, yeah, I

15:58:20 like some of what that

15:58:22 creed said.

15:58:25 I've got to remember

15:58:26 that creed.

15:58:27 So it should

15:58:28 always be on

15:58:29 your mind.

15:58:31 So mankind

15:58:32 and the

15:58:33 betterment is

15:58:36 always on

15:58:36 your mind.

15:58:38 So, again, if you

15:58:40 have a suggestion or

15:58:41 need an encouraging

15:58:42 word or want

to talk more

15:58:44 about this since my time

15:58:46 is about up,

15:58:47 there's my

15:58:48 contact information.

15:58:50 I will close

15:58:51 by sharing

15:58:52 the closing

15:58:55 of that

15:58:56 message years

15:58:56 ago that I

15:58:58 sent to the


15:58:59 Bar Association.

15:59:00 I think it

15:59:02 fits here in

15:59:03 closing my

15:59:06 comments to

15:59:07 you today.

15:59:08 This is what I

15:59:09 said to the


15:59:11 Bar Association

15:59:12 closing that

15:59:15 letter.

15:59:16 As you gather

15:59:17 today -- and

15:59:18 I'm not able

15:59:19 to attend -- understand

15:59:21 the oath you

15:59:22 have taken.

15:59:22 Be proud that you

15:59:24 are a lawyer.

15:59:25 Hold your head high.

15:59:27 Being

15:59:27 criticized or

15:59:28 misunderstood

15:59:28 sometimes is

15:59:29 part of the

15:59:30 badge of

15:59:31 courage we

15:59:32 wear.

15:59:32 You

15:59:33 are advocates.

15:59:34 Advocate

15:59:35 zealously and

15:59:36 reasonably.

15:59:36 Always act

15:59:37 like a

15:59:38 professional,

15:59:39 even in the

15:59:40 most unprofessional of

15:59:41 circumstances.

15:59:42 Try not to

15:59:43 make it personal.

15:59:45 Take the high

15:59:46 road, or

15:59:46 you'll look

15:59:47 like your

15:59:48 nemesis,

15:59:48 injustice,

15:59:48 and no one

15:59:50 will be able

15:59:51 to tell you

15:59:52 apart.

15:59:52 Be a protector of

15:59:54 the Constitution,

our laws and

15:59:55 our system.

15:59:57 Be proud of our rule of

15:59:59 law.

15:59:59 Fiercely defend it.

16:00:01 Fiercely

16:00:01 promote it.

16:00:02 Each day,

16:00:04 you, the men

16:00:05 and women,

16:00:05 really do

16:00:06 make a

16:00:07 difference in

16:00:07 the lives

16:00:08 that you

16:00:09 represent.

16:00:10 It's been an

16:00:11 honor to chat

16:00:12 with you this

16:00:13 afternoon.

16:00:14 I look forward

16:00:16 to my

16:00:17 colleague's

16:00:21 presentation.

16:00:22 Thank you very

16:00:29 much.

16:00:33

16:00:34 >> Frank

16:00:34 Sullivan: Thank

16:00:35 you, Justice

16:00:36 David, for a

16:00:37 most interesting

16:00:39 and inspiring


16:00:40 On behalf of

16:00:41 the law

16:00:42 school, we're

16:00:42 deeply indebted to

16:00:44 you for

16:00:44 spending such

16:00:46 a measure of

16:00:47 your valuable

16:00:48 time with us

16:00:51 today.

16:00:51 We do

16:00:55 have, in the

16:00:56 Q&A function

16:00:57 of our Zoom

16:00:58 site several

16:00:59 questions that I'd like

16:01:00 to pose to

16:01:02 you if you'd

16:01:03 be willing.

16:01:04 And if others

16:01:06 in our

16:01:07 audience

16:01:07 would care to

16:01:09 use the Q&A

16:01:10 function if they wish to

16:01:12 pose

16:01:13 additional

16:01:13 questions,

16:01:15 I'll ask as

16:01:16 many as we

16:01:17 have time

16:01:18 for.

16:01:19 The first

16:01:20 question,

16:01:20 Justice

16:01:20 David, I

16:01:21 think, goes a

16:01:22 little bit to

16:01:23 the nitty

16:01:26 gritty of

16:01:27 your

16:01:29 assignment at

16:01:30 Guantanamo.

16:01:31 And that --

16:01:32 but I think

16:01:34 it's one that

16:01:36 has some

16:01:36 application

16:01:37 here in

16:01:38 Indiana as

16:01:39 well.

16:01:40 And that

16:01:41 is how did

16:01:42 interpreters affect the

16:01:43 process of

16:01:44 meeting with

16:01:44 your clients?

16:01:45 And the

16:01:47 reason I say

16:01:49 that that has

16:01:52 sailience

16:01:53 here in

16:01:53 Indiana is I

16:01:54 know that the

16:01:55 courts of our

16:01:58 state have

16:01:59 litigants

16:01:59 with -- for

16:02:00 whom English is

16:02:01 not their

16:02:02 first

16:02:03 language with

16:02:04 great regularity

16:02:05 and indeed remember

16:02:06 that well

16:02:07 over 100

16:02:07 different

16:02:08 languages are

16:02:09 spoken in

16:02:10 Indiana

16:02:12 courts.

16:02:12 And so the issue

16:02:14 of due

16:02:14 process is

16:02:15 inextricably

16:02:15 linked with

16:02:16 the ability

16:02:17 of lawyers to

16:02:18 operate

16:02:21 through

16:02:21 interpreters.

16:02:22

16:02:22 >> Steven

16:02:23 David: Well,

16:02:24 I certainly

16:02:25 brought back

16:02:26 my experience

16:02:27 as chief

16:02:28 counsel a

16:02:28 significantly greater


and appreciation

16:02:31 for the

16:02:32 challenges

16:02:34 that

16:02:34 individuals

16:02:36 have that

16:02:38 don't have

16:02:38 command of

16:02:39 English like most

16:02:40 of us or don't speak

16:02:42 English as a

16:02:43 first

16:02:43 language

16:02:46 regardless of

16:02:46 how intelligent they

16:02:47 are.

16:02:48 If you just can't

communicate,

16:02:50 you just can't

communicate, and you're

16:02:52 going to suffer

accordingly.

16:02:53 I'm also very proud

of all of the efforts

16:02:56 that the Supreme

Court and partners,

16:02:59 including the

law schools

16:03:00 and the bar

associations, how far

16:03:02 we've

16:03:02 come in a

16:03:03 very short

16:03:04 time to make that

16:03:06 experience much better,

16:03:07 much more

16:03:08 fair, and to

16:03:09 ensure

16:03:10 fundamental

16:03:10 due process.

16:03:11 I will tell

16:03:12 you, I tried

16:03:13 very early in my

16:03:15 career very

16:03:16 quick ly a

16:03:17 case

16:03:18 involving

16:03:21 breach of

16:03:22 contract and

16:03:23 stock fraud

16:03:24 and the

16:03:24 plaintiff, the defendant

16:03:26 and the

16:03:26 third-party defendant,

16:03:27 none of which

16:03:28 spoke English

16:03:29 as a first

16:03:30 language.

16:03:30 And as a

16:03:31 practical matter, the

16:03:32 court -- the

16:03:33 trial court

16:03:34 in Indiana

16:03:36 appointed an

16:03:37 interpreter,

16:03:37 and none of

16:03:38 us knew how

16:03:39 to ensure that

16:03:40 interpreter,

including the

16:03:41 judge, was

16:03:42 qualified.

16:03:42 And all of us

16:03:44 had a family

16:03:45 member of our

16:03:47 client

16:03:47 serving as

16:03:48 our defact

16:03:49 toe

16:03:49 interpreter.

16:03:50 And the

16:03:51 conversations

16:03:51 were

16:03:52 oftentimes,

16:03:53 that's not

16:03:54 what he said!

16:03:55 The

16:03:55 interpreter's

16:03:56 not

16:03:56 interpreting

16:03:58 this

16:03:58 correctly.

16:03:59 And then we would

16:04:00 have to stop and

decide what we're

16:04:03 going to raise with the

judge, what we're not

16:04:06 going to raise

with the judge.

16:04:08 So very challenging.

16:04:09 At Guantanamo Bay, it

was incredibly

16:04:11 challenging because

in addition to

16:04:13 identifying an

interpreter, we couldn't

16:04:15 use the same -- we

could not use the same

16:04:18 interpreters, right,

as the prosecution.

16:04:20 That's not going

to work.

16:04:22 So it would take months

and months to get

16:04:25 an interpreter through

the security

16:04:27 process to

16:04:28 get them to

16:04:29 Guantanamo

16:04:30 Bay to be

16:04:32 privy to a

16:04:33 confidential

communication between

16:04:35 someone from

16:04:35 my office and

16:04:37 the detainee.

16:04:38 And

16:04:39 occasionally,

16:04:40 unfortunately,

16:04:43 after all

16:04:44 that effort,

16:04:45 lo and

16:04:48 behold, the

16:04:48 detainee was

16:04:49 from a

16:04:50 village 20

16:04:51 miles away,

16:04:52 15 miles

16:04:52 away, and the

16:04:54 dialects were

16:04:57 not the same.

16:04:58 Or they were

16:05:00 of different

16:05:01 conflicting

16:05:03 religions or

16:05:05 tribes.

16:05:06 So there was a

16:05:08 conflict that

16:05:09 transcend ed

16:05:10 and usurped,

16:05:11 preempted, the ability

16:05:12 to use that interpreter.

16:05:13 So it was a

16:05:14 challenge.

16:05:15 It got better

16:05:16 over time.

16:05:17 But it was

16:05:18 very, very

16:05:22 difficult.

16:05:22 Very

16:05:22 difficult.

16:05:23

16:05:23 >> Frank


16:05:25 you.

16:05:26 The next question

16:05:27 is quite a

16:05:31 different

16:05:32 one.

16:05:33 And may

16:05:33 skate a

16:05:36 little closer

16:05:37 to the line

16:05:40 of everyday

16:05:41 politics than

16:05:41 a justice of

16:05:43 the Indiana Supreme

16:05:44 Court would

16:05:45 care to go.

16:05:46 But one of

16:05:47 our audience

16:05:48 asked whether you

16:05:49 would care to

16:05:51 comment on

16:05:52 election

16:05:53 fairness,

16:05:55 issues of

16:05:55 gerrymandering

16:05:56 , truthful

16:05:56 campaigning,

16:05:58 fair election

16:05:59 processes, et

16:05:59 cetera, from

16:06:01 a human

16:06:02 rights perspective

16:06:03 and what that

16:06:04 means in

16:06:05 America today

16:06:07 and across

16:06:07 the globe.

16:06:08

16:06:09 >> Steven David: Well,

16:06:10 I think that's a great

16:06:12 question and a

very important

16:06:15 conversation

16:06:16 to be having.

16:06:17 Unfortunately

16:06:18 my ability to

16:06:19 express an opinion on

16:06:20 that is

16:06:23 greatly

16:06:23 restricted.

16:06:24 You know,

16:06:28 your Indiana Supreme

16:06:29 Court must

16:06:29 respect its

16:06:30 lane and must

16:06:31 respect

16:06:33 others'

16:06:34 lanes.

16:06:34 You

16:06:35 know, we may

16:06:36 be called upon to

16:06:37 answer a

16:06:38 question of whether or

16:06:39 not a

16:06:40 statute, a

16:06:41 law, existing

16:06:43 or past, is

16:06:44 unconstitution

16:06:45 al.

16:06:46 We don't look for

16:06:47 those.

16:06:48 We don't advertise for

16:06:49 them.

16:06:50 We don't talk

16:06:52 about them.

16:06:53 But it's

16:06:53 necessary.

16:06:54 That's one of our

16:06:55 constitutional

functions, to be prepared

16:06:58 to do that.

16:06:59 The conversation

16:07:00 is a fair


for everyone

16:07:02 else to have,

16:07:03 right?

16:07:04 But it's sort of

16:07:05 like watching

16:07:06 college basketball

16:07:07 right now.

16:07:08 You know, I may

16:07:10 be watching

16:07:10 Indiana and

16:07:11 Purdue, and I may

16:07:12 be rooting for

one and I may

16:07:15 be secretly yelling and

screaming as to what

16:07:18 play needs to be

run and what I

16:07:20 would do, but

16:07:22 I'm wearing

16:07:22 that

16:07:23 referee's

16:07:23 shirt, so

16:07:24 I've got to

16:07:25 keep my mouth

16:07:26 shut.

16:07:27 >> Frank Sullivan:

Your answer

16:07:29 seems right

16:07:30 to me.

16:07:31 We've

16:07:31 seen over the

16:07:34 last 90 days

16:07:35 courts called

16:07:37 upon again

16:07:38 and again to

16:07:40 resolve

16:07:40 election

16:07:42 disputes, and

16:07:44 I think it's

16:07:46 important that judges

16:07:48 be perceived

16:07:48 as deciding

16:07:49 such cases

16:07:50 based on the

16:07:51 law and the

16:07:52 proven facts

16:07:53 and not based

16:07:54 on any

16:07:54 expressed

16:07:56 opinions of

16:07:57 their own.

16:07:59 We have a

16:08:00 question here

16:08:01 that I

16:08:02 suppose in

16:08:02 some respects

16:08:03 is sort of

16:08:05 the subject

16:08:06 of our entire

16:08:07 afternoon

16:08:08 together.

16:08:11 But maybe at

16:08:12 a certain

16:08:13 level here as

16:08:15 we wind down

16:08:16 our time together,

16:08:17 you'd care to

16:08:19 comment about

16:08:19 what kind of

16:08:20 a balance in

16:08:21 your own mind

you've been

16:08:23 able to reach

between the

16:08:25 demands of human rights

16:08:26 and the

16:08:27 demands of

16:08:28 national

16:08:28 security.

16:08:29

16:08:29 >> Steven

16:08:30 David: Sure.

16:08:31 I do not think they

16:08:33 are mutually exclusive.

16:08:34 I think they

16:08:35 are mutually

16:08:36 inclusive.

16:08:36 It is definite

16:08:40 ly a

16:08:41 balancing,

16:08:41 but, you

16:08:42 know, my

16:08:43 experience over time --

16:08:44 and it got

16:08:45 better at

16:08:47 Guantanamo

16:08:50 Bay -- is you

16:08:52 had very competent,

16:08:53 highly

16:08:54 qualified

16:08:54 prosecutors

16:08:54 and very

16:08:55 competent and

16:08:56 highly qualified

16:08:56 defense

16:08:57 counsel,

16:08:58 civilian and

16:08:58 military.

16:08:59 Maybe I would

16:09:00 exclude

16:09:00 myself from

16:09:02 that group.

16:09:04 But they each

16:09:07 had -- both

16:09:08 sides had the

16:09:09 requisite

16:09:10 security

16:09:10 clearances,

16:09:11 and both of

16:09:12 them had

16:09:14 access to the

16:09:15 same information.

16:09:16 So there is a

16:09:18 way to

16:09:19 navigate

16:09:22 that.

16:09:23 But it's difficult,

16:09:25 and it's hard

16:09:26 sometimes for

16:09:27 nonlawyers to

16:09:28 appreciate that because

16:09:29 our language

16:09:31 is a little

16:09:32 bit different

16:09:33 than what some

people might

16:09:35 be used to or

16:09:36 familiar

16:09:37 with.

16:09:38 But it's

16:09:38 necessary to

16:09:40 balance that.

16:09:40 But there are

16:09:42 ways to do

16:09:44 that to

16:09:44 ensure that


16:09:47 are

16:09:48 protected.

16:09:49 When problems

16:09:50 happen,

16:09:51 problems

16:09:52 usually

16:09:52 happen

16:09:52 because one

16:09:55 side or the

16:09:57 other

16:09:58 believes that

16:09:58 national

16:09:59 security, for

16:10:00 example,

16:10:02 trumps human

16:10:03 rights or

16:10:04 that human

16:10:05 rights trump

16:10:06 national

16:10:06 security.

16:10:07 I do not think

16:10:08 they're mutually

exclusive.

16:10:09 And I think there

16:10:11 is a way to

16:10:12 navigate both of those.

16:10:14


16:10:15 Would you go so far

16:10:17 as to say

16:10:18 that a nation

16:10:20 that has a

16:10:21 reputation for

respecting

16:10:23 the human

16:10:24 rights, even

16:10:25 of its

16:10:26 adversaries,

16:10:27 is a nation

16:10:28 that is less

16:10:29 likely to

16:10:30 provoke threats

16:10:31 to its

16:10:32 national

16:10:32 security?

16:10:33

16:10:33 >> Steven

16:10:34 David: Absolutely.

16:10:34 Absolutely.

16:10:35 You know, to

16:10:36 a great

16:10:37 extent -- to

16:10:38 a great

16:10:39 extent, what

16:10:40 is the


16:10:43 assumption --

16:10:43 fundamental principle of


16:10:46 law, of the

16:10:49 rule of law?

16:10:50 It is

16:10:51 credibility.

16:10:52 It

16:10:52 is trust.

16:10:53 It

16:10:55 is respect.

16:10:56 It is not a law

16:10:57 enforcement officer

on every street

16:10:59 corner.

16:11:00 It is not a

16:11:01 standing Army.

16:11:02 It is

16:11:03 not a cadre

16:11:04 of lawyers

16:11:05 dispatched to

16:11:06 every

16:11:06 neighborhood,

16:11:06 every church,

16:11:07 every

16:11:08 synagogue,

16:11:08 every house

16:11:09 of worship,

16:11:10 every school,

16:11:11 every public

16:11:12 building.

16:11:13 It is a

16:11:14 foundation of

16:11:15 trust and

16:11:16 credibility,

16:11:17 respect that

16:11:19 when times

16:11:20 are

16:11:20 difficult,

16:11:21 fairness will

16:11:21 prevail.

16:11:22 There

16:11:22 is a process.

16:11:24 It is trusted.

16:11:25 It is tried.

16:11:27 It is not perfect.

16:11:28 It is adjusted.

16:11:30 It is debated

from time to

16:11:32 time.

16:11:33 It may

16:11:33 have some

16:11:34 dents.

16:11:35 It may take a

16:11:36 hit.

16:11:37 But it withstands

16:11:38 scrutiny.

16:11:39 And over time it gets

16:11:41 better and

16:11:41 better.

16:11:43 That's the

16:11:44 foundation.

16:11:46 If you

16:11:46 whittle away

16:11:47 -- and what I

16:11:49 said publicly

16:11:49 and what I

16:11:50 say publicly, what I

16:11:52 believe is


16:11:53 law is what

16:11:55 separates the United

16:11:56 States of America in

16:11:57 many respects from the

rest of the world.

16:12:00 It makes us the

envy of most

16:12:02 of the world, right?

16:12:04 And the enemy of some

16:12:06 of the world.

16:12:07 And when we

16:12:08 don't, for whatever

16:12:09 reason,

16:12:10 demonstrate

16:12:11 justice,

16:12:11 promote

16:12:12 justice and we

16:12:13 get the

16:12:13 issues

16:12:14 confused or

16:12:16 people get

16:12:16 concerned or

16:12:17 they

16:12:18 misunderstand

16:12:18 or

16:12:18 misconstrue

16:12:20 the issues,

16:12:21 misunderstand

16:12:22 the

16:12:23 narrative,

16:12:25 then the


16:12:26 goes awry,

16:12:27 and we get

16:12:28 away from our


16:12:30 principles,

16:12:31 due process,

16:12:33 fairness, and

16:12:33 justice.

16:12:34 We

16:12:35 need to


16:12:37 our credibility

16:12:38 in the

16:12:38 system, all

16:12:39 of us -- and

16:12:40 it's a responsibility

16:12:41 of all citizens --

16:12:43 but that's

16:12:44 the challenge.

16:12:44 That's the

16:12:45 challenge.

16:12:45


16:12:47 Justice

16:12:47 David, we

16:12:48 have about 2

16:12:50 minutes

16:12:51 remaining.

16:12:52 And the last

16:12:53 question I

16:12:54 think we'll

16:12:54 have time for

16:12:55 is one that I

16:12:57 think relates

16:12:58 quite closely

16:12:58 to an

16:12:59 important initiative

16:13:00 that you've

16:13:00 undertaken under

16:13:01 the auspices

16:13:03 of our state

16:13:04 bar association.

16:13:05 And the question is

16:13:06 this: How do

16:13:07 we reconcile

16:13:09 laws and

16:13:09 policies that

16:13:10 have

16:13:11 disproportionate

16:13:12 impacts on

16:13:13 historically

16:13:13 oppressed

16:13:14 communities

16:13:15 with the

16:13:15 spirit of

16:13:16 your

16:13:17 comments?

16:13:17

16:13:17 >> Steven

16:13:18 David: Sure.

16:13:20 I think we

16:13:23 have to have

16:13:24 the dialogue,

16:13:25 and we have

16:13:26 to have those

16:13:27 dialogues --

16:13:29 that

16:13:29 dialogue,

16:13:30 that


16:13:32 in a safe

16:13:33 environment.

16:13:34 We

16:13:35 have to

16:13:36 encourage

16:13:36 each other to

16:13:40 be tolerant

16:13:42 and

16:13:42 respectful

16:13:48 and learn by

16:13:49 listening and

16:13:51 believe what we

16:13:52 are hearing

16:13:57 to try not to

16:14:00 deflect or

16:14:03 deny or

16:14:04 become defensive but

16:14:09 to think in

16:14:13 terms of why

16:14:14 did that

16:14:14 happen, and

16:14:15 most

16:14:15 importantly,

16:14:16 where do we

16:14:18 go from here?

16:14:22 And how can

16:14:23 we improve?

16:14:24 We can spend

16:14:25 a lot of time

16:14:27 blaming or trying to get

16:14:28 to the bottom

of it, or we

16:14:31 can work on moving

16:14:32 forward.

16:14:33 But we have to be

16:14:35 prepared to

listen, and we

16:14:36 have to be willing to

16:14:38 believe.

16:14:39 And I think sharing

16:14:40 stories and experiences

16:14:41 from people

16:14:42 that we know

16:14:47 and people we

16:14:48 don't know

16:14:49 and being

16:14:49 engaged and

16:14:50 listening is

16:14:51 critical.

16:14:51 That's what

16:14:53 our state bar

16:14:54 association

in partnership

16:14:57 with the


16:14:59 Court, most

16:14:59 all of the

16:15:00 major bar

16:15:01 associations

16:15:04 in Indiana,

16:15:05 McKinney,

16:15:07 Mauer, Barnes

16:15:09 & Thornberg,

16:15:10 the Taft Law

16:15:14 firm, Indiana

16:15:15 Chapter of

16:15:18 NAACP,

16:15:19 Cummins

16:15:19 Engine

16:15:21 Company.

16:15:21 I think another

corporation

16:15:23 is about to join that

conversation as a

16:15:25 supporter and many

other entities.

16:15:27 That's what we're trying

to do is foster those

16:15:30 conversations, foster

that understanding, move

16:15:32 from conversations

to action.

16:15:33 This

16:15:36 is a

16:15:36 long-term

16:15:38 commitment,

16:15:39 and I'm

16:15:40 confident

16:15:41 that together

16:15:43 we will make

16:15:44 real

16:15:45 sustainable

16:15:45 change.

16:15:46 >> Frank

16:15:47 Sullivan:

16:15:47 Well, thank


16:15:49 David, for

16:15:49 your

16:15:50 leadership in

16:15:51 that regard, for

16:15:52 your splendid

16:15:53 remarks

16:15:53 today, and for

16:15:54 your candid answers to

16:15:56 our questions.

16:15:57 We're deeply

16:15:58 grateful to

16:15:59 you.

16:15:59 >> Steven David: Thank

16:16:01 you, sir.

16:16:01

16:16:02 >> Frank

16:16:02 Sullivan: We will now

16:16:04 pause for a 5-minute

16:16:05 break and resume

16:16:07 promptly at

16:16:09 4:20 P.M.

16:16:10 Indianapolis

16:16:10 time when we

16:16:12 will hear

16:16:12 from Professor

16:16:14 Frank Emmert.

16:16:15 Thank

16:16:19 you all.

16:20:23 .

16:20:23 >> Frank

16:20:24 Sullivan: Welcome back,

16:20:27 everyone, to

16:20:28 our program.

16:20:28 I'm very

16:20:30 pleased to be

16:20:31 able to

16:20:33 report that

16:20:33 Professor Dr.

16:20:35 Frank Emmert,

16:20:37 the John S.

16:20:38 Grimes Professor of

16:20:39 Law and executive

16:20:40 Director of

16:20:41 the Center

16:20:42 for


16:20:43 and


16:20:44 Law here at

16:20:45 the McKinney

16:20:46 Law School has

16:20:47 been able to

16:20:48 join our

16:20:51 panel as

16:20:52 originally

16:20:53 advertised

16:20:54 along with


16:20:59 and Justice

16:21:00 Kirby.

16:21:01 And I will

16:21:02 introduce Professor

16:21:03 Emmert in a

16:21:04 moment, but,

16:21:05 again, to

16:21:06 remind all of

16:21:08 you that

16:21:08 Professor

16:21:09 Emmert will

16:21:10 speak for

16:21:11 about 50

16:21:12 minutes and

16:21:12 then be

16:21:13 available for

16:21:14 your

16:21:15 questions.

16:21:16 If you place your

16:21:17 questions in

16:21:18 the Q&A

16:21:19 function on

16:21:19 our Zoom app,

16:21:21 I will do my

16:21:22 very best to

16:21:23 ask him, as I

16:21:24 did to Justice

16:21:26 David, as

16:21:27 many of the

16:21:28 questions as we

16:21:30 have time

16:21:31 for.

16:21:32 Professor

16:21:33 Frank Emmert has

16:21:34 been a

16:21:35 cherished

16:21:35 member of the

16:21:37 McKinney Law

16:21:38 School

16:21:39 faculty since

16:21:41 2003 where he

16:21:42 teaches

16:21:42 European

16:21:44 Union Law,


16:21:47 Law, and a

16:21:48 panoply of

international commercial

16:21:52 law courses.

16:21:52 The second

16:21:53 edition of

16:21:54 his book

16:21:55 "international

16:21:56 business

16:21:56 transactions,"

16:21:57 which I hold

16:21:59 in my hands,

16:22:01 has just been

16:22:02 published,

16:22:03 and while it

16:22:04 purports to

16:22:05 be a

16:22:06 textbook, it

16:22:07 is really a

16:22:08 manual for

16:22:10 the

16:22:10 international business

16:22:11 practitioner,

16:22:11 full of

16:22:12 checklists,

16:22:14 forms, and

16:22:15 practical

16:22:15 advice for

16:22:16 any lawyer

16:22:17 engaged in

16:22:18 the international

16:22:18 sale of

16:22:19 goods,

16:22:20 shipping

16:22:20 contracts,


16:22:22 insurance

16:22:23 contracts,


16:22:24 financing

16:22:26 contracts,

16:22:27 and more.

16:22:28 If

16:22:28 among the 225

16:22:29 or so of you

16:22:31 in our

16:22:32 audience are

16:22:33 lawyers who

16:22:33 find yourself

16:22:35 or may find

16:22:36 yourself

16:22:37 working on

16:22:38 such a

16:22:39 transaction,

16:22:40 I heartily

16:22:41 recommend

16:22:41 this book.

16:22:43 Beyond that,

16:22:44 Professor

16:22:44 Emmert has

16:22:46 taught law at

16:22:47 universities throughout

16:22:49 central and

16:22:50 eastern

16:22:50 Europe,

16:22:51 Mexico, and

16:22:52 Egypt.

16:22:53 He is, as I said

16:22:55 a moment ago,

16:22:56 the executive

16:22:57 Director of

16:22:57 our Center

16:22:58 for International

16:22:59 and


16:23:00 Law, and

16:23:01 regularly

16:23:02 advises

16:23:02 governments

16:23:03 and

16:23:04 multinational

16:23:04 enterprises

16:23:05 in matters of

16:23:06 business and

16:23:07 trade law,

16:23:08 law reform,

16:23:10 and court

16:23:11 reform.

16:23:11 Above all

16:23:13 else, though,

16:23:13 Frank Emmert

16:23:16 is a teacher,

16:23:18 revered and

16:23:19 admired by

16:23:19 his students

16:23:20 to whom he

16:23:21 gives a very

full measure

16:23:23 indeed of his

16:23:24 commanding

16:23:24 intellect and

16:23:25 personal warmth.

16:23:26 I'm very pleased

16:23:27 to welcome

16:23:28 our second

16:23:29 speaker,

16:23:30 Professor Dr.

16:23:34 Frank Emmert.

16:23:35

16:23:35 >> Dr.

16:23:36 Emmert: Thank

16:23:37 you so much, Professor

16:23:38 Sullivan for

16:23:39 this very

16:23:40 kind

16:23:41 introduction.

16:23:42 I am very

16:23:43 flattered and

16:23:44 grateful for

16:23:47 the shoutout

16:23:47 for my book

16:23:48 and your

16:23:49 summary of my

16:23:50 various

16:23:51 activities.

16:23:51 I also want

16:23:52 to thank, of

16:23:53 course, the


16:23:54 and

16:23:55 comparative

16:23:56 law review

16:23:58 for inviting

16:23:59 me to

16:23:59 participate

16:24:00 in this

16:24:01 symposium.

16:24:02 It is an honor and a

16:24:04 pleasure to

be here today

16:24:05 and to be

16:24:06 amongst these

16:24:08 very

16:24:09 distinguished

16:24:09 justices and

16:24:11 to be treated

16:24:12 as one of

16:24:13 their equals.

16:24:14 I hope very much that I

16:24:16 can live up

16:24:18 to these

16:24:19 expectations.

16:24:20 When I was

16:24:21 starting in my

16:24:22 career, I had

16:24:23 an


16:24:27 to work with

16:24:28 Wallin Bieber

16:24:29 who at the

16:24:30 time was the chief legal

16:24:32 counsel at the

parliament but also a

16:24:34 professor at a couple

of European universities,

16:24:37 and he told me

once that as an

16:24:39 academic, our

job is to sit

16:24:42 between the chairs.

16:24:43 And what he meant

was that we

16:24:45 should never cozy

up with any of the

16:24:48 authorities,

16:24:49 governments,

16:24:49 or otherwise

16:24:50 because the very notion

16:24:51 of academic

16:24:53 freedom and

16:24:54 the protection

16:24:54 that tenure

16:24:56 provides us

16:24:57 gives us an


16:24:59 and a

16:25:00 responsibility

16:25:00 .

16:25:01 And what I

16:25:02 mean is to be critical.

16:25:03 And to say

16:25:05 things that may

16:25:06 be uncomfortable,

16:25:08 that may be

16:25:09 unpopular.

16:25:10 Investigative

16:25:10 journalists

16:25:11 are doing

16:25:13 this job in

16:25:14 their own

16:25:14 way, but

16:25:15 academics are

16:25:16 doing it in

16:25:17 what is

16:25:18 hopeful ly a

16:25:19 more scientific

16:25:20 way.

16:25:21 And working

16:25:21 together, we

16:25:22 can all

16:25:23 contribute to

16:25:24 making this world a

16:25:25 little bit of a better

16:25:27 place.

16:25:27 And in this period,

I would like to

16:25:30 share my remarks

today, and I

16:25:32 will also try

16:25:33 now to share

16:25:34 my screen.

16:25:36 I have a couple of slides

16:25:38 that

16:25:38 hopefully

16:25:40 will help you

16:25:41 along as we are looking

16:25:43 at a couple

16:25:44 of ideas and

16:25:46 suggestions

16:25:46 for the Biden

16:25:47 Administration

16:25:49 .

16:25:49 Can you see this screen

16:25:52 now, the

16:25:53 cover page?

16:25:54 May I assume?

16:25:55 Yes.

16:25:56 Excellent.

16:25:56


16:25:57 Yes, yes,

16:25:59 Frank, we

16:26:00 can.

16:26:01 >> Frank Emmert:

16:26:02 So we just have to move

16:26:04 along.

16:26:05 So my first point is

that what the United

16:26:08 States does and does not

16:26:10 do matters in

international law and

16:26:12 relations.

16:26:13 And it

16:26:14 matters more I

16:26:15 would argue

16:26:16 than what any

16:26:17 other nation and state

16:26:18 does around

16:26:19 the world.

16:26:20 The eyes of

16:26:21 the world are

16:26:22 on the United

16:26:23 Nations.

16:26:24 The United

16:26:24 Nations is

16:26:25 still viewed,

16:26:26 whether it's

16:26:27 justified or

16:26:27 not, as the

16:26:29 city on the

16:26:30 hill, and it

16:26:32 has to lead,

16:26:33 and it will

lead, whether

16:26:34 it likes it

16:26:35 or not,py

16:26:36 example.

16:26:37 Others will

16:26:38 follow, and

16:26:38 they will follow

16:26:39 wherever the United

16:26:40 States goes.

16:26:43 So if in the United

16:26:44 States we have a turn

16:26:46 back to rule

16:26:47 of law and a

16:26:48 return to the

international

16:26:50 respect of human rights

16:26:51 and an approach

to international

16:26:55 law based on

16:26:56 rules rather

16:26:57 than

16:26:58 political

16:26:58 convenience

16:27:00 or an eye on

16:27:02 domestic eye

16:27:02 elections and

16:27:03 other experiences,

16:27:04 then the

16:27:06 world will

16:27:06 take notice,

16:27:07 and we can

16:27:08 influence

16:27:08 other

16:27:10 countries

16:27:12 either way.


16:27:13 relations are

16:27:13 heavily

16:27:14 determined by

16:27:15 political

16:27:16 statements,

16:27:17 actions,

16:27:18 often

16:27:20 symbolic

16:27:20 acts.

16:27:21 This

16:27:22 is not our

16:27:23 chief point

16:27:23 of inquiry.

16:27:25 We are lawyers,

16:27:26 not political

scientists.

16:27:27 But, of

16:27:27 course, in


16:27:31 law, these


16:27:32 statements,

16:27:32 actions, they

16:27:33 matter.

16:27:34 Many of you will

16:27:35 be aware of

16:27:38 the rules for


16:27:40 law, namely

16:27:40 that, for

16:27:42 example,

16:27:42 ambassadors

16:27:43 or delegates

16:27:44 to


16:27:44 conventions

16:27:45 where

16:27:45 treaties are

16:27:46 negotiated, they

16:27:47 have to

16:27:48 present their

16:27:48 credentials,

16:27:49 their powers

16:27:50 of attorney,

16:27:51 whereas the

16:27:53 heads of

16:27:54 state and government

16:27:55 and the foreign

16:27:56 ministers of

a country do

16:27:58 not need to do that.

16:28:00 And indeed, whatever they

16:28:01 do always

16:28:02 represents their

16:28:03 country.

16:28:03 And I

16:28:05 would like to

16:28:06 recount a small

16:28:07 vignette of

16:28:08 history to

16:28:08 illustrate

16:28:09 the point.

16:28:10 There

16:28:10 was a time

16:28:12 when Denmark

16:28:13 and Norway

16:28:14 were arguing

16:28:16 over the

16:28:17 sovereignty

16:28:18 over

16:28:18 Greenland.

16:28:19 And they were

16:28:20 actually shs

16:28:21 since both of these

16:28:23 were civilized

16:28:23 countries, they took

16:28:24 this dispute

16:28:25 to the international

16:28:27 court of

16:28:28 justice rather

16:28:28 than sending

16:28:29 troops or

16:28:30 trying any other

16:28:31 ways of dispute

16:28:32 resolution.

16:28:32 So they had a

16:28:34 case pending in the

16:28:35 international court of

16:28:36 justice in

16:28:37 the Hague

16:28:38 over which of

16:28:39 these two

16:28:39 countries was

16:28:40 actually the

16:28:41 sovereign

16:28:42 over

16:28:42 Greenland.

16:28:43 And we have

16:28:44 been reminded

16:28:44 in more

16:28:46 recent times

16:28:47 when President

16:28:48 Trump voiced

16:28:49 an interest

16:28:51 in purchasing

16:28:51 Greenland

16:28:52 that this is

16:28:53 not only a lot of ice,

16:28:55 but it's also

16:28:58 a very large

16:28:59 island with a

16:29:00 lot of potential

16:29:01 resources, fishing, et

16:29:02 cetera, et

16:29:03 cetera.

16:29:04 So it was an important

16:29:06 dispute, and

the resolution

16:29:07 was eagerly anticipated

16:29:08 in both of these

16:29:09 countries.

16:29:10 And at some point, the

16:29:12 Norwegian foreign

minister was

16:29:13 traveling to

Denmark, and it

16:29:15 was invited at a state

16:29:17 banquet in his honor.

16:29:18 And in the

16:29:19 course of

16:29:20 that evening

16:29:21 at some point

16:29:22 before he could plead

16:29:24 that the

16:29:26 alcohol had

16:29:27 clouded his

16:29:28 sense of --

16:29:29 or his judgment too

16:29:31 much, he made

16:29:32 a statement along the

16:29:33 lines of yes, of

16:29:34 course, Norway does

16:29:36 not have a

16:29:37 solid claim

16:29:38 over

16:29:38 Greenland.

16:29:39 And everybody

16:29:40 around was

16:29:41 astonished

16:29:42 and said, oh, thank

16:29:44 you so much.

16:29:45 And the next

16:29:46 day they took

16:29:47 this so-called

16:29:48 E-land

16:29:49 declaration

16:29:49 because the

16:29:50 foreign

16:29:50 minister's

16:29:51 name was

16:29:51 Eland, they

16:29:52 took it to the

international

16:29:54 court of justice, and

the case was quickly

16:29:57 decided in favor

of Denmark because

16:29:59 obviously Eland had

made an official

16:30:01 statement on behalf

16:30:02 of Norway.

16:30:05 I wush --

16:30:06 wish that this

truth and this

16:30:08 principle and this case

example would have been

16:30:10 brought to Trump's

attention

16:30:13 when he

16:30:14 started his

(Indiscernible)

16:30:15 because according to

16:30:16 international law, every

16:30:17 single tweet

16:30:18 issued by the

16:30:19 then-President would

16:30:19 actually be

16:30:21 issued on behalf

16:30:22 of the United

16:30:23 States of

16:30:24 America.

16:30:25 Now,


16:30:25 law is, of

16:30:26 course,

16:30:27 heavily

16:30:28 determined by

16:30:28 political

16:30:29 statements

16:30:30 and actions,

16:30:31 but it is

16:30:32 also determined by

16:30:33 law.

16:30:34 And we have three

16:30:36 primary forms

16:30:36 of law in

16:30:37 international law.

16:30:38 First and foremost, we

16:30:40 have treaties.

16:30:40 Secondly we

16:30:41 have custom marry law.

16:30:43 And thirdly, we

16:30:44 have certain general

16:30:45 principles of

16:30:46 law.

16:30:46 And we will look

a little bit

16:30:49 more closely at treaties

16:30:50 and then importantly

16:30:51 at customary law because

16:30:53 that's what

16:30:53 we do because

16:30:54 we believe that we have

16:30:56 to, because it's

the right thing

16:30:58 to do, that we

are bound by

16:31:01 it.

16:31:01 And when we cannot

16:31:03 make treaties, we

16:31:04 can often

16:31:04 still make customary

international

16:31:06 law.

16:31:06 So what

16:31:07 should President

16:31:08 Biden do more

16:31:09 of and what

16:31:10 should he do

16:31:11 less of?

16:31:12 That's really

16:31:13 the question

16:31:14 behind my

16:31:14 idea of an

16:31:15 agenda,

16:31:16 basically.

16:31:16 Do more of

16:31:19 this and do

16:31:20 less of that,

16:31:22 and I hope

16:31:23 that together

16:31:23 with you and

16:31:24 the questions

16:31:25 and the discussion we

16:31:26 are having, we may

16:31:28 actually come

up with some

16:31:30 useful suggestions,

and then we just need

16:31:32 someone who is going

to bring it to the

16:31:35 attention of the

16:31:36 President.

16:31:37 And, of course, we

16:31:38 will look at some

treaties that I would

16:31:41 like the United

States to sign and

16:31:44 ratify, but I

16:31:45 am no -- I am German by

16:31:47 birth, as you

know, but I

16:31:49 am no -- not entirely

16:31:51 innocent of U.S.

16:31:52 constitutional law, and

therefore I know that we

16:31:55 have a problem with

ratification of treaties

16:31:58 in this country, and

it's called the Senate,

16:32:00 because according

to the U.S.

16:32:02 Constitution, we need a

two-thirds majority in

16:32:05 the Senate to ratify an

international treaty or

16:32:07 convention.

16:32:08 And that has been hard

to come by, and

16:32:11 that's not just a

recent phenomenon.

16:32:13 So the question

that we will also

16:32:16 and discuss a little

bit, what can

16:32:18 President Biden do

without having that

16:32:20 two-thirds majority in

16:32:25 the Senate

16:32:25 supporting

16:32:26 him?

16:32:26 So I have a

16:32:28 couple of treaty

16:32:29 examples.

16:32:30 And I really do

16:32:31 not propose to

16:32:32 go into great details.

16:32:34 But I think the

16:32:36 examples can

16:32:36 still

16:32:37 illustrate my

16:32:37 point.

16:32:38 The first treaty

16:32:39 I want to

16:32:40 bring to your

16:32:42 attention is

16:32:43 the 1989 United

16:32:44 Nations law

16:32:45 of the Child

16:32:46 Convention.

16:32:47 Now, this

16:32:48 treaty is, on

16:32:49 the one hand,

16:32:50 important and

16:32:53 interesting

16:32:53 because it is

16:32:54 really

16:32:55 compiling a set

16:32:56 of rules that

16:32:57 are entirely

16:32:58 in the

16:32:58 benefit of

16:32:59 children, of

16:33:00 all kinds,

16:33:02 including

16:33:03 orphans,

16:33:03 children who

16:33:04 are

16:33:05 struggling

16:33:06 with

16:33:07 disabilities, et

16:33:07 cetera,

16:33:08 children who

16:33:11 have not the

16:33:12 fortune of being in

16:33:13 intact family

16:33:14 properly

16:33:15 taken care of

16:33:19 by their

16:33:19 parents in

16:33:20 particular.

16:33:21 But this convention has

16:33:22 been ratified

16:33:23 by more than

16:33:24 190 countries around the

16:33:25 world.

16:33:26 I think the

16:33:27 latest number

16:33:28 is 194.

16:33:29 And there are a

16:33:30 little bit less

16:33:31 than 200

16:33:32 countries around the

16:33:33 world, and one

16:33:34 of the two or three

16:33:36 countries or four

that have not

16:33:38 ratified is the United

16:33:40 States of America.

16:33:41 And the rest of

16:33:42 the world cannot

understand

16:33:44 that.

16:33:44 And I think there

is, on the

16:33:47 one side, a

constitutional

16:33:48 law explanation

16:33:49 that goes

16:33:50 beyond the

16:33:51 majority requirement

16:33:51 in the

16:33:52 Senate,

16:33:53 namely this

16:33:55 convention

16:33:58 touches upon

16:34:00 state laws.

16:34:01 Prerogatives of

16:34:02 the several

16:34:02 states.

16:34:03 So the federal government

16:34:04 has had issues

with ratifying

16:34:06 this convention,

but I think this

16:34:08 is a very

16:34:09 poor

16:34:10 explanation

16:34:10 and (Indiscernible)

16:34:16 (muted)

16:34:46 (no audio)

16:34:53

16:34:53 >> Justice

16:34:54 Kirby:

16:34:54 There's no

16:34:55 audio.

16:34:56 We've

16:34:58 lost the

16:34:58 audio.

16:34:59 >> Frank

16:35:00 Sullivan: Ladies

and gentlemen,

16:35:01 please stand

16:35:02 by.

16:35:03 We're

16:35:03 attempting to

16:35:04 correct the

16:35:08 audio

16:35:09 difficulty.

16:35:11 .

16:35:11 >> Frank Emmert: Is

16:35:13 this working better?


We can hear you

16:35:17 now, Professor Emmert.

16:35:18 Yes, I think you

can continue.

16:35:20 >> Frank Emmert: Sorry,

I don't know what

16:35:23 happened.

16:35:24 So when did it

cut me off?

16:35:26 Did you still hear me

talk about the law of

16:35:29 the child convention?

16:35:31 >> Frank Sullivan: Yes.

16:35:33 I think it was just at

the point you were

16:35:36 transitioning from the

law of the child to the

16:35:39 discrimination against

women convention.

16:35:41 So maybe you would start

with the discrimination

16:35:43 against women

convention.

16:35:45 >> Frank Emmert: Yes.

16:35:46 Thank you so much.

16:35:48 I apologize.

16:35:49 Yes, what I was saying

is that in this

16:35:52 convention, there is

truly nothing that any

16:35:55 of us in this audience

or in this forum, in

16:35:58 this symposium today

would object to.

16:36:00 It prohibits various

traditional forms of

16:36:02 discrimination but also

blanket any forms of

16:36:05 discrimination against

women, and it was

16:36:07 ratified in the meantime

by 189 countries around

16:36:10 the world I believe is

the latest number.

16:36:13 And, again, the United

States are one of the

16:36:16 very, very few countries

that have not expressed

16:36:18 their support for

this convention.

16:36:20 These kind of issues

are hard to explain

16:36:23 around the world, in

particular because when

16:36:26 the U.S.

16:36:27 is not supporting one

16:36:28 of these

16:36:29 acts, there

16:36:29 will always

16:36:33 be authorize

16:36:34 authoritarian

16:36:34 governments

16:36:35 who say there must

16:36:36 be something wrong

with the convention.

16:36:38 Even the Americans

are against it.

16:36:40 And I think the sad

thing is that in the

16:36:44 United States, we are

not against this

16:36:46 convention, but we also

do not care about

16:36:49 supporting it.

16:36:50 And that is a problem.

16:36:52 We, of course, have the

inter-American

16:36:54 convention on human

rights where we have the

16:36:57 arrogance of the United

States of saying, well

16:37:00 we do not need

international

16:37:02 supervision of what we

do on human rights.

16:37:04 We are anyways the gold

standard in the

16:37:07 Americas.

16:37:08 I think ever since the

last Gulf War and then

16:37:11 the ensuing issues, for

example, in Guantanamo

16:37:14 Bay, we should

know better.

16:37:16 And any lawyer

who wants to

16:37:18 see whether an

international court of

16:37:20 human rights can

actually benefit the

16:37:22 members only

needs to look

16:37:25 at the

16:37:28 European the

16:37:29 council of

16:37:29 Europe and Strasburg.

16:37:30 We used to

16:37:31 take our students

to the court

16:37:34 when we had the study

abroad program in

16:37:36 France.

16:37:37 I have the pleasure of

joining an event with

16:37:40 our alumni association

16:37:43 in March with

16:37:45 Justice

16:37:46 Supansha, I

16:37:46 think he was

16:37:47 the longest

serving judge

16:37:49 on the European court of


and there are

16:37:52 many, many cases

where, for

16:37:54 example, the United

Kingdom or Germany or

16:37:56 Sweden or Switzerland,

16:37:57 all countries

16:37:58 that we would

16:37:59 probably

16:38:00 think of

16:38:01 beyond

16:38:02 reproach and

16:38:02 with strong

16:38:04 bills of

16:38:05 rights in the

16:38:06 domestic constitutions

16:38:07 were actually

16:38:08 benefiting

16:38:09 from some


16:38:10 oversight by

16:38:11 this European

16:38:11 court of


16:38:13 And I have no

16:38:15 doubts that the United

States would

16:38:17 not only make

16:38:18 a very

16:38:19 valuable contribution

16:38:19 to the

16:38:20 interhad-Ameri

16:38:20 can court but

16:38:22 would also sometimes be

16:38:23 taught a

16:38:24 lesson from

16:38:25 participating in this

16:38:26 convention

16:38:28 and this

16:38:29 mechanism.

16:38:30 Of course, we

16:38:31 have the Rome

statute of the

16:38:33 international criminal

court that was originally

16:38:35 signed and

16:38:36 then unsigned

16:38:38 by the United

16:38:39 States.

16:38:40 This, of course, is

16:38:41 more problematic.

16:38:42 It's more political.

16:38:43 But the fact

that the United

16:38:45 States is worried that

16:38:47 its armies

16:38:48 and its CIA

16:38:49 and other


16:38:50 agents might

16:38:50 be prosecuted

16:38:52 in this court does

16:38:53 not speak

16:38:54 well for the kind

16:38:55 of actions the United

16:38:57 States is

16:38:57 undertaking

16:38:58 on the


16:38:59 plane.

16:39:00 This is a court that

16:39:01 is supported

16:39:02 by most of

16:39:03 the democratic

16:39:04 and rule of

16:39:05 law-abiding countries

around the

16:39:06 world, and

16:39:07 the United States

16:39:08 absence,

16:39:10 again, speaks

16:39:11 volumes.

16:39:12 I don't have

16:39:13 time to go

16:39:14 into great

16:39:15 details here.

16:39:16 There are

16:39:16 various Hague

conventions

16:39:18 on private

international law.

16:39:19 They are mostly

16:39:21 about mutual

16:39:21 assistance

16:39:22 when it comes

16:39:23 to the

16:39:24 enforcement

16:39:24 of judgments

16:39:25 and other kind

16:39:26 of activities

16:39:27 where rule of

16:39:28 law-abiding

16:39:29 countries should

16:39:30 be supporting

16:39:31 each other

16:39:32 and, again,

16:39:32 the United States has

16:39:34 been cherry-picking

16:39:35 a handful of

16:39:36 those, and they

are quite

16:39:37 many others that it has

16:39:39 so far not endorsed and

16:39:41 supported and

16:39:42 ratified.

16:39:43 The same is

16:39:44 true for various

16:39:45 conventions

16:39:45 of the


16:39:47 labor

16:39:47 organization.

16:39:49 That provide

16:39:51 a number of Social

16:39:52 Security and

16:39:53 minimum

16:39:53 standards and employment

16:39:54 and so forth.

16:39:55 And it is not

16:39:57 easy to understand

16:39:58 why the United

States have

16:40:00 been very,

16:40:00 very

16:40:01 selective in

16:40:02 supporting these


16:40:06 treaties.

16:40:06 And, of

16:40:07 course, one

16:40:07 of the

16:40:08 biggest

16:40:08 problem s

16:40:09 that we have is what I

16:40:11 have already alluded

to, namely the

16:40:13 requirement or the rule

16:40:15 in Article

16:40:15 II, Section 2 of

16:40:17 the U.S.

16:40:18 Constitution that

international treaties

16:40:19 are made by the

President with the

16:40:22 advice and

16:40:22 consent of

16:40:23 the Senate.

16:40:24 And we may

16:40:25 ask the

16:40:25 question now,

16:40:26 why does the Senate not

16:40:28 support the ratification

16:40:29 of treaties

16:40:30 that are objectively

16:40:31 good for the

16:40:33 U.S.

16:40:34 and the world?

16:40:35 And this

16:40:36 is not a new

16:40:37 phenomenon.

16:40:38 Unfortunately in

international law

16:40:39 circles, the United

States Senate

16:40:41 has the nickname "the

16:40:42 graveyard"

16:40:43 because

16:40:43 that's where


16:40:46 treaties go

16:40:47 to die.

16:40:48 And it is unfortunately,

16:40:50 but it is not something

16:40:52 that we will easily fix.

16:40:53 Namely that

16:40:55 if the Senate

16:40:56 is not

16:40:57 controlled

16:40:57 with a strong

16:40:58 majority by one

16:41:00 of our two

16:41:01 political parties, it

16:41:02 is often the

16:41:03 case that the

16:41:04 other political

16:41:04 party will

16:41:05 not want to give what

16:41:07 they perceive

as a victory

16:41:09 to the executive

in the White

16:41:11 House, whether that

16:41:12 is sensible from the

16:41:13 point of view

16:41:14 of rule of law,


reelings, or

16:41:17 even the interests

of the United

16:41:19 States or

16:41:19 not.

16:41:20 If we want to

do something

16:41:22 about this

hyperpartisans

16:41:23 hip that is developing or

16:41:25 has developed

in American

16:41:26 politics, I think we

have to start with

16:41:29 the citizens United

decision of the Supreme

16:41:32 Court that has opened

the floodgates to

16:41:34 money flowing

into politics.

16:41:36 Everything has

only become worse

16:41:37 since then.

16:41:38 It's a decision that

I would like to have

16:41:42 explained to me by any

of the justices on the

16:41:45 Supreme Court because I

cannot see one ounce of

16:41:48 wisdom in that

particular decision.

16:41:50 I don't have an answer

what we can do, however,

16:41:53 about it, and maybe

that is for a different

16:41:57 symposium to explore.

16:41:58 Now, a couple

of points that I

16:42:00 would like to raise

about examples of

16:42:03 things that Biden as

President should do

16:42:05 less of.

16:42:06 Even without sufficient

16:42:07 majority in the United

16:42:08 States for treaty

16:42:10 ratifications,

16:42:10 the U.S.

16:42:11 administration does

16:42:13 not have to

16:42:14 threaten the


16:42:15 court and its

16:42:17 judges and prosecutors

16:42:18 for taking up

16:42:19 a case

16:42:20 brought by

16:42:21 the

16:42:22 Palestinian

16:42:22 Authority

16:42:22 against

16:42:23 Israel.

16:42:24 Simply

16:42:25 threatening, this

16:42:25 is contempt

16:42:26 of court in

16:42:28 its worst form.

16:42:29 This has nothing

16:42:30 to do with questions

16:42:31 whether the

16:42:32 court can be

16:42:33 trusted or

16:42:34 not to do the

16:42:35 right thing at the end

16:42:37 and to weigh

the evidence

16:42:39 appropriately

but to start and

16:42:41 threatening a court,

I think, I

16:42:43 would hope that

my colleagues

16:42:44 here in the

16:42:46 symposium, my justice

16:42:47 colleagues,

16:42:47 would agree

16:42:48 that this is

16:42:49 just inappropriate.

16:42:49 There are other

16:42:51 ways of

16:42:51 interacting

16:42:52 and maybe

16:42:53 providing amicus

16:42:54 support or

16:42:54 other support

16:42:55 for Israel to

16:42:57 defend itself

16:42:57 properly,

16:42:58 making sure

16:42:59 that due process and

16:43:00 rule of law

16:43:01 are

16:43:02 respected, by

16:43:03 basically

16:43:03 saying that

16:43:04 if these

16:43:05 judges or prosecutors

16:43:06 should set foot on U.S.

16:43:08 soil, they will go --

16:43:09 they will be

arrested is,

16:43:11 in my view,

16:43:12 is just

16:43:13 ridiculous.

16:43:14 Similarly,

16:43:14 the United

16:43:15 States does

16:43:16 not have to continue

16:43:18 undermining

16:43:18 the United

16:43:20 Nations and

16:43:21 its various

16:43:21 emanations

16:43:22 like the World Health

16:43:23 Organization.

16:43:23 This has not

16:43:24 done anything

good for the

16:43:27 world on any

16:43:28 level.

16:43:29 President Biden does

16:43:30 also not have

16:43:31 to continue

16:43:32 with trade

16:43:33 wars based on

16:43:34 filmsy

16:43:35 grounds like

16:43:36 national

16:43:36 security that

16:43:37 were invoked

16:43:37 for all kinds

16:43:38 of imports

16:43:39 including

16:43:39 rebar steel

16:43:40 as if they

16:43:41 were issues

16:43:42 of life and

16:43:43 death.

16:43:44 These kind

16:43:45 of attacks on


16:43:46 trading regime that

16:43:47 is all

16:43:49 treaty-based,

16:43:49 treaties

16:43:50 ratified by

16:43:50 the United

16:43:51 States, of

16:43:52 course, is

16:43:52 not helpful

16:43:53 and is

16:43:54 actually





16:43:57 the

16:43:58 credibility

16:43:59 of the United

16:44:00 States, and

16:44:00 encouraging other

16:44:02 countries to

16:44:03 do the same

16:44:04 and also

16:44:06 flout their

16:44:06 obligations under


16:44:11 law.

16:44:11 I don't

16:44:12 expect and I

16:44:14 have no

16:44:14 concern that

16:44:15 President

16:44:16 Biden will be

16:44:17 doing things

16:44:20 like

16:44:20 legitimizing

16:44:21 systemic

16:44:22 racism with

16:44:22 blanket bans

16:44:23 against

16:44:24 Muslim

16:44:24 immigrants or

16:44:25 Visa

16:44:26 applicants or

16:44:27 offensive

16:44:28 labels like

16:44:29 bad hombres

16:44:30 for young and

16:44:31 old men from

16:44:32 central and

Latin America

16:44:34 and the like.

16:44:35 But the

16:44:36 general idea

16:44:37 of the Eland

16:44:38 declaration and the very

16:44:39 fact that whatever an

16:44:41 American

16:44:41 official of

16:44:42 high rank and

16:44:43 stature says

16:44:44 and does will

16:44:45 be seen and

16:44:46 observed by the world

16:44:47 cannot be emphasized

16:44:48 enough.

16:44:49 We have to

16:44:50 look at the

procedures at

16:44:52 the southern

16:44:53 border for

16:44:54 refugee that under

16:44:55 the Trump Administration

16:44:56 really, in

16:44:57 particular,

16:44:58 as they were

16:44:59 accumulating, did

16:45:00 not meet a

16:45:01 single

16:45:01 requirement

16:45:02 of due

16:45:02 process and

16:45:03 other safeguards

16:45:04 imposed by

16:45:06 the Geneva

16:45:07 Convention.

16:45:08 That were

16:45:08 ratified,

16:45:09 again, by the United

16:45:10 States.

16:45:11 It is also not

16:45:12 helpful to abandon

or belittle our

16:45:14 traditional allies who

16:45:15 are strong democracies

16:45:16 and committed

16:45:18 to rule of

16:45:19 law while at the same

time associating

16:45:21 with dictators

and autocrats

16:45:23 like Russia's

16:45:24 Putin or North

16:45:25 Korea's Kim

16:45:26 Jong-Un.

16:45:26 Picking the

16:45:27 wrong kind of

16:45:28 friend sends a strong

16:45:29 message about

the direction

16:45:31 that this country is

16:45:32 going and the kind

16:45:33 of values

16:45:34 that it is

16:45:36 endorsing.

16:45:36 And historically,

16:45:38 I want to say

16:45:39 something about regime

16:45:40 change.

16:45:41 It sounds so

16:45:43 innocent and

16:45:46 so elegant.

16:45:47 Excuse me.

16:45:48 And I would

16:45:49 challenge

16:45:50 anyone who is

16:45:51 a friend or

16:45:52 supporter of

16:45:53 U.S.

16:45:53 policies pursuing

16:45:54 regime change

16:45:55 in other

16:45:56 countries to

16:45:56 show me a

16:45:57 single country where

16:45:58 this has

16:45:59 effectively

16:46:00 been

16:46:02 implemented.

16:46:03 The first

16:46:04 major example

16:46:04 along these

16:46:05 lines is the

16:46:06 regime change

16:46:07 we undertook

16:46:08 in Iran when

16:46:09 it had a

16:46:10 parliamentary

democracy and

16:46:11 a

16:46:13 legitimately

16:46:14 elected

16:46:15 government

16:46:15 and then we

16:46:17 disposed of

16:46:17 this government

16:46:18 with the help

16:46:20 of the CIA

16:46:23 and planted

16:46:24 the Sha in

16:46:25 its place who

16:46:26 was a dictator.

16:46:27 Yes, he was friendly to

16:46:29 the west but also

with his domestic

16:46:31 policy paved the way

for the Islamic

16:46:34 revolution and

the coming of

16:46:36 Ayatollah Khomeini

and the current

16:46:37 regime in Iran.

16:46:39 There are so many other

16:46:41 examples.

16:46:41 We could fill an entire

16:46:43 symposium with

just those,

16:46:44 whether it's

16:46:45 from Cuba,

16:46:47 across El

16:46:48 Salvador,

16:46:49 Nicaragua,

16:46:50 Venezuela in

16:46:51 most recent

16:46:52 times, I

16:46:52 would like to

16:46:54 see a single

16:46:55 case, a single

one that we could

16:46:57 sell as a success story

16:46:59 where the United

States actually

16:47:01 achieved its goals with

16:47:02 policies pursuing

regime change

16:47:03 in other

16:47:04 countries.

16:47:05 And similar

16:47:06 ly, of

16:47:06 course, I would argue

16:47:08 that no good

16:47:09 has ever come from

torturing our

16:47:11 enemies.

16:47:12 And Guantanamo Bay is an

16:47:13 excellent example.

16:47:15 And if you don't believe

me, then please

16:47:17 go and see

16:47:18 the movie

16:47:20 "the

16:47:20 Mauritanian" that

16:47:21 is brand-new

16:47:22 in our

16:47:23 streaming services.

16:47:24 I don't think

you can go in a

16:47:26 cinema yet, but it is

outlining the story of a

16:47:30 man who got caught up in

16:47:32 these dragnet

operations and ended up

16:47:34 for 14 years in gone taun

16:47:36 mow Bay without ever

being charged with any

16:47:39 evidence or any crimes.

16:47:41 That is not the kind of

example the United

16:47:44 States should be setting

around the world.

16:47:46 More things to

do less of.

16:47:48 Namely, even small

things like undermining

16:47:51 public trust

in experts and

16:47:52 investigative

journalism.

16:47:53 Or


16:47:54 public trust

16:47:55 in democratic

16:47:56 elections.

16:47:57 I think this is

16:47:58 just not even

16:47:59 in the DNA of President

16:48:01 Biden, but it is a good

16:48:03 reminder of the kind

of damage that

16:48:05 Trump has done during

his time in office and

16:48:08 that needs time to be

healed and repaired.

16:48:11 And this is something

that we very, very

16:48:14 urgently have

to go about.

16:48:16 Remember, what the U.S.

16:48:17 does at home is seen

around the world.

16:48:20 For better and for worse.

16:48:22 We need to be

the shining

16:48:24 city on the hill and

not the example that

16:48:27 others do not want to

look at because they're

16:48:30 ashame ed of it, and

that is the kind of

16:48:34 message that I have seen

with my friends in

16:48:37 Europe and in Asia and

in Latin America and

16:48:40 around the world in the

last couple of years.

16:48:43 And then, of course,

there are things that

16:48:46 the Biden Administration

can go after without

16:48:49 even having a Senate

majority for the

16:48:51 ratification of an

international convention.

16:48:53 Trump's executive

actions can

16:48:54 be undone by

16:48:55 Biden

16:48:55 executive

16:48:56 actions.

16:48:56 For

16:48:57 example,

16:48:57 rejoining the

16:48:58 Paris Climate

16:49:02 Accord that we

16:49:03 have seen.

16:49:04 We

16:49:04 could, again,

16:49:06 strive to win

16:49:07 back the

16:49:08 confidence,

16:49:08 the trust of

16:49:09 our partners

16:49:10 in the

16:49:10 Palestinian

16:49:11 territories

16:49:11 and in the

16:49:13 Arab world by

16:49:14 becoming a

16:49:15 real

16:49:15 arbitrator --

16:49:16 a neutral

16:49:16 arbitrator

16:49:17 for the

16:49:18 conflict between

16:49:18 Israel and

16:49:19 Palestine.

16:49:20 Taking one

16:49:21 side does not

16:49:22 qualify a

16:49:23 country like

16:49:23 the United

16:49:24 States to be

16:49:25 -- to play that

16:49:27 role of the

16:49:28 arbitrator

16:49:28 and to

16:49:30 support a

16:49:31 peaceful

16:49:31 resolution

16:49:33 and a human

16:49:34 rights-oriente

16:49:35 d resolution

16:49:37 of this

16:49:37 intricate

16:49:38 conflict.

16:49:39 Resubmitting

16:49:40 to the United

16:49:41 Nations


16:49:42 court of

16:49:43 justice.

16:49:43 When I was at

16:49:45 the Hague at the

16:49:46 international court of

16:49:47 justice in

16:49:48 1986, we had

16:49:49 a case

16:49:50 brought by

16:49:52 Nicaragua

16:49:52 against the United

16:49:53 States.

16:49:54 It was a very interesting

16:49:56 story.

16:49:56 If you are not familiar

with, I absolutely

16:49:59 encourage you to

read up on it.

16:50:02 Under the statute of the


16:50:04 justice, countries are

16:50:06 member s, by

16:50:07 being members of

16:50:08 the United Nations, but

16:50:09 they can only

be sued in the

16:50:12 international court

of justice if they

16:50:14 have submitted to

its jurisdiction

16:50:16 by a separate act.

16:50:17 So we have 200

member states of

16:50:20 the U.N.

16:50:21 that are members of the


16:50:24 justice, but not

all of them -- not

16:50:26 nearly all of

16:50:27 them are also

submitted to

16:50:29 its jurisdiction.

16:50:30 The United States, like

most of the European and

16:50:33 various other

countries, had a

16:50:35 standing submission in

the international court

16:50:37 of justice.

16:50:38 That means they

had deposited

16:50:40 a declaration

submitting without

16:50:41 reservations and without

16:50:42 time limits

16:50:44 to its

16:50:45 jurisdiction.

16:50:46 And

16:50:46 countries

16:50:47 like

16:50:47 Nicaragua who

16:50:48 were, you

16:50:49 know, torn

16:50:50 between left

16:50:51 and right

16:50:52 regimes,

16:50:52 usually not of

16:50:53 the very

16:50:54 democratic

16:50:56 kind, they

16:50:56 rarely submit

16:50:59 to the

16:50:59 jurisdiction

16:51:00 of an international

16:51:01 body because they

16:51:02 have things

16:51:02 that they do

16:51:04 not want this kind

16:51:05 of laundry

16:51:06 washed in

16:51:07 public.

16:51:08 Now, in order to

16:51:09 bring a case,

you have to also

16:51:12 be subjected to

the jurisdiction.

16:51:14 You can't hide behind,

16:51:15 you know, not being

subject and then

16:51:17 attacking other

countries.

16:51:20 So in 1986,

16:51:21 Nicaragua

16:51:22 suddenly

16:51:22 subjected

16:51:23 itself to the

16:51:24 compulsory jurisdiction

of

16:51:25 the


16:51:26 court of

16:51:27 justice, and

then a couple

16:51:28 of hours on the same day

16:51:30 filed a case against

the United

16:51:33 States of America.

16:51:34 And, of course, in the

state department, when

16:51:37 Nicaragua came and

accepted the

16:51:39 jurisdiction, they knew

what was going to

16:51:41 come.

16:51:42 And in these couple

of hours between the

16:51:44 Nicaragua declaration

of submission and then

16:51:47 the filing of the case

against the United

16:51:49 States, the U.S.

16:51:51 tried to limit its own

16:51:53 submission to

exclude cases

16:51:54 coming out of Central

16:51:56 America.

16:51:56 The background to

16:51:58 the story is

16:51:59 that at the time the

16:52:01 leftist regime under

16:52:02 Daniel Ortega

16:52:03 in Nicaragua

16:52:03 was very

16:52:04 unpopular

16:52:05 with various

16:52:05 politicians

16:52:06 in

16:52:06 Washington,

16:52:07 and the U.S.

16:52:10 started

16:52:10 supporting

16:52:11 the

16:52:11 right-wing

16:52:12 organization

16:52:12 in Nicaragua

16:52:13 that wanted

16:52:14 to topple the

16:52:16 left-wing

16:52:16 government.

16:52:17 And this

16:52:18 court went as far

16:52:19 as sending

16:52:20 CIA agents

16:52:21 with weapons

16:52:22 and land

16:52:22 mines into

16:52:24 Nicaragua to

16:52:25 work with

16:52:26 them mining

16:52:27 harbors and other

16:52:28 activities, and some of

16:52:29 them got

16:52:30 caught.

16:52:31 Now, Nicaragua wanted to

16:52:32 bring this to

the attention

16:52:34 of the international

court of

16:52:36 justice.

16:52:36 They subjected

themselves to the

16:52:38 jurisdiction and filed

the case a little bit

16:52:41 later.

16:52:42 But in the meantime,

the U.S.

16:52:44 had try ed to get out

of this jurisdiction.

16:52:47 Now, the case was at

the end decided, I think

16:52:50 it was a very

unfortunate moment for

16:52:53 the American justice

who was the sole

16:52:55 dissenter, trying to

16:52:56 uphold the American

16:52:57 right to carve out

16:52:59 this area of

16:53:00 jurisdiction

16:53:01 at short

16:53:02 notice

16:53:02 because the

16:53:03 U.S.

16:53:03 got caught red-handed.

16:53:04 And, of course,

the international

16:53:06 court of justice at

the end declared that

16:53:09 the U.S.

16:53:10 was in breach of

international

16:53:12 obligations and

should discontinue

16:53:13 these violations and pay

16:53:14 compensation

16:53:16 to Nicaragua.

16:53:16 And we all in

16:53:18 this forum know exactly

16:53:20 the dollar

16:53:21 amount of

16:53:21 compensation Nicaragua

16:53:23 ever receive

16:53:24 ed which is

16:53:25 exactly zero.

16:53:26 And that's one thing.

16:53:27 That may be something

that we may be able to

16:53:31 understand.

16:53:32 What I do not understand

is that ever since 1986,

16:53:35 through a number of

different United States

16:53:38 administrations,

the U.S.

16:53:39 has not renewed its

automatic and standing

16:53:41 submission to the


16:53:43 justice.

16:53:44 Think of the message

that we are sending to

16:53:47 the world by not

accepting any

16:53:49 longer the jurisdiction

of the international

16:53:51 court of justice

because we got caught

16:53:54 with our hands in the

16:53:55 cookie jar, and we

16:53:57 rejected this

16:53:58 idea to be held

accountable

16:53:59 for what we had been

16:54:01 doing down there.

16:54:02 This is a blemish

16:54:04 on the face of the

United States that

16:54:07 will not go away until

we finally have

16:54:09 an American

administration who is

16:54:11 going back to this court

like every democratic

16:54:14 state around the world,

every country that

16:54:16 cherishes the

16:54:17 rule of law should

be doing.

16:54:19 And we can take it

16:54:21 further.

16:54:22 The United States

was suspicious

16:54:23 originally when the

16:54:25 world Trade Organization

16:54:26 was created and had a

16:54:27 reservation in

its ratification

16:54:29 that it wanted

to see whether or

16:54:31 not it would get

fair treatment in

16:54:34 the dispute settlement

body of the

16:54:36 WTO.

16:54:36 Once this got under way,

16:54:38 the U.S.

16:54:39 accepted the jurisdiction

16:54:42 of the WTO,

16:54:43 dispute settlement

16:54:44 body, and participated

16:54:45 in many cases, until

16:54:46 the Trump Administration

16:54:47 took over and

16:54:49 started doing

16:54:49 things that

16:54:50 were not acceptable

16:54:51 under WTO

16:54:52 rules, but

16:54:54 that were

16:54:55 justified

16:54:55 with flimsy

16:54:56 arguments, for

16:54:58 example,

16:54:58 national

16:54:59 security

16:54:59 arguments

16:55:00 against

16:55:00 various kind

16:55:01 of imported

16:55:02 goods, and

16:55:05 since they

16:55:05 anticipated

16:55:06 the Trump

16:55:07 Administration that this

16:55:08 would not go down very

16:55:10 well in Geneva at the

16:55:11 WTO, it

16:55:12 started undermining

16:55:13 the WTO and

16:55:14 the dispute

16:55:15 settlement

16:55:15 body.

16:55:16 We are not the

16:55:17 shining city on the hill

16:55:19 when it comes

to international

16:55:21 rule of law.

16:55:22 In fact, we have become a

16:55:24 rogue country.

16:55:25 And if anybody wants

to tell me that the

16:55:29 U.S.

16:55:29 is a model for

international rule of

16:55:32 law, then I have to say

I am sorry, it is not a

16:55:36 good model, at least

not until recently.

16:55:39 There are things that

Biden can actually do

16:55:42 without a Senate

majority.

16:55:43 We are changing -- I

think we're in the

16:55:46 middle of it -- the

migrant protection

16:55:49 protocols on our

southern border.

16:55:50 The Biden Administration

16:55:51 has currently suspended

these while it

16:55:53 is reviewing how

we can recognize

16:55:56 interact with

the immigration

16:55:57 crisis on our

16:55:58 southern

16:55:58 border.

16:55:59 We

16:56:00 have to

16:56:01 finally shut

16:56:02 down the

16:56:03 abomination

16:56:03 in Guantanamo

16:56:04 Bay.

16:56:04 If you don't believe

16:56:06 me, watch

16:56:06 that movie,

16:56:07 "the

16:56:08 Mauritanian,"

16:56:08 that I

16:56:09 mentioned of

16:56:10 this man who

16:56:11 got caught in

16:56:12 this prison

16:56:13 and was --

16:56:14 had spent 14

16:56:15 years there

16:56:16 without any

16:56:17 accusation,

16:56:17 any case

16:56:18 being officially

16:56:18 brought

16:56:19 against him.

16:56:20 And he is not

16:56:21 the only

16:56:22 example.

16:56:23 How about

16:56:24 instead doing

16:56:24 a Marshall

16:56:25 Plan for Central

16:56:26 America, instead of a

16:56:28 war on drugs?

16:56:29 Building up these

16:56:30 countries and

16:56:30 creating real

16:56:32 jobs as

16:56:32 alternatives

16:56:33 for people

16:56:34 who are now

16:56:35 seeing little

16:56:36 hope for

16:56:37 themselves or

16:56:37 feeding their

16:56:39 families and

16:56:39 surviving and

16:56:40 having a

16:56:42 chance at a

16:56:43 decent life

16:56:43 than by

16:56:44 giving in to

16:56:45 the drug Lords

and participating

16:56:47 in the

16:56:48 smuggling of

16:56:48 these drug s

16:56:50 into the United

16:56:51 States.

16:56:52 We have not even

16:56:53 seriously explored

these kind of

16:56:55 options, and we do not

16:56:57 need a two-thirds

16:56:58 majority in the Senate

16:56:59 for a new

16:57:00 approach to

16:57:02 this problem.

16:57:02 But also

16:57:03 mundane

16:57:03 things like appointing

16:57:04 the professionals

16:57:05 we need in

16:57:06 our state department,

16:57:08 embassy s and


16:57:09 organizations.

16:57:11 Trump simply did

16:57:12 not care about these,

16:57:13 and many of these

16:57:15 positions were left

16:57:16 unfilled in

16:57:16 the last four

16:57:17 years, and the U.S.

16:57:19 has lost a lot

of influence, a

16:57:22 lot of standing,

a lot of

16:57:24 opportunities around

the world for

16:57:25 that very reason.

16:57:26 What do we

16:57:28 need to do in

16:57:29 the world?

16:57:30 We need

16:57:31 intelligent,

16:57:31 compassionate

16:57:32 and moral

16:57:33 leadership more

16:57:34 than anything.

16:57:34 With a commitment to


16:57:36 of all human

16:57:38 beings.

16:57:38 We

16:57:40 need a

16:57:40 commitment to

16:57:41 a rule of law

16:57:42 in international

relations.

16:57:43 And if the United

16:57:45 States is not providing

16:57:46 this kind of leadership,

16:57:48 we leave the field wide

16:57:49 open for

16:57:50 others to become the

16:57:51 thought leaders and

16:57:52 the action

16:57:53 leaders.

16:57:54 Unfortunately,

16:57:55 many of those

16:57:56 who would are

not the kind

16:57:58 of leaders

16:58:00 that anyone

16:58:00 should follow.

16:58:01 Thank you very much.

16:58:03 I look forward

to your comments

16:58:07 and

16:58:13 questions.

16:58:14

16:58:14 >> Frank

16:58:16 Sullivan:

16:58:16 Professor

16:58:17 Emmert, thank

16:58:18 you very

16:58:18 much.

16:58:19 We are

16:58:20 very grateful to

16:58:22 you for your

16:58:23 comprehensive

look at some

16:58:25 of the many

16:58:26 issues facing

16:58:28 our new

16:58:29 national

16:58:30 administration

16:58:32 .

16:58:33 I might say, before we

16:58:34 get to the questions --

16:58:36 and they are

16:58:37 accumulating

16:58:39 in the queue

16:58:40 -- that a

16:58:41 student of

16:58:42 ours at the

16:58:45 law school is

16:58:46 writing a

16:58:48 paper this

16:58:48 semester on

16:58:49 another of

16:58:52 the kinds of

16:58:53 treaties that

you were talking

16:58:55 about.

16:58:56 This is called the

convention on

16:58:58 persons with

16:58:59 disabilities.

16:59:01 And this is a

16:59:02 treaty that is really

16:59:03 quite ironic

16:59:04 in the sense

16:59:05 that it is

16:59:06 modelled on

the Americans

16:59:08 with Disabilities

16:59:10 Act.

16:59:11 And yet the United

States Senate

16:59:14 has not found

16:59:15 it possible

16:59:16 to ratify it.

16:59:17 It has come

16:59:18 up for a

16:59:19 ratification

16:59:21 vote on one

16:59:22 occasion,

16:59:22 I've learned

16:59:23 from this

16:59:24 student's

16:59:24 paper, and

16:59:25 although it

16:59:26 received a

16:59:26 strong

16:59:27 majority, it

16:59:28 fell short of

16:59:29 the

16:59:29 two-thirds.

16:59:30 It had

16:59:32 unanimous

16:59:32 democratic

16:59:33 support, and

16:59:34 the support

16:59:34 of a number

16:59:36 of Republican

16:59:36 Senators

16:59:37 including our

16:59:38 former very

16:59:38 distinguished Senator,

16:59:41 Senator Richard

16:59:42 Lugar, but

16:59:42 not quite

16:59:44 enough.

16:59:44 So this might be

16:59:46 another

16:59:46 treaty to add

16:59:47 to the list

16:59:48 of things

16:59:49 that the

16:59:50 Biden


16:59:52 and the new

16:59:53 Senate

16:59:53 foreign

16:59:54 relations

16:59:55 committee under

16:59:55 the chairmanship

16:59:57 of Senator

16:59:58 Menendez

16:59:58 might look

16:59:59 forward to.

17:00:01 I might say

17:00:02 in this regard,

before going

17:00:04 to the

17:00:04 questions, if

17:00:05 you'll permit

17:00:06 me, that I

17:00:07 think one of

17:00:08 the key

17:00:09 players in

17:00:10 this drama

17:00:11 over the next

17:00:12 few years

17:00:13 will be a

17:00:15 graduate of

17:00:16 our law

17:00:17 school, our

17:00:18 senior United

17:00:19 States

17:00:21 Senator, Todd

17:00:21 Young, who as

17:00:22 a member of

17:00:23 the Senate foreign

relations

17:00:25 committee on

17:00:26 a number of

17:00:27 occasions,

17:00:28 most notably

17:00:30 the war in

17:00:31 Yemen broke with the

17:00:34 Trump


17:00:36 and stood for

17:00:37 an independent

17:00:38 voice among

17:00:39 Republicans

17:00:39 in respect of

17:00:42 American

17:00:42 foreign

17:00:44 policy, and

17:00:44 it seemed to

17:00:45 me at least,

17:00:46 that perhaps he's

following in

17:00:48 the footsteps

17:00:49 of Senator

17:00:50 Lugar as a


Republican Senator from

17:00:53 Indiana as a

member of the

17:00:55 Senate foreign relations

17:00:56 committee.

17:00:56 Thank you again for

17:00:58 your remarks.

17:01:03 Let's go to

17:01:04 the chat.

17:01:05 Or the questions

17:01:06 and answers.

17:01:07 And the first

17:01:09 question that we

17:01:11 have is how do

17:01:12 you see the

17:01:13 Biden Administration

17:01:14 handling the

17:01:15 Iran nuclear

17:01:16 deal coming

17:01:17 up?

17:01:17 What

17:01:18 should the


17:01:19 do different

17:01:20 from the

17:01:23 previous two


17:01:24 s?

17:01:25 >> Frank

17:01:26 Emmert: Yeah.

17:01:26 I think that

17:01:28 Iran is a

17:01:29 very intricate

17:01:30 problem.

17:01:31 I had the

17:01:32 privilege of

17:01:33 traveling to

17:01:35 Iran a couple

17:01:36 of years ago,

17:01:37 and I had a couple of

17:01:39 very, very interesting

experiences

17:01:40 that have

17:01:41 really shaped

17:01:42 my opinion

17:01:42 considerably about this

17:01:43 country,

17:01:44 including the

17:01:45 fact when I

17:01:47 was returning

17:01:48 and landing

17:01:49 at New York,

17:01:50 the

17:01:50 immigration

17:01:51 officer saw

17:01:51 from the

17:01:52 forms that I

17:01:53 had filled in that I had

17:01:55 been to Iran.

17:01:57 And he started sort

17:01:58 of pumping himself up

17:02:00 and basically

getting ready

17:02:01 to arrest me

17:02:02 and asked me what I was

17:02:04 doing there.

17:02:05 And my answer was, well,

I was doing human rights

17:02:09 training for the state

department, at which

17:02:11 point, oh, yeah.

17:02:12 Thank you for

your service.

17:02:14 And please proceed.

17:02:16 And indeed, I had the

opportunity to visit a

17:02:19 couple of universities

there, but also speak

17:02:21 with a number of

officials, and I met

17:02:24 several of the leading

clerics.

17:02:26 Eye toll --

17:02:27 Ayatollahs in

the country,

17:02:28 and I learned that the

17:02:30 country is very much

torn between hard-line

17:02:32 forces on the

17:02:34 one hand but

17:02:35 also conciliatory

17:02:35 forces on the

17:02:36 other.

17:02:37 The problem in

17:02:38 Iran is that we

17:02:40 have a

17:02:41 hard-liner in

17:02:42 charge,

17:02:43 Ayatollah

17:02:43 Khomeini, and we

17:02:45 have the

17:02:46 revolutionary

17:02:46 guards as the

17:02:47 elite force of

17:02:48 the Iranian

17:02:49 military, not

17:02:50 only supporting

17:02:50 that, but they

17:02:52 have a lot of

17:02:53 investments in the

17:02:54 economy, and they

17:02:55 are not about

17:02:57 to let go of

17:02:58 these very

17:02:59 lucrative

17:02:59 businesses

17:03:00 that they

17:03:01 control or

17:03:01 own.

17:03:02 So the situation

17:03:03 with Iran is

17:03:04 extremely

17:03:04 complicated.

17:03:05 We cannot

17:03:05 trust the

17:03:07 Iranian

17:03:08 leadership.

17:03:09 They will try

17:03:10 to hold on to

17:03:12 power by all

17:03:13 means.

17:03:14 But on the other

17:03:15 hand, if we box them

into a corner and

17:03:18 we basically say

we are not going to

17:03:21 talk to you, we are

sanctioning you on all

17:03:24 sides, we are repeating

the mistakes we have

17:03:27 been making for

decades in Cuba.

17:03:29 By isolating a country,

you are not engaging with

17:03:32 it, you are not giving

an opportunity

17:03:35 to interact on terms as

17:03:36 equals and strengthening

17:03:37 pro-democracy,

17:03:39 pro-internatio

17:03:40 nal relations

17:03:41 forces inside

17:03:41 Iran that very

17:03:43 much exist.

17:03:43 By cutting

17:03:44 off these contacts and

17:03:45 by just addressing

17:03:46 them as the

17:03:47 devil like they return

17:03:49 the favor to

17:03:50 us, of course, we

17:03:51 are only reinforcing

these

17:03:53 hard lines

17:03:53 that do

17:03:54 nothing to

17:03:55 promote

17:03:56 dialogue or

17:03:57 collaboration.

17:03:57 And what we

17:03:58 are ultimately

17:03:59 unable to do,

17:04:00 unless we

17:04:01 want to start

another world

17:04:02 war, is to

17:04:03 stop them from

developing

17:04:05 nuclear

17:04:05 weapons.

17:04:05 Because they

17:04:06 are seeing

17:04:08 this not only

17:04:09 as their

17:04:10 security policy

17:04:10 against, you

17:04:12 know,

17:04:13 potential

17:04:13 invasion of

17:04:14 war that is brought on

17:04:16 them by the west, but

17:04:18 they see it

17:04:19 also as

17:04:21 basically the

17:04:21 only opportunity they

17:04:22 have in being

17:04:24 taken

17:04:24 seriously on


17:04:25 plane.

17:04:26 And they are able to

17:04:28 source these materials,

17:04:30 and they are

17:04:31 running more

17:04:31 centrifuges

17:04:32 now and

17:04:32 enriching

17:04:33 more uranium

17:04:34 and so on

17:04:35 than they have

done ever before.

17:04:37 And I did a presentation

17:04:39 -- the title

was, you can

17:04:41 look it up on

my research

17:04:43 page side where I have

most of my publications

17:04:46 and presentations.

17:04:47 If you just Google Frank

Emmert Researchgate,

17:04:50 I made a presentation

year ago, why the U.S.

17:04:53 is losing the war

on terror, and

17:04:55 the conflict

17:04:56 with Iran.

17:04:57 And in that I

17:04:58 have outlineded

17:04:59 how Iran has

17:05:00 dispersed

17:05:00 these nuclear

17:05:01 installations

17:05:01 around the

17:05:02 country.

17:05:02 They're deep

17:05:03 underground.

17:05:04 They are

17:05:05 frequently

17:05:05 close to the

17:05:07 Persian Gulf.

17:05:07 So if we

17:05:08 would try to take out

17:05:10 these bases, we

17:05:11 would need

17:05:12 very powerful weapons

that would

17:05:13 pollute the entire

environment

17:05:15 and destroy the oil

17:05:16 industry, also in

Saudi Arabia and

17:05:18 the Emirates.

17:05:19 So they are

17:05:21 very smart at

developing this

17:05:22 infrastructure in a

way that we will not

17:05:25 be able to destroy it

17:05:27 like we destroyed

the nuclear

17:05:29 reactor that

17:05:29 Iraq built decades ago.

17:05:31 This is not an option.

17:05:33 What we have instead

is we have to engage

17:05:36 constructively

with them.

17:05:37 And this was actually

done in a way that I

17:05:41 thought was quite smart

when we had the Iran

17:05:44 nuclear deal in which

they promised, first of

17:05:47 all, to stop the

enrichment of nuclear

17:05:49 materials but also to

subject themselves to

17:05:52 inspections on that,

on that ground.

17:05:54 And the Trump

Administration never

17:05:56 brought a single good

17:05:57 claim or evidence that

there was actual

17:05:59 cheating

17:06:00 going on on a

17:06:01 worrisome

17:06:01 level by

17:06:02 Iran.

17:06:03 So what my view here

17:06:05 is simply we

have to talk

17:06:07 to them.

17:06:08 This confrontation

of not having

17:06:10 a conversation

17:06:10 of basically

17:06:11 shutting them

17:06:12 off only encourages

17:06:13 the

17:06:13 hard-liners

17:06:14 in Iran, and they

17:06:15 are getting

17:06:16 their

17:06:17 materials enriched

17:06:17 whether we

17:06:18 like it or

17:06:19 not.

17:06:20 We made progress a while

17:06:22 ago.

17:06:23 We took a lot of

enriched materials out of

17:06:26 the country.

17:06:27 They agreed to a

moratorium for years to

17:06:30 come.

17:06:30 And right now we are in

a situation where they

17:06:34 are pumping away and

enriching away, and we

17:06:37 have no communication

lines of any

17:06:39 constructive sort

with this country.


Thank you, Professor

17:06:43 Emmert.

17:06:43 And I think the

most recent

17:06:45 news reports

17:06:46 are that

17:06:47 perhaps the

17:06:47 Biden


17:06:49 will try to

17:06:50 soften the

17:06:51 tone a little bit

and maybe some

17:06:53 of the progress that

17:06:55 we all hope

17:06:57 for will be

17:06:58 possible.

17:06:59 Another question

is could you

17:07:01 comment on

17:07:01 the Abraham Accords,

17:07:03 which I take

17:07:04 to be the

17:07:05 joint statement of

17:07:06 the United States, the

17:07:09 UAE, and

17:07:10 Israel I

17:07:10 think subsequently

17:07:11 joined by

17:07:12 Bahrain back

17:07:13 in the early

17:07:14 autumn of

17:07:15 last year.

17:07:16

17:07:16 >> Frank

17:07:17 Emmert: Yeah.

17:07:18 We

17:07:20 have a bit of

17:07:22 an intricate problem

17:07:23 there, namely we

17:07:24 are -- I

17:07:25 think the United

17:07:26 States is currently

going down a

17:07:28 road like we

17:07:29 did with the

17:07:30 conflict in -- between

17:07:31 Israel and the

17:07:33 Palestinians.

17:07:35 The U.S.

17:07:36 originally in

17:07:37 that part of

17:07:38 the world was

trying to be

17:07:40 the honest broker

between the

17:07:42 two conflict parties.

17:07:43 And we have abandoned

that

17:07:45 position.

17:07:45 We have taken a

17:07:47 unilateral stance

in support of

17:07:49 Israel pretty

17:07:50 much no

17:07:51 matter what

17:07:51 Israel does,

we will stand

17:07:53 with Israel.

17:07:54 This has not helped.

17:07:56 And I think we are

-- we have started

17:07:59 going down the same

17:08:00 route by aligning

17:08:02 ourselves

17:08:02 unilaterally

17:08:03 with the

17:08:04 united Arab

17:08:05 Emirates, with Saudi

17:08:06 Arabia,

17:08:06 Bahrain and

17:08:07 others.

17:08:08 The Iranians have

17:08:09 not done themselves

17:08:10 any favors

17:08:11 there.

17:08:12 I was

17:08:13 actually --

17:08:13 when I was in

17:08:15 Tehran, I was invited to

17:08:17 the national

17:08:17 Library where they

17:08:18 are working

17:08:19 on the encyclopedia

17:08:20 of Islam.

17:08:21 It is modelled a

17:08:23 bit on the

17:08:24 encyclopedia

17:08:24 Britannica.

17:08:25 It will be a

17:08:28 much, much

17:08:28 greater

17:08:29 document at

17:08:29 the end,

17:08:30 hundreds of

17:08:31 volumes, and

17:08:33 I saw, and I

17:08:34 was told the world view

17:08:36 that is

17:08:37 communicated

17:08:38 in that

17:08:38 encyclopedia

17:08:39 is that both

17:08:40 sides of the

17:08:41 Persian Kuala Lumpur

gulf should

17:08:43 be Persian, and

that of course

17:08:45 includes the Emirates

and Bahrain and parts of

17:08:48 Saudi Arabia, so there's

definitely this kind of

17:08:51 an expansionist

streak based

17:08:52 on various

17:08:53 points in

17:08:54 history in

17:08:54 Iran and what we

17:08:56 are doing now

17:08:57 is doing

17:08:58 nothing to

17:08:58 reduce that.

17:08:59 So the United

17:09:00 States in my view should

17:09:02 take the position of

the honest broker.

17:09:04 This is how we achieve

more rather

17:09:07 than taking one

side here.

17:09:08 But I don't have

easy answers,

17:09:11 and I cannot claim that

I would know, for

17:09:14 example, how to end

the war in Yemen

17:09:17 in the best

possible way.

17:09:18 I just want to say one

thing, that what we have

17:09:22 been doing did not

work, and I think we

17:09:25 should rethink this and

work with our partners

17:09:28 around the world who are

democratic rule of

17:09:31 law-oriented states, be

they in Europe, Asia

17:09:33 or elsewhere.

17:09:34 I've said this so many

times to my students.

17:09:37 If the United States

and Europe and other

17:09:40 partners pull in the

same direction, we can

17:09:43 move the world.

17:09:45 If we pull in opposite

direction, we just

17:09:47 cancel each other out.

17:09:49 >> Frank Sullivan: The

next question is how

17:09:52 would you prioritize the

possible actions that

17:09:54 the Biden administration

can take without a

17:09:56 two-thirds Senate

majority?

17:09:57 What are the most urgent

issues among those that

17:10:00 you discuss in your

presentation?

17:10:02 >> Frank Emmert: Yeah.

17:10:03 Where do I begin

17:10:05 ?

17:10:05 [ Laughter

17:10:08 ] I think

17:10:09 what the Biden

Administration

17:10:10 needs to do first and

17:10:12 foremost is

17:10:12 to rebuild

17:10:13 trust.

17:10:14 Trust -- first that

17:10:15 the United States is

17:10:16 committed to rule of law

17:10:18 and human rights in


17:10:21 relations.

17:10:22 Second, that

17:10:23 it will honor

17:10:24 its treaties

17:10:24 and obligations,

17:10:25 right?

17:10:26 That is part of


17:10:29 but we have seen a time

17:10:30 in our history in

17:10:32 recent years

17:10:33 where the administration

17:10:34 was pursuing

17:10:35 politics over

17:10:36 law.

17:10:36 Whatever

17:10:38 seemed

17:10:38 expedient,

17:10:39 politically

17:10:39 expedient in

17:10:40 the moment,

17:10:42 was

17:10:43 prioritized rather

17:10:44 than

17:10:44 following

17:10:44 commitments

17:10:45 and legal

17:10:45 rules and

17:10:46 obligations

17:10:46 that the

17:10:48 country had

17:10:49 undertaken

17:10:49 during

17:10:50 earlier

17:10:51 times.

17:10:52 So we

17:10:52 need to see

17:10:53 how can the United

17:10:55 States, first

17:10:56 of all,

17:10:57 regain the

17:10:57 trust of its

17:10:59 partners?

17:10:59 Because what we all have

17:11:01 to understand,

the United

17:11:02 States is by

far the most

17:11:04 powerful military in

17:11:06 the world.

17:11:07 The United States

is, in many ways,

17:11:09 the most powerful

economy, because the

17:11:11 European Union

theoretically, if they

17:11:13 would speak as one

voice, they would be

17:11:16 equally strong, maybe

stronger in economic

17:11:18 terms, but the Europeans

are also struggling to

17:11:21 agree on things amongst

themselves.

17:11:22 And if they talk

different voices, it

17:11:25 just becomes a talk

shop, and then they

17:11:28 are ineffective just

like at the United

17:11:30 Nations and elsewhere.

17:11:31 So the United States,

whether it

17:11:34 likes it or

17:11:35 not, is giving the

17:11:36 lead and the

example in so

17:11:38 many ways.

17:11:39 So really

17:11:40 committing to

17:11:41 the treaties

17:11:42 that we have

17:11:43 ratified and declaring

17:11:44 this publicly

17:11:45 that the United

17:11:46 States will

17:11:47 honor its

17:11:47 commitments I

17:11:48 think would

17:11:49 be a good

17:11:50 start.

17:11:50 And then we have

17:11:52 to see how we

17:11:53 can work together with

17:11:55 partners because

the world has

17:11:57 become

17:11:57 multipolar.

17:11:58 Yes, the United

17:12:00 States is the

17:12:01 single most important

nation and

17:12:02 the single most

17:12:03 important

17:12:04 moving factor

17:12:04 in international

17:12:05 law and relations,

17:12:06 but it is not

17:12:08 the only one.

17:12:09 And whenever the United

17:12:10 States is not working

17:12:11 together with

17:12:12 like-minded

17:12:13 democratic

17:12:13 countries

17:12:14 that also

17:12:14 honor and

17:12:15 follow the

17:12:16 rule of law, it

17:12:17 is weakens.

17:12:18 It achieves

17:12:19 less.

17:12:19 And we are opening

17:12:21 the playing

17:12:22 field for

17:12:22 autocratic

17:12:23 regimes, and

17:12:24 unfortunately we

17:12:25 have many of

17:12:26 those around.

17:12:27 We have a populist in

17:12:28 Brazil.

17:12:29 We have an autocrat

in Russia.

17:12:31 We now have an

autocrat in

17:12:33 China.

17:12:34 China has a tradition

of honoring its


commitments that is no

17:12:38 longer taken for granted

17:12:40 these days.

17:12:41 So we have,

17:12:42 by these difficult

17:12:43 times during

17:12:44 the Trump


17:12:45 when the United

17:12:46 States openly

17:12:47 flouted its


17:12:49 obligations, they

17:12:49 have

17:12:51 benefited.

17:12:51 They

17:12:52 have added to

17:12:53 the

17:12:53 opportunities

17:12:54 and to the

17:12:55 emboldened,

17:12:56 you know,

17:12:56 these other

17:12:57 leaders and

17:12:58 countries

17:12:58 like Russia

17:12:59 and China and

17:13:00 Brazil and

17:13:01 many others,

17:13:01 sh and we need to

17:13:03 return to a different

approach, and

17:13:05 we need to discourage

17:13:07 this kind of

action on the

17:13:09 international playing

field where the law

17:13:11 is no longer the guiding

17:13:13 light and

17:13:13 force.

17:13:14 So I think we have

17:13:16 to basically analyze our

17:13:17 existing commitments

and assure

17:13:19 our allies

17:13:19 and everyone

17:13:20 else around

17:13:21 the world


17:13:23 recommitting

17:13:23 these.

17:13:24 And only then does

17:13:25 it make sense

to go out and

17:13:27 look, well, what

else should we

17:13:29 commit to?

17:13:31 What else should we put

17:13:32 in place?

17:13:33 Because if we do

not honor the

17:13:36 existing commitments,

why should anyone else

17:13:38 believe us that

we are going to

17:13:40 honor any new

commitments that we are

17:13:43 subscribing

17:13:48 to?

17:13:48 I cannot hear you

17:13:50 right now.


I'm sorry.

17:13:53 This next question

17:13:54 is on a somewhat

17:13:55 different

17:13:55 theme.

17:13:56 It starts by

17:13:57 asking what

17:13:58 are the

17:13:59 prospects for

17:14:02 holding


17:14:05 corporations

17:14:05 accountable

17:14:07 for their

17:14:08 transgressions

17:14:08 abroad?

17:14:09 But then the

17:14:10 question goes

17:14:11 on to call

17:14:13 attention to

17:14:13 the dispute

17:14:14 between

17:14:18 Ecuador and

17:14:19 Chevron for

17:14:22 oil

17:14:23 contamination

17:14:23 there where

17:14:26 if I recall

17:14:27 correctly, a

17:14:27 decision of

17:14:29 the Ecuador

17:14:31 courts in

17:14:33 favor of the

17:14:34 plaintiffs

17:14:36 was

17:14:38 overturned by

17:14:38 the


17:14:39 -- an


17:14:40 tribunal in

17:14:41 the Hague as having

17:14:43 been procured

17:14:44 by fraud.

17:14:45 It

17:14:45 seems like a

17:14:47 real rat's

17:14:48 nest.

17:14:49 >>

17:14:51 Frank Emmert:

17:14:52 Yeah.

17:14:53 So we

17:14:54 have an


17:14:57 framework for


17:14:58 corporations.

17:14:59 And I would

17:15:01 like to look

17:15:02 at it in two

17:15:03 different

17:15:04 ways.

17:15:05 The

17:15:05 first one --

17:15:06 (phone

17:15:07 ringing) one

17:15:08 second.

17:15:09 Sorry.

17:15:09 The

17:15:12 first one is


17:15:14 many -- fortunately

17:15:15 many multinational


17:15:16 nowadays who

17:15:18 are

17:15:20 increasingly

17:15:22 taking their

17:15:23 commitments

17:15:23 under

17:15:24 corporate

17:15:25 social

17:15:25 responsibility

17:15:25 under



17:15:27 even, you

17:15:28 know, in the

direction of

17:15:29 protecting

17:15:30 the climate

17:15:31 around the

17:15:31 world very

17:15:32 seriously.

17:15:32 So there's a

17:15:34 lot of good

17:15:35 things happening,


17:15:37 to

17:15:38 acknowledge

17:15:39 that as well.

17:15:40 At the same

17:15:41 time, we have

17:15:42 a very poor

17:15:43 regulatory

17:15:44 regime for



17:15:46 around the

17:15:48 world.

17:15:48 So essentially

17:15:49 the regulatory,

17:15:50 the legal

17:15:51 regime says, you

17:15:52 are regulated

17:15:53 by your home

17:15:55 country for

17:15:55 everything

17:15:56 you do, and

17:15:57 then you are

17:15:58 regulated by

17:15:58 the host

17:15:59 country just

17:16:00 for the local

17:16:01 activities.

17:16:02 This is the

17:16:03 traditional

approach that


17:16:05 law is taking

17:16:06 to activities

17:16:07 of


17:16:08 corporations,

17:16:10 and then it

17:16:11 comes unfortunate, for

17:16:13 example, that

17:16:13 the United States has

17:16:15 strong antitrust

17:16:15 rules domestically

17:16:16 but has

17:16:17 declared that

17:16:17 they do not

17:16:19 apply to what

17:16:20 these enterprises

17:16:20 do abroad.

17:16:21 So, for example,

17:16:22 price fixing

17:16:23 in the United States

17:16:24 markets is illegal and

17:16:26 will be

17:16:26 punished.

17:16:27 Whereas if

17:16:27 American enterprises

17:16:28 fix their

17:16:29 prices in

17:16:30 other

17:16:30 markets, that

17:16:31 is not of

17:16:32 interest to

17:16:32 the American

17:16:33 regulators, which

17:16:34 is surprising

17:16:35 and which is

17:16:36 not good because, of

17:16:37 course, it's

17:16:38 almost an invitation

17:16:40 for American

17:16:41 enterprises

17:16:42 to do abroad,

17:16:43 sort the idea of what

17:16:45 happens in Vegas stays

in Vegas as long

17:16:48 as it's not happening

inside the United

17:16:50 States, it's all good.

17:16:52 And then the question is

what can these foreign

17:16:55 countries now

do to regulate

17:16:57 American -- or

international

17:16:58 enterprises?

17:16:59 These are, of

course, also

17:17:01 European and others

with their activities in

17:17:03 a country like Ecuador?

17:17:05 And the answer is

theoretically they

17:17:07 have full sovereignty.

17:17:08 They can allow and

prohibit whatever they

17:17:11 want.

17:17:11 However, at the same

time, many of these

17:17:14 countries have

signed investment

17:17:17 treaties with

17:17:17 the United

17:17:18 States and

17:17:19 lateral or

17:17:19 unilateral

17:17:20 treaties, and

17:17:21 these

17:17:22 treaties have

17:17:22 evolved in a

17:17:23 way that a lot of the

17:17:25 older treaties

17:17:26 basically

17:17:27 protect the

17:17:28 investment of


17:17:29 companies

17:17:31 against any kind

17:17:32 of interference

17:17:32 in the host

17:17:33 countries,

17:17:34 including

17:17:34 sensible,

17:17:35 social or

17:17:36 environmental

17:17:37 regulations, for

17:17:38 example.

17:17:38 And the

17:17:39 truth is we

17:17:41 do need investment

17:17:42 protection treaties

17:17:42 because if we

17:17:43 don't have

17:17:45 those, we

17:17:46 will see

17:17:47 ex-appropriations

17:17:47 of foreign

17:17:48 companies.

17:17:48 We will see

17:17:49 all kinds of

interference

17:17:50 with foreign

companies that

17:17:52 is

17:17:52 unjustified,

17:17:52 simply

17:17:53 because, for

17:17:55 example, the

17:17:56 local regime

17:17:56 wants to have

17:17:57 a bigger

17:17:58 share of the

profits or does

17:18:00 not agree

17:18:01 with some of

17:18:02 the politics

17:18:02 of an international

17:18:04 investor.

17:18:04 When we look

17:18:05 at international

investment,

17:18:06 it's often a long-term

17:18:08 strategy, right?

17:18:09 We want to

17:18:10 encourage investment

that

17:18:11 is strategic, that

17:18:12 is not

17:18:12 hit-and-run kind

17:18:13 of investment for quick

17:18:15 profits.

17:18:15 And so these

17:18:16 corporations, when

they develop

17:18:18 natural resources or

17:18:19 they develop

17:18:20 any kind of

17:18:21 business in a

17:18:22 less-developed

17:18:22 nation, we

17:18:23 want them to

17:18:24 be there for

17:18:25 the long

17:18:26 term, to

17:18:27 educate the

17:18:28 workforce, to

17:18:29 invest in infrastructure

17:18:30 and other kind

17:18:31 of production

17:18:33 and service

17:18:34 facilities.

17:18:34 And to do

17:18:35 that, we need to provide

17:18:37 them with a measure

of legal

17:18:39 certainty.

17:18:40 That they will not

randomly be ex

17:18:42 appropriated because

the government

17:18:44 has changed and its

17:18:45 opinion has

17:18:46 changed about

17:18:46 American or

international

17:18:47 involvement,

17:18:48 or if they

17:18:49 are not otherwise in

17:18:51 compliance with, you

17:18:52 know, various more or

17:18:53 less arbitrary

rules, they

17:18:55 will be

17:18:55 restricted or

17:18:56 worse.

17:18:57 But we

17:18:58 have to find

17:18:59 a better

17:18:59 balance.

17:19:00 And there are

17:19:01 various proposals on

17:19:02 the table, for

17:19:03 example, the European

17:19:04 union is now

17:19:05 putting its

17:19:08 money on an

17:19:09 international investment

17:19:10 court.

17:19:10 They

17:19:11 want to build

17:19:12 a court that

17:19:13 would hear

17:19:14 those kind of

17:19:15 cases as the

17:19:16 final

17:19:16 instance and hopefully

17:19:17 provide a

17:19:18 better balance

17:19:19 between the

17:19:19 rights of an

17:19:20 investor and

17:19:21 the rights of

17:19:22 the host country to

17:19:24 regulate that

investment.

17:19:25 The

17:19:25 traditional

17:19:25 approach,

17:19:27 however, is


17:19:28 commercial

17:19:29 arbitration,

17:19:29 and this

17:19:30 happens, for

17:19:32 example, in

17:19:33 Washington at

17:19:34 the


17:19:35 center for

17:19:36 settlement of

17:19:36 investment

17:19:37 disputes, but

17:19:37 also at the

17:19:38 ICC, the


17:19:40 chamber of

17:19:41 commerce, and

17:19:42 other

17:19:43 providers of

17:19:43 investment

17:19:44 dispute

17:19:45 settlement

17:19:45 procedures.

17:19:46 In these

17:19:47 procedures,

17:19:48 however, the



17:19:51 are usually

17:19:52 faring better

17:19:53 because they

17:19:54 are more

17:19:55 savvy.

17:19:55 They are -- they

are bringing

17:19:57 their cases more

eloquently.

17:19:59 And often the

17:20:00 arbitrators are bound --

17:20:01 their hands

17:20:02 are bound by

17:20:03 the language of these

17:20:04 bilateral and

multilateral

17:20:05 investment treaties.

17:20:06 Now, it's

17:20:07 interesting that you

17:20:08 should bring

17:20:09 this up today

17:20:10 because I

17:20:10 have actually

17:20:12 launched a

17:20:12 research

17:20:13 group with a

17:20:14 couple of colleagues

17:20:15 and friends

17:20:16 around the

17:20:16 world.

17:20:17 We

17:20:17 will produce

17:20:18 a study

17:20:19 probably as a

17:20:20 book project

17:20:22 on reforming


17:20:24 investment

17:20:25 protection

17:20:25 system.

17:20:26 And

17:20:26 my chapter in

17:20:29 this

17:20:30 forthcoming

17:20:30 publication

17:20:31 will be a

17:20:32 model for a

17:20:33 fifth-generati

17:20:34 on bilateral

17:20:35 investment

17:20:35 treaty,

17:20:36 trying to

17:20:37 strike a

17:20:37 better

17:20:38 balance, and I

17:20:39 would be very

17:20:40 happy if someone in

17:20:41 the audience

17:20:42 is seriously

17:20:43 interested, I

17:20:44 can connect

17:20:45 you with -- we

17:20:46 have regular

17:20:47 meetings with

17:20:48 this group,

17:20:48 and you could

17:20:49 follow our

17:20:50 work and

17:20:51 maybe even

17:20:52 give an input

17:20:53 in the sense

17:20:54 of asking good

17:20:55 questions or

making comments

17:20:56 about what is happening

here with

17:20:58 this research group.


Professor

17:21:01 Emmert, I'm afraid

we're going to have

17:21:03 to keep it there,

stop there, but

17:21:06 your most recent project

17:21:07 sounds most interesting.

17:21:08 And I know

17:21:09 that you

17:21:10 would welcome

17:21:11 email or

17:21:12 other communication

17:21:13 from members

17:21:13 of our

17:21:14 audience who would be

17:21:15 interested in

17:21:16 it.

17:21:17 >>

17:21:17 Frank Emmert:

17:21:18 Absolutely.

17:21:18 Sorry, email

17:21:19 is always

17:21:20 best to reach

17:21:21 me.

17:21:21 Excuse me.

17:21:22 >> Frank Sullivan: At

17:21:24 this point we

17:21:25 will take another short

17:21:28 break, and we

17:21:29 will return

17:21:31 at 5:25

17:21:32 Indianapolis

17:21:33 time to hear

17:21:34 from Justice Kirby.

17:21:35 Thank

17:21:39 you alm.

17:25:06 l.

17:25:11 .

17:25:12 >> Frank

17:25:13 Sullivan: Welcome

17:25:14 back.

17:25:15 It's

17:25:16 now my great

17:25:17 honor to

17:25:18 introduce the

17:25:19 honorable

17:25:22 Michael

17:25:22 Kirby.

17:25:23 And

17:25:25 don't forget

17:25:26 the justice

17:25:27 bit, a

17:25:28 wonderful documentary

17:25:28 on the life

17:25:30 of our next

17:25:31 speaker that

17:25:31 is readily

17:25:33 available on

17:25:34 the web, a

17:25:35 leading

17:25:35 Australian

17:25:36 lawyer says

17:25:37 that even

17:25:38 early on in

17:25:39 Michael

17:25:40 Kirby's

17:25:40 professional

17:25:42 career, he

17:25:43 was the

17:25:47 Atticus Finch

17:25:48 of new South

17:25:49 Wales civil

17:25:50 liberties.

17:25:52 Now, Kirby

17:25:52 retired from

17:25:54 his great

17:25:54 nation's

17:25:55 court of last

17:25:56 resort, the

17:25:57 high court of

17:25:58 Australia in

17:26:00 2009, on

17:26:00 which he had

17:26:01 served from

17:26:04 1996.

17:26:05 His record there

17:26:06 where he was often

17:26:07 referred to as the great

17:26:09 dissenter places him in

17:26:10 the Pantheon

17:26:11 of legal

17:26:12 greats in not

17:26:13 only

17:26:14 Australia but

17:26:15 the

17:26:17 English-speaking

17:26:17 world.

17:26:18 But it's perhaps

17:26:21 the Atticus

17:26:22 Finch

17:26:23 incident

17:26:24 pressaged,

17:26:24 his service

17:26:25 there was

17:26:26 probably not

17:26:26 much more

17:26:27 than a tangent to

17:26:29 the arc of a

17:26:30 most

17:26:30 remarkable

17:26:31 career.

17:26:31 He

17:26:32 was a member

17:26:34 of the World Health

17:26:35 Organization's

17:26:35 inaugural

17:26:36 Global

17:26:38 Commission on

17:26:38 AIDS, for

17:26:39 example, and

17:26:40 has held many

17:26:41 formal and ad

17:26:42 hoc

17:26:43 leadership

17:26:43 positions

17:26:43 addressing

17:26:48 the HIV/AIDS

17:26:48 pandemic and

17:26:49 health as a

17:26:50 human right.

17:26:52 He is well

17:26:53 known as a

17:26:54 gay man who has

17:26:56 been an

17:26:57 outspoken advocate of

17:26:59 LGBTQ rights

17:26:59 around the

17:27:00 world,

17:27:01 including

17:27:01 critiquing

17:27:03 the attitude

17:27:04 of certain

17:27:06 organized

17:27:06 religions

17:27:08 toward LGBTQ

17:27:09 rights.

17:27:09 Indeed, there

17:27:11 is a striking

17:27:12 photograph on

17:27:13 the web of

17:27:14 him

17:27:14 addressing

17:27:15 the cardinal

17:27:16 secretary of

17:27:17 the state of

17:27:18 the Vatican

17:27:20 on this very

17:27:22 issue in

17:27:23 2019.

17:27:24 And

17:27:24 he's been a

17:27:25 great friend

17:27:26 of our

17:27:27 university.

17:27:27 He has served

17:27:30 on the board

17:27:32 of the Kinsey

17:27:33 Institute.

17:27:33 He has

17:27:34 lectured at

17:27:35 IU on multiple

17:27:36 occasions,

17:27:37 including one

17:27:38 memorable

17:27:39 talk in 2004

17:27:40 in

17:27:41 Bloomington

17:27:43 on the


response of

17:27:45 courts to terrorism,

17:27:46 perhaps the

17:27:47 finest

17:27:48 lecture I

17:27:49 have ever

17:27:49 heard.

17:27:50 Ladies and

17:27:51 gentlemen, I

17:27:52 know you share the

17:27:53 sense of

17:27:54 honor I feel


17:27:57 with us today

17:27:58 a great

17:27:58 citizen of

17:27:59 the world,

17:28:00 the Honorable

17:28:05 Michael

17:28:09 Kirby.

17:28:09 >> Justice

17:28:10 Kirby: Thank you very

17:28:12 much, Frank,

17:28:14 for that

17:28:15 excessive introduction.

17:28:15 I'm getting

17:28:16 used to that

17:28:17 from you, and

17:28:19 it's always a

17:28:20 delight.

17:28:20 I had a judicial

17:28:22 colleague

17:28:23 once who said

17:28:24 when somebody says

17:28:25 flattering

17:28:26 things about

17:28:28 a judge, they

17:28:29 never say

17:28:30 "stop, stop, I don't

17:28:31 want it."

17:28:32 They always

17:28:33 encourage

17:28:33 even more.

17:28:34 I'm very

17:28:35 proud to be

17:28:36 involved in

17:28:37 this webinar,

17:28:39 and I

17:28:40 congratulate

17:28:41 the two

17:28:42 excellent

17:28:42 speakers who

17:28:45 have spoken

17:28:47 earlier,


17:28:50 with his very


17:28:52 story from

17:28:53 his own life,

17:28:54 which had

17:28:55 resonances of

17:28:58 my own, and

17:29:00 Professor

17:29:02 Emmert for

17:29:03 his wonderful

17:29:04 and often

17:29:05 passionate

17:29:06 remarks about

17:29:07 the United

17:29:08 States of

17:29:09 America and

17:29:10 multilateralis

17:29:12 m and


17:29:14 law and

17:29:16 institutions.

17:29:16 Today, the

17:29:19 25th of

17:29:20 February, in

17:29:23 1988, 33 years

17:29:26 ago, I was in

17:29:28 bangalore,

17:29:29 India, at a

17:29:31 very interesting

17:29:31 conference of

17:29:32 judges, most

17:29:33 of them from

17:29:35 Commonwealth

17:29:35 countries,

17:29:35 but there

17:29:36 were two

17:29:37 judges who

17:29:39 were not on

17:29:40 final courts.

17:29:41 One of them was

17:29:42 myself.

17:29:43 I was then the

President of

17:29:45 the court of

17:29:46 appeals of

17:29:48 New South

17:29:48 Wales,

17:29:49 Australia, which

17:29:50 is the

17:29:51 busiest

17:29:51 appeal court

17:29:54 in the

17:29:54 Australian nation but

17:29:56 not a final

17:29:58 court.

17:29:59 And

17:30:00 the other was

17:30:01 a young judge

17:30:02 from

17:30:03 Washington,

17:30:04 D.C., Ruth

17:30:05 Bader

17:30:05 Ginsburg.

17:30:08 And she was a

17:30:10 judge of the

17:30:12 D.C.

17:30:12 circuit, the appeal

17:30:13 courts in the federal

17:30:15 system.

17:30:15 And

17:30:16 we formed a

17:30:17 close

17:30:17 friendship.

17:30:18 The Bangalore

17:30:19 meeting was

17:30:20 actually

17:30:22 about the


17:30:24 application

17:30:24 by municipal

17:30:26 judges,

17:30:26 domestic

17:30:27 national

17:30:28 judges, of



17:30:32 norms as

17:30:34 contextual

17:30:35 matters in

17:30:36 the course of

17:30:37 deciding

17:30:37 cases in

17:30:40 their own

17:30:40 jurisdictions.

17:30:42 And that was

17:30:43 something

17:30:44 which Ruth

17:30:47 and I put our

17:30:48 signatures

17:30:49 to.

17:30:49 We supported it

17:30:50 and, in fact,

17:30:51 it had a number

17:30:53 of supporters

17:30:54 on the United

17:30:55 States Supreme Court.

17:30:56 But it had a lot

17:30:58 of -- a number

of justices

17:31:00 of that


17:31:01 court who

17:31:02 thought it

17:31:03 was complete

17:31:05 heresy, and

17:31:06 the leader of

17:31:07 that brigade

17:31:08 was my old

17:31:09 friend

17:31:10 Justice

17:31:10 Scalia.

17:31:11 Often when he

17:31:12 came to

17:31:15 Australia, we would

17:31:16 have sellout

17:31:17 debates because he

17:31:18 took a view

17:31:19 that anything

17:31:19 that happened

17:31:20 outside the United

States, you

17:31:22 could completely ignore,

17:31:23 whereas the

17:31:24 Bangalore

17:31:25 principles

17:31:25 urged every

17:31:26 judge to move

17:31:27 with the

17:31:28 times of the

17:31:31 Boeing 707s

17:31:32 and the great

17:31:33 developments

17:31:33 of the world

17:31:35 that have

17:31:36 occurred, and

17:31:37 that became a

17:31:38 very controversial

17:31:39 thing in my

17:31:41 own court in

17:31:42 Australia.

17:31:43 So it's

17:31:43 something

17:31:44 upon which at

17:31:45 least in

17:31:47 Australia and

17:31:48 the United States there

17:31:49 are still people who

17:31:51 think it a

17:31:52 heresy.

17:31:52 But, of course, in

17:31:54 most countries of

17:31:55 Europe and in

17:31:56 many

17:31:56 countries of

17:31:57 the world,

17:31:58 living in the

17:31:59 world of

17:32:00 internationalism

17:32:01 and in the

17:32:02 world of


17:32:04 problems like

17:32:05 COVID-19,

17:32:05 we've got to

17:32:06 live and work

17:32:08 together, and

17:32:10 that involves

17:32:11 taking, as a

17:32:12 contextual

17:32:12 matter, the

17:32:13 developments

17:32:14 of


17:32:15 law.

17:32:17 But my


17:32:20 to this

17:32:21 webinar today

17:32:22 falls

17:32:24 somewhere

17:32:25 between the

17:32:26 particular excellent


17:32:29 by Justice

17:32:30 David about

17:32:33 his inspiring

17:32:34 story as a

17:32:36 young

17:32:37 American

17:32:38 military

17:32:38 person who

17:32:41 was assigned

17:32:43 the task to

17:32:44 represent

17:32:45 people who

17:32:45 were charged

17:32:46 and in

17:32:47 detention in

17:32:49 Guantanamo

17:32:50 Bay.

17:32:50 And we

17:32:51 in Australia

17:32:52 in the course

17:32:53 of deciding

17:32:58 many refugee

17:33:00 cases off the

17:33:01 coast of our

17:33:02 country of

17:33:03 which we had

17:33:04 sent refugee

17:33:05 applicants

17:33:06 had cause to

17:33:07 look at the

17:33:08 unfolding

17:33:10 decisions of

17:33:10 the United States

17:33:11 federal courts and

17:33:13 the United

17:33:13 States Supreme

17:33:14 Court on the

17:33:16 issues of

17:33:16 Guantanamo

17:33:18 Bay and the

17:33:21 way we were

17:33:22 dealing with

17:33:23 terrorism

17:33:24 suspects and

17:33:24 also with

17:33:27 refugee

17:33:29 applicants.

17:33:33 So Justice

17:33:34 David set one

17:33:35 course on our mind's

17:33:36 journey to come to grips

17:33:38 with the

17:33:40 world of


17:33:41 law, and the

17:33:42 magnificent

address which

17:33:43 we've just

17:33:44 heard by

17:33:46 Professor

17:33:48 Frank Emmert

17:33:48 shows how this

17:33:49 is right up

17:33:50 to date.

17:33:51 This is something

17:33:52 that is really

17:33:53 critical to peace and

17:33:55 security in

17:33:56 the world because

17:33:57 you're not going

to have peace and

17:33:59 security in our world in

17:34:01 a very dangerous

17:34:02 time of nuclear

17:34:03 weapons and

17:34:05 nuclear

17:34:06 proliferation

17:34:07 again unless


17:34:08 law can be

17:34:10 brought to

17:34:10 bear on the

17:34:13 problems of

17:34:14 our age.

17:34:16 And in my

17:34:17 life,

17:34:17 especially

17:34:18 when I was on

17:34:19 the court of

17:34:21 appeal of New

17:34:22 South Wales

17:34:23 where I

17:34:23 wasn't subject to

17:34:25 strike tours

17:34:26 of our

17:34:26 federal constitution,

17:34:28 I served on a number

17:34:30 of international

17:34:31 bodies, as

17:34:32 Justice

17:34:33 Sullivan has

17:34:34 pointed out.

17:34:35 One

17:34:36 of them was

17:34:38 the Global Commission on

17:34:39 AIDS, and

17:34:42 another of

17:34:43 them was as

17:34:44 special

17:34:45 representative

17:34:47 of

17:34:47 secretary-general

17:34:48 for human

17:34:51 rights in

17:34:54 Cambodia.

17:34:54 So these were experiences

17:34:58 of trying to

17:34:59 utilize international

cooperation

17:35:00 for the

17:35:01 benefit of

17:35:03 humanity and

17:35:04 utilize


17:35:06 law and


17:35:07 institutions.

17:35:08 But the

17:35:09 biggest

17:35:10 challenge I

17:35:10 faced was one

17:35:12 that was

17:35:14 given to me

17:35:16 in 2013 by

17:35:18 the human

17:35:20 rights

17:35:20 council of

17:35:21 the United Nations

when I

17:35:23 was appointed

17:35:24 by the

17:35:25 President of

17:35:26 that council,

17:35:27 the

17:35:30 ambassador of

17:35:31 Poland as the

17:35:33 Chair of a

17:35:34 commission of

17:35:35 inquiry on


17:35:40 violations in North

17:35:41 Korea.

17:35:42 The democratic peoples

17:35:43 republic of

17:35:45 Korea, as it

17:35:46 is formerly

17:35:46 called.

17:35:47 And

17:35:47 with two


17:35:48 brilliant colleagues

17:35:50 with a

17:35:51 background in


17:35:52 law and

17:35:53 interpret


17:35:57 law, Maziki

17:35:59 Derisman who

17:36:00 had been the Attorney

17:36:01 General of

17:36:02 Indonesia and

17:36:03 the

17:36:03 prosecutor

17:36:04 general of

17:36:05 Indonesia,

17:36:07 and Sonja

17:36:08 Bizerko

17:36:09 whoches a

17:36:11 Professor in

17:36:13 Serbia and a

17:36:14 leading

17:36:14 advocate of


17:36:17 in the

17:36:17 war-torn

17:36:19 country of

17:36:20 Serbia and

17:36:20 the former

17:36:22 Yugoslavia,

17:36:23 we three were

17:36:24 the three

17:36:25 members of a


17:36:27 inquiry which

17:36:28 was

17:36:28 established

17:36:28 to

17:36:29 investigate



17:36:36 Korea.

17:36:38 There was

17:36:38 already a

17:36:40 special

17:36:40 rapporteur who

17:36:41 was appointed

17:36:42 to investigate


17:36:46 and that was

17:36:47 Derisman.

17:36:47 But North

17:36:48 Korea would

17:36:50 not allow him

17:36:51 to enter their country.

17:36:53 They have a very

17:36:54 closed-off

17:36:54 country and

17:36:55 society.

17:36:56 And the numbers

17:36:57 of reports

17:36:57 that were

17:36:59 coming in of

17:37:01 violence,

17:37:02 cruelty, and

17:37:03 breaches of


17:37:05 and

17:37:06 discrimination

17:37:07 were so

17:37:08 powerful that

17:37:09 when the


17:37:12 the human

17:37:13 rights

17:37:13 council pause

17:37:15 for a call

17:37:16 for a vote,

17:37:18 the human

17:37:19 rights

17:37:20 council

17:37:21 adopted the

17:37:21 establishment of the


17:37:26 inquiry, no

17:37:27 call was made

17:37:28 for a vote.

17:37:29 It's the only

17:37:30 time that has ever

happened in the

17:37:32 history of the

human rights

17:37:34 council.

17:37:35 And

17:37:36 it happened

17:37:36 because there

17:37:37 was by 2013 a

17:37:39 great deal of

17:37:40 evidence of

17:37:41 the human

17:37:42 rights


17:37:45 Korea.

17:37:45 And we were

17:37:48 given a

17:37:50 mandate with

17:37:51 nine

17:37:51 paragraphs,

17:37:51 are and our

17:37:52 job was to

17:37:53 report to the


17:37:57 council.

17:37:57 And

17:37:59 we set about

17:38:00 our work

17:38:00 efficiently.

17:38:01 We met within

17:38:02 weeks.

17:38:03 We

17:38:05 met in Geneva

17:38:06 in those

17:38:07 pre-COVID

17:38:07 days, and

17:38:08 although the

17:38:09 normal way

17:38:12 that European

17:38:13 countries

17:38:13 conduct

17:38:14 inquiries is

17:38:15 not the way

17:38:16 we tend to

17:38:17 conduct them in

17:38:19 English-speaking

17:38:20 countries.

17:38:20 And although

17:38:22 the way the

17:38:23 Europeans do it has from

17:38:25 the beginning of


greatly

17:38:27 affected the

17:38:28 way the United

17:38:31 Nations does

17:38:32 inquiries, I

17:38:32 was able to

17:38:33 persuade my two


17:38:36 both of whom

17:38:37 were from

17:38:38 civil law

17:38:39 traditions of

17:38:41 Europe.

17:38:42 The

17:38:42 Serbians in

17:38:45 Europe, the

17:38:45 Indonesian,

17:38:46 because their

17:38:46 legal system

17:38:47 was based on

17:38:49 that of the

17:38:50 Netherlands,

17:38:51 they do

17:38:52 inquiries

17:38:52 very

17:38:53 efficiently,

17:38:55 behind closed

17:38:55 doors,

17:38:56 generally,

17:38:57 and they

17:38:58 gather the

17:38:59 material

17:39:00 quickly and

17:39:01 effectively.

17:39:03 We in the

17:39:04 Anglo-American

17:39:05 world do it

17:39:06 more slowly,

17:39:07 a bit more

17:39:08 inefficiently,

17:39:10 but it is

17:39:11 based on really

17:39:12 medieval

17:39:14 views of the

17:39:15 British in

17:39:16 England that they

17:39:17 should

17:39:18 conduct

17:39:18 inquiries in

17:39:19 public because they

17:39:20 had this theory that

17:39:22 if you do

17:39:23 that, you're

17:39:25 more likely

17:39:26 to get

17:39:27 material to

17:39:28 come forward, and you're

17:39:29 more likely

17:39:30 to persuade

17:39:31 those who are

17:39:32 the subject

17:39:33 of the

17:39:34 inquiry and

17:39:35 the community

17:39:36 around them

17:39:37 that what you

17:39:38 have done is

17:39:39 fair, has

17:39:40 been

17:39:40 conducted

17:39:41 fairly, and

17:39:43 has reached

17:39:43 conclusions

17:39:44 that are

17:39:44 compelling,

17:39:47 convincing,

17:39:48 and right.

17:39:49 Nooult

17:39:50 And so

17:39:50 within weeks

17:39:51 of our establishment,

17:39:52 that's what

17:39:53 we decided to

17:39:54 do.

17:39:55 And they had never

had a commission

17:39:57 of inquiry of the human

17:39:59 rights council

that did an

17:40:01 inquiry that

17:40:02 way.

17:40:02 And so we

17:40:04 had a whole

17:40:05 series of

17:40:06 public

17:40:07 hearings of a

17:40:08 kind that a

17:40:09 lawyer from

Indiana would

17:40:10 be very familiar with

17:40:11 and a lawyer

17:40:12 from Australia

and from Britain

17:40:14 and from the United

17:40:16 States.

17:40:16 We had public

17:40:18 hearings.

17:40:18 We invited the

17:40:19 media.

17:40:20 We invited the

17:40:21 people who

17:40:23 came as

17:40:23 witnesses.

17:40:24 Where it was

17:40:25 safe, we

17:40:26 invited them

17:40:27 to give their

17:40:28 testimony in public.

17:40:29 Most of them agreed and

17:40:31 wanted to speak in

17:40:32 public of the terrible

wrongs that

17:40:34 had been done

17:40:36 to them.

17:40:37 We recorded what they

17:40:38 said.

17:40:39 We recorded it

17:40:40 on film.

17:40:41 And we

17:40:42 have put that

17:40:43 record on the

17:40:44 Internet, and

17:40:45 it's available

17:40:46 tonight.

17:40:46 You

17:40:47 can go home

17:40:48 and Google

17:40:49 the U.N.


17:40:50 inquiry on North

17:40:51 Korea, and

17:40:52 you will go

17:40:53 straight into

17:40:54 the testimony

17:40:56 of the people

17:40:57 who gave

17:40:58 witness of

17:40:59 the way human

17:41:00 rights had been breached

17:41:01 in their

17:41:02 cases.

17:41:02 And those

17:41:03 records are

17:41:06 still there.

17:41:07 And they are

17:41:08 a compelling

17:41:09 case for

17:41:11 action by the United

17:41:13 Nations in


17:41:14 the problem

17:41:15 of North

17:41:17 Korea and

17:41:17 problem it

17:41:18 is.

17:41:19 But the problem that

17:41:20 I want to

17:41:21 speak about

17:41:22 with you is

17:41:23 relevant to

17:41:24 what Professor

17:41:25 Emmert has

17:41:26 said and what


17:41:29 has said

17:41:31 about the

17:41:32 world in

17:41:34 which nuclear


17:41:36 extremely

17:41:38 dangerous

17:41:38 situations

17:41:39 can sometimes

17:41:40 present an

17:41:41 impediment to

17:41:46 the action by


17:41:48 following up findings of


17:41:50 violations in

17:41:52 countries of

17:41:52 our world.

17:41:54 And this is

17:41:55 the essential

17:41:56 problem we

17:41:57 face in North

17:41:58 Korea.

17:41:59 How

17:41:59 do we deal

17:42:01 with a state

17:42:03 which is a

17:42:04 rogue state

17:42:05 and conducts

17:42:06 itself in

17:42:08 ways that are

17:42:09 terribly

17:42:11 offensive to


17:42:12 treaties and

17:42:14 principles

17:42:15 and the

17:42:15 general law

17:42:16 of human

17:42:17 rights, how do

17:42:18 you deal with

17:42:20 those issues

17:42:24 when if you

17:42:25 even mention

17:42:30 humts himts

17:42:31 himts, they

17:42:32 don't want to

17:42:34 take any

17:42:35 part.

17:42:35 They

17:42:37 don't want to

17:42:38 cooperate in

17:42:39 any way.

17:42:40 So this is the essential

17:42:42 problem I want to focus

17:42:44 on.

17:42:44 But I will tell you

17:42:46 something about what the


17:42:48 inquiry did.

17:42:49 I will

17:42:50 recount what

17:42:52 I see as its

17:42:54 successes and

17:42:54 its failures.

17:42:56 And I will

17:42:57 then confront

17:42:57 the issue

17:42:59 that was

17:43:00 presented by

17:43:00 the steps

17:43:01 that were taken

17:43:03 by President

17:43:05 Trump when he

17:43:06 was in office

17:43:07 and the

17:43:08 potential for

17:43:09 President

17:43:11 Biden to do

17:43:12 things in a

17:43:13 somewhat

17:43:14 different and

17:43:15 more Orthodox

17:43:16 way.

17:43:18 Now, so far

17:43:20 as the work of

17:43:22 the

17:43:23 Commission, we

17:43:23 had a

17:43:24 wonderful

17:43:25 Secretary --

17:43:26 don't let

17:43:27 people that

17:43:28 the U.N.

17:43:29 is riddled with

time servers

17:43:31 and people who make up

17:43:32 their mind and have got

17:43:34 political agendas.

17:43:35 We had a

17:43:38 Secretariat.

17:43:39 There

17:43:39 were about

17:43:40 12.

17:43:41 Most of

17:43:42 them had been

17:43:43 offices of

17:43:43 the office of

17:43:46 the high



17:43:48 But just as

17:43:49 we, the

17:43:50 kmigers, had

17:43:51 to make an

17:43:53 oath or make

17:43:54 an affirmation

17:43:55 that we would

17:43:56 uphold the principles of


law and reach

17:43:58 conclusions by fair

17:43:59 process and

17:44:00 which were

17:44:02 conformable

17:44:02 to


17:44:04 law so the

17:44:05 offices of

17:44:06 the

17:44:06 Secretariat

17:44:07 worked

17:44:07 independently

17:44:08 for the

17:44:09 Commission of

17:44:10 Inquiry, and they

17:44:11 had to do the

17:44:13 same.

17:44:14 And we

17:44:15 got our report

17:44:16 written

17:44:16 effectively

17:44:17 in the year

17:44:18 of our

17:44:19 appointment,

17:44:21 2013, and it

17:44:22 then had to

17:44:24 be translated

17:44:25 into the

17:44:26 major United

17:44:27 Nations

17:44:28 languages,

17:44:29 and it was

17:44:30 presented to

17:44:31 the world

17:44:32 media in

17:44:34 February of

17:44:36 2014, and it

17:44:37 was formally

17:44:38 presented to

17:44:39 the human

17:44:40 rights

17:44:42 council in

17:44:44 March of

17:44:45 2015.

17:44:46 We

17:44:46 were

17:44:47 unanimous in

17:44:48 our

17:44:48 conclusions.

17:44:49 The

17:44:50 conclusions

17:44:50 were

17:44:52 expressed in

17:44:53 our report.

17:44:54 I

17:44:54 was the only

17:44:56 native

17:44:56 English

17:44:57 speaker

17:44:57 amongst the

17:45:01 three

17:45:02 commissioners.

17:45:03 But -- and

17:45:04 I made it my

17:45:05 task to


17:45:09 the report

17:45:11 was written

17:45:12 in English, that

17:45:13 was comfortable,

17:45:14 and that was

17:45:15 readable.

17:45:16 Many U.N.

17:45:17 reports that

17:45:18 I've read are

17:45:19 not readable.

17:45:21 And I'm sure

17:45:22 Professor Emmert would

17:45:23 agree with

17:45:23 that.

17:45:24 But the report of the


17:45:27 Inquiry on North

17:45:30 Korea.

17:45:30 Here it is.

17:45:32 It should --

you know, the

17:45:34 U.N.

17:45:34 produces these reports,

and some

17:45:36 of them are readable,

and some

17:45:38 of them are

very readable.

17:45:40 This report

17:45:41 is very

17:45:42 readable.

17:45:43 But the U.N.

17:45:44 is not good

17:45:48 at

17:45:48 publishing.

17:45:51 The report is

17:45:52 only this

17:45:53 size.

17:45:54 It should have been -- if

17:45:56 the thing had been

done in the most

17:45:59 effective way, it

should have been taken

17:46:01 on, published by the

17:46:02 private sector, or

17:46:04 published by

17:46:05 the U.N.

17:46:06 and

17:46:07 available at

17:46:07 every

17:46:08 airport, when

17:46:09 the airports

17:46:11 worked, and

17:46:11 every book

17:46:12 shop, but

17:46:13 that didn't

17:46:14 happen.

17:46:14 But it's on the

17:46:16 web.

17:46:16 It's on the Internet.

17:46:18 But the

17:46:18 Internet is

17:46:19 not available

17:46:20 in North

17:46:21 Korea.

17:46:22 In North Korea, the

17:46:24 only groups

17:46:24 that can get

17:46:25 access to the

17:46:26 Internet are

17:46:27 the friends

17:46:28 of the government

17:46:29 and those who

17:46:30 are

17:46:30 supporters of

17:46:31 the regime of

17:46:32 the supreme

17:46:35 leader, Kim

17:46:35 Jong-Un.

17:46:37 Anyway, we

17:46:38 produced our

17:46:39 report.

17:46:40 It

17:46:40 was produced

17:46:41 by the

17:46:42 methodology

17:46:42 that I have

17:46:44 mentioned.

17:46:45 It is readable.

17:46:46 And the question is,

17:46:48 okay.

17:46:48 What's

17:46:50 happened?

17:46:52 Well, the

17:46:53 report

17:46:56 followed

17:46:56 faithfully

17:46:57 the nine

17:46:57 matters of

17:46:58 agenda that we

17:46:59 were given by the human

17:47:01 rights

17:47:02 council.

17:47:03 People who do

17:47:04 inquiries and

don't attend to

17:47:06 their terms of reference

17:47:08 are a menace.

17:47:09 But also I

17:47:10 found -- and

17:47:14 I'm sure that

17:47:15 Justice

17:47:16 Sullivan and


17:47:17 will agree

17:47:18 with this --

17:47:19 on a final

17:47:21 court or a

17:47:22 state final

17:47:23 court,

17:47:23 another

17:47:25 menace are

17:47:25 judges who

17:47:26 give

17:47:27 decisions and

17:47:28 don't record

17:47:29 their findings.

17:47:30 You know,

17:47:30 you've got to

17:47:31 go searching

17:47:32 for what on

17:47:34 earth their

17:47:36 findings

17:47:37 were, but we

17:47:38 made our

17:47:39 reports, and

17:47:41 we very

17:47:41 specifically

17:47:42 and clearly

17:47:44 said what we

17:47:45 found relevant to

17:47:46 our terms of

17:47:47 reference.

17:47:48 But more than

17:47:49 that, in the

17:47:50 course of

17:47:51 writing our

17:47:52 report, we

17:47:53 wrote them as

17:47:54 an inquirer

17:47:55 in the United

17:47:56 States or in

Australia or

17:47:58 in the UK

17:48:00 would do.

17:48:01 We, on every

17:48:02 page of this

17:48:03 report or at

17:48:05 least every

17:48:06 second page,

17:48:06 in dealing

17:48:07 with the

17:48:08 matter that

17:48:08 had been referred to

17:48:10 us by the


17:48:12 council, we

17:48:13 would quote

17:48:14 what a

17:48:15 witness had

17:48:16 said had been

17:48:17 their experience

17:48:18 where we

17:48:21 accepted it.

17:48:21 Because so

17:48:22 much more

17:48:23 powerful than

17:48:26 the language

17:48:27 of the

17:48:28 reporter, of

17:48:29 the report

17:48:30 writer is the

17:48:32 language of

17:48:33 the victim.

17:48:33 And they --

17:48:34 if you accept

17:48:35 that they're

sell telling

17:48:37 the truth, they can put

17:48:39 it more

17:48:39 powerfully

17:48:41 and more

17:48:42 sharply and

17:48:44 with greater

17:48:44 emphasis for

17:48:45 action than

17:48:47 you can.

17:48:48 And therefore,

17:48:49 every second

17:48:50 page has

17:48:51 quotes.

17:48:52 And

17:48:53 in this way,

17:48:54 people who

17:48:54 had suffered


17:48:57 abuses were

17:48:58 given the

17:49:00 facility of

17:49:01 speaking

17:49:01 truth to

17:49:03 power and

17:49:03 speaking to

17:49:05 the

17:49:05 secretary-general

of the United

17:49:07 States and speaking to

17:49:08 the human

17:49:09 rights

17:49:09 council of

17:49:10 the United

17:49:10 Nations.

17:49:12 Well,

17:49:12 whether it

17:49:13 was on the

17:49:14 locking up of

17:49:15 people who

17:49:16 were

17:49:17 political

17:49:17 prisoners,

17:49:18 the public

17:49:19 executions

17:49:20 that take

17:49:21 place in North

17:49:24 Korea, the

17:49:26 drowning of

17:49:27 babies in a

17:49:29 bucket of

17:49:29 water when they

17:49:30 were brought

17:49:31 by their

17:49:34 mothers from

17:49:34 China back

17:49:36 into North

17:49:37 Korea, all of

17:49:39 the matters

17:49:41 we dealt with

17:49:43 were

17:49:44 extremely

17:49:44 powerfully

17:49:46 and I think

17:49:47 convincingly

17:49:49 dealt within

17:49:49 the report.

17:49:50 Of course, North

17:49:51 Korea said,

17:49:52 these are all

17:49:54 self-selected

17:49:54 people.

17:49:55 They have come

17:49:56 forward, most

17:49:59 of them were

17:50:00 refugees in South

17:50:01 Korea.

17:50:02 And in South

17:50:04 Korea, there

17:50:05 are some

17:50:06 30,000

17:50:07 refugees,

17:50:08 more now who

17:50:11 have escaped.

17:50:12 During the

17:50:13 winter months

17:50:14 in North

17:50:14 Korea, they can walk

17:50:16 across the

17:50:17 frozen rivers

17:50:18 into China or at

17:50:19 least they

17:50:20 could for a period of

17:50:22 time, and then get onto

17:50:24 an escape

17:50:25 line in China

17:50:27 and get out

17:50:29 of China to

17:50:32 Laos, to

17:50:34 Cambodia, or

17:50:37 to Vietnam or

17:50:38 to Thailand.

17:50:40 And under the

17:50:41 Constitution

17:50:41 of the


17:50:44 Korea, South

17:50:45 Korea, if

17:50:47 they can get

17:50:49 to an ROK,

17:50:50 Republic of

17:50:51 Korea

17:50:51 embassy, they

17:50:53 can get a

17:50:54 passport.

17:50:55 That's as it

17:50:56 was in

17:50:57 Germany.

17:50:58 They

17:50:59 have a right

17:51:01 to be a

17:51:02 citizen of

17:51:02 the Republic

17:51:03 of Korea,

17:51:04 which claims

17:51:06 that it is

17:51:08 the only

17:51:08 Republic of

17:51:09 Korea.

17:51:10 Likewise, North

17:51:11 Korea claims it

17:51:12 is the only

17:51:13 democratic peoples


17:51:14 Korea, but if

17:51:15 you can get

17:51:16 the passport,

17:51:17 you can then

17:51:18 get on a

17:51:19 plane and you

17:51:20 can then get

17:51:21 into South

17:51:22 Korea, and

17:51:23 you can be

17:51:26 given support

17:51:26 and financial

17:51:28 aid and

17:51:30 education and

17:51:31 other

17:51:31 opportunities.

17:51:32 So that is

17:51:33 what we did.

17:51:36 We gave this

17:51:37 chance to

17:51:38 speak truth

17:51:39 to power, and

17:51:40 let me pause

17:51:41 to say here,

17:51:44 if we never

17:51:45 did anything

17:51:46 else, if nothing

17:51:47 else happened

17:51:47 out of the

17:51:48 report of the


17:51:50 inquiry on North

17:51:51 Korea, this

17:51:52 was a good

17:51:54 thing that

17:51:54 the United

17:51:55 Nations did.

17:51:56 And it

17:51:56 brought the

17:51:57 truth of what

17:51:58 is going on

17:51:59 to this day

17:52:01 in North

17:52:06 Korea to

17:52:07 attention.

17:52:08 North Korea

17:52:09 desperately

17:52:09 wanted to

17:52:10 have a

17:52:11 meeting with the

President of

17:52:12 the United States.

17:52:14 But under

17:52:14 President

17:52:15 George W.

17:52:16 Bush and under

17:52:17 President Obama,

you could only

17:52:19 get that

17:52:19 meeting if you

17:52:21 would give a

17:52:22 verifiable

17:52:23 and

17:52:24 irreversible

17:52:25 guarantee of

17:52:28 ending the

17:52:29 nuclear


17:52:30 because from

17:52:31 early in the

17:52:33 21st century, North

17:52:34 Korea, in

17:52:37 order to

17:52:38 establish its

17:52:38 power and

17:52:39 credentials,

17:52:39 had begun

17:52:40 developing

17:52:43 nuclear

17:52:44 weapons.

17:52:44 It has to be

17:52:46 said that the

development

17:52:47 of nuclear

17:52:48 weapons by North

17:52:49 Korea and the


17:52:52 moreover of

17:52:52 missile

17:52:54 systems for

17:52:55 delivering

17:52:57 the weapons

17:52:58 astonished

17:52:58 the west.

17:52:59 No one expected that they

17:53:01 would be able

17:53:03 to do it as

17:53:04 quickly and apparently

effectively

17:53:06 as they have

17:53:07 done.

17:53:08 And there

17:53:08 is now the

17:53:10 belief in

17:53:10 informed

17:53:11 circles that they

17:53:13 have at least

17:53:16 30 nuclear

17:53:17 warheads and

17:53:17 more especially,

17:53:19 they've

17:53:20 developed the

17:53:21 missiles that

17:53:22 can deliver

17:53:23 them.

17:53:23 You'll

17:53:25 remember from

17:53:25 the very

17:53:27 first atomic

17:53:29 bomb, it was

17:53:30 called the

17:53:31 fat boy, the

17:53:32 big boy.

17:53:33 And the problem

with it was it

17:53:35 was a very big bomb.

17:53:37 But what you had to do

17:53:39 with the nuclear

17:53:40 weapons in

17:53:42 Korea was to

17:53:44 develop a

17:53:45 smaller

17:53:46 warhead, and

17:53:46 apparently North

17:53:47 Korea has

17:53:49 been able to

17:53:50 do that.

17:53:51 And

17:53:52 therefore, it

17:53:53 makes it not

17:53:54 only

17:53:54 difficult and

17:53:56 dangerous for

17:53:59 Japan, over

17:54:00 which

17:54:01 territory the

17:54:02 missiles have

17:54:03 been

17:54:04 delivered,

17:54:07 but

17:54:07 potentially

17:54:08 dangerous, at

17:54:09 least to the West

17:54:11 Coast of the United

States and

17:54:13 possibly elsewhere.

17:54:14 So it's a

17:54:15 very

17:54:15 dangerous

17:54:16 situation, a

17:54:18 very

17:54:19 dangerous

17:54:19 situation.

17:54:20 And the world

17:54:21 has to face

17:54:22 up to the

17:54:23 dangers that

17:54:25 it now faces

17:54:27 not only in

17:54:28 Korea but as

17:54:29 Professor

17:54:32 Emmert said,

17:54:33 in Iran and

17:54:35 in other

17:54:36 countries

17:54:37 that have

17:54:37 developed --

17:54:38 are

17:54:39 developing

17:54:40 nuclear

17:54:41 warheads and

17:54:42 missiles to

17:54:46 deliver them.

17:54:47 So when

17:54:48 President

17:54:49 Trump came to

17:54:52 office,

17:54:53 you'll

17:54:53 remember his

17:54:54 first speech

17:54:55 to the

17:54:56 general

17:54:58 Assembly of

17:54:59 the United

17:55:00 Nations was a

17:55:03 very

17:55:03 antagonistic

17:55:04 speech

17:55:07 addressed at North

17:55:10 Korea.

17:55:10 He

17:55:11 said that

17:55:11 little Rocket

17:55:12 Man as he

17:55:14 called Kim

17:55:14 Jong-Un would

17:55:15 pay a price

17:55:17 if he did

17:55:19 anything to

17:55:19 endanger the United

17:55:20 States or its

17:55:21 allies.

17:55:22 And

17:55:23 he threatened

17:55:25 in that

17:55:26 event, the

17:55:26 democratic peoples


17:55:29 Korea would

17:55:30 be laid

17:55:30 waste, which

17:55:34 was itself a

17:55:35 rather

17:55:36 unlawful

17:55:36 assertion

17:55:36 because that

17:55:38 would be a

17:55:39 shocking

17:55:39 breach of


17:55:42 law as well.

17:55:46 But then

17:55:47 suddenly President

17:55:48 Trump

17:55:48 astonished

17:55:49 the world by

17:55:50 arranging the

17:55:51 meeting that

17:55:52 was held in

17:55:53 Singapore,

17:55:55 the first

17:55:55 meeting

17:55:56 between him

17:56:00 and king --

17:56:01 Kim Jong-Un.

17:56:01 And of course, as

17:56:03 with most things

that President

17:56:05 Trump did, it

was full of

17:56:07 razz ma Taz

17:56:08 and lots of

17:56:09 television

17:56:10 and lots of

17:56:11 media, and

17:56:12 inevident ly

17:56:14 lots of

17:56:15 tweets.

17:56:16 I remember

17:56:18 think ing at the

17:56:19 time that

17:56:20 actually,

17:56:21 this might be

17:56:23 a good step

17:56:24 because I

17:56:25 agree with

17:56:26 Professor

17:56:26 Emmert that

17:56:29 in a very

17:56:30 dangerous situation,

17:56:30 simply

17:56:31 refusing to

17:56:33 have any

17:56:34 dialogue is

17:56:34 not

17:56:35 necessarily

17:56:36 going to get

17:56:38 any progress.

17:56:39 And therefore, I

17:56:40 thought,

17:56:40 well, at

17:56:42 least he's

17:56:43 trying

17:56:43 something new

17:56:45 and

17:56:46 different.

17:56:47 And I was

17:56:48 hopeful that he

17:56:50 would produce

17:56:51 results.

17:56:51 But

17:56:52 a problem

17:56:52 arose at the

17:56:54 very

17:56:54 beginning

17:56:55 that

17:56:55 President

17:56:56 Trump could

17:56:57 not get his

17:56:58 magic lips

17:57:00 around the

17:57:02 words "human

17:57:04 rights." He

17:57:05 was like

17:57:06 President

17:57:07 Reagan who, by the

17:57:09 way, with the

17:57:10 support of

17:57:12 Senator Lugar

17:57:13 and other

17:57:15 Republicans

17:57:16 in the

17:57:17 Senate, did

17:57:17 some very

17:57:18 good things

17:57:19 in nuclear

17:57:20 nonproliferati

17:57:22 on.

17:57:23 But

17:57:24 President

17:57:24 Trump could

17:57:25 not -- Reagan

17:57:26 couldn't get

17:57:27 his magic

17:57:29 lips around

17:57:31 the acronym

17:57:33 "AIDS." In

17:57:34 the first

17:57:34 term in

17:57:35 office, he

17:57:36 never once

17:57:36 referred to

17:57:37 HIV/AIDS.

17:57:38 Meanwhile, a

17:57:39 lot of

17:57:40 Americans got

17:57:40 infected with

17:57:41 AIDS, whereas

17:57:42 we in

17:57:43 Australia

17:57:43 were talking

17:57:44 about it and

17:57:45 responding to it and


17:57:51 it.

17:57:52 But President Trump had

17:57:53 difficulty dealing with

17:57:54 things he was

17:57:55 uncomfortable

17:57:56 with.

17:57:56 And one

17:57:57 of them was

17:57:58 COVID-19 when

17:57:59 it came

17:58:02 along.

17:58:02 But another was

17:58:04 the issue of


17:58:07 Global human

17:58:07 rights.

17:58:08 Human rights

17:58:09 for everyone.

17:58:12 It's

17:58:12 astonishing

17:58:15 to me that an

17:58:16 American

17:58:17 President

17:58:18 would not

17:58:18 understand

17:58:19 that human

17:58:20 rights are one

17:58:21 of the great

17:58:24 gifts of the United

17:58:25 States, universal


17:58:27 When I was a

17:58:28 little boy in

17:58:29 Sydney,

17:58:30 Australia, in

17:58:31 my local

17:58:31 public

17:58:32 school, we

17:58:34 all got a

17:58:35 copy of the

17:58:36 universal declaration

17:58:37 of human

17:58:38 rights.

17:58:38 And

17:58:39 as a little

17:58:42 boy in 1944,

17:58:44 I saw Eleanor

17:58:46 Roosevelt go

17:58:47 past my

17:58:48 school,


17:58:50 President

17:58:50 F.D.

17:58:51 Roosevelt to

17:58:53 a big, new

17:58:54 hospital in a

17:58:55 nearby suburb

17:58:56 which had

17:58:57 been built

17:58:58 with American

17:59:00 aid for

17:59:00 veterans,

17:59:02 American and

17:59:02 Australian,

17:59:03 from the

17:59:05 Pacific War.

17:59:06 And I

17:59:06 remember

17:59:08 seeing this

17:59:09 great lady go

17:59:10 past my

17:59:12 school.

17:59:13 I

17:59:14 swear that we

17:59:15 locked eyes.

17:59:16 I saw her,

17:59:18 and ever

17:59:18 since, I've

17:59:19 been interested in

17:59:21 and committed

17:59:21 to the


17:59:23 of human

17:59:24 rights.

17:59:24 As

17:59:25 it happened,

17:59:26 the universal

17:59:27 declaration

17:59:27 of human

17:59:29 rights was

17:59:30 adopted by

17:59:32 the general

17:59:33 assembly of the

United Nations

17:59:35 meeting in Paris.

17:59:36 This was before they

17:59:38 had their

17:59:40 headquarters

17:59:41 in New York,

17:59:42 meeting in

17:59:43 Paris to

17:59:44 adopt the


17:59:49 of human

17:59:50 rights nim

17:59:51 con.

17:59:51 No one voted against

17:59:53 it.

17:59:53 South Africa and Saudi

Arabia didn't

17:59:55 vote for it.

17:59:57 But no one, including the

17:59:59 Soviet and the Soviet

18:00:00 states voted

18:00:01 against it.

18:00:02 And this was

18:00:03 something

18:00:03 Eleanor and

18:00:05 her committee

18:00:06 had

18:00:07 developed,

18:00:08 and it was

18:00:09 brought into

18:00:10 effect by an

18:00:11 Australian,

18:00:12 Dr.

18:00:13 H.V.

18:00:13 Evert,

18:00:14 Herbert

18:00:15 Evert, who

18:00:16 was the


18:00:17 the General

18:00:18 Assembly at the

18:00:20 time.

18:00:21 1948,

18:00:21 December '48,

18:00:22 a great

18:00:23 moment in

18:00:26 world

18:00:27 history.

18:00:28 And

18:00:28 so why a

18:00:29 President of the United

18:00:30 States would not

18:00:32 understand

18:00:33 that this was

18:00:34 a very important

18:00:35 gift of the United

18:00:37 States to the

18:00:38 whole world

18:00:39 and that you

18:00:41 couldn't get

18:00:42 peace and

18:00:43 security in

18:00:44 the Korean

18:00:45 Peninsula if

18:00:46 you ignored

18:00:47 the terrible

18:00:48 situation of


18:00:50 within the

18:00:51 democratic

18:00:51 peoples


18:00:54 Korea.

18:00:56 But

18:00:56 President

18:00:56 Trump never

18:00:57 spoke about


18:00:59 in North

18:01:00 Korea, and he

18:01:01 never talked

18:01:02 about it at

18:01:03 any of the

18:01:04 three

18:01:04 meetings he

18:01:09 had with Kim

18:01:10 Jong-Un in

18:01:11 Singapore, in

18:01:12 Hanoi, and in

18:01:13 the

18:01:13 demilitarized

18:01:16 zone of

18:01:17 Korea.

18:01:18 And

18:01:18 this has been

18:01:19 the problem


18:01:21 in.

18:01:22 And it's the problem

18:01:23 that we must solve.

18:01:25 Notwithstanding

18:01:26 that, the



18:01:29 Korea had a number

18:01:31 of achievements.

18:01:32 The public

18:01:33 hearings, the

18:01:34 establishment

18:01:37 of a field

18:01:41 office in

18:01:42 Seoul to

18:01:43 continue the work of

18:01:44 gathering the

18:01:45 data.

18:01:46 North

18:01:47 Korea didn't

18:01:48 let the

18:01:48 special

18:01:49 rapporteur on


18:01:52 enter, but

18:01:53 they did let

18:01:54 the special

18:01:56 rapporteur on

18:01:57 disabilities

18:01:57 go into North

18:02:00 Korea, and they

18:02:02 have

18:02:02 improved,

18:02:03 apparently,

18:02:04 their law and

18:02:06 policies on

18:02:07 disabilities.

18:02:09 The exchange

18:02:11 of military

18:02:12 remains.

18:02:12 That was

18:02:13 something

18:02:13 which was

18:02:15 specifically

18:02:17 agreed in

18:02:18 Singapore,

18:02:18 and that has

18:02:19 been

18:02:20 fulfilled.


18:02:24 media have

18:02:25 increased their

18:02:25 coverage of North

18:02:27 Korea.

18:02:28 The

18:02:29 BBC has

18:02:30 restarted its

18:02:31 Korean

18:02:31 language

18:02:32 broadcasts.

18:02:33 But, of


18:02:34 a serious

18:02:35 offense in North

18:02:36 Korea to be

18:02:37 caught

18:02:38 listening,

18:02:38 though some

18:02:39 people listen

18:02:40 to the voice

18:02:41 of America

18:02:43 and the BBC.

18:02:45 So there were

18:02:46 a number of

18:02:47 achievements, but

there were a number

18:02:49 of failures.

18:02:51 The failures

18:02:52 include the


18:02:57 Inquiry

18:02:58 recommended

18:02:58 that the

18:02:59 report be

18:03:00 delivered to

the security

18:03:01 council and

18:03:02 placed on the

18:03:04 security

18:03:04 council

18:03:04 agenda and

18:03:05 that the

18:03:06 security

18:03:07 council

18:03:08 should refer

18:03:09 the case of North

18:03:12 Korea to a

18:03:14 prosecutor of the


18:03:15 criminal

18:03:15 court.

18:03:16 That

18:03:16 is the

18:03:17 alternative

18:03:18 way that you

18:03:19 can get a

18:03:21 case of human

18:03:23 rights abuses

18:03:24 to the


18:03:26 court even in

18:03:27 a country that is not a

18:03:29 party to

18:03:30 them.

18:03:30 That step

18:03:31 has not been

18:03:32 taken.

18:03:33 And

18:03:33 it's unlikely

18:03:35 to be taken

18:03:36 whilst China

18:03:37 and the

18:03:39 Russian

18:03:39 Federation

18:03:42 oppose taking

18:03:43 that step.

18:03:47 Family

18:03:48 reunions,

18:03:48 which are

18:03:49 very urgent

18:03:50 because many

18:03:51 of those who

18:03:52 are in

18:03:53 divided

18:03:55 families are

18:03:57 now very old

18:03:58 and unless

18:03:59 the reunions

18:03:59 are conducted

18:04:00 soon, then

18:04:01 people will

18:04:02 not be able

18:04:03 to have

18:04:03 reunions.

18:04:04 They don't

18:04:06 even have

18:04:06 postage

18:04:07 between North

18:04:08 Korea and South

18:04:09 Korea.

18:04:10 They

18:04:11 don't allow

18:04:12 people to telephone

18:04:14 from North

18:04:16 Korea to South

18:04:18 Korea.

18:04:19 And

18:04:20 China has not

18:04:21 been

18:04:21 cooperative

18:04:23 in respect of

18:04:24 refugees who

18:04:25 have escaped

18:04:26 from North

18:04:27 Korea into

18:04:28 China.

18:04:29 China has a

18:04:30 memorandum of


18:04:32 simply to

18:04:32 send them

18:04:34 back to North

18:04:35 Korea,

18:04:35 although

18:04:36 under


18:04:37 refugee law,

18:04:38 that cannot

18:04:39 be done if there

18:04:41 is a well-founded

18:04:42 fear of persecution

18:04:43 on the part

18:04:44 of the

18:04:45 refugee.

18:04:46 That's called

18:04:47 reformant.

18:04:49 And the

18:04:50 economic

18:04:51 breakdown,

18:04:52 the

18:04:53 humanitarian

18:04:57 issues, the

18:04:58 COVID-19

18:04:58 pandemic as

18:04:59 it affects North

18:05:01 Korea, all of

18:05:02 these are

18:05:04 areas of

18:05:04 failure.

18:05:05 And that has to

18:05:07 be

18:05:07 acknowledged.

18:05:07 So we have

18:05:08 some

18:05:09 achievements,


18:05:10 some

18:05:11 failures.

18:05:12 And we then

18:05:13 come to what

18:05:14 is the

18:05:15 central issue

18:05:16 that I want

18:05:20 you to focus

18:05:22 on.

18:05:23 And that

18:05:23 is how do we

18:05:25 get North

18:05:26 Korea to be

18:05:27 answerable to


18:05:30 community,

18:05:30 the United

18:05:31 Nations, and

18:05:32 answerable to

18:05:34 the crimes

18:05:34 against

18:05:35 humanity

18:05:35 which have

18:05:37 been found in

18:05:38 the report of the


18:05:40 inquiry?

18:05:41 After the

18:05:42 second World

18:05:43 War with the

18:05:44 discovery of

18:05:45 the crimes

18:05:46 against

18:05:47 humanity, the

18:05:47 world

18:05:48 promised that

18:05:49 it would

18:05:50 never again

18:05:51 turn its back

18:05:52 on crimes

18:05:53 against

18:05:53 humanity.

18:05:54 Crimes

18:05:55 against

18:05:55 humanity are

18:05:56 not just


18:05:58 abuses.

18:05:59 Every country

18:05:59 has human

18:06:00 rights

18:06:01 abuses.

18:06:01 Including my

18:06:03 own country,

18:06:03 Australia.

18:06:04 The way we

18:06:06 deal with

18:06:07 refugees, by

18:06:08 sending them

18:06:09 out to be

18:06:10 kept on

18:06:11 islands off

18:06:13 the coast, is

18:06:14 not in

18:06:15 conformity

18:06:16 with human

18:06:16 rights

18:06:17 principles

18:06:18 and rules,

18:06:18 including

18:06:19 treaties

18:06:21 we've signed

18:06:22 up to.

18:06:23 But crimes

18:06:24 against


18:06:25 something

18:06:26 bigger.

18:06:26 Crimes

18:06:28 against


18:06:30 violent

18:06:31 crimes done

18:06:33 with state

18:06:34 authority

18:06:35 that shock

18:06:35 the

18:06:36 conscience of

18:06:37 humanity.

18:06:37 And the


18:06:40 inquiry found

18:06:41 crimes

18:06:42 against


18:06:43 said these

18:06:44 have to be

18:06:45 attended to.

18:06:46 Well, we're

18:06:47 not attending

18:06:48 to them.

18:06:49 And

18:06:50 how do we

18:06:51 attend to

18:06:52 them if just

18:06:53 mentioning

18:06:54 them turns North

18:06:55 Korea to walk

18:06:56 out of the

18:06:57 discussion?


18:06:59 quandary.


18:07:01 essential

18:07:01 problem.

18:07:02 And it's true

18:07:04 also of Iran.

18:07:05 And it's the

18:07:06 problem that

18:07:07 Professor

18:07:10 Emmett

18:07:10 mentioned in

18:07:11 his wonderful

18:07:12 address

18:07:12 today.

18:07:15 So this

18:07:16 brings me to

18:07:17 in the

18:07:17 specific case

18:07:18 of North

18:07:19 Korea to the

18:07:21 general

18:07:21 problem: How

18:07:22 does the

18:07:23 world deal

18:07:24 with crimes

18:07:25 that shock

18:07:26 the

18:07:26 conscience of

18:07:31 humankind

18:07:31 everywhere

18:07:31 when just to

18:07:32 mention that

18:07:33 is going to

18:07:34 make it

18:07:35 difficult to

18:07:36 deal with


18:07:38 nuclear


18:07:41 nuclear --

18:07:43 delivering

18:07:43 missiles?

18:07:45 Now, in our

18:07:46 report on North

18:07:47 Korea, we

18:07:48 didn't really

18:07:50 deal with the

18:07:51 nuclear

18:07:51 issue.

18:07:52 In part because

18:07:53 it had not

18:07:54 fully

18:07:55 developed at

18:07:55 that stage.

18:07:59 But in part

18:08:00 because we had other

18:08:01 fish to fry, and we

18:08:03 thought that

was something

18:08:04 the security

council would

18:08:06 deal with.

18:08:07 But looking

18:08:07 back, I think we should

18:08:09 have dealt with the

18:08:11 nuclear issue

18:08:12 because

18:08:12 obviously,

18:08:13 nuclear

18:08:13 weapons

18:08:14 present the

18:08:16 risks and

18:08:16 threats of

18:08:18 crimes

18:08:18 against


18:08:20 of other

18:08:21 great crimes

18:08:21 for those

18:08:22 that are

18:08:23 affected by

18:08:24 them.

18:08:24 So this is what I wanted

18:08:26 to tell you about today.

18:08:28 It all comes

18:08:29 together in

18:08:31 the charter of

18:08:32 the United Nations and

18:08:33 in the universal

declaration

18:08:35 of human

18:08:35 right s and

18:08:37 in the

18:08:37 realization

18:08:38 after

18:08:38 Hiroshima

18:08:39 that unless

18:08:40 we got our

18:08:41 act together

18:08:41 on this

18:08:42 little blue

18:08:43 planet and

18:08:44 dealt with

18:08:46 problems as

18:08:47 an international

18:08:48 community,

18:08:48 we're just

18:08:49 not going to

18:08:50 survive as a

18:08:52 species.

18:08:52 And that

18:08:53 is terribly

18:08:54 desperately

18:08:55 urgent.

18:08:56 So

18:08:57 how do we

18:08:58 deal with that and do

18:09:00 what we promised we

18:09:01 would do after the


War, respond

18:09:04 to the


18:09:06 crimes

18:09:06 against

18:09:07 humanity, at

18:09:08 least.

18:09:08 And that's the

18:09:09 challenge.

18:09:10 And it's not

18:09:11 going to go away because

18:09:13 we don't talk

18:09:14 about it.

18:09:15 And it's

18:09:15 important to

18:09:16 talk about it.

18:09:18 And one

18:09:18 particular

18:09:19 case -- but

18:09:20 only one case

18:09:21 -- is the

18:09:22 report of the



18:09:25 Korea.

18:09:26 And unless we get

18:09:27 this right in

18:09:28 the case of North

18:09:29 Korea, we're not going

to get it right

18:09:32 in the case of

other states that

18:09:35 develop nuclear

weapons and

18:09:36 endanger the future of

18:09:37 humankind.

18:09:38 So that's

18:09:39 what I came

18:09:40 to tell you

18:09:41 at Indiana

18:09:43 University.

18:09:44 It's not the

18:09:45 evening over there.

18:09:46 Over here in

18:09:47 Sydney, it is

18:09:49 summer.

18:09:49 There

18:09:50 is sunshine

18:09:50 outside.

18:09:51 Lots of

18:09:51 people are at

18:09:53 the beach and

18:09:54 enjoying themselves.

18:09:55 But I'm in

18:09:57 here slaving

18:09:58 away, as

18:09:59 judges and

18:10:00 ex-judges and

18:10:01 professors tend

18:10:02 to do, but

18:10:03 I'll do

18:10:04 anything for Indiana


18:10:06 You've got an

18:10:08 Aussie as your

President.

18:10:09 He's about to

18:10:10 step down.

18:10:11 But Michael

18:10:12 McRobbie has

18:10:13 done a great

18:10:14 job as

18:10:14 President of Indiana


18:10:17 And I feel a

18:10:18 great

18:10:19 admiration

18:10:20 for Dr.

18:10:21 Kinsey, the

18:10:21 work he did

18:10:23 on sexuality

18:10:25 and

18:10:25 liberating

18:10:25 LGBTQ people

18:10:26 around the

18:10:29 world by the

18:10:30 knowledge of

18:10:30 truth.

18:10:31 And I love to be

18:10:33 associated with

Indiana University

18:10:35 and

18:10:36 especially

18:10:38 when Justice

18:10:39 Sullivan is

18:10:40 in charge

18:10:40 because I know he'll

18:10:42 tell me to

18:10:43 shut up and

18:10:44 to allow time

18:10:45 for

18:10:45 questions.

18:10:47

18:10:47 >> Frank

18:10:48 Sullivan:

18:10:49 Well, thank


18:10:54 Kirby, for

18:10:56 really a

18:10:56 splendid talk

18:10:57 and most

18:10:59 interesting set

18:11:00 of observations.

18:11:00 And I think

18:11:02 what I would

18:11:03 say most of

18:11:04 all is that

18:11:05 as


18:11:07 as the

18:11:08 specific

18:11:08 comments

18:11:10 about North

18:11:12 Korea are,

18:11:13 the transferability

18:11:15 to so many

18:11:16 other issues

18:11:17 and problems

18:11:18 of the way in

18:11:19 which you

18:11:20 went about

18:11:21 doing your

18:11:22 work and the

18:11:24 issues that

18:11:25 remain will

18:11:26 stick with

18:11:29 all of us as

18:11:30 we face

18:11:33 issues in the

18:11:34 years to come.

18:11:35 Neither you

18:11:36 nor I will be

18:11:37 around when a

18:11:38 great many of

the students

18:11:40 and others

18:11:41 watching this

18:11:42 broadcast today

18:11:42 confront the


18:11:44 the future.

18:11:45 But they will

18:11:46 have learned

18:11:48 a great deal

18:11:50 from your


18:11:55 We have

18:11:56 several

18:11:56 questions for

18:11:57 you.

18:11:58 If I

18:11:59 could detain you from

18:12:02 going to the

18:12:03 beach just a

18:12:04 little bit

18:12:05 longer.

18:12:06 One

18:12:07 question is do you

18:12:08 think that

18:12:09 any kind of

18:12:10 satisfactory


18:12:12 reform in North

18:12:14 Korea is

18:12:15 feasible

18:12:17 while the Kim

18:12:18 dynasty

18:12:20 retains

18:12:23 absolute

18:12:23 control?

18:12:24

18:12:25 >> Michael

18:12:25 Kirby: In our

18:12:26 report as we

18:12:27 were a United Nations

committee which had

18:12:30 been set up by

the human rights

18:12:32 council, we did

not accept an

18:12:34 option of

18:12:35 regime

18:12:35 change.

18:12:36 I

18:12:37 mean, the United

18:12:38 Nations has

18:12:39 members.

18:12:40 North

18:12:40 Korea is a

18:12:41 member, a

18:12:42 member state.

18:12:43 There

18:12:44 is an issue

18:12:45 as to whether

18:12:46 like South

18:12:47 Africa, because

18:12:48 of its

18:12:48 noncooperation

18:12:50 , it should be

18:12:51 suspended.

18:12:52 But then that would run

18:12:53 into the problem

that Professor

18:12:55 Emmert mentioned,

that you

18:12:56 suspend them,

and then you

18:12:58 put them out of

the dialogue.

18:13:00 And therefore,

in many ways,

18:13:02 it's better to have them

18:13:04 in the dialogue.

18:13:05 What we've

18:13:07 got to do is

18:13:08 to get the

18:13:09 germ of the

idea that was

18:13:11 a good idea that

18:13:13 President

18:13:14 Trump had.

18:13:15 And that is

18:13:16 have dialogue

18:13:18 and dangle

18:13:21 before them

18:13:22 the

18:13:24 possibility

18:13:24 of economic

18:13:25 development.

18:13:27 He dangled

18:13:30 before Kim

18:13:30 Jong-Un the

18:13:32 wonderful

18:13:33 alluring

18:13:33 possibility

18:13:34 of Trump

18:13:35 hotels all

18:13:37 over North

18:13:38 Korea, and

18:13:38 people coming

18:13:40 into North

18:13:41 Korea and

18:13:42 playing golf, which

18:13:43 is very popular in

18:13:45 that part of

18:13:47 the world and

18:13:48 so on.

18:13:49 And, you know,

18:13:50 after the


18:13:52 War, the

18:13:53 magnificent

18:13:56 and wonderful

18:13:57 work of

18:13:57 President F.D.

18:13:58 Roosevelt and

18:13:59 after the

18:14:00 war,

18:14:00 President

18:14:01 Truman, and

18:14:03 of George

18:14:03 Marshall and

18:14:05 the Marshall

18:14:05 Plan and

18:14:06 helping those

18:14:07 who had been

18:14:09 our enemies

18:14:10 to build

18:14:10 their

18:14:11 economies and

18:14:12 to build

18:14:13 stable

18:14:14 democratic

18:14:14 regimes.

18:14:16 Now, not

18:14:17 enough

18:14:17 attention has

18:14:18 been paid to

18:14:20 that period

18:14:21 of transition

18:14:25 and how that could

18:14:26 be done and how

that could be

18:14:29 done successfully

18:14:29 in cases like North

18:14:31 Korea, Iran,

18:14:31 and other

18:14:32 countries.

18:14:32 But I think

18:14:34 up there in

18:14:35 the state

18:14:36 department,

18:14:37 where there

18:14:37 are all these

18:14:38 very, very brilliant

18:14:39 people.

18:14:40 You know, I work

with those

18:14:42 guys in the state

department,

18:14:44 and it was during the

18:14:46 Obama


18:14:48 .

18:14:48 They were very clever

18:14:50 people.

18:14:51 And I think they

18:14:52 should be

18:14:53 going back to

18:14:54 1945 and '46

18:14:55 and getting

18:14:56 out the files

18:14:57 of the

18:14:58 Marshall Plan

18:14:59 and seeing

18:14:59 what -- how

18:15:01 was it done

18:15:02 then?

18:15:02 How

18:15:03 did it -- the

18:15:04 times are not

18:15:05 the same.

18:15:06 The countries are

18:15:07 not the same.

18:15:08 The challenges

18:15:09 are greater.

18:15:10 The

18:15:10 challenges

18:15:11 are certainly

18:15:12 more urgent because

18:15:13 of the

18:15:15 nuclear

18:15:16 weapons.

18:15:17 But


18:15:19 think outside

18:15:21 the circle.

18:15:22 We musn't

18:15:23 ignore human

18:15:24 rights,

18:15:24 especially

18:15:25 crimes

18:15:25 against

18:15:26 humanity, but


18:15:28 think in a

18:15:29 more imaginative

way of what

18:15:34 we can do to

18:15:35 allure North

18:15:36 Korea into

18:15:37 dialogue

18:15:37 about human

18:15:38 rights and

18:15:39 peace and

18:15:40 security.

18:15:41 They --

18:15:43 there will

18:15:44 never be

18:15:44 peace and

18:15:45 security on

18:15:46 the Korean Peninsula

18:15:47 until the issues of

18:15:48 human rights are dealt

18:15:49 with effectively.

18:15:50

18:15:51 >> Frank



18:15:53 Kirby.

18:15:54 I have another

18:15:55 question here

18:15:55 about North

18:15:56 Korea and

18:15:57 then still

18:15:58 another about

18:15:59 China.

18:15:59 Why

18:16:00 don't we stay

18:16:01 with North

18:16:02 Korea here

18:16:03 and focus rather

18:16:05 than on human

18:16:06 rights, on

18:16:07 the nuclear

18:16:07 issue.

18:16:08 Our questioner

18:16:09 asks, one of

18:16:10 the justifications

18:16:11 that North

18:16:12 Korea has

18:16:13 given for its

18:16:14 nuclear program, and

18:16:15 I suppose one

18:16:16 might say the

18:16:17 same thing

18:16:18 about Iran.

18:16:18 Is that nothing

18:16:20 else will

18:16:21 ensure its

18:16:21 sovereignty,

18:16:22 citing the

18:16:22 fate of

18:16:24 nations such

18:16:25 as Iraq.

18:16:26 Given this

18:16:26 fact, do you

18:16:27 think that

18:16:28 there's any

18:16:29 realistic way

18:16:30 to convince

18:16:31 the regime to

18:16:32 pursue

18:16:34 nuclear

18:16:35 disarmament?

18:16:36

18:16:36 >> Michael

18:16:37 Kirby: Well,

18:16:37 without the kind

18:16:38 of originality

18:16:40 and fresh

18:16:40 thinking that

18:16:41 I mentioned

18:16:42 in the answer

18:16:43 to the last

18:16:44 question, I don't

18:16:46 think there's

18:16:47 any chance

18:16:47 that North

18:16:48 Korea is just

18:16:49 going to give

18:16:50 up its nuclear

18:16:51 weapons.

18:16:51 That's why there

18:16:53 was an

18:16:54 element of

18:16:55 tun reason in

18:16:57 the approach with

18:16:58 respect -- I have to say

18:17:00 as a foreigner that

18:17:02 President

18:17:04 Trump took to North

18:17:05 Korea, just

18:17:06 asking them

18:17:07 to give up

18:17:08 their nuclear


18:17:10 missiles on

18:17:13 the chance

18:17:13 that they

18:17:14 would get

18:17:16 Trump hotels

18:17:16 was really

18:17:19 not a

18:17:20 sensible

18:17:20 rational way

18:17:21 to proceed.

18:17:23 But there is

18:17:24 a sensible

18:17:24 and rational way to

18:17:26 proceed.

18:17:26 And what we have to do is

18:17:29 explore it.

18:17:30 And we oe

18:17:31 this -- owe this to

18:17:33 ourselves because don't

think North Korea and

18:17:35 Iran are going to be

the last two countries

18:17:38 that are going to

go down this nuclear

18:17:41 track.

18:17:42 I mean, we thought for a

18:17:44 time, well, at least

the only countries

18:17:46 that have nuclear

18:17:47 weapons are

18:17:49 the P-5, the

18:17:50 permanent,

18:17:51 serious

18:17:51 countries in


18:17:54 council.

18:17:54 But

18:17:56 then more

18:17:57 began to

18:17:57 develop and secure

18:17:58 nuclear

18:18:01 weapons.

18:18:02 And

18:18:02 now a very

18:18:04 small player, North

18:18:05 Korea.

18:18:05 North Korea has

18:18:07 even fewer

18:18:08 people than

18:18:09 Australia.

18:18:09 We've got 26

18:18:11 million.

18:18:11 They've got

18:18:12 24 million.

18:18:13 And here is

18:18:14 this country

18:18:15 with a small

18:18:16 population,

18:18:17 but these

18:18:18 remarkable

18:18:22 and extremely

18:18:23 dangerous

18:18:23 weapons.

18:18:24 As

18:18:24 many

18:18:25 observers

18:18:26 say, nuclear

18:18:27 weapons are

18:18:29 not just


18:18:34 leaders who

18:18:35 fall into

18:18:36 rage.

18:18:36 They're also


18:18:40 mistakes, for

18:18:42 errors, for

18:18:43 accidents,

18:18:44 for

18:18:44 misunderstanding

18:18:46 of events.

18:18:46 And if you

18:18:48 look at our

18:18:49 species,

18:18:51 which has

18:18:51 lasted so many

18:18:54 thousands of

18:18:55 years and all

18:18:57 the wonders

18:18:58 of J.S.

18:18:58 Bach's music

18:18:59 and the great

18:19:00 painters and

18:19:01 the poets of the English

18:19:03 language, all

of that could

18:19:04 be wiped out

18:19:05 in a couple of days.

18:19:08 I mean, this is

18:19:09 the truth.

18:19:10 And this

18:19:11 ought to

18:19:12 mobilize the

18:19:12 world community.

18:19:13 But how you

18:19:14 get that, that's what


18:19:17 get those

18:19:18 guys in the

18:19:19 state department

18:19:20 and in human

18:19:23 rights

18:19:23 organizations

18:19:24 and important

18:19:25 academics and

18:19:26 lawyers and

18:19:27 judges

18:19:27 thinking

18:19:28 about because

18:19:28 it literally

18:19:30 is a matter

18:19:32 of survival of

18:19:33 the species.

18:19:34

18:19:34 >> Frank Sullivan: I

18:19:36 think that as

18:19:37 I recall, the

18:19:38 cover of The

18:19:39 Economist magazine,

18:19:40 just within

18:19:40 the last 60

18:19:42 days, was on

18:19:43 this subject.

18:19:45 The headline

18:19:48 was something

18:19:49 like "Who's

18:19:50 Next ?"

18:19:51 So a lot of

18:19:52 people are thinking

18:19:53 these same

18:19:54 terrifying

18:19:55 thoughts.

18:19:57 Let me switch

18:20:01 to China, if I

18:20:02 could.

18:20:03 The question asks

-- and I'm

18:20:05 going to

18:20:06 amplify it in

18:20:07 just a second

-- whether there

18:20:09 is a better way the


community can

18:20:12 deal with

18:20:13 China in

18:20:14 respect of


18:20:16 abuses.

18:20:17 And

18:20:18 I suspect

18:20:19 this question

18:20:20 here


18:20:23 concerns the

18:20:24 Uighurs and, of

18:20:25 course, there

18:20:26 are a number

18:20:27 of ethnic

18:20:28 minorities

18:20:29 around the

18:20:29 world for

18:20:30 whom we all

18:20:31 share a

18:20:32 concern.

18:20:33 The

18:20:33 row hin ja

18:20:34 are very much

in mind these

18:20:36 days, too.

18:20:37 I just wanted

to say as to

18:20:40 the Uighurs, the very

first time that I heard

18:20:43 about the Uighurs was

18:20:44 in respect to

18:20:45 Justice David's

18:20:48 assignment at

18:20:49 Guantanamo

18:20:49 where a number

18:20:50 of, as I

18:20:51 recall,

18:20:52 Uighurs had

18:20:54 been

18:20:54 imprisoned,

18:20:58 right,

18:20:58 Muslims, and

18:20:59 they didn't

18:21:00 really want to

18:21:01 go back to

18:21:02 China, as I

18:21:03 recall, and sort

18:21:04 of became stateless

18:21:05 people.

18:21:06 But in any

18:21:07 event, China

18:21:08 is a real

18:21:09 conundrum in

18:21:10 this respect,

18:21:11 isn't it?

18:21:12

18:21:12 >> Michael

18:21:13 Kirby: Well, it

18:21:14 is a conundrum,

18:21:15 and it's not

18:21:16 simply the

18:21:17 Uighurs.

18:21:18 It's also the

18:21:20 issue of

18:21:20 Taiwan, the

18:21:22 issue of Hong

18:21:23 Kong.

18:21:24 China

18:21:25 has a great

18:21:26 fear of what

18:21:27 it calls

18:21:28 splittism.

18:21:29 That is to say

18:21:31 it's very

18:21:32 afraid that

18:21:33 in the

18:21:34 outlying

18:21:36 regions of

18:21:37 China,

18:21:39 including

18:21:41 Tibet, that

18:21:42 parts of the

18:21:44 nation will

18:21:46 split away,

18:21:47 and that that

18:21:48 will start a

18:21:49 course of

18:21:49 events that

18:21:50 will be

18:21:51 greatly

18:21:51 damaging to

18:21:52 the integrity

18:21:57 of the

18:21:57 Chinese nation and

18:21:58 the economy of

18:22:02 the Chinese

18:22:02 nation and

18:22:04 its capacity

18:22:05 to keep

18:22:07 together.

18:22:07 And

18:22:08 therefore, if

18:22:09 you read any

18:22:10 material

18:22:13 coming out of

18:22:14 China under

18:22:15 President Xi,

18:22:17 it's got

18:22:17 plenty of

18:22:18 material of

18:22:21 fear, of

18:22:22 splitism.

18:22:23 And, of


18:22:25 not the only

18:22:26 country that has these

18:22:27 fears.

18:22:28 Burma

18:22:30 is another

18:22:31 country that

18:22:32 does, and this

18:22:35 is a problem

18:22:36 where the old

18:22:37 issue of

18:22:37 self-determina

18:22:39 tion of

18:22:40 peoples that

18:22:40 exercise the

18:22:41 mind of

18:22:42 President

18:22:43 Wilson at the

18:22:44 end of the

18:22:45 first World

18:22:46 War is still with

18:22:47 us, and it's

18:22:48 still a

18:22:49 source of

18:22:51 great

18:22:51 potential

18:22:51 disruption.

18:22:52 But China is

18:22:53 a special

18:22:54 case because

18:22:56 China is

18:22:57 extremely

18:22:59 large and

18:22:59 very

18:23:00 powerful.

18:23:01 On the other

18:23:02 hand, China,

18:23:03 as I think

18:23:04 Professor

18:23:05 Emmert said,

18:23:09 has at least

18:23:10 in the past

18:23:11 pre-President

18:23:12 Xi, been very

18:23:13 favorable to the



18:23:18 in the sense of sticking

18:23:19 to a

18:23:20 rules-based

18:23:21 system.

18:23:21 And

18:23:22 even on the

18:23:24 case of North

18:23:26 Korea, if

18:23:27 there have

18:23:28 been sanctions

18:23:29 imposed by


18:23:31 council

18:23:32 against North

18:23:33 Korea as they

18:23:34 have, that could not

18:23:36 have happened

18:23:37 without the

18:23:37 vote of the

18:23:38 Russian

18:23:39 Federation

18:23:39 and the

18:23:40 peoples


18:23:42 China.

18:23:43

So that signals that at least on the matter of Korea, China is concerned itself for the dangers to China of the breakdown -- sudden breakdown of the regime in North Korea, and it's concerned that that could be dangerous to the integrity of China because there's a large population of Korean Chinese in the northeast corner of the Peoples Republic of China.

18:24:20

So the issues of splitism and the issues of respecting China's national sovereignty are important, but all of that has to be seen in the context of the United Nations and the charter of the United Nations. The one thing we learn as judges is context. Context, context, context. That's how we can understand a particular problem.

18:24:49

That's how we can understand the particular problem of Guantanamo Bay, in the context of the traditions of the United States and its international posture. But this is what we've got to look at.

18:25:04

The Commission of Inquiry had a lot of problems with China.

18:25:10

China would not cooperate. The Russian Federation did cooperate. It was very interesting going to meet the Russian ambassador. He said we know where our comrade friends in North Korea are coming from because we went through all this.

18:25:27

That's what the ambassador for the Russian Federation in Geneva said. And he said to us, if ever they do something which is favorable to human rights, give them due credit.

18:25:38

>> Frank Sullivan: Yes, yes.

18:25:41

>> Michael Kirby: We did, but it was not rich pickings.

18:25:49

But anyway, this is what we have to do.

We've got to reach out to China and try to engage with it because it's not going away.

It's very powerful, and it's very concerned about splitism and the break-up of the Chinese nation.

18:26:01

>> Frank Sullivan: Yeah, yeah, yeah. Well, thank you very much.

Justice Kirby, you've been very generous with your time, as you always are.

18:26:10

And in saying good-bye to you, I would want to say to the members of our audience who may not know this, that you were scheduled to be at our law school in person almost exactly one year ago.

And at the very last minute, due to COVID-related issues, you did not make the trip to North America, and as much as we missed having you, maybe it was just as well because I understand that some Australians who were absent from their country at the time had difficulty getting back home.

But we were very grateful to you for your willingness to travel here last year.

18:26:59

We're very grateful for your being with us today. And we hope that you will be able to visit our law school in person before too long.

18:27:09

>> Michael Kirby: Thank you very much, Justice Sullivan. My respects to everyone.

18:27:14

>> Frank Sullivan: Thanks for your splendid remarks this afternoon.

18:27:18

We've come, ladies and gentlemen, to the end of a really quite wonderful afternoon. And I want to take this opportunity to thank a number of people who made this possible. First and foremost, of course, our speakers, Justice Steven David, Professor Frank Emmert, and Justice Michael Kirby.

In addition, there are a number of other individuals associated with Indiana University with our law school and with the law review who I want to thank by name.

18:27:58

First of all, behind the scenes making this webinar possible are Brandon and Chelsie Roberts from the University's central staff.

18:28:11

From our own external affairs office, Jonna MacDougall and Liz Allington including managing the very complicated continuing legal education requirements that we have all been able to take advantage of here, at least those of us who need continuing legal education credit, that probably includes just about all of us except Justice Kirby.

18:28:40

Finally, a particular word of praise and thanks to three of our wonderful students who as leaders of the Indiana International and Comparative Law Review conceived of and executed this afternoon's program.

18:29:04

Zach Reichle, the associate editor of this symposium; Khoa Trinh, the symposium editor; and the editor in chief of the Indiana International and comparative law review, the woman for whom we all work, Ariel Anderson.

18:29:21

Ladies and gentlemen, this brings us to the end of our program today.

Thanks so very much for joining us.

My hope is that you'll continue to support our law school and this law review, and Justice Kirby and I are signing off here with our masks on to remind all of you that it's still quite dangerous out there and that we should all take care.

Thanks very much.

18:29:58

New mckinneylaw.iu.edu · Web view2021. 3. 1. · And so with that, the stage is yours, Professor...

Documents

Transcript of New mckinneylaw.iu.edu · Web view2021. 3. 1. · And so with that, the stage is yours, Professor...