Salzburg Cutler Law Fellows Program » Overview

Salzburg Global Seminar, in partnership with eleven of the leading law schools in the USA, offers the "Salzburg Cutler Law Fellows Program," a one-of-a-kind program for students interested in international law and legal practice. Launched in the fall of 2012, the Salzburg Cutler Law Fellows Program was named in memory of Lloyd N. Cutler, former White House Counsel for two presidents and Chairman of the Board of Salzburg Global Seminar. Cutler strongly believed that one of the keys to progress was the early identifying and mentoring of young leaders with a yearning to make the world a better place through law and the rule of law.

The Salzburg Cutler Law Fellows Program convenes up to 55 students nominated by their law schools along with leading judges and practitioners for a highly interactive exploration of leading edge issues in international law, covering international human rights and humanitarian law; national security; international courts; rule of law; and international finance, monetary, and trade law. Guided by lawyers from a range of traditional and non-traditional areas, including some of the top international law firms in the US, the Salzburg Cutler Law Fellows receive advice on how to determine career goals, manage career trajectories, identify the jobs beyond the first horizon of job seeking post-law school, and how expand and utilize professional networks. In addition to these high-level workshops, students receive feedback on their own original research and writing on topics concerning the development of both public and private international law. Salzburg Cutler Fellows automatically become members of the Salzburg Global Fellowship and its international network.

The Salzburg Cutler Law Fellows Program is currently open to students from the following eleven US law schools: Chicago, Columbia, Duke, Georgetown, Harvard, Michigan, New York University, Penn, Stanford, Virginia, and Yale.

Upcoming Session:

Salzburg Cutler Fellows Law Program: Future of Public and Private International Law
February 24-25, 2017


“Americans have lost their bedrock of democracy” warns former newspaper executive in Cutler Lecture
Alberto Ibargüen, President, John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, delivers the seventh Lloyd N. Cutler Lecture on the Rule of Law
“Americans have lost their bedrock of democracy” warns former newspaper executive in Cutler Lecture
Sarah Sexton 
Two weeks after Facebook, Google, and Twitter executives testified before US Congress on how Russia used social media to meddle in the 2016 presidential election, Alberto Ibargüen called on the tech titans to acknowledge their role as “publishers” and take responsibility for the authenticity of the content they disseminate.   Speaking on November 14 at the Newseum in Washington, DC, the former newspaper executive and current president of the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation said, “With the disaggregation of news sources and the rise of technology companies as leading publishers, Americans have lost their bedrock of democracy, which is a shared baseline of facts.”  Ibargüen was joined by Charlie Savage of The New York Times for the Seventh Lloyd N. Cutler Lecture on the Rule of Law: “Trust, Media and Democracy in the Digital Age” (full text). The lecture series was established by Salzburg Global Seminar in 2009 to honor the life and work of Lloyd N. Cutler, former White House Counsel to Presidents Carter and Clinton and long-time Chairman of Salzburg Global’s Board of Directors. Ibargüen is a former publisher of The Miami Herald and El Nuevo Herald. During his tenure, The Miami Herald won three Pulitzer Prizes and El Nuevo Herald won Spain’s Ortega y Gasset Prize for excellence in Spanish language journalism. While technology companies never intended to shoulder responsibility for reporting news, Ibargüen said, Pew Research Center found that in 2017 two-thirds of adults in the US get their news from social media. Many of these tech companies shirk classification as media companies and disavow responsibility for authenticity. But Ibargüen warned that misinformation and “fake news” would prove bad for business if the public loses trust in what they read on Facebook and other social media platforms. Ibargüen and Savage discussed several possible solutions for determining the truth of online content, from Facebook’s efforts to curb “fake news” using a network of fact-checking partners to The Trust Project’s work with newsrooms and technology companies to help algorithms differentiate between news content and fakery.   Ibargüen recounted that 10 years earlier, Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the World Wide Web, approached the Knight Foundation for funds to work on technology that would determine the truth or falsity of online content. “It didn’t work. The technology wasn’t there,” Ibargüen said of those early efforts, “but I think that’s the future.”  Savage said that while technological advancements and artificial intelligence may contribute to the solution, these solutions would raise critical questions around ethics and governance. The public would need to know who programmed the algorithms – and who financed them, Savage said.  Ibargüen and Savage also shared observations about the changing understanding of what free speech and press mean to Americans. A substantial majority of college students believe “free speech” means censoring speech that would cause psychological harm or exclusion of people or groups, Ibargüen said.  “The increased value of inclusion and protection from this sort of harm is intensified by the common use of social media, with its reinforcement of filter bubbles, of like-minded thinkers, and the ability to block anyone with whom you disagree,” Ibargüen said. “And anonymity, hate speech, and bullying all promote the sort of thinking that values protection over exposure.” Ibargüen noted that the present upheaval around communication technology is only the beginning. “We’re very much in the early days of a new world,” Ibargüen said. “After Gutenberg, society adapted to embrace his disruption and thrived as never before.  Here's hoping history repeats itself.”
View full set on Flickr All photos can be republished with the inclusion of the credit: Salzburg Global Seminar/Stephanie Natoli This lecture was delivered under the auspices of the Lloyd N. Cutler Center for the Rule of Law. To learn more about Lloyd N. Cutler and the center, please visit: cutler.salzburgglobal.org Press inquiries can be directed to Thomas Biebl, Director of Marketing & Communications: tbiebl@salzburgglobal.org The full text of the lecture can be read here Download the transcript as a PDF
READ MORE...
Trust, Media and Democracy in the Digital Age
Trust, Media and Democracy in the Digital Age
Salzburg Global Seminar 
This text is the full transcript of the Seventh Lloyd N. Cutler Lecture on the Rule of Law, delivered on November 14 by Alberto Ibargüen, President, John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, at the Newseum in Washington, DC, USA. MR. IBARGÜEN: I want to thank, first of all, Salzburg Global Seminar for inviting me to speak. In a world of new rules and lightning fast communication, the Seminar’s role as a haven for thoughtful exploration of complex issues has never, never been more important. And thanks, Stephen, for the privilege of offering the 7th Lloyd Cutler Lecture. My interpretation of the legal aspects of this is going to be very, very broad, but you know that, and you said it was okay. It is an extraordinary honor to be associated even in a – in a small way with such a formidable mind, consummate connector, and public intellectual. I didn’t know Lloyd Cutler, as a number of you did, so I called a friend of mine, Jonathan Fanton, who did know him. Jonathan taught at Yale. He was president of the MacArthur Foundation. He’s now the head of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. So, he knows a good man when he sees one, and he saw one in Cutler. Jonathan remembered him with affection, as a man of great intelligence, good judgment, and meticulous in thought and action. And he said, unlike some leaders, Lloyd kept his own judgment until he had the necessary information. I’m sure that was not a commentary on current events. (Laughter) MR. IBARGÜEN: I couldn’t be more pleased, too, that we’re here in the Newseum. I was proud to be chairman of the board of the Newseum when we inaugurated this building. I led Knight Foundation to become one of the Newseum’s founding partners and its biggest outside donor. This wonderful place was actually designed to be open and immutable. Shortly after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, we were nearing the end of the design phase of the building, and somebody suggested we really ought to change the design and make it something much more secure. We chose instead to keep the façade you see today, which is two-thirds glass and one-third stone, symbolizing both journalism’s quest for openness and transparency and our immutable adherence to free expression. I love the wall with the First Amendment carved on great slabs of Tennessee marble located more or less equidistant between the White House and the Capitol, reminding everybody that Congress shall make no law abridging the rights to speech, press, religion, assembly, and freedom to petition the government. The Newseum promotes the values that we live and breathe at Knight Foundation with an endowment of now about $2.3, $2.4 billion. We made more than $140 million in grants last year to programs, projects, and people committed to informed and engaged communities honoring Jack Knight’s belief that an informed citizenry, determining its true interest in a democratic republic, is the highest, best form of government. In that spirit, tonight I’d like to talk some about trust, about democracy and media, and the evolving role – critical role – of digital platforms, and the First – and the evolving understanding of First Amendment values. I’ll be very, very glad later also to talk with Charlie and take some questions. I think it – I think it is pretty fitting that Charlie is the – is the moderator tonight since – given his connection to Yale and to Knight, and it’s always wonderful to be back with friends. So, let me begin by focusing a little bit on the technology companies that play such an incredibly dominant role in our current media landscape. A few weeks ago, representatives from Facebook, Google, and Twitter came to town to testify before Congress. They were sober hearings. Our representatives peppered them with questions largely aimed at understanding Russian social media activities in the 2016 elections. That inquiry is important, I believe, but let’s look beyond the scope of those hearings and explore a broader conceptual issue that I think is massive and thorny, which is the role and responsibility of technology companies that began as platforms and transformed, I believe, into publishers. These are two very different things with different roles in society. Are they merely platforms and tech companies, or are they publishers with social and legal responsibility for what they publish? That is a central question at the heart of how to use the internet for democracy, and it involves technology, evolving attitudes toward First Amendment values, and key questions challenging the big tech’s business models. Throughout history, humans have grappled with how to identify truth, how to control information, how to empower people with knowledge. The Greeks struggled to balance common identity and purpose with free and democratic expression. We can each point to different periods in history when technology has complicated and charged that quest, sometimes using information for good, sometimes for evil. As we think about this, and it isn’t the problem we’re going to solve tonight, but take some heart from Guttenberg. Before Johannes Guttenberg mechanized the Chinese invention of the printing press, there was order. Books were rare. They were distributed from the few to the few, and usually came with a cardinal’s imprimatur asserting truth. After Guttenberg, any Tom, Dick, or Martin Luther could print and distribute whatever he wanted. Information flowed from the few to the many, and soon from the many to the many, so many, in fact, that information and opinion became hard to control, unreliable, unruly. It took a hundred years or so, an evolving experience with technology and its governance for people to re-learn to trust information. In a room full of people who know Bob Schieffer, and I’m sure you do, I should note that he makes this case in his new book, Overload. And if you really want to go deeper, check out Elizabeth Eisenstein, the brilliant professor at the University of Michigan, and her book, The Printing Press as an Agent of Change. It sounds like a – it sounds dense, but it is a wonderfully exciting and, I think, really uplifting scholarship. But trust they did eventually. People did trust finally information, and we, I think, are at a similar place. At the beginning of our republic, the reach of media was local and largely verifiable. The public learned to trust information because they could see for themselves when the information was true, was, in fact, true. The circulation of leaflets and newspapers extended to roughly the area of electoral districts. The Founding Fathers publicly debated the core ideals of our republic through accessible argument. It wasn’t debate so much as argument. In doing so, they formalized the role of the press as staging ground – the staging ground for the middle, an area of words where common ground is the common prize, where left and right can come together in compromise. And it remained that way with newspapers, pamphlets, and later radio, and even television. The signal of a radio station until relatively late in the 20th century or television local news was really about the same as a couple of congressional districts or a mayoral district. And none of this am I pretending that this did not come with major speed bumps of sometimes partisans, sometimes warmongering, sometimes bigoted press reflecting their owners and the times. But by and large, the United States grew up with local papers that established a direct relationship between themselves and their communities. That relationship held through most of the 20th century until the phenomenal rise of internet. This discussion would’ve been difficult to imagine a few decades ago before the first electronic message traveled between two computers, or 15 years ago before Facebook, or just a dozen years ago before the first tweet. But conceptually, the issue is not new. Technology has upended society many times before, and internet represent the most fundamental change to media and society since Guttenberg. It is both, I think, the great democratizing tool in history and democracy’s greatest challenge. It gives us all voice and potential influence beyond previous imagining. And at the same time, with the country – with our country dividing itself in real-life and online, into more and more homogenous communities described in The Big Sort, which I would highly recommend to you, internet has facilitated the creation not just of the filter bubbles, but the protective shields that allow us to block out dissenting or differing views. The success of any traditional news operation used to be measured by its ability to effectively and reliably inform society, but the business model that’s sustained newspapers for more than a century is now broken. Gathering and disseminating accurate information is expensive and revenue is short. We now have simultaneously a torrent of individual and small information efforts and have a potentially socially dangerous concentration of power in the hands of a handful of private companies with seemingly boundless potential for reach. Media means digital and cable, cool mediums that require hot performance, and trust in all media, especially traditional media, is at an all-time low. Americans’ trust in institutions generally and in each other is at a historic low. According to Pew Research, only 20 percent of Americans trust their government. The same low percentage has a lot of trust in the national news media. I agree with Nina Jankowicz, who – of the Woodrow Wilson Center, who recently wrote in the New York Times that, "It’s impossible to say definitively what causes this mistrust, but its growth has coincided with the rise of both the adrenaline-driven internet news cycle and the dying of local journalism over the past two decades. Without news that connects people to their town councils or county fairs, stories that analyze how Federal policies affect local business, people are left with news about big banks in New York and dirty politics in Washington." Said another way, there simply are fewer and fewer institutions unifying community by feeding news to the middle and setting the agenda for civil discourse for both left and right. Social media has catalyzed the fragmentation of what was once a somewhat united public sphere. It has fractured and privatized the town square. The shattering of communal baselines has become a problem before the social media boom, of course, but the divides among us have only grown starker as we find less and less common ground and rely more and more on opinion presented as news. Earlier this year, Knight Foundation partnered with Aspen Institute to form a Commission on Trust, Media, and Democracy to consider these questions. It’s led by New York Public Library president, Tony Marx, and former Tennessee state legislator, Jamie Woodson. The Commission will consider these fundamental issues of trust and recommend solutions to restore it. This is one of, I think, many such efforts, and I think this is something that the Salzburg Seminar would have a major role to play in. What we know today, what we know or think we know, which leads to what and who we trust and who we deem trustworthy, is increasingly determined by five behemoths: Facebook, Google, Amazon, Apple, and Microsoft. As examples of their dominance, consider that Facebook and Google capture more than 75 percent of digital ad revenue and make up 40 percent of America’s digital content consumption. In another time we might’ve looked at such dominance with the same jaundiced eye that Presidents McKinley and Teddy Roosevelt used to gaze on Rockefeller Standard Oil or Carnegie’s U.S. Steel. So far, we haven’t, but I think that could change. Facebook and Google have become more influential purveyors of information than any New York Times or any Washington Post. Yet the Silicon Valley giants and others like them have shied away from accepting a publisher’s basic responsibility for the authenticity of their content. They have virtually limitless opportunity to define and form community beyond geographic boundaries, but they disavow responsibility for authenticity, for the truth or falsity of the material as a basic tenet of business. As I see it, a publisher’s success is premised on consistently delivering reliable news and information. Today’s platform premise success on basic access tailored to personal preferences for any proposition, person, or group. Those are new rules indeed, and I think maybe unsustainable. Jack Knight’s notion of a well-informed citizenry, eager to tackle questions with a common factual framework, is very challenged today. With the disaggregation of news sources and the rise of technology companies as leading publishers, Americans have lost their bedrock of democracy, which is a shared baseline of facts. Today, people already view tech companies as media companies. Pew Research shows that a majority of American adults get their news on social media. Facebook is the top source of political news for the Millennial generation. In all age groups, the percentage of social media users who rely on those platforms for news is increasing. This dominance is no accident. The amount of information about ourselves, our habits, our preferences that we share with tech companies in exchange for their – for the convenience of their service is stunning. In addition, tech companies already produce and will produce more content. Think of YouTube News. Think of Facebook paying to create video content to share on live platforms, or Amazon Studios for movies. These companies may shun the media label, but they proactively pursue media revenue streams. And like the trusts of decades past, the tech giants are horizontally integrated, saturating and dominating the market for information, and sometimes vertically integrated, exerting influence and control over content at every stage from generation, to production, to distribution. They’ve been as successful as you know they have. You can’t blame them for not wanting to change. They never intended to shoulder responsibility for reporting news, but sometimes life is unfair and takes an unexpected turn. But why would they change? I think they would change because their role has – society has changed, and their role in society has changed, and they have to step up to the new responsibility, I think, if they’re going to be allowed to continue acting – functioning in the way they have. I think they’ll change because they have to. I think they’ll do that – they’ll change because it’s bad for business. Think about the people talk about reading something on Facebook or even Google. They don’t say – people don’t say I read that Charlie Savage story in the – that was published in Thursday’s New York Times. They say I read it on Facebook. I read it on Facebook. If it turns out that the stuff you read on Facebook is not reliable, if it turns out that you – that you are proven consistently wrong, that is bad for business. And I think there’s real hope in that for me, from my perspective. I think there’s – I believe in that kind of self-interested motivation that would drive a company like Facebook, and I think is driving a company like Facebook, to consider what they need to do in order to ensure authenticity. I don’t think – I’ve talked with many friends who say, well, but it’s so convenient, you’ll never get people to rebel, you’ll never get people to walk away from it. I don’t know what never is. Fifteen years ago, Facebook didn’t exist. How long ago was it that we thought IBM would always be, given the age group of us – most of us – (Laughter) MR. IBARGÜEN: – with due respect to anyone not – who doesn’t remember when IBM was the great behemoth before Microsoft took them down, and then came Google. So, I don’t know when never is. I can imagine, to borrow from Malcolm Gladwell, I can imagine a tipping point when our society says enough. Enough, when consumers change the game. These things happen. World wars are started. We don’t need to go that far. Think about – think about what’s happening now. I think we’re living in a moment now in the U.S. around sexual abuse and harassment after decades of silence and looking the other way. Those stories are the kindling, and the Harvey Weinstein disclosures were merely the spark that set the fire of change. I believe we’re witnessing a fundamental change in attitudes and practice. In the market, if consumers feel they’re not well served by existing services, they’ll find other services. And remember that Yogi Berra is always right: if the fans don’t want to come to the ballpark, nobody can stop them. (Laughter) MR. IBARGÜEN: So, if I were – if I were running a company and I was producing stuff that wasn’t believed, I’d be worried. I also think platform companies may be forced to change by government, which, challenged by their power and supported by a potentially mistrustful public, might ultimately trust bust if only out of self-preservation. I think they’ll change because technology, and this is really important. I think they will change because technology will enable them to assume more effective control of their content, which presents all sorts of other questions about machine learning and decision making. Meanwhile there are efforts that people are making to address some of these things, some within the companies themselves. I give credit where it’s due with Facebook, Google, and other places. I also know that organizations like the Trust Project, which is meeting here at the Newseum later this week, which is funded by Craig Newmark of Craig’s List, Google, and, full disclosure, Knight Foundation, at Santa Clara University, working with news rooms and technology companies to help the public and algorithms differentiate between news content and fakery. A proposed new project, News Guard. It hasn’t gone anywhere yet. It might. It’s spearheaded by Gordon Crovitz who used to be at the Wall Street Journal, and Steve Brill. They seek to make the effort even simpler. They want to have – they want to have a marker that shows red, yellow, and green based on the authenticity track record of whatever the source is. Will that be perfect? Of course not. None of these things are. None of these things probably ever will be because it’s about judgment. But these are efforts dealing with the problem. At Knight, we believe artificial intelligence will play a huge and increasingly important – increasingly central role. And so, with Pierre Omidyar, who founded eBay, and Reid Hoffman, who co-founded LinkedIn, we started a fund to work with MIT’s Media Lab and Harvard’s – Harvard Law School’s Berkman Center to explore ethics in government – governance of artificial intelligence. When those tech solutions I just suggested are developed, how fast can they become dark implements in the hands of Big Brother? In a New York heartbeat. How obscure can tech companies be? Darker than Darth Vader, and they speak a language most of us, including members of Congress, don’t fully understand. So, it’s critical that organizations like ours, like Hasting Center’s, which works on these issues with regard to health, MacArthur Foundation, Democracy Fund, continue to do so, as well as Washington think tanks, our great research universities, because leaving the ethics in governance of how we know what we know to corporations whose primary purpose is commercial gain, or, with all due respect to whoever is in political power, it is not just bad policy for the short term. It’s bad for democratic society in the long term. In the meanwhile, are there traditional media companies that are doing things? Yes, I think there are. I think right here, maybe the best – the best adapting big paper in the country is the Washington Post. I’d also look at what the Texas Tribune does in – out of Austin or ProPublica out of New York. These organizations have very different business models, and, again, I should tell you that we have funded projects with all three of those, with the Washington Post, with Texas Tribune, with ProPublica. They have different business models. Some are nonprofit, some are for, but they share a common commitment to verification journalism, and to the use of technology to find and reach their audience. They believe, as my friend, Marty Baron, likes to say, that we have to focus on doing the work of getting the story right because that’s where the credibility will be proven and earned, but the technology has to be one-click advertising, one-click. Did you – did you see? Using the – using the techniques, the marketing techniques of selling on online to sell news. Since we’re in the Newseum, I’d like to end my part of the remarks with some observations about the changing understanding of what free speech and free press mean to young Americans. Although the ferocity, reach, and frequency of today’s political attacks have ratcheted up the level of intensity, I’ve talked with too many people in politics to believe that their view of media is fundamentally new. What I think is new is a changing generational view of what "free speech" means. In early 2016, Knight Foundation commissioned Gallup – the Gallup organization to survey attitudes among college students on First Amendment freedoms. The results suggest that there is a fundamental generational shift in our understanding of these basic rights among a broad and deep sample of young people training to become our nation’s leaders. The Gallup survey showed that about three-fourths of college students believe in free speech. That’s good. They consider 25 percent maybe don’t. That’s maybe not so good, but three-quarters is good on any kind of a poll. And the thing that then really makes you scratch your head is that about two-thirds believe in safe spaces. This is really a major, major shift. So, three-quarters free speech, two-thirds safe spaces. Do the math and scratch your head. And among a representative sample of African-American students, some 60 percent did not believe that their right of assembly was secure. That is very significant when you think about the whole. My own reading of this is that the younger generation values inclusion and freedom from psychological harm in the same way that previous generations valued freedom from physical harm. In the tradition of free speech, you weren’t allowed to yell "fire" in a crowded theater because you could cause harm. Now a substantial majority of college students believe "free speech" means stopping speech, censoring speech that would cause other types of harm, or cause exclusion or people – of people or groups. The increased value of inclusion and protection from this sort of harm is intensified by the common use of social media, with its reinforcement of filter bubbles, of like-minded thinkers, and the ability to block anyone with whom you disagree. And anonymity, hate speech, and bullying all promote the sort of thinking that values protection over exposure. We’re in the field with Gallup now, and we’ll have a 2018 version of that study ready pretty soon. It remains to be seen whether we have a trend or just a reflection of current events at that moment in time two years ago. If we’re right and this is a trend, it will be one of the many in the ever-evolving history of the First Amendment. As these new understandings of the debates occur, we at Knight felt that it was very important to ensure that the presence of a – of a disinterested advocate was assured, a disinterested advocate that argues for free speech. Three years ago, we partnered with Columbia University to establish the Knight First Amendment Institute for that purpose. With an initial endowment of $50 million, it will be an independent affiliated – an independent affiliate of the university led by Jameel Jaffer and a team of outstanding attorneys, and guided by a board that includes Ted Olson, who I’m sure many of you know, from Gibson Dunn, and Eve Burton of the Hearst Corporation, with the very active support of Lee Bollinger, who is the president of Columbia and a leading First Amendment scholar. I’m also very pleased to note tonight the presence here of representatives from Omidyar Networks Democracy Fund, who have also generously contributed to creating that institute. The First Amendment we enjoy today, the world’s gold standard, was significantly forged in battles over the last half century, largely paid for by newspaper companies. Those companies either no longer exist or they’re financially strained, but they left – but they have left a reasonably well-settled body of law affirming the rights of people and press articulated in the Constitution, carved into the marble at the Newseum, and the extension of those rights to broadcast licensees. What is not settled are the free speech rights on internet. Will courts ultimately choose freedom of [speech] – as a right or the potential restrictions of a license? The consequences, I think, are enormous. The legal questions are wide open, and Knight Institute will engage in the courts through research, scholarship, and conferences always with a bias toward free speech and free press. In summary, and we need to get on with the – with the discussion, I’d just remind you of some of the ground rules going forward. First, we must be in line with the First Amendment. Second, we must recognize the problem is not monolithic, and any response must be nimble and iterative. And third, we should remember that this challenge exists within a larger context. The massive questions regarding the decline of trust in all institutions makes this a civic emergency. Not long ago, I spoke with a professor at MIT about the upheaval that communication technology was causing in society, and I asked him where he thought we were in that revolution on a scale of one to 10, with one being a brand-new technology, and 10 being a mature technology with understood impact. And he said without hesitation two, maybe three. You ain’t seen nothing yet. We’re very much in the early days of the new world. After Guttenberg, society adapted to embrace his disruption and thrived as never before. Here’s hoping history repeats itself. Thank you. (Applause)  
View full set on Flickr All photos can be republished with the inclusion of the credit: Salzburg Global Seminar/Stephanie Natoli This lecture was delivered under the auspices of the Lloyd N. Cutler Center for the Rule of Law. To learn more about Lloyd N. Cutler and the center, please visit: cutler.salzburgglobal.org Media requests can be directed to Thomas Biebl, Director of Marketing and Communications: tbiebl@salzburgglobal.org Download the transcript as a PDF
READ MORE...
Jared Genser - "Failure is not an option"
Jared Genser, human rights lawyer and founder of Freedom Now speaking at the fifth annual Cutler Fellows Law Program
Jared Genser - "Failure is not an option"
Salzburg Global Seminar 
During the fifth annual Salzburg Cutler Law Fellows Program, Salzburg Global Seminar President Stephen L. Salyer sat down with guest speaker Jared Genser, human rights lawyer and founder of Freedom Now, for a one-on-one interview. Genser spoke about his organization, his advice for young lawyers, and how he comes to terms with the different challenges he faces. This year's Salzburg Cutler Laws Fellow Program, Future of Public and Private International Law, included 56 representatives from 26 countries - the most diverse group the program has had so far. During the two-day program held in February, Cutler Fellows and practitioners explored cutting edge issues in international law. In addition to Genser, Cutler Fellows also heard from Kristalina Georgieva, Salzburg Global Fellow and newly-appointed Chief Executive Officer at the World Bank. Read what Genser had to say in a condensed transcript below. Alternatively, listen to the full interview on Soundcloud. This transcript has been edited for length. Stephen: Hello. I’m Stephen Salyer, President of the Salzburg Global Seminar. I’m here with Jared Genser who is a well-known human rights lawyer and the founder of Freedom Now. Jared has been talking with the Salzburg Cutler Fellows, a group of about 55 law students from top US law schools interested in careers in public and international law and also public service. Jared in founding Freedom Now, what set it apart from some of the other human rights organizations? Jared: I founded Freedom Now coming from an experience I had helping to, as a law student, free James Mawdsley, a British national who had gotten a 17-year prison sentence and solitary confinement in Burma for handing out pro-democracy leaflets. And in founding Freedom Now, we’re different from other human rights groups in a couple of key ways. The first is, we represent our clients as lawyers, and that puts you at the center of the case and enables you to most effectively advocate on their behalf. Second, we combine political and public relations advocacy efforts that are strategically designed to maximize pressure on the government so that the cost dramatically outweigh the benefits. And lastly, we focus on cases that are representative of broader views around the country and different geographies around the world. We are looking for prisoners of conscience, people who are detained for who they are or what they believe. Stephen: You’re here today with a group of very bright and dedicated young men and women just at the beginning of their careers. If you think back, what do you wish you would have had the chance to learn more of in law school and what’s your advice to young lawyers just starting their careers interested in fields like human rights? Jared: As a law student, you learn about international law and how to apply international law in situations, but you don’t learn a lot of other skills that are necessary for becoming an international human rights lawyer, including the fact that I spend half my time with any of my human rights victim clients really providing personal support and helping them survive what they are going through. You need to be able to engage governments and inter-governmental institutions and persuade them that this is an important enough cause that they should be engaged in and be involved in. And you learn really nothing about engaging the media. To really raise a cause to a government on any human rights issue requires not just merely knowing the law, but being able to speak intelligently to press. Engaging in pro bono work in the field of human rights provides a lot of freedom. But one has to seek out these opportunities proactively. You can’t just sit back and wait for them to come to you. Stephen: There are more prisoners of conscience in the world than you can come to the aid of. One of the students asked you earlier how you make decisions about the selection of your clients. Would you say a bit about that? Jared: We look for a range of different things when adding cases. First, the person has to be a prisoner of conscience, someone who is detained for who they are or what they believe. Then, we are looking for cases that are representative of broader abuses in the country. We are not just looking for a particular case of a person, let’s say, arrested for protesting, but we might look for the leader of that protest. By helping that one person, you help a broader bus of people.  Stephen: As you look to the future, how do you see the client-based approach that you’re taking affecting that broader climate? Do you think that these are the handles that people can grasp to actually have an impact on that broader cross-current of political forces, or is there another whole range of democratic responses that are going to have to be marshaled? Jared: Our take on it with Freedom Now is to represent a cluster of cases that can help transform societies. Cases that I’ve worked on have played an important role in contributing to help transform societies. I spent five years representing Aung San Suu Kyi as her international lawyer in Burma. Her freedom was critical to advance the situation there. I was her only international lawyer. One of the things we were able to do when I was representing her was to get all the current groups in the world together to agree to do a single letter to Ban Ki Moon from former presidents and prime ministers, pressing for him to travel to Burma to seek her freedom. We were able to get 112 former presidents and prime ministers across 50 countries to sign into one letter by having a rising tide lift all above us. Every NGO involved was able to put up a press release on the same day saying they were part of the letter. So we worked collaboratively. Everybody opened up their respective Rolodexes to make this happen, and Ban Ki-moon went a few months later. He didn’t secure her release, but it advanced the campaign in a dramatic way. And ultimately getting her out, which we prevailed in doing, started to move a process forward in the country that has led to her and her party winning a substantial majority in the last elections, and now she is the leader of her country. These kinds of cases can help transform societies, so that’s our small part of the much bigger problem. Stephen: You’ve talked about the dimension of your work, of being there for your clients and sometimes explaining things, but also providing a kind of emotional support in some of the darkest moments that they may face in their lives. How about yourself? When you hit a moment of particular challenge or fatigue or doubt, how do you deal with that in your own terms? Jared: It’s a great question. The work is incredibly hard, and all consuming, and one cannot easily just put up emotional barriers and not feel the pain that one’s clients are going through. So you emotionally are taking your work home with you whether you like it or not. I think for me, every day I am inspired by my clients. Seeing their perseverance, their resilience, disputing the enormous burden on their shoulders, really kind of makes the problems that I might have seem very first world in comparison. Frankly, all these cases that I work on are must-win situations. Failure is not an option. When does one have the luxury of being demoralized or sitting back and taking a break for very long? I think how I help keep perspective is by working with my clients. I know that my struggles and my challenges, they aren’t much relatively speaking to what they’re going to. I aspired to be a human rights lawyer before I went to law school. I had no idea what that was going to be like from an experiential standpoint. It has been so incredibly enriching and fulfilling for me in my career that I couldn’t imagine doing anything else. Stephen: I’ve been talking with Jared Genser, the founder of Freedom Now. A man who has been effective in so many ways across the world. I think the inspiration of “failure is not an option” is something we will all take away from today. Thank you for being with us. The Salzburg Cutler Fellows Law Program is held under the auspices of the Lloyd N. Cutler Center for the Rule of Law. The annual program collaborates with eleven of the leading U.S. law schools. This year's program was sponsored by NYU Washington and Arnold & Porter. More information on the session is available here. You can follow all of the discussions on Twitter by following the #cutlerfellows hashtag.
READ MORE...
Students learn how legal training can be used for the public good
Students learn how legal training can be used for the public good
Sarah Sexton 
As the Trump Administration in the United States and political movements across the world raise questions around the continuity of international legal frameworks put in place since World War II, the Salzburg Cutler Fellows Program gathered 56 students from 11 top U.S. law schools to explore the future of public and private international law. Over two days, February 24-25, the students heard from prominent legal professionals and public servants, including Kristalina Georgieva, the newly-appointed CEO of the World Bank, and Jared Genser, Founder of Freedom Now, a non-profit organization aiming to free prisoners of conscience around the world.  The students also worked closely with faculty advisors from each of the participating law schools – Chicago, Columbia, Duke, Georgetown, Harvard, Michigan, NYU, Penn, Stanford, UVA, and Yale – to workshop research papers tackling issues in international law ranging from human rights to monetary law.  The Cutler Fellows Program was named in memory of Lloyd N. Cutler, the Washington “Super Lawyer” who served as White House Counsel to Presidents Carter and Clinton. Cutler also served as Chair of Salzburg Global’s Board of Directors for a decade and believed strongly in the power of mentoring young leaders with a commitment to making the world a better place through law and rule of law.  The Cutler Fellows Program was founded in 2012 to carry forward Lloyd Cutler’s legacy and to empower a next generation of legal professionals. This year, we welcomed the fifth cohort of Cutler Fellows, the largest, most diverse group to date, collectively representing 26 countries, including Australia, China, Cote d’Ivoire, Ecuador, and Iran. Opening the program on Friday at the United States Institute for Peace, Jared Genser shared the story of James Mawdsley, a British citizen who in 1999 was sentenced to 17 years in solitary confinement in Burmese prison for advocating democracy and distributing leaflets in Burma. In early 2000, Genser petitioned the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention on Mawdsley’s behalf and went to work urging the U.S. Department of State and the U.K. Foreign Office to call for Mawdsley’s release.  When the UN Working Group later ruled that Mawdsley was being held in violation of international law, the pressure Genser had generated through his political and public relations advocacy efforts forced the Burmese government to release Mawdsley in October 2000. Shortly thereafter, Genser founded Freedom Now.  Through Mawdsley’s story, Genser emphasized the importance of reinforcing human rights law with political and public relations advocacy strategically designed to maximize pressure on governments to release prisoners held in violation of international law. In the afternoon, the Cutler Fellows Program co-chair, William Burke-White of Penn Law moderated a faculty panel on “The First Year of the Trump Administration: What to Expect?” featuring Rachel Brewster of Duke Law, Paul Stephan of Virginia Law, and Allen Weiner of Stanford Law.  The panelists commented on the apparent retreat from globalism across the world and discussed what they described as the Trump Administration’s “transactional approach” to international law, one that seeks individual gain and discounts the ideological broader good.  The following morning at New York University’s Washington campus, keynote speaker Kristalina Georgieva echoed the faculty panelists’ concern for the dwindling sense of global community. Georgieva, who previously served as European Commissioner for International Cooperation, Humanitarian Aid and Crisis Response, grew up in post-World War II Communist Bulgaria, and commented on how her home country and its neighbors in Europe had learned twice in the past century what happens when nations try to confront problems independently.  “I hope we do not have to learn in the hardest way possible that we are in this world together,” Georgieva said.   She also fielded several questions from the Cutler Fellows, including how to make social welfare more effective and how to facilitate better coordination between various actors working to respond to crises such as the January 2010 earthquake in Haiti.   After this, students engaged in small group discussions exploring how legal training can be used for the public good. These discussions were aided by Michael Bahar, Staff Director and General Counsel at U.S. House of Representatives, Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence; Katrin Kuhlmann, President and Founder, New Markets Lab; Gomiluk Otokwala, Counsel at the International Monetary Fund; and Mark Vlasic, Senior Fellows and Adjunct Professor at Georgetown Law and Principal at Madison Law & Strategy Group.  At the end of this year’s Program, Salzburg Global Seminar President Stephen L. Salyer announced the Cutler Fellow with the most outstanding finance-orientated paper would receive a Salzburg Global scholarship. This scholarship will allow one student to travel to Salzburg Global Seminar’s home at Schloss Leopoldskron, Austria, to take part in the June 2017 session of the Salzburg Global Forum on Finance in a Changing World, during which the world’s leading bankers, regulators, and policymakers will engage in off-the-record conversations on the issues affecting the future of global markets.  The decision will be made by select faculty. Salzburg Global plans to offer a single scholarship each year to allow future Cutler Fellows to engage in other Salzburg Global programs that align with their interests. 
READ MORE...
Future of international law and public service gathers in Washington DC
Future of international law and public service gathers in Washington DC
Oscar Tollast 
Students with a passion for international law, legal practice, and a career in public service will convene in Washington, DC, tomorrow for the fifth Salzburg Cutler Fellows Law Program. This year’s program, Future of Public and Private International Law, includes representatives from 26 countries - the most diverse group the program has had so far. The Salzburg Cutler Law Fellows Program is a one-of-a-kind program which aims to build collaborative networks for human capital and leadership development within the legal and public services sector. Each year, in partnership with eleven of the top US law schools, 55 Cutler Fellows are chosen. Fellows are at the 2L, 3L, and LLM levels in their legal education.  The law schools taking part in this year’s program include Columbia Law School, Duke Law, Georgetown Law, Harvard Law School, NYU Law, Stanford Law School, University of Chicago Law School, Michigan Law, Penn Law, University of Virginia School of Law, and Yale Law School. This year’s program is co-chaired by Mark Wu, Assistant Professor of Law at Harvard Law, and William Burke-White, Professor and Inaugural Director at Perry World House, and Professor of Law at Penn Law. The event is sponsored by Arnold & Porter and NYU Washington. Kristalina Georgieva, Salzburg Global Fellow and newly-appointed Chief Executive Officer at the World Bank, and Jared Genser, Managing Director at Perseus Strategies and founder of Freedom Now, are this year’s speakers. During the two-day program, Fellows, leading judges, and practitioners will explore cutting edge issues in international law, including Global Women’s and Children’s Rights; Human Rights, Humanitarian Law, and Immigration; International Trade and Corruption and Monetary Law; Investment Law, Transnational Business Law and the Law of the Sea; and Global Governance, Regime Design, Courts, and Tribunals. Each Fellow will come away having prepared and presented a research paper intended for eventual publication.  The Salzburg Cutler Law Fellows Program takes its name after Lloyd N. Cutler, a Washington super-lawyer and counselor to two U.S. Presidents.  Cutler, who spent a decade as Chairman of the Board of Salzburg Global Seminar, supported the idea of earmarking future leaders who wished to use the rule of law to make the world a better place. During his time as Salzburg Global Chairman, Cutler convened international judges and those up and coming in their field to discuss the rule of law and principles of judicial independence.  After Cutler's passing in 2005, the Cutler Center was created to continue Lloyd N. Cutler's legacy. Under the Center's auspices, the Lloyd N. Cutler Lecture on the Rule of Law is presented annually in Washington, DC. In addition, the Cutler Center convenes Rule of Law seminars in Salzburg, Austria, and the Salzburg Cutler Fellows Law Program in Washington, DC. The Salzburg Cutler Fellows Law Program is held under the auspices of the Lloyd N. Cutler Center for the Rule of Law. The annual program collaborates with eleven of the leading U.S. law schools. This year's program is being sponsored by NYU Washington and Arnold & Porter. More information on the session is available here. You can follow all of the discussions on Twitter by following the #cutlerfellows hashtag.
READ MORE...
James Bacchus - How Brexit could affect Britain's relationship with the WTO
Bacchus speaking at New Dynamics in Global Trade Architecture: WTO, G20 and Regional Trade Agreements in 2014
James Bacchus - How Brexit could affect Britain's relationship with the WTO
Oscar Tollast 
Chair of the Greenberg Traurig law firm James Bacchus has questioned how British business will be "buoyed" to fill the Brexit gap if a new EU trade agreement isn't secured before Britain leaves. Bacchus, a former chairman of the Appellate Body of the World Trade Organization (WTO), discussed the issue as part of a commentary for The Wall Street Journal (paywall). In his article, Bacchus suggests there is a "widespread assumption" Britain will go back to the balance-of-trade rights and obligations it enjoys as a member of the WTO. However, there are doubts whether the UK's WTO trade benefits will remain intact post-Brexit. Writing in The Wall Street Journal, he said, "Currently, the UK's WTO trade benefits are bound up with those of the 27 other EU member states in a schedule of concessions - a list of tariffs, quotas and other trade commitments on market entry for thousands of traded goods and services. Post-Brexit, the UK will need its own separate WTO-approved list." In his article for The Wall Street Journal, Bacchus explores how other countries may seek concessions from the UK and what the UK might have to give in exchange for keeping the same trade benefits it already enjoys. He also identifies how British trade negotiators have become "fully aware of the centrality of the WTO to the success of Brexit." Bacchus chaired the session New Dynamics in Global Trade Architecture: WTO, G20 and Regional Trade Agreements in 2014, and gave the keynote lecture at the Salzburg Cutler Fellows Program: Future of Public and Private International Law in 2013. To read the article in full, please click here.
READ MORE...
Law and the Use of Force - Challenges for the Next President
Law and the Use of Force - Challenges for the Next President
Michelle Dai Zotti 
On January 20, 2017 the US will have a new Commander-in-Chief as President Donald J. Trump is sworn into office. On November 20, 2016, 200 guests gathered at the U.S. Supreme Court for the Sixth Annual Lloyd N. Cutler Lecture, where John B. Bellinger, III, former Legal Adviser to the Department of State during the George W. Bush administration, offered advice for the incoming President. “It will be critical for President Trump, Vice President Pence, and their senior advisers to learn and follow domestic and international law governing the use of force. And if there’s one message I have tonight, that is it,” declared Bellinger, now a partner in the international and national security law practices of Arnold & Porter in Washington, DC, and Adjunct Senior Fellow in International and National Security Law at the Council on Foreign Relations. The lecture was held by Salzburg Global Seminar under the auspices of the Lloyd N. Cutler Center for the Rule of Law. The lecture series was started by Salzburg Global Seminar in 2009 to honor the life and work of Lloyd N. Cutler, former White House Counsel to Presidents Carter and Clinton and long-time Chair of Salzburg Global’s Board of Directors. Bellinger’s timely lecture was titled “Law and the Use of Force: Challenges for the Next President” (full text) and was followed by a question and answer session moderated by David Rennie, Washington Bureau Chief at The Economist. This year’s lecture was hosted by Associate Justice and Salzburg Global Faculty member, Anthony Kennedy who delivered the opening remarks. In his speech, Justice Kennedy reflected on Salzburg Global’s history and importance in rebuilding post-war Europe intellectual capacity by spreading American values of democracy and the rule of law. Justice Kennedy also congratulated Salzburg Global for its ability to nurture young talents and to give them the opportunity to engage in political and civic discourse.  Reflecting on the US' involvement in military conflicts over the past 15 years, Bellinger provided a thorough analysis of domestic and international legal rules governing the use of military force by the executive branch. Bellinger particularly reflected on the Bush and Obama presidencies and looked ahead to the legal challenges for the next President. As Bellinger explained, while Article II of The Constitution provides the President with broad but not unlimited powers as Commander-in-Chief to use military force for self-defense purposes or national security issues, most Presidents prefer to also seek congressional approval through the so-called "Authorization to Use Military Force" (AUMF). The President should also adhere to the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which requires the President to report the use of US armed forces and to terminate their deployment within 60 days unless authorized differently by Congress. However, due to recent political gridlock, the last AUMF passed by Congress dates back to October 2002 when Congress authorized military intervention in Iraq. In order to gain authorization for the use of force against groups loosely associated to Al-Qaeda that did not exist at the time of 9/11 (such as Al-Shabaab in Somalia, Boko Haram in Nigeria and ISIS in Syria and Iraq), recent administrations have resorted to stretching an AUMF passed right after the attacks of 2001. International laws can be even more challenging than domestic rules: The United Nations (UN) Charter, and the Geneva Conventions, both adopted after World War II, were intended to apply to conflicts between nation states. The UN Charter does not allow the use of force against terrorists in another country unless authorized by the UN Security Council or the state itself consents. Therefore, the US’ use of force against terrorist suspects in countries that have not consented to such interventions, like the raid in Pakistan that killed Osama Bin-Laden, is very controversial; legal approval from Congress does not necessarily stop the US’ actions from being in violation of international law. As Bellinger remarked, domestic and international laws are outdated and need to be updated to better reflect the realities of modern warfare against non-state actors.   Given his isolationist, non-interventionist remarks during the recent Presidential campaign, Bellinger expects that Trump will be less likely to order the use of force than President Obama has (or Hillary Clinton would have), Bellinger believes Trump could still be confronted with a situation that would require intervention in Syria or elsewhere to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe.  Bellinger presented the following recommendation for the President-elect: From a domestic law perspective and with respect to the conflicts with al-Qaeda and ISIS, President Trump should push Congress to enact a new authorization in early 2017 that would revise and update the 2001 AUMF and legally approve the use of force against ISIS. President Trump should also ask Congress to revise and update the War Powers Resolution that has been increasingly ignored by recent Presidents. Bellinger also advised the new administration to refrain from ignoring international law. If the US violates international law, it might empower other countries such as Russia and China to do the same and alienate international allies in Europe, Canada and Australia. The Trump administration should work together with other countries to update the international legal framework regarding the use of force and develop new rules for the detention of non-state actors.  Bellinger concluded his lecture with the following words: “We must hope that President Trump will select advisers as wise as Lloyd Cutler to give him sound legal advice - and that he will listen to their advice.” In the Q&A section of the evening, David Rennie and John Bellinger discussed the lack of interest of the US Congress and even the American people to question the legitimacy of the use of force under international law compared to other countries, for example in Europe. The conversation, which also included questions from the audience, touched upon the legal framework for preventing or executing cyberattacks, the use of torture and the legitimacy of civilian casualties. The lecture concluded with closing remarks delivered by Stephen Salyer, President of the Salzburg Global Seminar.  For further analysis of the lecture, read David Rennie's Lexington column in the Economist: Donald Trump and the dark side Press inquiries can be directed to Thomas Biebl, Director of Marketing & Communications: tbiebl@salzburgglobal.org The full text of the lecture can be read here: www.salzburgglobal.org/go/cutler6/lecturetext 
READ MORE...
Displaying results 1 to 7 out of 22
<< First < Previous 1-7 8-14 15-21 22-22 Next > Last >>