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


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...
John Bellinger - "It will be critical for President Trump to learn and follow domestic and international law governing the use of force"
John Bellinger - "It will be critical for President Trump to learn and follow domestic and international law governing the use of force"
John B. Bellinger III 
This is the full text of the lecture given by John B. Bellinger III at the U.S. Supreme Court on the occasion of the Sixth Annual Lloyd N. Cutler Lecture on the Rule of Law For further analysis of the lecture, read David Rennie's Lexington column in The Economist: Donald Trump and the dark side Because this is the Lloyd Cutler Rule of Law Lecture, and we have just elected a new President, I've decided to speak tonight about some of the most important legal rules applicable to the next President, the laws that govern his use of military force. These were issues that I was extensively involved in when I was the legal adviser to the National Security Council, and then later as legal adviser to the Secretary of State. And these were laws that were also of great interest to Lloyd Cutler personally. One of the best-known moments of his tenure as counsel to the President was the advice that he gave in 1980 that the War Powers Resolution did not require the President to consult with Congress before ordering U.S. armed forces to attempt the rescue of the American hostages in Iran. Lloyd wrote and spoke about this incident on a number of occasions, recalling that the operation was so secret that he was told to consult no one, and that he did his own research in the White House library. Now, the United States has now been in a continuous state of armed conflict for over 15 years straight. Presidents Bush and Obama have ordered the use of military force in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Iraq, Syria, Somalia, and Libya, and perhaps other countries as well. President-Elect Trump will become Commander-in-Chief when the United States continues to use military force in all of these countries, and he may find it necessary to order the use of force in other countries over the next four years. 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. Many previous Presidents, even those with government experience as state governors, such as Presidents Reagan, Clinton, and George W. Bush, were initially unfamiliar with these rules that limit their actions as Commander-in-Chief and Head of State. They had to be schooled by their advisers and to learn the applicable law. During Mr. Trump's presidential campaign, I and many others were extremely troubled by his statements advocating counterterrorism policies that would violate domestic and international law, statements that were reiterated today by his Vice President. Such statements may have appealed to some voters during a campaign, but they must be strongly repudiated by a President of the United States. Now, any new President is likely to find it frustrating to try to comply with domestic and especially international laws governing the use of force. Some of the key governing laws rules are old and were not designed for contemporary problems. The War Powers Resolution was enacted by Congress in 1973 during the Vietnam War. The UN Charter was drafted in 1945 after World War II. The Geneva Conventions were adopted in 1949 and were intended to apply to conflicts between states. Even the two protocols to the Geneva Conventions negotiated in the 1970s after the Vietnam War were not negotiated with modern terrorists in mind. But even if these rules are dated, a President is still required by the Constitution to comply with domestic law and with international law as a matter of international obligation, and for reasons of reciprocity and practicality. This evening I want to discuss the applicable rules regarding the use of force and how the last two Presidents have tried to comply with them. I want to draw some lessons from my own service in the Bush Administration, and then and with some recommendations for President-Elect Trump and his advisors. Now, this is obviously a very broad subject area, and I plan just to focus really on the rules that govern the initiation of hostilities rather than the specific rules that govern the conduct of hostilities. So, let me just quickly remind you of the domestic law rules that the President must operate under. Under Article II of The Constitution, the President has broad, but not unlimited, powers as Commander-in-Chief and Chief Executive to authorize the use of military force in self-defense or to serve important national security interests. Now, most Presidents prefer also to seek congressional authorization in the form of an authorization to use military force, or an AUMF, if possible. But Congress can be reluctant to vote to authorize the use of force, and the President must often push hard for congressional authorization. Congress has not voted a new AUMF since authorizing the use of force against Iraq in October 2002. Presidents must also take into account the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which purports to require the President to report the introduction of U.S. armed forces into hostilities or combat situations, and to terminate any use of force covered by the resolution within 60 days unless Congress issues a specific authorization. And I say "purports," as most of you know, because most Presidents have concluded that at least some parts of the War Powers Resolution are unconstitutional, although all Presidents have tried to act consistent with the Resolution's provisions. So, that's the applicable domestic law in broad brush, but executive branch lawyers also usually want to ensure that any U.S. of military force in another country is consistent with international law. But international law rules can be even more challenging than domestic rules. The UN Charter prohibits the use of force against or in another country unless authorized by the Security Council or the state itself consents. Article 51 of the Charter, however, recognizes that every state has an inherent right to use force in collective or individual self-defense in response to an armed attack. Most international lawyers agree that this includes a right to use force in anticipatory self-defense to prevent an imminent attack, although lawyers debate the definition of "imminence." These are the only bases for the use of force recognized in the UN Charter. The UN Charter does not specifically permit a state to intervene in another country for a humanitarian purpose. The United Kingdom and a few other countries have asserted that international law permits the use of force to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe in limited circumstances, but the United States and the majority of countries do not recognize a right of humanitarian intervention. So, with that background, let me quickly survey the difficulties that the last two Presidents have had trying to comply with those rules in U.S. military actions against al-Qaeda and the Islamic State as well as in Iraq and Libya. President Trump will face the same challenges. Let me start with the conflict with al-Qaeda. As you know President Bush and Obama have been using substantial military force against the Taliban, al-Qaeda, and associated groups for 15 years since October 2001. As domestic law authority, they've relied on the authorization to use military force passed by Congress in September 2001, which I helped to draft when I was in the White House. That authorizes the use of force against persons or organizations that committed the 9/11. This has been the authority for a vast amount of counterterrorism action -- the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, more than 500 drone attacks in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia, and the detention of thousands of individuals. In recent years, however, Administration lawyers have had to stretch to conclude that the 2001 authorization authorizes the use of force against new terrorist groups loosely associated with al-Qaeda that did not exist at the time of the 9/11 attacks, such as Boko Haram in Nigeria, or al-Shabaab in Somalia. Now, with respect to international law, both the Bush and the Obama Administrations have cited a right of self-defense to use force against al-Qaeda and associated groups in multiple countries, including hundreds of drone strikes during the Obama Administration. But what has been more controversial has been the U.S. use of force against terror suspects in countries that have not themselves consented to the use of force in their territory. Both Administrations have asserted a right to use force against terrorists in the territory of any country that is unable or unwilling to prevent the threat posed by terrorists as the Obama Administration did in the raid in Pakistan that killed bin Laden. So, in short, although there was clear domestic and international law basis to use force to respond to the 9/11 attacks, it has been harder for Executive Branch lawyers to argue that the 2001 authorization and international law permit the use of force against groups that did not exist 15 years ago, or that operate in countries that have not consented to the use of force. And there continues to be significant disagreement among legal experts, both inside Side and outside the United States, regarding whether U.S. actions have been lawful. So, that's the use of force against al-Qaeda and associated groups. Let me turn to the Iraq War. Although the war was controversial, it was clearly authorized as a matter of domestic law. In October 2002 in the last authorization that Congress passed, Congress authorized the President to use force to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq and enforce all relevant UN Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. So, while the domestic legal basis was clear, the international law basis was less so. The United States and the United Kingdom had tried to persuade the Security Council to adopt a new resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq after Saddam Hussein had failed to comply with his obligations, but they were unable to do so. And so, they instead relied on UN Security Council resolutions that had been adopted by the Security Council in 1990 and 1991, more than a decade earlier at the time of the first Gulf War. The U.S. and its allies concluded that these old resolutions continued to provide authority for the use of force against Saddam. Many critics of the Iraq War believed that it was legally wrong to rely on these decade-old old Security Council resolutions. Let me turn to the Obama Administration's use of force in both Libya and against ISIS before drawing some conclusions. As a candidate, President Obama said the President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the Nation. But as President, he has been unable to secure new congressional authorizations for his Administration's conflicts in Libya and with ISIS in Iraq and Syria. In Libya, the Obama Administration participated in an air campaign from March to October 2011 with a coalition of other countries in response to serious human rights violations by the Gaddafi regime. The initial U.S. use of force was clearly permitted as a matter of international law after the UN Security Council adopted UN Security Council Resolution 1973, authorizing member states to use force to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack. But many government and legal experts believe the U.S. and its allies exceeded this authority when they went farther to overthrow the Gaddafi government. But even if the use of force was permitted under international law, President Obama never pushed Congress to pass an authorization to provide specific authority for the Libya War. He relied instead on his Article II powers as Commander-in-Chief, contrary to what he said he would do as a candidate. As the conflict in Libya continued, President Obama confronted the requirement in the War Powers Resolution that the President terminate the use of armed forces after 60 days unless specifically authorized by Congress. And faced with the choice of either scaling back U.S. military operations or declaring the 60-day termination provision unconstitutional, the White House instead chose a third route. They instead chose to interpret the provision not to apply. In June 2011, the White House notified Congress that the termination provision was not triggered because U.S. operations do not involve sustained fighting or active exchanges of fire with hostile forces, nor did they involve U.S. ground troops. This highly unusual interpretation was widely criticized by Congress, the press, and legal experts, who accused President Obama of undermining a key legal check on arbitrary presidential power. Let me end with the President's difficulties in his military campaign with ISIS, which commenced in the summer of 2014. President Obama initially informed Congress that he was relying on his Article II powers. In September 2014, however, the President and his lawyers were again faced with the War Powers Resolution's 60-day termination provision as they had in Libya in 2011. Instead of continuing to rely on his Article II power, the President present notified Congress that the use of armed forces against ISIS actually had been specifically authorized by Congress in the 2001 and 2002 AUMFs against al-Qaeda and against Iraq on the basis that ISIS, even though it was not associated with al-Qaeda, was actually a descendant of al-Qaeda. Now, this interpretation relieved a -- Congress from having to vote on a new AUMF before the midterm elections, but the Administration's reliance on these decade-old authorizations was widely viewed as a very strained legal interpretation. After the election, at the urging of many members of Congress, especially Senator Tim Kaine, the White House asked Congress to pass a new AUMF specifically authorizing the use of force against ISIS. But the White House draft was viewed by many Democrats as too permissive and by too -- and by many Republicans as too restrictive. And despite urging by President Obama to take a vote, both the House and the Senate were unable to agree on consensus language to authorize the use of force against ISIS. The U.S. use of force against ISIS in several countries has also raised difficult questions under international law. While the governments of Iraq and Libya have consented to the use of force against ISIS in their countries, the Syrian government has not agreed to the use of force against ISIS in Syria. And the U.S. appears to be relying on a theory of self-defense on the basis that President Assad is unwilling or unable to stop the threat posed by ISIS. So, that is a brief survey of the difficulties that the last two Presidents have had trying to comply with domestic and international law rules regarding the use of force. President Trump and his lawyers will face similar challenges. A major part of the problem is that the domestic and international law rules were intended to address previous historical events and are not sufficiently flexible to address contemporary challenges, such as terrorism by non-state groups and governments that abuse their populations. When legislative institutions like Congress and the Security Council become gridlocked and refuse to act, the President and his lawyers are left with the choice of not acting in the American interest, ignoring the law, or interpreting in the law in strained ways. Clearly it would have been better for President Bush to have secured a new Security Council resolution for the Iraq War rather than rely on decade-old resolutions, just as it would have been better for President Obama to have secured new congressional authorizations for the US air campaign in Libya and against ISIS rather than interpreting the War Powers resolution not to apply, or relying on the 2001 and 2002 AUMFs. But the Security Council and Congress had refused to act. As long as the conflicts with al-Qaeda, ISIS, and other terrorist groups continue, President Trump and his lawyers will have to deal with difficult questions of interpretation of the 2001 AUMF and of international law rules governing the use of force. President Trump seems less likely than President Obama or Hillary Clinton to order the use of force in another country, such as Syria, for humanitarian purposes, but he could still confront a situation that would lead him to want to intervene in Syria or elsewhere to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe. So, I want to end with some specific recommendations for President Trump and his administration to address some of these legal challenges. Let me begin with domestic law. With respect to the conflicts with al-Qaeda and ISIS, President Trump should push Congress hard to enact a new authorization early in 2017. And rather than go through the exercise twice, he should ask Congress to pass a comprehensive new authorization against terrorist groups that revises and updates the 15-year-old 2001 AUMF and also authorizes the use of force against ISIS. The authorization should be broad enough to authorize the use of force against groups that pose imminent threats to the United States. Now, congressional Democrats may be reluctant to give President Trump any additional war powers, but he should agree on his side to reasonable limits to avoid protracted ground wars. More generally, President Trump should ask Congress in 2017 to revise and update the War Powers Resolution, which has increasingly been ignored by modern Presidents. The White House should study the recommendations of the National War Powers Commission, which was co-chaired by former Secretaries of State James Baker and Warren Christopher, and issued a report in 2008 that called the War Powers Resolution impractical and ineffective. The Commission stated that no President has treated the resolution as mandatory and "that this does not promote the rule of law." They recommended that the Resolution be repealed and replaced with a mandatory consultation process. In 2013, Senators Tim Kaine and John McCain introduced the War Powers Consultation Act to implement the Commission's recommendations. Any general reform of the War Powers Resolution must address contemporary conflicts and take into account increasing congressional reluctance to vote to authorize the use of force. Now, President Trump and his advisors may not view a new counterterrorism AUMF or a reform of the War Powers Resolution as top legislative priorities, but they should undertake the effort anyway as a matter of good government. The 2001 AUMF has been stretched far beyond its original purpose, and the War Powers Resolution is close to becoming meaningless. With respect to international law governing the use of force, the President and his White House advisers should resist any temptation to ignore international law as politically correct or as Lilliputian infringements on U.S. sovereignty. If the United States violates or skirts international law regarding use of force, it encourages other countries, like Russia or China, to do the same, and it makes it difficult for the United States to criticize them when they do. And if the United States ignores international law, it also makes our friends and allies who respect international law, such as the UK, Canada, Australia, and EU countries, less likely to work with us. Unlike Russia and China, the United States has many friends and allies who share our values, including respect for the rule of law, but we lose our friends when we do not act consistent with law and our shared values. More generally, President Trump should recognize that when he speaks as President, he speaks to multiple audiences. He must be cautious not to advocate policies that will provide cover for unlawful actions by other governments. Moreover, statements that are popular with some in the United States may be highly unpopular and stir up anti-American sentiments abroad. When I made this argument in the Bush Administration, some of my colleagues responded by saying, "It doesn't matter what other countries think. They don't vote for us." But other countries do vote for us by deciding whether to cooperate with us on intelligence, law enforcement, diplomatic, and military matters. During the Bush Administration, many European governments became reluctant to share intelligence information with us because they believed our intelligence agencies might use information to commit violations of law. And after what I heard this morning, I can see that happening again. The Trump Administration must also recognize that foreign leaders face their own domestic political pressures, and they must respond to the views of their own populations. If the U.S. government engages in unilateral actions or pushes foreign leaders to join in American actions that are unpopular or viewed as unlawful in their own countries, the U.S. loses the support of these governments, and may actually cause them to fall. President Trump will find that he will be most effective in his international actions if he works with our allies rather than alienating them. The Bush Administration learned this lesson from its actions in the first term, including the Iraq War and some of its counterterrorism policies. In its second term, the Bush Administration found that it could be more successful through multilateral diplomacy. The United States achieves more, not less, through international cooperation. To the extent that international law rules regarding the use of force are outdated, and they are, the Trump Administration should work with other countries to update them rather than condemn them or ignore them. Other governments are unlikely to amend the UN Charter or to replace the Geneva Conventions, but the Trump Administration can still work with them to develop principles or additional rules so that international law can evolve to address contemporary international problems. When I was legal adviser, I began a series of talks that David referred to with our closest allies that produced principles for use of force against terrorist groups in countries that are unwilling or unable to prevent the threats. The Administration should continue to refine these principles so that they are accepted by a broader group of states. And the Administration should also work with other governments to develop new rules for detention of non-state actors where even the International Committee for the Red Cross has acknowledged that there are legal gaps that need to be filled. And even if President Trump is initially disinclined to use military force for humanitarian purposes, his Administration should still continue discussions with U.S. allies regarding the appropriate circumstances for humanitarian intervention. Should President Trump decide to use force in another country for a humanitarian purpose without approval of the Security Council, he should be prepared to explain when and why the use of force is legitimate under certain limited circumstances, even if not clearly lawful under international law. In closing, when Donald Trump becomes President he will have the awesome responsibility of commanding the most powerful military in the world. He will immediately be responsible for the direction of our military in combat operations in at least seven countries in the Near East and North Africa. At some point over the next four years, he may have to make the very difficult decision to send U.S. armed forces into action in or against another country either to defend the United States or U.S. interests. Because they are likely not familiar with the domestic and international law rules that govern the use of military force and the conduct of military operations, President-Elect Trump and Vice President-Elect Pence should take time during the transition to be briefed on these rules and understand why they are important. The President should appoint Secretaries of Defense and State and senior White House advisers who know the applicable law and have experience with the use of military force. Choosing a White House counsel and deputy counsel with experience in national security issues will be vital. 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. Thank you. 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...
Legacies Continued
Cutler Law Fellows gather for the traditional group photo at the United States Institute of Peace.
Legacies Continued
Louise Hallman 
Sir Michael Palliser  When long-time Fellow and Vice Chair of the Board Sir Michael Palliser passed away in 2012, staff and Board Members of Salzburg Global Seminar were determined to preserve his memory and legacy.   A long-serving diplomat and a great believer in European unity, Sir Michael’s memory is now honored through an annual lecture series held in London, UK, examining the future of the continent.  Opening the series in January 2014, Salzburg Global Seminar Senior Program Advisor and former director of communications to the Secretary General of the United Nations, Edward Mortimer, delivered the inaugural lecture at the UK’s House of Lords, addressing: Europe’s Future: 1814, 1914 – Or Something Completely Different?  Mortimer, who previously also served as senior vice president and chief program officer at Salzburg Global Seminar, called Sir Michael “a truly generous spirit, a man of sound judgment as well as high principle, and an infallibly loyal friend.”  In March 2015, British Member of Parliament and former UK Attorney General Dominic Grieve delivered the second lecture, asking: Britain’s International Obligations – Fetters or Keys?  Held at the headquarters of HSCB (Sir Michael had served on the board of one the bank’s subsidiaries), the event saw Grieve speak in strong support of the UK’s involvement in the European Union and European Court of Human Rights. His message was apt for the occasion, as Sir Michael Palliser was also a staunch supporter of European unity, having formed part of the team that negotiated Britain’s membership of what was to later become the European Union.  “British foreign policy, even during the height of Empire, was driven by a desire to engage internationally, both to secure peace and ensure national prosperity,” Grieve said. “We should build on what is on offer and not hanker after some simpler world that does not and has never existed.”  The third lecture will be especially timely; former UK Prime Minister John Major will deliver a lecture on the theme The EU: In or Out? in June 2016, a week before the UK heads to the polls in its “Brexit” referendum. Lloyd N. Cutler Since 2012, Salzburg Global Seminar has held an annual program in Washington, DC for future international lawyers and legal experts in honor of long-serving Salzburg Global Chair of the Board and Washington “super lawyer” Lloyd N. Cutler. The 2015 Salzburg Cutler Law Fellows Program brought together 43 graduate law students from ten of the leading law schools in the US to explore cutting-edge issues in international law, international human rights, and humanitarian law to trade law.   The year’s program also had an additional focus on careers in public service, with speakers including Justice Richard Goldstone (former Salzburg Global board member, former Chief Prosecutor of the UN International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, and member of the Constitutional Court of South Africa) offering insights into their own career paths.   Closing the two-day session, Salzburg Global President Stephen L. Salyer told the Fellows: “You have an extraordinary opportunity to shape the future of international law and institutions. Seize it.”  FIND OUT MORE Copies of the transcripts of the Palliser lectures are available. PLEASE CONTACT: press@salzburgglobal.org to receive a copy.
READ MORE...
Displaying results 1 to 7 out of 20
<< First < Previous 1-7 8-14 15-20 Next > Last >>