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


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...
Fourth Annual Salzburg Cutler Fellows Program Convenes in Washington
Fourth Annual Salzburg Cutler Fellows Program Convenes in Washington
Katharina Schwarz 
From February 18-20, 55 students from 11 top US law schools participated in the two-day Salzburg Cutler Law Fellows Program held in Washington, DC. The largest and most diverse cohort to-date, the Fellows hailed from across the United States and from countries as diverse as Australia, Colombia, China, Nigeria, the Netherlands, United Kingdom, Albania, Germany and New Zealand.   Salzburg Global President Stephen Salyer and session faculty co-chair William Burke-White opened the first day of the session at the United States Institute of Peace, before John Bellinger III and Mary DeRosa, who served as National Security Council Legal Advisers under George W. Bush and Barack Obama respectively, led a discussion on legal challenges facing the new American president, moderated by session faculty co-chair Mark Wu of Harvard Law. Some of the same concerns arose again over lunch as Ashley Deeks of UVA and Matthew Waxman of Columbia Law, both experts on the law of war, addressed how technology does and does not change how war is waged and regulated.   The remainder of the day was dedicated to intensive workshops with leading international law faculty. As part of the selection process, each Fellow prepared and presented a research paper on topics across public and private international law: from finance to human rights, and free speech to the law of war. These lively discussions inform eventual publication and form part of the Cutler program’s dual core of participation and publication.  Friday’s session closed with a talk by Ambassador Eveline Herfkens of The Netherlands, who helped lead development of the Millennium Development Goals, and who spoke on migration, xenophobia, gender equality and a range of other topics—a discussion which the students refused to allow to end on time! On the second day at the NYU Washington Campus, the program turned to exploring traditional and non-traditional pathways to international law and public service, according to Lloyd Cutler’s belief in supporting young leaders. Juan Mendez, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment, former General Counsel of Human Rights Watch, and imprisoned in his native Argentina for defending those protesting human rights abuses by the government, offered personal reflections on international law and public service.  Four younger lawyers, all engaged in public service activities from defending Guantanamo detainees to re-developing economic approaches for inclusive development, then led small group sessions on developing careers that include various forms of public service.  With these mentors, the students explored choices in navigating career paths, aligning passions and maximizing personal effectiveness. In early feedback, at least one student noted that the program was “worth its weight in gold.”  The Salzburg Cutler Law Fellows Program is part of a series of programs within the Cutler Center on the Rule of Law. The Salzburg Cutler Law Fellows are supported by the eleven participating US law schools and dedicated individual donors. The second day is graciously hosted by New York University’s DC campus. More information on the session can be found here: www.salzburgglobal.org/go/cutlerfellows4 
READ MORE...
From Lawyers to Public Servants – Cutler Fellows Convene in Washington
From Lawyers to Public Servants – Cutler Fellows Convene in Washington
Katharina Schwarz 
On February 20-21, 43 Salzburg Cutler Fellows gathered at the United States Institute for Peace for the third Cutler Law Fellows Program to present cutting edge thinking on international law and explore careers that embrace public service.   Representing ten of the top US law schools—Chicago, Columbia, Duke, Georgetown, Harvard, NYU, Penn, Stanford, Virginia, and Yale – each year Salzburg Cutler Fellows prepare, submit and defend a paper intended for publication, hear from leading lawyers, judges and public servants, and explore career pathways in private and public international law. The Salzburg Cutler Fellows Program was founded in 2012 as the second program of Salzburg Global Seminar’s Lloyd N. Cutler Center for the Rule of Law, joining an annual Cutler Lecture at the US Supreme Court which was inaugurated in 2009. Both programs honor Salzburg Global Seminar’s former Chair of the Board of Directors and the founder of the Washington law firm Wilmer Cutler & Pickering, Lloyd N. Cutler.  Cutler served as White House Counsel to Presidents Carter and Clinton, and played a pivotal role in convening lawyers and judges from across the world at Schloss Leopoldskron, the home of Salzburg Global Seminar since 1947.  Salzburg Global Seminar’s President, Stephen Salyer, opened the program with reflection on Cutler’s legacy and on his hopes for what the growing network of Salzburg Cutler Fellows could come to mean in the world.  He then introduced Friday’s keynote speaker, John B. Bellinger III, a partner at Arnold & Porter and former legal advisor to the Department of State. After sharing some thoughts on his own career, Bellinger discussed the evolution of public and private international law, and the United States’ role in developing international norms and institutions.  He commented at length on the debate surrounding the US domestic authorization for the use of force against Islamic State, and on how the discussion illustrates tension in the roles of the President and Congress as well as over how to reconcile effective action with constitutional limitations on executive war-making authority.    The Fellows next split into six working groups: (1) trade law, led by Professor Mark Wu (Harvard); (2) international law and economic law, led by Professor Jose Alvarez (NYU); (3) law of war, led by Professors Jenny Martinez (Stanford) and Ashley Deeks (UVA); (4) comparative law, international law in U.S. law, and IR/IL, led by Professors Daniel Abebe (Chicago) and Rachel Brewster (Duke); (5) foreign policy, international criminal law, and global governance, led by Professor William Burke-White (Penn) and Sara Lulo (Yale); and (6) human rights, rule of law, and immigration, led by Professors Rangita de Silva (Penn) and Muneer Ahmad (Yale).  Each student was given ten minutes to present the central argument of his or her paper, followed by criticism and discussion. Faculty and other Fellows provided feedback on focus, execution, framing, and methodology, the goal being to strengthen each paper and improve the chances for publication. Each group also delved into issues surrounding the areas of law under consideration. Fellows also heard from a faculty panel on corruption, international investment and trade negotiations, moderated by William Burke-White, the program’s faculty chair (Penn Law), and featuring Jose Alvarez (NYU), Mark Wu (Harvard), and Rachel Brewster (Duke).  The panel explored the future of bilateral investment treaties, the international trade regime, and the challenges posed by corruption.  Jeffrey Rosen, President and CEO of the National Constitution Center, closed the day’s proceedings with a presentation and lively discussion on whether there is a “right to be forgotten.”  Rosen emphasized American principles of free speech, while a number of students debated how to define a privacy right more in line with the position held by many Europeans: that technology makes a wide range of information easily and forever accessible in a way that serves little if any public purpose, and that there needs to be an enforceable legal right and process to excise such information from the web. That evening, the Fellows continued their networking over dinner at Washington’s Metropolitan Club, sponsored by the law firm Arnold & Porter. John Bellinger welcomed the Cutler Fellows on behalf of the firm, and Tom Mansbach, Chair of the Cutler Center for the Rule of Law at the Salzburg Global Seminar, offered thanks to Arnold & Porter for their support, and to Mr. Bellinger for his personal encouragement of the program. On the following morning, the Fellows convened at New York University’s Washington, DC Campus.  NYU Trustee Ron Abramson welcomed the students and then turned the floor over to Justice Richard Goldstone, Salzburg Global board member and former Chief Prosecutor of the UN International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda and member of the Constitutional Court of South Africa. Justice Goldstone described the evolution of efforts to dismantle apartheid in South Africa, including the less-well-understood role played by US foundations and human rights lawyers. In closing, he reflected on his own journey as a lawyer and urged the students to pursue opportunities for public service across their careers. The program then shifted to welcome four speakers representing diverse avenues for public service. To further explore these and their own personal goals, the Fellows broke into four small groups, led by Michael Bahar (Staff Director and General Counsel to the Minority Staff of the House Select Committee on Intelligence and Navy JAG; former Deputy Legal Advisor to the White House); Alka Pradhan (Counterterrorism Counsel at Reprieve, US); Douglas Rutzen (President and CEO of the International Center for Not-for-Profit Law); and Tom Wyler (Senior Advisor for Trade and Investment, Office of the Secretary at the U.S. Department of Commerce). In 15-minute speed sessions, the groups rotated through speakers and lenses, considering everything from professional goals and excitement levels to geographic flexibility and work-life balance.  Following lunch, Professor Burke-White hosted a final session on paper publishing and entering academia, wrapping up a full and productive two days of discussions on international law and public service. Salyer closed the session, urging the Salzburg Global Fellows to stay engaged with Salzburg Global and with each other.  “You have an extraordinary opportunity to shape the future of international law and institutions,” he said.  “Seize it.”
READ MORE...
Salzburg Cutler Law Fellows Program
Salzburg Cutler Law Fellows Program
Salzburg Global Staff 
Over 40 of the USA’s top law students will convene on this weekend for the third seminar of the Salzburg Cutler Fellows Program being held in Washington, DC. The two-day session, looking at the future of public and private international law, is being attended by students from ten of the top US law schools and will take place at the United States Institute of Peace and NYU Washington DC, with networking events at the Georgetown University Law Center and the Metropolitan Club. The two-day seminar is designed to illuminate career options, allow participants to present and critique ideas, and build networks to assist in making career choices. The Salzburg Cutler Fellows Program annually convenes students nominated by their law schools along with prominent judges, practitioners, and professors for a highly interactive exploration of leading edge issues in international law. The program, now it in its third year, is named after Lloyd N. Cutler, a Washington “Super Lawyer” as well as long-time Chairman of Salzburg Global Seminar. Lloyd Cutler (1917–2005) had a brilliant legal career. Founder of the Washington, D.C. law firm Wilmer Cutler & Pickering, and White House Counsel to two U.S. presidents, he fulfilled the calling of a public servant over his lifetime as he repeatedly accepted appointments in Democratic and Republican administrations and gave service to a vast array of charitable, educational, and legal organizations that he led and supported. Cutler was also a long-time champion of Salzburg Global Seminar, serving as chair of its Board of Directors for a decade. Believing passionately in the role that law plays in nation building, and in the ability of the law and legal experts to contribute solutions to the world’s most pressing challenges, Cutler was able to bring to Salzburg high court judges from around the world. In addition, he was personally committed to ensuring that promising young international lawyers, academics, and jurists had access at Salzburg Global Seminar to a rich variety of judicial traditions, international legal institutions, and the international legal community at large. It is in this spirit that Salzburg Global developed the Salzburg Cutler Fellows Program. This year’s session will again be chaired by Salzburg Global Fellow William Burke-White, Inaugural Director of the Perry World House, Deputy Dean and Professor of Law, University of Pennsylvania Law School. The program will include lectures on “the right to be forgotten,” international investment and trade negotiations, and the role of the lawyer in public service. John B. Bellinger III, Salzburg Global Fellow, former legal advisor to the US Department of State and National Security Council and now partner at Arnold & Porter LLP, will give the opening address, with a lecture also to be delivered by Salzburg Global board member and internationally renowned jurist Richard Goldstone, former chief Prosecutor of the UN International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. The Salzburg Cutler Fellows will also have opportunity to discuss their own research and opportunities for publication, as well as explore their personal goals and diverse avenues for law and public service with Michael Bahar, Staff Director and General Counsel to the Minority Staff of the House Select Committee on Intelligence and Navy JAG; former Deputy Legal Advisor to the White House; Alka Pradhan, Counterterrorism Counsel at Reprieve, US; Douglas Rutzen, President and CEO of the International Center for Not-for-Profit Law; and Tom Wyler, Senior Advisor for Trade and Investment, Office of the Secretary at U.S. Department of Commerce. Participating law schools at this year’s program are: New York University School of Law, Columbia Law School, Georgetown University Law Center, Harvard Law School, Duke University School of Law, Stanford Law School, University of Chicago Law School, University of Pennsylvania Law School; University of Virginia School of Law, and Yale Law School.
READ MORE...
Displaying results ###SPAN_BEGIN###%s to %s out of ###SPAN_BEGIN###%s
<< First < Previous 1-7 8-14 15-17 Next > Last >>