{"id":5863,"date":"2012-03-02T13:18:50","date_gmt":"2012-03-02T18:18:50","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.journals.law.harvard.edu\/ilj\/?page_id=5863"},"modified":"2013-10-07T01:45:02","modified_gmt":"2013-10-07T05:45:02","slug":"2012-ilj-symposium","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/ilj\/2012-ilj-symposium\/","title":{"rendered":"2012 ILJ Symposium"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Mon, February 20, 2012 – 7:31:49pm<\/strong><\/p>\n

And that wraps up the Liveblog. Thanks for tuning in, and we hope to see you next time! Please remember that this is a live blog of the event, and there is always the danger that we recorded speakers\u2019 comments inexactly or incompletely\u2013so be wary about quoting.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Mon, February 20, 2012 – 7:29:41pm<\/strong><\/p>\n

Responding to Prof. Blum\u2019s question, Mr. Laurenti notes that there is no inherent reason why an intelligence agency is better at \u201cadministering lethality\u201d than is the defense, which has the job of using lethal power in the nation\u2019s defense.<\/p>\n

James Ross wonders whether the US government is a rational actor. International law is important\u2013and Mr. Ross agrees with Mr. Laurenti that the military may be better at taking international law into account. And the government may not become more responsible about these attacks without external pressure.<\/p>\n

The other speakers gave eloquent answers, too, but it\u2019s been a long day for ILJ Liveblog and unfortunately those responses must go unrecorded.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Mon, February 20, 2012 – 7:18:54pm<\/strong><\/p>\n

Correction to MB\u2019s last comment. Here, he writes, is a better statement of what he was saying: The CIA has this power because it provides deniability\u2013allowing Pakistan to claim the US military doesn\u2019t conduct strike on their territory- and the CIA can operate in areas outside what is permitted by the military\u2019s execute orders.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Mon, February 20, 2012 – 7:17:37pm<\/strong><\/p>\n

Prof. Blum now asks some questions. To Mr. Heyns\u2013what to do when individuals are a threat and in an ungoverned space? Second, to Mr. Laurenti, there are dangers around accountability by giving the power to the CIA\u2013but why is the military a better place for placing the power? To Mr. Ross, yes, drone attacks are costly by hurting and enraging civilians, but, on the whole, could this be the best way to go? Finally, to Mr. Dehn, she asks whether, by creating a law of ungoverned spaces that allows us to kill there, we also shouldn\u2019t take on a responsibility to help develop governments there?<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Mon, February 20, 2012 – 7:13:16pm<\/strong><\/p>\n

On the international level, the legal framework may benefit from being shifted from the human rights\/law of armed conflict dichotomy to creating a law of ungoverned places.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Mon, February 20, 2012 – 7:11:14pm<\/strong><\/p>\n

Mr. Dehn notes that his views are personal\u2013not those of the federal government or any of its parts. What are the human rights obligations of the state where the targeted killings occurred? These states may sometimes consent to targeted attacks on their soil\u2013can they do this under their law? These states also have external human rights obligations\u2013don\u2019t they have a duty to suppress those in their borders who violate the human rights of others outside their borders? The Alien Tort Statute aimed to create a remedy (two hundred years ago) for just this situation, as do the newer Neutrality Acts.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Mon, February 20, 2012 – 7:10:01pm<\/strong><\/p>\n

How does the current administration see drone attacks? Here are<\/a> John Brennan\u2019s remarks last year at Harvard.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Mon, February 20, 2012 – 7:04:58pm<\/strong><\/p>\n

In general, it is very difficult to get reliable information on these killings, Mr. Ross says. The CIA avoids creating accountability\u2013they deny violations of law, making it difficult for HRW to investigate. We also don\u2019t know what steps are being taken to find out what steps the US is taking to reduce civilian casualties. The lack of transparency and general lack of accountability discourages allies who don\u2019t want to be caught up in scandals around this, and it might change customary international law, allowing other countries to attack militants, even on US soil.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Mon, February 20, 2012 – 7:00:08pm<\/strong><\/p>\n

Mr. Ross discusses how Human Rights Watch (HRW) tries to get governments to change their policies around targeted killings. These take place on the boundaries between human rights law and armed conflict law. HRW\u2019s work, together with other groups such as the ACLU, has tried to flesh out who is being killed\u2013especially among civilians. For example, HRW has done investigations into whether injured people that states claimed were combatants were actually combatants. In many cases, they found these were civilians. Although this doesn\u2019t mean there was a violation of humanitarian war, governments recognize that this serves to hurt the reputation of the attackers.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Mon, February 20, 2012 – 6:58:03pm<\/strong><\/p>\n

Instead, discussion of how customary international law applies in targeted killings has come up in contexts such as\u00a0 Libya\u2019s attacks on protesters. Increasingly, drone attacks are drawing concern, however\u2013there is no system for accoutability in the CIA to protect against mistakes in drone attacks. The CIA even has authority to launch a strike over the objections of the Secretary of State and the ambassador of the country where the strike is occurring. But extrajudicial killings\u2013even outside of countries\u2019 territories\u2013also takes place in repressive regimes. It is about both our misdeeds and others\u2019. (MB: The CIA has this power because it provides deniability\u2013allowing Pakistan to claim the US doesn\u2019t strike on their territory and it allows the US to operate outside of its borders.)<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Mon, February 20, 2012 – 6:53:37pm<\/strong><\/p>\n

Mr. Laurenti, next, suggests that it used to be clearer what the problems were around targeted killings\u2013death squads in Central America, for instance. After Sept. 11th, however, things changed and laws around targeted killings became murky. Even though it was important to take enemy combatants off the battlefield, the Bush administration may have overreached in its interpretation of international law and its willingness to reject traditional views of international law. There has been little protest, either nationally or internationally, about the US\u2019s use of force.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Mon, February 20, 2012 – 6:39:03pm<\/strong><\/p>\n

Prof. Heyns is first, noting legal problems involved in targeted killing. One problem is what the applicable regime for extrajudicial killings should be? A law enforcement model suggests human rights law should apply, whereas a view of these killings centered on hostilities implicates the law of armed conflict. A second problem is who you can target and when. A third controversy centers on drones, and a fourth on what accountability procedures are in place. In conclusion, Heyns suggests that \u2018targeted killing\u2019 is a misnomer\u2013there is wide collateral damage, and the fact that soldiers are not on the battlefield leads nations to be more willing to inflict collateral damage, and willing to attack more often.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Mon, February 20, 2012 – 6:29:54pm<\/strong><\/p>\n

Prof. Blum threatens strict consequences for any speaker who violates his (they\u2019re all men) 6-minute time limit.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Mon, February 20, 2012 – 6:29:19pm<\/strong><\/p>\n

Our final panel! \u201cExtrajudicial and Targeted Killings\u201d will explore the history of targeted killings and changing international frameworks as the use of drones and targeted killings proliferate. Speakers are:
\n-John C. Dehn, Nonresident Senior Fellow in West Point\u2019s Center for the Rule of Law and former faculty member in West Point\u2019s Department of Law, has taught about internationa, constitutional and military law
\n-Christof Heyns is Professor of Human Rights Law and Co-director of the Institute for International and Comparative Law in Africa at the University of Pretoria and the U.N. Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions.
\n-Jeffrey Laurenti, senior fellow on international affairs at The Century Foundation, has written and advised international NGOs on ernational peace and security, terrorism, U.N. reform, international law and justice
\n-James Ross, Legal and Policy Director at Human Rights Watch, has previously worked for M\u00e9decins sans Fronti\u00e8res, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, and for the International Human Rights Law Group, among other groups.
\nGabriella Blum moderates.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Mon, February 20, 2012 – 6:23:45pm<\/strong><\/p>\n

Q. 3: Some countries like cyber-espionage, and some see themselves as victimized by intellectual property law. How can international law deal with these issues? Prof. Brown notes that the problem is how to reward the development of technologies while also dealing with the resultant suboptimal supply. In the \u201950s, more IP was created in universities and was available to the public, but we\u2019ve moved toward private production of knowledge. This has exacerbated the problem. Prof. Wedgwood notes that Japan did a poor job trying to create technology publicly. She says that IP treaties have, to some extent, given the Northern countries the responsibility to share technology.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Mon, February 20, 2012 – 6:12:43pm<\/strong><\/p>\n

Q. 2: How much should we put the responsibility on companies to protect their information, and should we go after espionage if companies haven\u2019t bothered to take even basic steps to protect data? Prof. Brenner says some have argued for incorporating assumption of risk into criminal law. But this is obviously problematic. You could also sanction the victim.
\nProf. Wedgwood: There are some areas of criminal law with negligence standard\u2013but, Prof. Brenner notes, that is different from assumption of risk. Prof. Wedgwood responds that police discretion might lead them to investigate these cases less deeply.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Mon, February 20, 2012 – 6:07:35pm<\/strong><\/p>\n

Question 1: Have there been any efforts to develop international law around trade secrets?
\nProf. Nasheri: The UK is the only country that has considered this carefully.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Mon, February 20, 2012 – 6:06:17pm<\/strong><\/p>\n

On a larger scale, Prof. Wedgwood notes that R&D is one of the US\u2019s great advantages, especially with \u201cthe decimation of the working class.\u201d If that goes away, we have problems with economic development. And defense contractors being hacked reduce our global prestige. (MB notes that several defense contractors have indeed been hacked, including plans for a new air force plane being stolen<\/a>.) In general, she notes that defense is a particularly dangerous target for hacking. She finally notes that this isn\u2019t just a problem for the private sector\u2013when national champions\u2019 plans are stolen, states get involved.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Mon, February 20, 2012 – 6:00:59pm<\/strong><\/p>\n

A tip for companies: keep employees happy, even after they leave\u2013unhappy former employees are a great source of trades secrets.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Mon, February 20, 2012 – 5:56:55pm<\/strong><\/p>\n

Finally, we have Prof. Ruth Wedgwood. In the New York \u2018schmatta trade,\u2019 if you could steal fashion designs off the show-room floor before the store opened, it was yours. That was the customary law of New York. But, back to serious international law, Prof. Wedgwood notes the problems around trying espionage cases. It often involves industry secrets that have to be redacted and there is always the question of where to try those accused of espionage.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Mon, February 20, 2012 – 5:50:33pm<\/strong><\/p>\n

Prof. Nasheri notes that the US is at the forefront of fighting cybercrime\u2013but there\u2019s still much to do. International competition is changing\u2013it used to be largely ideological, but now it\u2019s economic. Another area that requires more development is international law around trade secrets\u2013for now, there is none.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Mon, February 20, 2012 – 5:48:50pm<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>Here\u2019s the drive.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Mon, February 20, 2012 – 5:46:16pm<\/strong><\/p>\n

Next is Hedi Nasheri. The evolution of cyberspace, the possibility of anonymity online, and technology such as high-speed connections and high-capacity thumb drives has transformed espionage. This has dove-tailed with an increase in world-wide competitiveness.<\/p>\n

Matt Bobby tells us that we now have flash drives that can have 1 terabyte of data\u2013the Library of Congress only contains 50 terabytes of data. Unsurprisingly you can get a 1-terabyte flash drive on your Swiss Army Knife:<\/p>\n

\"\u201d"\"<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Mon, February 20, 2012 – 5:42:09pm<\/strong><\/p>\n

An older ILJ article<\/a> that jives with Prof. Brown\u2019s presentation.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Mon, February 20, 2012 – 5:41:21pm<\/strong><\/p>\n

The response was to allow generic drugs made outside the patent in cases of national emergencies. This has largely resolved the problem around AIDS medication\u2013although it remains among other drugs. In closing, Brown notes that she reads her children morality plays in the form of children\u2019s books\u2013to allow people to die even with the technology to save them in order to protect drug companies\u2019 profits is shocking, she says.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Mon, February 20, 2012 – 5:39:04pm<\/strong><\/p>\n

By the time of the 2001 Doha accords, there is recognition of a humanitarian crisis around AIDS and the lack of access to judges. Under TRIPS, a country can compel a private license-holder to license the production of drugs in case of national emergency\u2013but only for use within the country\u2019s borders, which doesn\u2019t help most sub-Saharan countries. Under the Bush administration, the US moved through several positions in an attempt to reconcile intellectual property law with the humanitarian crisis.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Mon, February 20, 2012 – 5:36:53pm<\/strong><\/p>\n

Prof. Brown will discuss the role of the intellectual property (TRIPS) agreement in state-sponsored espionage\u2013in this case, through the pirating of drugs under patent. She notes the crisis that was created when South Africa tried to import generic AIDS drugs in 1999, and the Clinton administration moved quickly to inform the South Africans that they were in violation of TRIPS.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Mon, February 20, 2012 – 5:27:12pm<\/strong><\/p>\n

Prof. Brenner: There are three security threats: crime, terrorism, and war. Crime and terror are internal threats; war is an external threat\u2013but in cyber-espionage, these categories are less clear. Interesting tid-bit for lawyers: In a recent case, hackers got information by hacking law firm computers because the law firms\u2019 computers were easier to hack than were their clients\u2019 systems. If you get hacked, who do you go to? Law enforcement is used to acting nationally\u2013and on an even more local level in the U.S. If it\u2019s international hacking, they won\u2019t necessarily help you\u2013and reporting hurts your reputation. No one wants to put money into a bank that can be hacked. One upshot of this is that estimates of hacking incidents is uncertain. So who might deal with this? Creating better security systems is one part of the solution. But there\u2019s still the problem of threats from insiders. And each new technology creates new opportunities for hacking. One strategy is to capture enough perpetrators\u2013but that\u2019s difficult: \u201cIt\u2019s like bank robbery but without disincentives.\u201d<\/p>\n

Finally, will we grow out of cyber-espionage? No. Espioneurs will keep on having incentives to steal.
\n(Matt Bobby: Yet another problem is figuring out who is sitting behind the computer that hacked you.)<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Mon, February 20, 2012 – 5:15:25pm<\/strong><\/p>\n

Our second panel is about state-sponsored economic espionage\u2013how widespread is it, why do states do it, and what can we do to prevent it? On panel are:
\n-Susan W. Brenner, NCR Distinguished Professor of Law and Technology at the University of Dayton School of Law, has written and spoken about cybercrime in many fora, and published her most recent book, \u201cCybercrime: Criminal Threats from Cyberspace\u201d in 2010
\n-Drusilla Brown, Associate Professor at Tufts University, has written on international economic integration, trade standards, and international labor standards
\n-Hedi Nasheri, Professor of Sociology at Kent State University and a Visiting Professor at the University of Turku Law School in Finland, has written and researched on technology crime and intellectual property issues, and has received many grants and fellowships in these areas
\n-Ruth Wedgwood is a Senior Research Scholar in Law at Yale Law School and the Edward B. Burling Professor of International Law and Diplomacy at Johns Hopkins University
\nJohn G. Palfrey, Harvard Law Professor, moderates.
\nFirst is Prof. Brenner.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Mon, February 20, 2012 – 4:58:37pm<\/strong><\/p>\n

No time for questions.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Mon, February 20, 2012 – 4:58:17pm<\/strong><\/p>\n

How much is all the money that fled the developing world worth? Twenty-five trillion dollars.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Mon, February 20, 2012 – 4:56:15pm<\/strong><\/p>\n

Finally, there\u2019s the related issue of badly constructed projects that aimed to funnel money to corrupt individuals, with the help of bankers. Mr. Henry calls out J.P. Morgan-Chase, in particular, for helping to launder this money\u2013in Brazil and in the Philippines.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Mon, February 20, 2012 – 4:54:34pm<\/strong><\/p>\n

Another issue is odious debt\u2013a doctrine that allows debt incurred by nondemocratic regimes to not be enforceable. But this legal doctrine is enforced selectively.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Mon, February 20, 2012 – 4:52:48pm<\/strong><\/p>\n

But there are less well-recognized aspects of corruption. Eg, transfer pricing abuses\u2013companies can sell resources extracted from developing countries through off-shore companies that sell resources at great profit, allowing funds to accumulate in the off-shore jurisdictions. Globalization also encourages this\u2013Google parks its IP licenses in the tax haven of Bermuda, and so can charge royalties without paying taxes, offering 3 billion dollars in tax savings. Increasingly, US jurisdictions are creating tax havens through business law.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Mon, February 20, 2012 – 4:49:22pm<\/strong><\/p>\n

These concerns include that countries besides the US are still not prosecuting that often and don\u2019t include corruption provisions in bilateral tax treaties. Even in the US, the median fine is not that large and the DoJ has few tools besides relying on watchdogs to detect corruption. Third, high-growth developing countries are reluctant to prosecute and, fourth, it\u2019s not clear that anti-corruption efforts actually curb corruption. An anecdote: One of the reasons Haiti suffered so much more than Chile in the recent earthquakes is bribery of construction inspectors in Haiti.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Mon, February 20, 2012 – 4:46:40pm<\/strong><\/p>\n

Other positive developments: new legal tools, strategic targeting of corruption-prone industries, voluntary compliance industry, and economists, \u201csurprisingly enough,\u201d now admit that corruption matters. But there are reasons to be concerned.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Mon, February 20, 2012 – 4:44:40pm<\/strong><\/p>\n

Interestingly, Mr. Henry noted that prosecutions are occurring both in countries like the U.S., but also by countries like Lesotho.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Mon, February 20, 2012 – 4:43:54pm<\/strong><\/p>\n

Like the other speakers, Henry notes the recent, enormous up-tick in prosecutions around multinational corruption. Voluntary compliance has also increased\u2013it now accounts for about half of corruption investigations in the US. (On a slightly less optimistic note, Matt Bobby says: \u201cInbound prosecutions is a good thing, but we still need to see if there are actually convictions, and if the convictions will deter. But prosecutions is a good sign.\u201d)<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Mon, February 20, 2012 – 4:40:52pm<\/strong><\/p>\n

After talking about a few of his encounters with corrupt leaders\u2013including Noriega abd a former Brazilian President and a Brazilian Supreme Court justice. He notes, in Brazil, that corruption has reduced under Lula\u2019s presidency, compared to where it was in the 1990s.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Mon, February 20, 2012 – 4:36:42pm<\/strong><\/p>\n

Mr. Henry encourages all of us to become investigative journalists\u2013he notes that he spends much time looking at the underground economy. He expresses no opinion on whether live-blogging is investigative journalism.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Mon, February 20, 2012 – 4:35:17pm<\/strong><\/p>\n

Other issues: transfer pricing abuses, odious debt, pirate banking, and difficulties of reducing domestic corruption in these countries.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Mon, February 20, 2012 – 4:33:29pm<\/strong><\/p>\n

The theme here: the myth of endogenous corruption\u2013the myth that developing countries are just that way and they have no abetters. Mr. Henry argues that the developing countries couldn\u2019t do this without bankers, lawyers, and accountants who help siphon the money into innocent-seeming accounts.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Mon, February 20, 2012 – 4:31:57pm<\/strong><\/p>\n

Lights just went down\u2013Mr. Henry has the first PowerPoint presentation of the day.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Mon, February 20, 2012 – 4:31:16pm<\/strong><\/p>\n

Our final speaker is James Henry. He\u2019s been the chief economist at McKinsey and has worked at other places\u2013but is also an investigative journalist and author of this book<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Mon, February 20, 2012 – 4:30:04pm<\/strong><\/p>\n

As a third issue: It\u2019s much easier for large companies to put in place compliance and deal with requests for bribes, because small companies don\u2019t have the resources to track compliance and negotiate to avoid corrupt officials.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Mon, February 20, 2012 – 4:27:42pm<\/strong><\/p>\n

Ms. Low next talks about the unlevel playing field around anticorruption efforts. One bright sign: there is much greater willingness among countries to investigate international corruption because of an international public infrastructure for these efforts and new financial institution rules and compliance procedures. But some countries are able to enforce their anticorruption rules more than others. The burdens the US places go beyond any other country\u2019s. For example, US law requires parent companies to disclose information about bribery involving even fifth-tier subsidiaries, and even without the parent company knowing about the actions.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Mon, February 20, 2012 – 4:24:30pm<\/strong><\/p>\n

How to deal with this pressure? Host countries can do a lot by supporting multinationals and by negotiating state-to-state.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Mon, February 20, 2012 – 4:23:12pm<\/strong><\/p>\n

One of the most important challenges is on the demand side\u2013those who want bribes. Ms. Low provides a shocking stat: bribes and corruption accounts for 5% of world GDP. Some examples of motivations for corruption on the demand side: civil service officials not getting a living wage can lead them to commit shake-downs (Ms. Low tells the story of trying to enter a South American country at 18 and being kept up all night by a customs official looking for a bribe), laws that encourage demands for bribes by allowing officials to suddenly bring up rules, and weak monitoring procedures. Ms. Low notes that officials can be good at putting on economic pressure\u2013for example, custom officials holding up a key machine part at the border, costing the company seven figures a day.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Mon, February 20, 2012 – 4:18:34pm<\/strong><\/p>\n

What motivates companies to act with integrity? It can be a desire to promote values, sustainability as investors in countries, a desire to protect reputation\u2013these issues have a big reputational impact, especially with the rise of the blogosphere\u2013or the cost of FCPA or other corruption investigations.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Mon, February 20, 2012 – 4:15:47pm<\/strong><\/p>\n

Ms. Low is at the podium now. She will talk about \u201cthe motivations and challenges that are faced by multinational companies\u201d in dealing with corruption. She notes three challenges: (1) demand side; (2) unlevel playing field, exacerbated by the US\u2019s enforcement efforts today; (3) the special challenges for small- and medium-sized comapnies.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Mon, February 20, 2012 – 4:14:26pm<\/strong><\/p>\n

The OECD looks like the most secure of the conventions\u2013but all of them have difficulties. \u201cIt\u2019s extremely important for the US to continue to play a role in supporting the international anticorruption conventions, particularly the UN Convention, which is facing significant challenges in setting up its review system.\u201d Public participation and governmental transparency is also crucial, Dell says. Pro bono legal assistance in monitoring is also crucial.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Mon, February 20, 2012 – 4:12:20pm<\/strong><\/p>\n

Even if a single project isn\u2019t a huge problem, when you add up all the money funneled through corrupt projects in a single country like Nigeria, the toll of corruption is huge. Collective action is important. Speaking of the UN Convention, Ms. Dell notes its breadth is wide, and that it aims, in Article 13, to provide the public information and opportunity to participate in government decision-making\u2013a reason for optimism, given the repressive aspects of some signatories\u2019 governments. But the UN Convention is only the most recent of many conventions. Many conventions provide for monitoring, and for international discussion of corruption.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Mon, February 20, 2012 – 4:08:06pm<\/strong><\/p>\n

Gillian Dell is talking next. She mentions the history of Transparency International, which began working in 1983. TI is an advocacy organization, and has advocated around international conventions, among other things. She\u2019s more optimistic about the UN Convention than is Costa\u2013saying that it needs time to work. But first she\u2019ll discuss context: globalization and liberalization of finance and trade investment have created opportunities for more business, but also for more corruption. There is some greater enforcement of anticorruption efforts\u2013not only through the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and the OECD\u2019s anti-bribery convention, but also through national law.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Mon, February 20, 2012 – 4:02:46pm<\/strong><\/p>\n

Matt Bobby: There are many parallels (and differences) between anticorruption efforts and international espionage\u2013mainly that some states benefit a lot from it and it makes international coorperation hard.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Mon, February 20, 2012 – 4:02:05pm<\/strong><\/p>\n

Mr. Costa calls upon academics to provide more scholarly evidence about pattern flows and more investigation. Academic programs should collect good practices and monitor legal trends.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Mon, February 20, 2012 – 4:00:15pm<\/strong><\/p>\n

Recipients of these funds include well-respected money centers on both sides of the Atlantic. The recent economic crisis has made illegal funds particularly attractive. But Mr. Costa notes a lack of political will to prosecute corruption, because business interests and developing countries\u2019 need for natural resources weaken their wills to act. The best time to\u00a0 act is before the loot \u201cdisappears into international financial laundromats.\u201d But investigation and judicial proceedings are slow. \u201cCross-border asset recovery is more a farce than a force.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Mon, February 20, 2012 – 3:57:03pm<\/strong><\/p>\n

Mr. Costa: He praises Judge Ahmed\u2019s strong statement about the dangers of transnational corruption. So far, international agreements and the UN Convention Against Corruption haven\u2019t been successful. UN laws do require fighting corruption. But different countries have different roles\u2013so he divides poor and rich countries. For poor countries, fighting corruption is an economic and political imperative\u2013a development question. We have seen countries in the Third World destroyed by corruption\u2013Paraguay, Bolivia, Congo, Malaysia and Indonesia (in the past), and, Judge Ahmed\u2019s talk suggested, Pakistan. There cannot be democracy without integrity. Rich countries face their own problems: they are usually the recipients of stolen funds, and the UN Convention has attempted to prevent banks from profiting from these funds. Rich countries must investigate the actors that gain these benefits. In both poor and rich countries, we need to hit the robbers where it hurts\u2013keeping them from stealing money and forcing them to pay it back.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Mon, February 20, 2012 – 3:49:31pm<\/strong><\/p>\n

Mark Wu is introducing our first panel. First up is Antonio Maria Costa, \u201cone of the fathers of the Euro.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Mon, February 20, 2012 – 3:43:28pm<\/strong><\/p>\n

Our first panel is about transnational corruption, and its effects on national governments and citizens. Our panelists are: -Antonio Maria Costa, who recently wrote a novel, Checkmate, about the financial crisis, and before that held leadership positions in the OECD, among other places
\n-Gillian Dell, manager of Transparency International\u2019s international conventions program and frequent analyst of international trade and foreign bribery
\n-James S. Henry, an investigative journalist and lawyer with a consulting background, writes at SubmergingMarkets.com[link] and has worked for tax haven and international transfer pricing reform
\n-Lucinda Low heads the anticorruption practice at the Washington, DC, office of Steptoe & Johnson
\nHarvard\u2019s Mark Wu is moderating.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Mon, February 20, 2012 – 3:36:36pm<\/strong><\/p>\n

Question 2: Did the bin Laden killing blur or clarify legal lines around extrajudicial killing? Judge Ahmed: He should have been tried\u2013\u201dthis is what everybody says.\u201d \u201cI don\u2019t know why they killed him; they could have tried him.\u201d The questioner also asks whether the US should have notified Pakistan. Judge Ahmed says he doesn\u2019t know whether or not to accept the US\u2019s view that they couldn\u2019t trust the Pakistani security forces.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Mon, February 20, 2012 – 3:35:06pm<\/strong><\/p>\n

Question #1: You defined economic espionage as an international problem. Judge Ahmed: There should be international coordination to detect this kind of crime\u2013two countries are always involved, so you need coordination. If you\u2019re cauhgt red-handed engaging in espionage, China should either extradite or prosecute, even if American companies are injured. American law provides for everything\u2013but you have to be able to get the defendant here. This is \u201cfood for thought\u201d for the panelists.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Mon, February 20, 2012 – 3:31:08pm<\/strong><\/p>\n

At the time Benazir Bhutto was killed, Judge Ahmed saw 200 defendants who were homeless on drug charges. Seeing that these people were arrested essentially without evidence\u2013Ahmed released them on his personal bond, asking them to come back next week. They all did. \u201cIf you trust people, they will trust you.\u201d And with that concludes the keynote.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Mon, February 20, 2012 – 3:23:07pm<\/strong><\/p>\n

Judge Ahmed now turns to the third topic: economic espionage. This is an international problem, and is linked ot a nation\u2019s national security for victim nations. Information has become a marketable commdity\u2013the rise of cyberspace has degraded the traditional protections against information disemination. We need laws that will discourage economic espionage.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Mon, February 20, 2012 – 3:19:47pm<\/strong><\/p>\n

Another example: investigations of human rights defenders and journalists in Congo. Also, in Indonesia. Judge Ahmed notes that both terrorists and counter-terrorists engage in killing. Missing persons in Pakistan sometimes turn up in Guantanamo, sometimes in police custody (and sometimes having been killed in terrorism\/counter-terrorism operations).<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Mon, February 20, 2012 – 3:14:49pm<\/strong><\/p>\n

Turning his attention to extrajudicial killings, Judge Ahmed notes that one motivation for the killings is the difficulty prosecuting this kind of criminal. Prosecution witnesses risk being killed. Judges also risk being killed\u2013although happily not recently. (Matt Bobby notes \u201cI find it interesting he is using criminals\u2013extrajudicial killings are usually (in US mind) in terms of War on Terror.) As an example, Judge Ahmed notes that EJ killings can be a \u201cshortcut\u201d\u2013he gives the example of a criminal accused of over 80 killings. No witnesses would come forward when he was charged, but he was killed after being released from jail.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Mon, February 20, 2012 – 3:11:11pm<\/strong><\/p>\n

Transnational corruption is wide. Judge Ahmed cites a report that notes the term can describe bribery, kickbacks, and can occur in all branches of government. It can undermine the separation of powers. It involves not only politicians and functionaries, but also multinational companies.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Mon, February 20, 2012 – 3:07:01pm<\/strong><\/p>\n

After Pakistan\u2019s dictator was killed in plane crash in 1988, political chaos in the 1990s led to a rise in corruption\u2013made the 1990s \u201ca lost decade.\u201d But the excuse is made, it\u2019s difficult to prosecute white collar crime. Judge Ahmed suggests it isn\u2019t so hard, but the trouble is politicians who pass ordinances like the National Reconciliation Ordinance, which granted amnesty to politicians who had engaged in corruption in the 1990s. It was passed by Musharraf in 2007, but was invalidated by the Supreme Court, creating a political crisis in 2009.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Mon, February 20, 2012 – 3:03:18pm<\/strong><\/p>\n

Previous prime ministers refers to those before a 1977 coup.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Mon, February 20, 2012 – 3:02:19pm<\/strong><\/p>\n

It\u2019s a matter of deep concern that corruption has been permitted in every stratum of society. \u201cIn order to stop corruption, all we need is strong institutions.\u201d Previous prime ministers \u201cwere not famous for corruption. They were famous for incompetency and all that.\u201d Big laugh.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Mon, February 20, 2012 – 3:00:49pm<\/strong><\/p>\n

Judge Ahmed is talking about the Supreme Court\u2019s holding the Prime Minister in contempt for refusing to write a letter urging reopening of a corruption investigation. Here\u2019s a summary of the events: http:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2012\/02\/14\/world\/asia\/pakistani-court-indicts-prime-minister-for-contempt.html<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Mon, February 20, 2012 – 2:56:38pm<\/strong><\/p>\n

On the question of transnational corruption, Judge Ahmed notes that in his country and plenty of others where politicians become rich overnight. But corruption among the politicians also encourages change\u2013as we\u2019ve just seen in the Arab spring. In Pakistan, prosecution of politicians allows some accountability for corruption among politicians.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Mon, February 20, 2012 – 2:51:35pm<\/strong><\/p>\n

The keynote address is beginning. Judge Ahmed is a practitioner in Pakistan who is a former justice of the Pakistan Supreme Court, argues before it frequently, and often appears in Pakistani media on legal issues.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Mon, February 20, 2012 – 2:51:15pm<\/strong><\/p>\n

Deeona Gaskin, one of the symposium\u2019s organizers: Should government\u2019s negotiate with organizations such as Taliban, as Karzai recently has, and what about the Pakistan Supreme Court\u2019s charging of the Pakistani prime minister with contempt\u2013are these appropriate? Judge Khawaja Naveed Ahmed will give the keynote address, speaking on these questions.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Mon, February 20, 2012 – 2:47:49pm<\/strong><\/p>\n

Running the liveblog today is me, Clayton Simmons, with Matt Bobby\u2019s help. Yonina Alexander, ILJ\u2019s co-Editor in Chief, has just introduced Deeona Gaskin and Sara Lykken.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Mon, February 20, 2012 – 2:46:05pm<\/strong><\/p>\n

Welcome to the Harvard ILJ Liveblog, whether you\u2019re joining us from the audience, home, or class! We\u2019ll be with you for the next five hours\u2013through one keynote speaker and three panels. Check out the schedule here<\/a>. And a reminder to send your thoughts to our e-mail, at hilj.liveblog@gmail.com.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Sun, February 19, 2012 – 9:04:46pm<\/strong><\/p>\n

Tomorrow starting at 2:30, ILJ Liveblog will be covering the ILJ Symposium<\/a>. During the talks send your thoughts to hilj.liveblog@gmail.com<\/a>!<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Mon, February 20, 2012 – 7:31:49pm And that wraps up the Liveblog. Thanks for tuning in, and we hope to […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"","ast-site-content-layout":"default","site-content-style":"default","site-sidebar-style":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","ast-disable-related-posts":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","astra-migrate-meta-layouts":"default","ast-page-background-enabled":"default","ast-page-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"ast-content-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"_FSMCFIC_featured_image_caption":"","_FSMCFIC_featured_image_nocaption":"","_FSMCFIC_featured_image_hide":"","footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-5863","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/PeZu3S-1wz","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/ilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/5863","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/ilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/ilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/ilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/ilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5863"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/ilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/5863\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/ilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5863"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}