From a departmental email:

Greetings!

Many of you will have already received information regarding the campus visit next week of Emma Pérez, Professor of Ethnic Studies at the University of Colorado – Boulder.

During her two days on the UNL campus, Professor Pérez will meet with groups of faculty and guest lecture in classes. She will also give a public talk on Thursday September 29th in the City Campus Union on the topic of “Decolonizing the University for Ethnic Studies”. This event will begin with an informal reception and book display at 3 p.m., followed by the formal talk at 3:30 p.m. We recognize that you may be too busy to attend this event, but are asking that you encourage attendance at Dr. Pérez’s talk by informing administrators, faculty, staff, and students in your units of this event.

Dr. Pérez’s visit is being organized by Amelia Montes, who submitted a grant to the Convocations Committee and obtained co-sponsorship from multiple departments and programs. The Institute for Ethnic Studies [lol -- acronym is UNLies -- -- tdaxp] is one of the units co-sponsoring Professor Pérez’s visit. Please contact either of us for more information about this event.

Thank you for help in publicizing this important event.

Sincerely,
Marcela Raffaelli, Ph.D. Professor,
Psychology and Ethnic Studies Director,
Institute for Ethnic Studies
321 Burnett Hall
University of Nebraska
Lincoln, NE 68588-0308
(402) 472-0737 (office)
(402) 472-4637 (fax)
mraffaelli1@unl.edu

Amelia Maria de la Luz Montes, Ph.D Assistant Professor,
English & Ethnic Studies
University of Nebraska-Lincoln
202 Andrews Hall
P.O. Box 880333
Lincoln, NE 68588-0333
(402)472-8291

UN Charter
Chapter VI: peaceful settlement of disputes (nonbinding)
Chapter VII: enforcement (binding)

Article II/4 “All members… shall refrain from force”
permitted action: self-defense after armed attack (51)

3 Situations for Lawful Self-Defense
1) if an armed attack has occured (whether by state or non-state party)
2) imminent threat of armed attack (Carrolene case from 19th century, US v. Canada/UK)
3) “anticipatory self-defense” – six day war – UNSC didn’t condemn — so assent through silence?
Bush) right to use force without imminent threat of attack?

Remember, question of “Recourse to War” different from “Conduct of War”

John Yew (former DOJ) argues Iraq was in material breach — defends war that war

The Two “Legally Binding” UN actions:
Chapter VII (from UNSC)
Budget & “Contributions” (from General Assembly)

In Cuban Missle Crisis, Abraham Sheas – legal advisor to State Department — creatively used the law to help his department

battling ideas: “The Ideas that Conquered the World”

“clear and present danger” == “imminment danger” (?)

How do “no fly zones” work with “quarantines” — ambiguous non-interventions?

legal standing of nontechnocratic/nonindustrialized great power force exchange?

q: do military alliances contradict the logic of global collective security?

UNSCR 1441 “perfect example of diplomatic ambiguity”

ICJ “less political” / “more legal” than UNSC because ICJ decisions “should be” taking only legal reasoning into account

battlespaces:

legal refers to rule of law
political refers to rule of ???? (power?)

“New Haven School of International Law” explicitly shows judges as politicla operators, politicals in the context of laws
Article XXV – states shall carry about decisions of the UNSC made under Chapter VII
“law exists to enhance sense of obligation” — social pychology / social cognition implications?

In Libya case, ICJ acted as if it could review UNSCRs — but upheld the UNSCR
but, has UNSC ever acted as if it could review ICJ decisions?
Libya case was similar to Marbury v. Madison

US seems to favor UNSC over ICJ, because UNSC is more useful / US has more influence there
– because ICJ negativist, UNSC positivist?

Legal Status of Humanitarian Intervention
– legally grey & opaque
– on Kosovo, that Russia didn’t get its condemnation passed was backhanded approval? (like Six Day War but moreso?)

R2P: Canada’s “Responsibility to Protect” report
– argues that state soveregnty implies a responsibility to protect
– but no treat on humanitarian intevention (opposed by Gap / Global South, mostly)
– African Union says humanitarian intervention OK as long as AU approves
– UNSC can authorize anyway under “international peace and security” considerations
– R2P end of Westphalia?

As Kosovo War went on, “dual use” targets were used, North Atlantic Council listened to less, etc

Carlo Deponte, head prosecutor for ICJY, declines to charge NATO personell

“proportionality” is one of the vaguest parts of the law of war

Lecture Notes for Internationa Law *sigh*

World Bank and International Monetary Fund (Bank/Fund or Bunk)
– Bredon Woods / post-War / pre-UN institutions

functionalism – theory of “apolitical” IGOs (inter-governmental organizations) that seeks to build a world community through technical cooperation
– first IGOs like international telegraph, european rivers association in 19th century were functionalist

San Francisco (UN)/Bunk (Breton Woods) built of functionalist, conference, and League of Nations precedents

material for International Law as Social Cognitive Battlespace:

Ikenberry: US created bunk because US can dominate them, plus gives US “credibility”
– “strategic restraint”
– example of creating international law to improve international legitimacy to make it easier to break law later?
– use social cognition to teach cognitively to weak unfavorable social cognition lessons? (eg Kosovo War)
– strategic restrain in Iraq run-up?

conditionality: only loan if conditions are met
built to make America look like “benign hegemon” instead of “threatening dominator”
US only has 17% of votes for bunks, but 85% is minimum “majority” for many actions, so US has de facto veto
with national contributions, WB then uses cash as collatoral to raise more money
yearly, WB gives $40 bil, UN regular budget is $1 bil

Independence of Secretariats: Rules for the World: Barnett and Finnemore claim Bank secretariat weak, donors strong
(interesting research ideas: can you show WB President McNamara going against US and winning?)

Bunk’s constituent documents are explicitly non-political (cannot look at political ramifications)
– WB tried this, got introuble for Portugal and South Africa loans, now is political but denies it
– think of “good governance” requirements: political issues effect “development,” “resonably broad” definitions

trifecta of institution types: technical, legal, political…. are they political or economic (both)
_but_, WB says “No leans for Serbia until Belgrade hands over indicted war criminals to ICJY
similar for WB suspension of loans to Allende
evolving notions of “good governance” – strategic, limited growth of definitions
– WB has tribunal for projects in a country (individual right of petition within the bank) – emerging human rights

right criticism at “socialist” World Bank during ’70s “absolutely crazy” .. “lunatic right” now in office

Traditionally, WB is longer term than IMF, but disction fuzzes from ’70s — both now focus on structural loans

“you bureaucratize to create specific organizations to do a specific job — but mission creep undermines this”

World Trade Organizations (WTO)
trips – intellectual property rights as absolute necessity?
irony: “sanctions for trade”

Hathaway and Koh (306) – why stronger mechanisms to protect trade than human rights/ecology
“constructive engagement” – hypocracy in liberal views of “South Africa” and “China”
US, Russia, China united in opposition to International Criminal Court (ICC), France qualified yes, UK only UNSC5 which fully supports

Law of the Sea
– affects oceans / lots of stuff / has a tribunal
– half of proceeds to developing countries (?!?!?)
– Bush now supporting but GOP Senate opposes?
– US declares parts it like as “customary international law”