- Elan Journo, Ayn Rand Institute
The Federalist Society's Practice Group and Student Divisions and the American Branch of the International Law Association (ABILA) are pleased to present a half-day conference on the future of international and national law under freshly inaugurated President Trump. The first panel will focus on the future of trade law, under a president who made free trade agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership and NAFTA a campaign issue. The second panel will discuss the future of American alliances and interventions under the Trump administration. Lunch will feature a lively discussion between leading international lawyers the Hon. John Bellinger and Associate Dean and Professor Rosa Brooks. The luncheon panel will be moderated by Professor David Stewart.
Join us Monday, January 23, 2016 at 9:00 a.m. for a morning program and luncheon at Georgetown University Law Center to hear our legal experts the future of international and national security law under the new administration. A link to a free live-stream will be made available on January 23 so the conference can be watched in real time.
For months, Syrian and Russian warplanes have bombed Aleppo, killing and wounding residents. Russian officials have referred to the siege as “diplomacy backed by force.” The US Ambassador to the UN has called it “barbarism.” The US and France have called for a War Crimes investigation, but any meaningful action at the UN has been blocked by Russia’s place on the Security Council. In this Teleforum, two distinguished professors with extensive practical experience examined the status of the siege under the Law of Armed Conflict and International Humanitarian Law.
After one year of Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action assessments and critiques, have American security interests been damaged? Is Iranian gamesmanship ephemeral, or durably threatening? Critics point to evasions of the JCPOA like the easing of economic sanctions and the un-reviewed arms deals and contracts with Russia to say that the “deal” has only served as cover for Iranian nuclear infractions. Is the U.S. Congress empowered to demand a better deal, even after a year of performance and European reliance on a return to the status quo ante for financial re-engagement with Iran? Are there historic precedents for resetting the terms? In light of coming sunset clauses that may see Iran at near zero break-out time, what leverage potential does NATO possess, and do any “snap back” sanctions represent real restraining power?