Keynote speech
Louise Arbour, former Supreme Court Justice of Canada, former chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, and former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, gave the keynote speech for the North American Judicial Colloquium. Click here for the transcript and click here to see a video of the speech.
Colloquium Examines International Law and Domestic Courts
John Hedigan, a judge on the High Court of Ireland, formerly of the European Court of Human Rights, and Anita Usacka, a judge on the International Criminal Court
November 12, 2008
A panel of U.S., Canadian, and international judges weighed the influence of international law on domestic courts during the North American Judicial Colloquium, held at Brandeis on November 6-8.
Called “What Can International and Domestic Judges Learn from One Another?” the colloquium hosted eight judges from the U.S., seven from Canada, and three from international courts. The domestic judges represented a combination of federal, U.S. state, and Canadian provincial courts. They came from as far as British Columbia, Manitoba, and Alabama. The international judges represented the Caribbean Court of Justice (Trinidad), the European Court of Human Rights (Strasbourg), and the International Criminal Court (The Hague).
As one judge noted, the event focused on “the way that the internationalization of the judiciary can affect us all in our work.” In six panel sessions, participants covered issues such as how international law was enshrined in the South African Constitution and how domestic courts have considered international environmental and human rights law.
They also discussed the impact of specific cases on international law, such as Medellin v. Texas, a U.S. Supreme Court death penalty case concerning the rights of foreign nationals to consult with consular officials. In addition, the colloquium outlined the process of selecting judges for both domestic and international courts and offered guidance on electronic legal research tools for international law.
In the sessions, judges noted the reluctance of some countries, in particular the United States, to cite foreign or international law in court decisions. One participant said that U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia criticized judges for “cherry picking” international law in order to support their decisions. Another participant said that some lawyers fear citing international law because they may be seen as not having relevant domestic law to support their cases. But that concern is diminishing in a globalized world, the judge added.
Indeed, participants also noted an increasing support for applying international law in a domestic context. One judge cited a conference that educated judges in the Caribbean region on issues of international laws and treaties. Another participant noted that international tribunals may draw on how judges act at the domestic level. Participants agreed that domestic and international courts are increasingly interdependent.
“As the rule of law expands throughout the world, dialogues like this will be more common,” said one participant.
The North American Judicial Colloquium followed two West African Judicial Colloquia, the first held in Dakar, Senegal, in January 2006, and the second held in Accra, Ghana, in October 2007. The aims of the Brandeis Judicial Colloquia are to foster an exchange of experience and expertise between judges in national judiciaries and those on international courts, and to establish an ongoing dialogue on fundamental issues that affect them both.
The North American Judicial Colloquium was funded by the JEHT Foundation and the David Berg Foundation. A complete report on the event will be available soon.
Fernande Duffly, a judge on the Massachusetts Appeals Court (left) and Thea Herman of the Superior Court of Justice of Ontario