Honoring Balance

As described in Diane's Sunday post, Anne-Marie Slaughter's Atlantic article, Why Women Still Can't Have it All, gets to the heart of the debate about work-life balance, and offers thoughtful prescriptions for a "national happiness project." The article has provoked much thought and chatter, and in particular prompted me to think about those lawyers and law professors who have served as models for me in the realm of work-life balance. 
In this profession, I fear, such role models have been few and far between.  As a law student at Yale in the late 1990s, only ten of approximately sixty faculty were female; not a promising environment for work-life balance.  Similarly, as a lawyer at a big law firm and a civil rights non-profit, I looked up at the women above me and of most of them thought "I don't want to be that person who sacrifices her family life for her career."
Luckily, my experience in legal academia has been a different story, one of female and male colleagues alike who have supported me through the many challenges that face a working mother of small children.  Indeed, one of my favorite aspects of this blog is the implicit understanding of the importance of these demands.
Here at IntLawGrrls, we celebrate our transnational foremothers, so why not our living role models who have given us the courage to stake out our own work-life balance?
I'll start with one of my own, and hope that contributors and readers will join me in honoring the women and men who've been a model of balance in their lives.
As a law student, I often wondered how I would balance a demanding career with motherhood.  My own mother was a fabulous parent, but as a stay-at-home mom, the challenges she gracefully overcame were very different from those I would face. 
In my second year of law school, I had the good fortune of landing in the immigration clinic, where Jean Koh Peters was my professor and supervising attorney.  To my delight, in an environment where it seemed that nobody survived on more than three hours of sleep, Jean openly declared that she needed at least eight hours of sleep to function optimally.  As a dedicated eight-hour sleeper, this was music to my ears. 
More importantly, Jean arrived at the office promptly at 8:30 am each morning and left just as promptly at 4:30 pm.  She was not available by e-mail or by telephone outside of those hours, and made it known that these were her family hours, and her time with her family was not to be interrupted by work.  Jean is no slacker; apart from running two clinics, she has written numerous articles and the definitive textbook in her field, won a teaching award, and written a report on comparative law and practice in child protective proceedings.
At last, here was a person I could hope to be; a scholar, a wonderful teacher, a public interest lawyer, and perhaps most importantly, a great mom. 
Reflecting on Jean's choices through the lens of Slaughter's article: She has tailored her own work schedule to fit the needs of a good parent and clearly professed these work-life choices to her students, helping us to stake out those same boundaries in the future.  All in all, a significant contribution to the national happiness project, and to the ongoing happiness of those of us who were fortunate enough to have her as a professor and mentor. Thank you, Jean!
Who's your work-life balance mentor?  We welcome comments and posts honoring women and men who have made Slaughter's recommendations a reality in your life.

Slaughter on structures for work-family balance

'I still strongly believe that women can "have it all" (and that men can too). I believe that we can "have it all at the same time." But not today, not with the way America’s economy and society are currently structured. My experiences over the past three years have forced me to confront a number of uncomfortable facts that need to be widely acknowledged –  and quickly changed.'

So writes our colleague. Dr. Anne-Marie Slaughter (above), in an Atlantic article that describes the challenges of being a family woman while she held a "foreign-policy dream job" as the 1st woman Director of Policy Planning at the U.S. Department of State.
The 3d of 4 women ever to serve as President of the American Society of International Law, from 2002 to 2004, and former Dean of the Woodrow Wilson School of International Affairs at Princeton University, Slaughter left her State Department position in 2011, after 2 years, and returned to her academic post at Princeton.
In the Atlantic article, Slaughter situates her decision to leave in a context not only of the choices other successful women make, but also of the condition of women less "successful," as that term is typically used in the marketplace. (In so doing, she joins a discussion on work-family balance frequently addressed here at IntLawGrrls. And The New York Times chimes in here.)

Slaughter also takes on Facebook executive Sheryl Sandberg (right), who's offered her own critique on this issue in speeches like the one available in this video. (photo credit)
What does Slaughter prescribe?
An array of attitudinal and structural changes, among them:
► "[C]lose the leadership gap: to elect a woman president and 50 women senators; to ensure that women are equally represented in the ranks of corporate executives and judicial leaders."
► Tailor work schedules to fit the needs of good parents; that is, conform day-to-day work schedules with those of children's school schedules, and reduce travel obligations and face-time expectations. (Get that Skype account activated, 'Grrls.)
► Expect commitment to family from men as well as women in power. At this juncture, Slaughter poses an excellent question:

'Why should we want leaders who fall short on personal responsibilities?'

► Encourage a range of behavior, from the men as well as the women, in places of work and study. Slaughter writes:

'I continually push the young women in my classes to speak more. They must gain the confidence to value their own insights and questions, and to present them readily. My husband agrees, but he actually tries to get the young men in his classes to act more like the women – to speak less and listen more. If women are ever to achieve real equality as leaders, then we have to stop accepting male behavior and male choices as the default and the ideal.'

► Women in power – deans, for instance – should keep family in the mix of their obligations, Not only should they make time for family (and allow staffers to do the same), but they should make clear to the men and women with whom they work that they are doing so, thus staking out family space for all in the enterprise.
Slaughter's uplifting term for all this?
A "national happiness project."

Compliance & transnational regulatory networks

(Thank you to IntLawGrrls for inviting me to contribute this guest post)

A number of transnational regulatory networks have appeared and/or expanded in power and influence in the last few decades. These networks are characterised by their members being national regulatory agencies rather than nation-states. They also tend to have no international status beyond that conferred by the national law of their host countries.
Transnational regulatory networks seem to be particularly prevalent in relation to financial regulation. Examples include: the Madrid-based International Organization of Securities Commissions, known as IOSCO; the International Association of Insurance Supervisors, based in Basel, Switzerland; and the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (red oval logo below left).
These networks also exist in other areas: in competition law may found the International Competition Network; in environmental law, there's INECE, the Washington-based International Network for Environmental Compliance and Enforcement; and in criminal law, INTERPOL, the International Criminal Police Organization based in Lyon, France.
One of the reasons why these networks have grown in importance is because of the failure of the treaty process to solve some global problems. The treaty negotiation process is often time consuming and complex and is particularly inappropriate to problems which require a more immediate solution. In contrast transnational regulatory networks linked by technology can work quickly to make policy recommendations to their members. As such governments are increasingly turning to these networks for more timely solutions to global problems.
The importance of these networks in global governance and their growing power and influence has been documented in the literature, particularly in the work of Dr. Anne-Marie Slaughter (right), the Bert G. Kerstetter '66 University Professor of Politics and International Affairs at Princeton University and former Director of Policy Planning for the U.S. Department of State. (credit for photo by Denise Applewhite) Slaughter sees these networks as a solution to what she calls is the global paradox, that is, the need for global government for global problems but people being distrustful of global government. However one of the main difficulties of using these networks as the solution for global problems is that their agreements, guidelines, policy statements, etc generally have no international legal status and impose no binding obligations. As such these networks are usually limited to relying upon ‘soft law’ techniques such as networking, socialization, discussion and persuasion to have members adopt their recommendations. Soft law however creates a ‘compliance challenge’, compliance often being dependent upon coercion, self interest and the legitimacy of the proposed law.
In my article IOSCO’S Multilateral Memorandum of Understanding Concerning Consultation and Cooperation and the Exchange of Information – A model for international regulatory convergence?, I consider the growth of one of these networks.
In particular, I example IOSCO's Multilateral Memorandum of Understanding Concerning Consultation and Cooperation and the Exchange of Information. This Multilateral Memorandum standardizes the process by which securities commissions that are members of IOSCO can obtain information from other member securities commissions for enforcement purposes.
It appears that IOSCO envisages that this Multilateral Memorandum will become a key weapon in the arsenal of securities commissions to tackle securities offences which increasingly no longer respect jurisdictional boundaries. However, the impact of this Multilateral Memorandum appears to be more significant than just a mechanism to exchange information. This is because countries are required to have in place certain laws which mirror IOSCO’s recommendations for securities regulation before they may become a signatory to the Multilateral Memorandum. Members who want access to it, and who don’t have such laws in place, must first secure change in their domestic legislation. It therefore appears that IOSCO is using this Multilateral Memorandum as a ‘carrot’ in its efforts for members to adopt the organization’s model for securities regulation.
IOSCO is using the Multilateral Memorandum in its mission to achieve international convergence of securities regulation.
In the article, I also examine whether other transnational regulatory networks could use this model of developing a ‘carrot’ – that is, something members want access to– in their efforts to secure compliance of members to an international agreement.
Put another way, I pose the question as to whether the ‘carrot’ mechanism may offer a solution to the ‘compliance challenge’ of these networks. I conclude that it could. Mechanisms which work towards improving enforcement outcomes of regulators are likely to be the most successful. This is because the elimination of crime, in particular economic crimes, is one area in which the preferences of countries and regulators are most likely to converge.

...and counting...

(Occasional sobering thoughts.) The United States, France, and other countries intervened militarily against Libya's government yesterday -- the 8th anniversary of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.
Participation by France (under President Nicolas Sarkozy) departed from the earlier script, when France (under President Jacques Chirac) vocally opposed intervention and so thwarted the United States' bid for U.N. Security Council authorization.
This time around, France pushed earlier and hard for a Security Council resolution. Some officials in the United States initially resisted. But as predicted nearly a month ago by our Opinio Juris colleague Chris Borgen, a tweet heard 'round the world (below center, by Anne-Marie Slaughter, who just finished a 2-year stint as the head of policy planning at the State Department) seemed to set the stage for support by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and, eventually, President Barack Obama.


Five of the 15 Security Council states, including China, Russia, and Germany, abstained from Resolution 1973, which was billed as a no-fly resolution during early negotiations, yet included this paragraph authorizing greater intervention:

Protection of civilians
4. Authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, and acting in cooperation with the Secretary-General, to take all necessary measures, notwithstanding paragraph 9 of resolution 1970 (2011), to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory, and requests the Member States concerned to inform the Secretary-General immediately of the measures they take pursuant to the authorization conferred by this paragraph which shall be immediately reported to the Security Council; ....

Hence yesterday's Tomahawk strikes on Libyan air defense systems. Hence, too, today's complaint from an advocate of the no-fly zone -- the leader of the Arab League said "the use of force was excessive following an overnight bombing campaign that Libya claims killed at least 48 people."
The Security Council-endorsed actions are taking place in the name of civilians. A noble cause, yet one without end. If Libya, why not other countries whose governments harm their own people? To name one, why not Côte d'Ivoire, site of tragic deaths amid months-long post-election violence?
As made explicit in the preamble to Resolution 1973, the Security Council resolved to act in the name of the fledgling doctrine of responsibility to protect. The Council's choice of Libya, to the exclusion of other global trouble spots, exposes once again the unsettling selection bias inherent in current conceptualizations of that doctrine.
Unsettling too is the notion of a 3d (or 4th, depending on how one counts AfPak) armed conflict in which the United States is engaged -- and in which civilian deaths are likely to occur even in the course of efforts to protect civilians.
While waiting to see what transpires on the Libyan front, it is due time to review casualties since our last post, 16 weeks ago, in the long-running conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq.
► In Afghanistan, "[t]argeted killings of civilians in Afghanistan doubled" in 2010, according to an annual report recently issued by the United Nations. Specifically, there was "a 15 percent increase in the number of civilians killed to 2,777 -- continuing a steady rise over the past four years" in the nearly decade-old conflict.
The U.S. Department of Defense reports that in Afghanistan, coalition military casualties stand at 1,505 Americans, 360 Britons, and 507 other coalition servicemembers. That's an increase of 89, 15, and 23 casualties, respectively, in the last 16 weeks. The total coalition casualty count in the Afghanistan conflict is 2,372 service women and men.
► Respecting the Iraq War launched 8 years ago this weekend -- a milestone observed by scattered protests --Iraq Body Count reports that between 100, 051 and 109,318 Iraqi women, children, and men have died in the conflict in Iraq since the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003. That represents an increase of between 1,030 and 1,224 persons since 16 weeks ago. According to the U.S. Defense Department, 4,440 American servicemembers have been killed in Iraq, representing 11 servicemember deaths in the last 16 weeks. (As posted, U.S. troops are the only foreign forces remaining in Iraq.)

On November 13

On this day in ....

... 1920 (90 years ago today), the American Society of International Law (seal at left) admitted women to its membership. This decision by the then-14-year-old organization was chronicled at 15 American Journal of International Law 76 (1921). Given the importance of the event -- and the fact that on this anniversary day, ASIL's 2010 midyear meeting is under way in Miami, Florida -- we set forth the full AJIL account:

ADMISSION OF WOMEN TO MEMBERSHIP IN THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF INTERNATIONAL LAW

At the meeting of the Executive Council of the American Society of International Law, held in Washington on November 13, 1920, the Council took up and considered the resolution of the Executive Committee of the Society, adopted on January 24, 1920, that "the Executive Council be requested to reconsider the regulation of January 29, 1906, which it has established under Article 3 of the Constitution in regard to membership." This resolution of the Executive Committee was adopted after discussion of the advisability of admitting women to membership in the Society. The Executive Council at its meeting on November 13, after consideration, adopted the following resolution:

Resolved, That the regulation of January 29, 1906, concerning the admission of members be, and it is hereby, amended by changing the word 'man' to 'person'.

The regulation governing admission to membership, therefore, now reads as follows:

Any person of good moral character interested in the objects of the Society may be admitted to membership in the Society.

In the interim 90 years, 4 women have served s ASIL Presidents:

► Dr. Alona Evans (top right; prior post), 1980;

► Dr. Edith Brown Weiss (middle right; prior posts), 1992-1994;

► Dr. Anne-Marie Slaughter (bottom middle; prior posts), 2002-2004; and

► IntLawGrrl Lucy Reed (above center; prior posts), 2008-2010.

(Prior November 13 posts are here, here, and here.)

Aren't there any influential women thinkers?

Brian Leiter has opened a poll on his Law School blog on who the “most important thinker in American law” in the 20^th century was/is. All the eleven individuals named on the poll are, without question, influential legal thinkers. Here’s the list:
► Bruce Ackerman
► Guido Calabresi
► Benjamin Cardozo
► Ronald Dworkin
► Richard Epstein
► Lon Fuller
► Henry M Hart Jnr
► Kart Llewellyn
► Richard Posner
► Roscoe Pound
► Herbert Wechsler

They are not all American, which I guess must mean that Leiter intended to ask who had the most impact on American legal thought generally rather than who was the most influential American thinker. In addition, all of the individuals on the list are lawyers or legal philosophers—non-lawyers like Foucault (left), for example, make no appearance. Most strikingly, perhaps, is the complete absence of women thinkers on the list. What might the explanations be? Well, let us look first at the selection criteria used to put the list together:

(1) for those born in the 19th-century, most of the thinker's important work must have been done in the 20th-century; (2) those thinkers who are still alive must have entered the profession in the 1960s or earlier; (3) the thinker must have made contributions in more than one field; (4) the thinker's contributions must have had a wide-ranging impact on American legal thinking and scholarship.

These selection criteria themselves make the inclusion of women somewhat difficult on the list—entering the academic profession as a woman in the 1960s or earlier was a particularly difficult task, although of course if the third criterion were interpreted as meaning ‘entering the legal profession including entering law school’ in the 1960s or earlier many more female scholars may be eligible for the list.
If we were to put together a list that was more inclusive—let’s say one that did not have the ‘entered the profession in the 1960s’ cut-off point (which seems to somewhat undermine the impact of those scholars who entered later and still managed to have an enormous influence on legal thought)—who might we include on such a list? Some examples come immediately to my mind: Martha Nussbaum (pictured right), Ann Marie Slaughter, Martha Fineman, Kimberlé Crenshaw and Margaret Radin, for example.
What are your thoughts on the list, the selection criteria, and the women thinkers who have had the most influence on American legal thought?

Slaughter leads Policy Planning at State

Kudos to our colleague Dr. Anne-Marie Slaughter (left), who's just completed her 3d week as the new Director of Policy Planning at the U.S. Department of State.

Slaughter had been serving as Dean of the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs and the Bert G. Kerstetter '66 University Professor of Politics and International Affairs at Princeton University. (Prior IntLaw Grrls posts here and here.) Before that, she was the J. Sinclair Armstrong Professor of International, Foreign and Comparative Law and the Director of Graduate and International Legal Studies at Harvard Law School, and also taught at Harvard’s Kennedy School and the University of Chicago Law School. She served as President of the American Society of International Law from 2002 to 2004.

For hints at what State policies Slaughter might plan, take a look at her 2 most recent books, The Idea That Is America: Keeping Faith With Our Values in a Dangerous World (2008) and A New World Order (2004), and her 2008 comment in an ASIL feature on the Presidential race:

The most important question facing the next president is how to restore American respect for international law, in both perception and reality. Because of the dramatic rejection of international legal constraints in the first administration of George W. Bush, even fair-minded efforts to return to the rule of law in some areas in recent years has had little impact. The hardest legal issue, but one that simply must be addressed, is to agree on a set of interpretations of the Geneva Conventions, or perhaps even amendments, that define clearly what is permissible and impermissible in interrogating individuals suspected of terrorism who may have detailed knowledge about future attacks. The next task, which must be pursued simultaneously, is to revive and update the Non-Proliferation Treaty, with the full commitment of the United States to live up to our part of the bargain. Many other issues come to mind, but overall, the next President will have to decide on a menu of both symbolic and substantive acts and carry them out quickly and decisively. He or she will have to remind the American people, and convince the world, that the best safeguard of liberty is not force, but law.

Heartfelt congratulations!