Showing posts with label Penelope Andrews. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Penelope Andrews. Show all posts

Monday, April 16, 2012

Go, 'Grrl! Penelope Andrews, newest IntLawDean

Just heard the great news that IntLawGrrls contributor Penelope Andrews will become President and Dean of Albany Law School in New York.
Her appointment as the 1st woman President in the school's 161-year history will take effect on July 1 of this year.
Penny (right) will leave her current position as Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Professor of Law at CUNY School of Law. (photo credit) She's also been Professor of Law and Director of International Studies at Valparaiso Law School in Indiana, and also has taught law in Germany, Australia, Holland, Scotland, Canada, and South Africa.
She's a native of South Africa, having earned her B.A. and LL.B from the University of Natal in Durban. She also holds an LL.M from Columbia University School of Law in New York.
As posted when we welcomed Penny to IntLawGrrls in 2009, the Penelope E. Andrews Human Rights Award was established at the University of KwaZulu-Natal law school in 2005. Penny's own honors include the Women of South Africa Achievement Award and Albany Law's 2002 Kate Stoneman Award.
She's a world-renowned human rights scholar, on subjects including South Africa, antidiscrimination law and policy, international law, aboriginal law, gender and the law, and the judicial enforcement of socio-economic rights. Her many publications include the forthcoming book From Cape Town to Kabul: Reconsidering Women's Human Rights. IntLawGrrls posts by and about her are available here.
Heartfelt congratulations!

Saturday, October 22, 2011

Go On! AALS annual meeting

(Go On! is an occasional item on symposia and other events of interest)

Registration's now open for the annual meeting of the Association of American Law Schools, themed "Academic Freedom and Academic Duty," to be held January 4 to 8, 2012, in Washington, D.C.
According to the draft program just received, headliners of interest include:
Harold Hongju Koh, Legal Adviser to the U.S. Department of State. He'll take part in a panel on "Academic Duty and Public Service," along with Ohio State Law Professor Nancy Hardin Rogers, formerly the Attorney General of Ohio, at 2:15 p.m. on Friday, January 6.
► U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen G. Breyer. He's slated to engage in a "conversation" at 12:15 p.m. on Saturday, January 7.
► Our colleague Sarah Cleveland, back at Columbia Law after a stint as Counselor to the State Department. She's part of an all-star lineup (another panelist is Yale Law Professor Judith Resnik) set to speak on "War, Terror, and the Federal Courts, Ten Years After 9/11" at 1:30 p.m. Saturday, January 7.
Pleased to see that many IntLawGrrls contributors are scheduled to speak as well:
Laurel Terry (Pennsylvania State Law): panel on "Globalization," 10:45 a.m. Thursday, January 5.
Kathleen Clark (Washington University Law): panel on "Government Lawyering," 10:45 a.m. Thursday, January 5.
Betsy Baker (Vermont Law), Elizabeth Burleson (Pace Law), and Stephanie Farrior (Vermont Law): session on "North American Developments - 2011 and Beyond," 9 a.m.-5 p.m. Thursday, January 5. Elizabeth has also been chosen to present her paper entitled "Emerging Human Rights & Environmental Law in the Arctic" at a New Voices panel of the Section on International Human Rights, to take place at 8:30 a.m. Friday, January 6.
Ruthann Robson (CUNY Law) will speak on a panel entitled "Minority Conservatives and Their Impact on Legal Theory," at 10:30 a.m. Friday, January 6; Penelope Andrews (CUNY Law) will moderate.
Michele Bratcher Goodwin (Minnesota Law) will moderate the AALS Scholarly Paper Presentation at 4 p.m. Friday, January 6.
► Yours truly, Diane Marie Amann (Georgia Law): panel on "The International Criminal Court and Its Focus on Africa: Helping or Hindering Peace on the Continent?," 4 p.m. Friday, January 6.
Jennifer Kreder (Northern Kentucky Law): panel entitled "From Creation to Curation: The Law of Museums," 8:30 a.m. Saturday, January 7.
Fionnuala Ní Aoláin (Minnesota Law and University of Ulster) and Jaya Ramji-Nogales (Temple Law) are among 2 of those who'll speak on the panel of the Section on Women in Legal Education, "Busting Out in Scholarship," 9 a.m. Sunday, January 7.
Lots more speakers and topics of interest. The full program is here; registration is here.
See you there.



Saturday, September 3, 2011

South African Constitutional Court: Justice Mogoeng's Nomination and Opposition

(Delighted to welcome back alumna Ruthann Robson, who contributes this guest post)

Today, the South African Judicial Service Commission publicly interviewed Mogoeng Mogoeng, President Jacob Zuma's choice for Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court (logo at right). (credit)
While the President has broad discretion under the South African Constitution, the choice has provoked a groundswell of opposition.
For example, the important and well-respected organization Section 27, named after Section 27 of the South African Constitution providing for socio-economic rights, has filed a Submission on behalf of itself and several other organizations, specifically objecting to judgments by Mogoeng, a member of the Court since 2009, in the areas of sexual orientation and gender-based violence cases.
The Section 27 submission requests specific queries from the Judicial Service Commission on the matter of sexual orientation, as well as a statement of his commitment to equality on the basis of sexual orientation as explicitly stated in the South Africa Constitution. The submission notes that Mogoeng (left) dissented in a sexual orientation case without providing reasons as constitutional practice requires. (photo credit)
As for the gender violence issue, the problem is not Mogoeng's silence, but specific troubling statements that the submission outlines. The Section 27 submission concludes:

We have no confidence in his ability either to dispense justice in accordance with the values of the Constitution or in his ability to address the complex gender questions that arise in the judiciary and in the legal profession appropriately. The judgments to which we have referred evidence a patriarchal attitude to women. We have no reason to believe that Justice Mogoeng will not exhibit similar patriarchy in relation to gender transformation in the judiciary, the legal profession and indeed society as a whole.

The Women's Legal Centre, writing on behalf of itself and other organizations and persons, also focuses on the matter of gender-based violence in its Submission, highlighting judgments and statements by Mogoeng, as well as mentioning the matter of sexual orientation.
Both Submissions include a discussion of one of Mogoeng's most controversial judgments. Rendered before he was a member of the Constitutional Court, the judgment eliminated a sentence of jail-time, in favor of a fine, for a man convicted on assault with the intent of doing grievous bodily harm to his "girlfriend." In this previously unreported judgment also discussed by Pierre deVos, the defendant had "‘tied the complainant, his girlfriend, with a wire to the rear bumper of a vehicle. He then drove that vehicle on a gravel road at a fairly high speed over a distance of about 50 metres." Mogoeng found the sentence of two years imprisonment too harsh in part because the man "was provoked by the complainant."
In other cases, Mogoeng reduced or suspended sentences for rape because the parties knew each other.
Cases described by the Southern African Litigation Centre, have prompted the characterization of "shocking" regarding other of Mogoeng's judgments involving sexual assault and violence against women and children. In one, Mogoeng reduces to the miminum the sentence of a man convicted of raping a seven year old girl because her injuries were not "serious."
Several law professors from the United States who have scholarly connections to South Africa, including myself, have signed a letter authored by Penelope Andrews (right), CUNY Law Associate Dean and IntLawGrrls guest/alumna who herself once was a candidate for the Constitutional Court. (photo credit) The letter asks the Judicial Service Commission to seriously consider what would be Mogoeng's role as Chief Justice on the Constitutional Court -- an institution not only important to South Africa's constitutional democracy and transformation, but also internationally.
Today's interview and deliberation -- live-blogged here by deVos, a law professor at the University of Cape Town -- placed the Judicial Service Commission center stage, and are being "described as a test of its character and politics, and, therefore, of its value" in the South African Constitutional democracy.


(Cross-posted at Constitutional Law Prof Blog)


Tuesday, December 28, 2010

Go On! IntLawGrrls at AALS

(Go On! is an occasional item on symposia and other events of interest)

The Association of American Law Schools will be holding its 2011 annual meeting in San Francisco from January 5-8th. This year's theme is: Core Educational Values: Guideposts for the Pursuit of Excellence in Challenging Times.
If you are attending, be sure to check out IntLawGrrls and IntLawGrrl guests/alumnae in action. As detailed in the annual meeting program, they are:

Wednesday, Jan 5th
► At 2:00 pm, Afra Afsharipour will be speaking at the Law and South Asian Studies Section's panel: Lawyers as Social Change Agents in South Asia.
► Also at 2:00, Michele Bratcher Goodwin will speak on the Biolaw Section's panel: Synthetic Biology Meets the Law, and Penelope Andrews will moderate the Africa Section's panel: U.S. Africa Policy at the Midpoint of President Obama's First Term.

Thursday, Jan. 6th
► At 9:00 am, Stephanie Farrior, Hari M. Osofsky, Christiana Ochoa, Annecoos Wiersema, Leila Nadya Sadat, and Cindy Galway Buys will be participating in the International Law Section's panel: International Law Year in Review.
► At 2:00, Penelope Andrews will be speaking on the Constitutional Law Section's panel: American Constitutionalism in Comparative Perspective.
► At 2:30 pm, Lisa R. Pruitt will take part in a panel on Class, Socio-Economics, and Critical Analysis.

Friday, Jan. 7th
► At 8:30 am, Caroline Bettinger-López and Alexandra Huneeus will present at the
New Voices in Human Rights panel of the Section on International Human Rights.
► At 10:30 am, yours truly, Rebecca M. Bratspies, and Hari M. Osofsky will be participating in the Hot Topics panel: The BP Blowout Oil Spill and Its Implications.
► Also at 10:30, Laurel S. Terry will be speaking on the Education Law Section's panel: Immigration and Higher Education.
► At 4:00, Michelle Oberman will be speaking on the Law, Medicine and Health Care Section's panel: Women's Choices, Women's Voices: Legal Regimes and Women's Health.

Saturday, Jan. 8th is an action-packed IntLawGrrls day:
► At 7:00 in the morning, Laurel S. Terry will be speaking at the AALS Workshop and Continental Breakfast for 2010 and 2011 Section Officers.
► At 8:30 am, yours truly, Rebecca M. Bratspies, will be speaking on the Animal Law Section's panel: Treatment and Impact of Farmed Animals.
► At 1:30 pm, Elizabeth L. Hillman will be speaking on the National Security Section's panel: The Relationship Between Military Justice, Civil/Military Relations and National Security Law.
► Also at 1:30 pm, Jenia Iontcheva Turner will be speaking on the Comparative Law Section's panel: Beyond the State: Comparative Approaches to Group Political Identity in the Age of the Transnational.
► At 3:30 pm, Christiana Ochoa, will be moderating the International Law Section's panel: Was Medellin Wrongly Decided?
► Also at 3:30 pm, Jennifer Kreder will speaker on the Section on Law and Anthropology panel entitled The Role of Cultural Property Across Cultures and Legal Regimes.

As always, I am struck by the wide range of interests that our fearless leader Diane Marie Amann has brought together under the IntLawGrrls umbrella.

FYI: Because the Hilton is embroiled in a labor dispute with UNITE HERE, Local 2 (the hotel's workers have been working without a contract for over a year), registration and most of the AALS events have been moved to other nearby hotels. There may be other last-minute changes, so be sure to go by the locations in the schedule you receive at check-in rather than the brochure that circulated last month. See you in San Francisco.

(credit for 2010 poster of San Francisco by Kevin Dart)

Saturday, May 29, 2010

Black Women Teaching International Law (U.S.)

Quick! Name the Black women who teach international, comparative, foreign relations, or immigration/asylum law at U.S. law schools!
A friend asked me this awhile back, but I realize now that it should be an impossible task. There should be far too many to name in a single blogpost.
It’s like asking someone to name the women in international law. We couldn’t possibly provide a comprehensive response to any such request, but IntLawGrrls includes many such voices here. See posts on
--women who are experts on international law;
--women who participated in recent meetings or the leadership of the American Society of International Law;
--or the many regular contributors and guest bloggers on IntLawGrrls.com (see list at right). Still, not enough women in international law.
The field has made some progress in the inclusion of African-American and other Black women since people like the late Professor Goler Teal Butcher, an IntLawGrrls foremother, opened new paths. (See, e.g., Henry J. Richardson, Tribute: African-Americans in International Law: for Professor Goler Teal Butcher, 37 Howard Law Journal 21 (1994) and Hope Lewis, ed., Blacks in U.S. Foreign Policy: A Retrospective (TransAfrica Forum, 1987).
Still, we “have promises to keep,/And miles to go before (we) sleep.”
I will likely inadvertently omit some obvious names, but one must begin somewhere...So, here’s a start. I hope that readers will add names in the comment section or contact me directly with updates so that there can be a “part II” (and, someday, an impossibly long list).
Special thanks to Dr. Jeremy Levitt, who organized a roundtable: “Toward an International Law of Black Women: New Theory, New Praxis” co-sponsored by ASIL and the Florida A & M University College of Law in March. Thanks as well to members of the Association of American Law Schools Minority Law Professors’ List-serv for their suggestions. Of course, this list does not include non-Global Law fields in which these scholars teach, so I've linked to their bio pages for the full story.
Adjoa A. Aiyetoro, (photo, right) Associate Professor of Law, William H. Bowen School of Law, University of Arkansas, Little Rock (International Human Rights Law, Reparations)
Michele Alexandre (photo, left), Associate Professor of Law, University of Mississippi School of Law (International Human Rights Law)
Rachel J. Anderson (photo, left), Associate Professor of Law, William S. Boyd School of Law, University of Nevada, Las Vegas (International Law, International Human Rights, International Business Transactions), an IntLawGrrls guest/alumna.
Penelope E. Andrews (photo, below right), Professor of Law and incoming Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, City University of New York (CUNY) School of Law (International Human Rights Law (including critical approaches to gender and race/intersectionality)) (Her IntLawGrrls guest posts are here.)
Angela M. Banks (photo, right), Assistant Professor of Law, William & Mary Law School (International Law, Immigration Law, Human Rights Law, Gender and Human Rights)
Taunya Lovell Banks (photo, left), Jacob A. France Professor of Equality Jurisprudence and Francis & Harriet Iglehart Research Professor of Law (Race, Subordination, and Citizenship)
IntLawGrrl Karen E. Bravo (photo right), Associate Professor of Law, Indiana University School of Law-Indianapolis (International Law, International Business Transactions, International Trade Law, Illicit International Markets) (Her posts are here.)
Eleanor M. Brown (photo right), Associate Professor, George Washington University School of Law (U.S. Immigration and Global Development Policy)
Margaret A. Burnham (photo, below center), Professor of Law, Northeastern University School of Law (International Criminal Law, Comparative Constitutional Law, International Human Rights Law)



Danielle Conway (formerly Conway-Jones) (photo, left), Professor of Law, William S. Richardson School of Law, University of Hawaii (International Intellectual Property Law, Comparative Intellectual Property)
Lisa A. Crooms (photo, left), Professor of Law, Howard University Law School (International Human Rights, Human Rights and Gender, Human Rights in the U.S.)
Marcella David (Photo, right), Professor of Law, Associate Dean for International and Comparative Law, University of Iowa College of Law (Public International Law, U.S. Foreign Relations Law, International Organizations, Human Rights)
Marsha A. Echols (photo, right), Professor of Law, Howard University Law School (International Law, International Business Transactions, International Sales, International Economic Law)
IntLawGrrl Marjorie Florestal (photo, left), Associate Professor of Law, Pacific McGeorge School of Law (European Union Law, International Trade and Development) (See IntLawGrrls posts here.)
Erika R. George (photo, right), Professor of Law, S.J. Quinney College of Law, University of Utah (Internaitonal Human Rights Law, International Environmental Law)
Ruth Gordon (photo, right), Professor of Law, Villanova Law School (International Law, International Trade and Investment, International Environmental Law
Linda S. Greene (photo, left), Evjue-Bascom Professor of Law, University of Wisconsin-Madison School of Law (Sports Law (comparative and international), former member, U.S. Olympics Committee)
Tanya Kateri Hernandez (photo, right), Professor of Law, Fordham University School of Law (Comparative Law (civil rights, race relations, and inheritance law), Latin American Studies, Latinos and the Law)
Lolita K. Buckner Inniss (photo, right), Professor of Law, Cleveland-Marshall College of Law, Cleveland State University (Comparative Racism & the Law--U.S./Canada, Immigration Law)
Sylvia Kang'ara (photo, right) , Professor of Law, University of Washington School of Law (International Law, Comparative Private Law)
Deana E. Lewis (photo, left), Adjunct Professor of Law, Florida A & M University College of Law (International Law and the Human Rights of Women)
Hope Lewis (photo, left), Professor of Law, Northeastern University School of Law (International Law, International Human Rights and the Global Economy, Transnational Dimensions of Race, Gender, and Culture) (See my IntLawGrrls posts here.)
Judge Gabrielle Kirk McDonald (photo above, top), President of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (1997-1999) (has taught at several law schools, including St. Mary’s University, the University of Texas and Texas Southern University’s Thurgood Marshall School of Law).
Gay J. McDougall (photo, left), Distinguished Scholar in Residence, Washington College of Law, American University (2006-2008), UN Independent Expert on Minority Issues (International Human Rights Law, Comparative Race Relations, U.S. Foreign Relations Law) (see IntLawGrrls posts here.)
Michelle McKinley (photo, right), Assistant Professor of Law, University of Oregon School of Law (Public International Law, Immigration Law, Refugee & Asylum Law)
Odeana R. Neal (photo, below center), Professor of Law, University of Baltimore School of Law (Law and Human Rights)


Camille A. Nelson, Professor of Law, Hofstra Law School (Comparative Criminal Law, Transnational Law)
Leslye Obiora (photo, left), Professor of Law, James E. Rogers College of Law, University of Arizona (Public International Law, International Human Rights Law)
Catherine Powell (photo, right), Associate Professor of Law, Fordham Law School (on leave at U.S. Department of State) (International Law, Human Rights, Comparative Constitutional Law
Chantal Thomas (photo, left), Professor of Law, Cornell Law School (International Law and Developing Countries, International Trade Law, Globalization and the Law)
Adrien Katherine Wing (photo, right), Bessie Dutton Murray Professor, College of Law, University of Iowa (International Human Rights Law, Comparative Constitutional Law, U.S. Foreign Relations)
Jeanne M. Woods (photo, left), Henry F. Bonura Distinguished Professor, Loyola University School of Law, New Orleans (Public International Law, International Trade Law, International Human Rights Law) More than I thought, fewer than I hoped for, but what an inspiring enterprise researching this post has been!

Sunday, November 29, 2009

A strategy of gender fundamentalism in Afghanistan?

(It's our great pleasure to welcome IntLawGrrls alumna Penelope Andrews, who contributes this guest post on a critical issue also addressed in today's post just below it)

As President Barack Obama prepares to give a speech this Tuesday on his administration's strategy going forward in Afghanistan, it's time to ask what role the cause of women in Afghanistan should play in reaching this decision. It's not evident that any of President Obama's advisors are giving any weight to the cause of women as a relevant factor in determining future strategy in Afghanistan.
Eight years is a long time for the prosecution of a major international war. It is therefore appropriate to ask:
What has been achieved in the cause for women and their status in Afghanistan's life?
Undeniably, there have been a few notable gains, such as the increasing number of girls who now attend school, and the presence of some female parliamentarians. But for the most part the fundamental gains required for Afghan women to achieve full citizenship have not transpired. Women continue to remain hostage to President Hamid Karzai’s equivocation and compromises -- as well as to the authoritarian traditions of warlords who support, and are supported by, President Karzai.
► from U.S. and NATO forces who drop bombs on them or raid their homes and detain indefinitely family members;
► to an unrelenting reign of terror from the Taliban groups who persist in their strategy of denying women basic rights and who act to undo the few gains and rights that Afghan women have in the interim obtained or may gain;
► to violence committed by warlords inflicting harsh punishments on women and seeking to confine them to traditional roles.
When it comes to women, the war has been another disaster, and has obscured both the continuing denial of their civil and political rights and the deleterious impact of that denial. Women's hopes, raised during the early days of the invasion, have turned into a poignant despair. With the warlords and the Taliban controlling about ninety percent of Afghanistan, it's not surprising to hear, as one notable Afghan women activist put it, that the invasion has led to “no positive change” regarding the situation of women. (credit for Office of U.N. High Commissioner of Refugees photo of Afghan women)
Given these conditions, a key issue is to provide for the basic rights of women. Given past experience, there is no reason to believe that sending more troops will secure this goal. Can this aim be achieved through negotiations and reduction of violence? That is where the focus should be, not on adding more troops to wage war. Moreover, securing the rights of women is probably the best way to aid Afghanistan's indigenous democracy.
To be sure, the Taliban in the past has been chronically against women's rights, but could the United Nations broker an agreement whereby the war would be ended in exchange for a guarantee by the Taliban and the Karzai government to respect and promote women's rights?What exactly would this entail? First, the international community, through the United Nations, should adopt a policy akin to a zero tolerance approach to the pursuit of gender equality and the eradication of violence against women, a gender fundamentalism if you will. This means that women’s equality, along with the campaign to provide democracy, would be the raison d’être for international engagement.
This must be the commitment of the international community. The role and status of women would become an important measure of the achievement of democracy in Afghanistan, perhaps a harbinger of democracy.

(A longer version of this post appears at this month's issue of Asian Currents, the e-bulletin of the Asian Studies Association of Australia, the country where Penny's taken up a Chair in Law at La Trobe University)

On November 29

On this day in ...
... 1983, meeting in the chamber at right, the U.N. General Assembly adopted Resolution 37/37, in which it called for "the immediate withdrawal of the foreign troops from Afghanistan" -- that is, for the withdrawal of Soviet troops that had been in the Central Asian country for 3 years. As we've posted, it would be another 6 years before any such withdrawal came to pass. Decades later, as further discussed in Penelope Andrews' guest post above, U.S. President Barack Obama will give a televised address Tuesday on the future of U.S. troops in Afghanistan. Those troops 1st entered the country after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

(Prior November 29 posts are here and here.)

Saturday, September 5, 2009

Words from Down Under

IntLawGrrls' guest/alumna Penelope Andrews (right), who posted a while back on South Africa, recently took part in an Australian Broadcasting Co. radio interview respecting a law on women's equality enacted in Afghanistan. Money quote:

[W]hat follows -- the laws are in many ways the easiest things to do, passing the laws.
What's hard, she said,

is implementing them, in the contexts in which the culture is so steeped in patriarchy and -- I don't want to sound cliché, but -- male domination.
The full interview with Penny, who's teaching in Australia this semester, is here. It also includes comments on "obstacle[s] to women's full equality" in today's South Africa.

Wednesday, August 5, 2009

Go On! "Feminist Internationalisms"

(Go On! is an occasional item on symposia of interest) The Centre for International Governance and Justice at the Australian National University will sponsor a 2-day workshop November 23 & 24, 2009, at Hedley Bull Centre at the university, in Canberra.
Entitled "Feminist Internationalisms: Celebrating feminist engagements with international law and politics," the workshop will focus on Australasian work on feminist internationalism in the fields of international relations and international law.
J. Ann Tickner (below right) (photo credit), Professor of International Relations at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles, will give the keynote address. Also scheduled to take part are: IntLawGrrls guest/alumna Penelope Andrews, Valparaiso University; Hilary Charlesworth, Bina D'Costa, Nicole George, Susan Harris Rimmer, and Katrina Lee-Koo, Australian National University; Anne Orford and Dianne Otto, University of Melbourne; Andrew Byrnes, University of New South Wales; Juanita Elias and Judith Gardam, University of Adelaide; Marianne Hanson, University of Queensland; and Jaqcui True, University of Auckland. Papers will explore economics, security, democracy and human rights, using feminist inquiry both as a theoretical lens and a methodology.

Details and registration here.

Saturday, June 6, 2009

Guest Blogger: Ruthann Robson

It's IntLawGrrls' great pleasure to welcome Ruthann Robson (left) as today's guest blogger.
Ruthann is Professor of Law and University Distinguished Professor at CUNY School of Law (home institution of IntLawGrrl Rebecca Bratspies, and former home of guest/alumna Penelope Andrews). Ruthann's teaching and scholarship examine constitutional law, family law, feminist legal theory, and sexuality and the law, often with reference to the class dimensions of these issues.
As detailed at her webpage, Ruthann is the author of many works developing a lesbian legal theory, including books like Sappho Goes to Law School (1998) and Lesbian (Out)Law: Survival Under the Rule of Law (1992), works of fiction like a/k/a (1997), and articles. Among her recent essays is “A Couple of Questions Concerning Class Mobility” (2009). Ruthann also is an editor of Constitutional Law Prof Blog, which today joins the "connections" blogroll in IntLawGrrls' righthand column.
In her guest post below, Ruthann presents her new article on class issues relating to domestic service by considering both a recent account of servants in the early 20th century English household of writer Virginia Woolf (as reviewed here) and two early 21st century judicial accounts of domestic service in the United States.

Heartfelt welcome!

Saturday, April 11, 2009

Guest Blogger: Penelope Andrews

It's IntLawGrrls' distinct pleasure to welcome Penelope Andrews (right) as today's guest blogger.
Penny, about whom we've posted here, here, and here, is Professor of Law at Valparaiso University School of Law. Before joining that Indiana faculty, she had been a Professor of Law at City University of New York School of Law, and she has been a Visiting Professor at schools around the world. After earning her B.A. and LL.B. degrees from the University of Natal in Durban, South Africa, Penny earned an LL.M. from Columbia University School of Law in New York.
A noted scholar of human rights law, with particular reference to South Africa, her teaching and research pursuits also encompass antidiscrimination law and policy, international law, aboriginal law, gender and the law, and the judicial enforcement of socio-economic rights. As demonstrated in her publications list and her SSRN page, she has published many book chapters and articles on these subjects.
In 2005 the Faculty of Law at the University of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa, established the Penelope E. Andrews Human Rights Award for excellent performance in clinical law and a commitment to furthering of human rights and poverty alleviation and community service.
In her guest post below, Penny analyzes similarities and differences in the recent dismissals in South Africa and the United States of political corruption charges against, respectively, Jacob Zuma and Ted Stevens.

Heartfelt welcome!


Cheer the Beloved Country?

(My thanks to IntLawGrrls for the opportunity to contribute this guest-post)

Many people in South Africa cheered the announcement earlier this week by Mokotedi Mpshe (top right), acting Director of South Africa's National Prosecuting Authority, that the Authority had dismissed longstanding corruption charges against Jacob Zuma, the head of the African National Congress and the likely President of South Africa after elections on April 22. Amongst those cheering the announcement were ordinary South Africans, supporters of the ANC, trade union members, and members of South Africa's Communist Party. Perhaps even former President Thabo Mbeki cheered the part of Mpshe's announcement declaring the absence of evidence linking Mbeki to wrongdoing in the Authority's prosecution of Zuma (below right).
The cheering was not universal. The announcement was loudly protested by opposition parties such as the recently established Congress of the People, the Democratic Party, and their supporters, and many ordinary South Africans. They are left wondering what it all means for South Africa’s fledgling and fragile legal system.
Americans reading the news of Mpshe's action may initially think it is merely a parallel to the recent action of U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder dismissing charges against former U.S. Senator Ted Stevens. In both situations, the chief federal prosecutor in the nation dismissed
corruption charges against a high-ranking political official, and in both instances the court having jurisdiction over the case raised questions of prosecutorial abuse. In the Stevens case, the federal court even held prosecutors in contempt for withholding evidence, while in the Zuma case the court had gone so far as to dismiss the charges on the ground, subsequently overturned, that the then-President of South Africa had influenced the prosecution.
Notwithstanding the similarities, important differences exist between the two cases:
► First, Holder, a Democrat, was not a member of the same political party as Stevens, a Republican, and thus could not be suspected of acting out of party loyalty. This can't be said of Mpshe, who is a member of the ANC and a strong supporter of Zuma.
► Second, the justification cited by Holder for dismissing the prosecution -- namely, the withholding of potentially exculpatory evidence -- was a factor relevant to whether abuse of process had occurred and whether prosecution should continue. For reasons which will be apparent later, Mpshe's justification for discontinuance left the question of relevancy hanging.
It is important, however. to recognize that it would not be possible to assess the relevancy issue had Mpshe not made available for public review the contents of the surreptitiously recorded telephone conversations upon which he based dismissal of the charge. This was an important step, and Mpshe performed a great service for the nation in taking it. The secretly taped conversations were between the former head of the National Prosecuting Authority and the chief of Scorpions, the nation's chief police force. Mpshe promised an investigation of the secret recordings of these conversations. But having verified their authenticity, he took full account of them, had them declassified, and released them for public review. He should be commended for this, and for the terms of the announcement respecting the dismissal of the Zuma charges. They include, as previously stated, clearing Mbeki of any wrongdoing, disclosing the existence of disagreement amongst his staff about the dismissal, and informing the public of the criterion he applied in determining if the charges should be dismissed. That criterion, he said, was whether prosecutors had abused the legal process.
These actions of Mpshe are good for South Africa because transparency in governmental affairs is critical for the functioning of the country's democracy.
Where Mpshe's actions fell short was in the application of his criterion for determining whether to dismiss the charges. The failure was two-fold:
► First, the tapes appear principally to show only that political considerations were interjected into the timing of the prosecution against Zuma, yet to show nothing in connection with the prosecution itself.
► Second, Mpshe didn't specify which parts of the taped conversations he regarded as evidence of an abuse of process sufficient to warrant dismissal of the charges.
From this, the only conclusion to be drawn is that for Mpshe, the mixing of political considerations with the timing of the commencement of the lawsuit constituted by itself sufficient infection of the judicial process to warrant dismissal of corruption charges against Zuma. Since there was no allegation the timing of the lawsuit had anything to do with the course, or outcome, of the trial, this is a rather surprising conclusion, and one providing little guidance to other prosecutors.
The next step is for a South African court to decide whether to accept the dismissal. However, the court may simply defer to the discretion of the prosecutor, leaving unsettled the issue of how the criterion of abuse of process should be applied in such dismissals.
What I think we can all cheer at this point is the enormous importance of the transparency Mpshe has brought to this issue, a transparency which also allows for accountability of Mpshe's action. On the other hand, Mpshe has set a precedent which may afford too much leeway for injecting politics into decisions of prosecutors on whether to dismiss criminal charges.
In some ways this decision stands as a gauge of the state of fifteen years of South African constitutional democracy; that is, there is much to commend it, but some misgiving persist.