ILNews

International law CLE to be webcast

IL Staff
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
A free CLE program featuring discussion about the international prosecution of war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity will take place in the Indiana Supreme Court's Courtroom from 3 to 4:30 p.m. May 7. Event organizers have received enough RSVPs to fill the room, but stand-by reservations are still being accepted as of today for what planners say is a short waiting list so far.

This program has been approved for 1.5 CLE credit hours. For those unable to make it, there will also be a webcast, which will be live and archived for viewing after the event. Those that view the webcast but are not in the courtroom are not eligible for CLE credit.

Indiana Court of Appeals Judge Nancy Vaidik will be one of the speakers. She recently returned from teaching a seven-day seminar in Arusha, Tanzania, to attorneys who are prosecuting genocide and crimes against humanity that occurred in Congo, Sudan, Rwanda, and the former Yugoslavia in the United Nations' International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, and the International Criminal Court. A story about her work was published in the Feb. 20 - March 4, 2008, edition of Indiana Lawyer.

The other speaker is the director of the Indiana University School of Law - Indianapolis' Program in International Human Rights Law professor George Edwards. He has worked on a variety of international cases including for the defense side of Slobodan Milosevic, the detainees at Guantanamo Bay, and Omar Khadr. A group of his students recently presented reports to U.N. human rights experts as reported in the April 30 - May 13, 2008, edition of Indiana Lawyer.

Judge Vaidik and Edwards will address the differences between and among war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity; what bodies of international and domestic law apply during civil war, international armed conflict, and/or peacetime; what are the trial and appellate procedures in international criminal tribunals; and who chooses and trains those tribunals' prosecutors, defense counsel, and judges.

For more information or to add your name to the waiting list, contact Sarah Hachey at (317) 232-2550 or e-mail, at shachey@courts.state.in.us, or go to the event's Web site.
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The ADA acts as a tax upon all for the benefit of a few. And, most importantly, the many have no individual say in whether they pay the tax. Those with handicaps suffered in military service should get a pass, but those who are handicapped by accident or birth do NOT deserve that pass. The drivel about "equal access" is spurious because the handicapped HAVE equal access, they just can't effectively use it. That is their problem, not society's. The burden to remediate should be that of those who seek the benefit of some social, constructional, or dimensional change, NOT society generally. Everybody wants to socialize the costs and concentrate the benefits of government intrusion so that they benefit and largely avoid the costs. This simply maintains the constant push to the slop trough, and explains, in part, why the nation is 20 trillion dollars in the hole.

  2. Hey 2 psychs is never enough, since it is statistically unlikely that three will ever agree on anything! New study admits this pseudo science is about as scientifically valid as astrology ... done by via fortune cookie ....John Ioannidis, professor of health research and policy at Stanford University, said the study was impressive and that its results had been eagerly awaited by the scientific community. “Sadly, the picture it paints - a 64% failure rate even among papers published in the best journals in the field - is not very nice about the current status of psychological science in general, and for fields like social psychology it is just devastating,” he said. http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/aug/27/study-delivers-bleak-verdict-on-validity-of-psychology-experiment-results

  3. Indianapolis Bar Association President John Trimble and I are on the same page, but it is a very large page with plenty of room for others to join us. As my final Res Gestae article will express in more detail in a few days, the Great Recession hastened a fundamental and permanent sea change for the global legal service profession. Every state bar is facing the same existential questions that thrust the medical profession into national healthcare reform debates. The bench, bar, and law schools must comprehensively reconsider how we define the practice of law and what it means to access justice. If the three principals of the legal service profession do not recast the vision of their roles and responsibilities soon, the marketplace will dictate those roles and responsibilities without regard for the public interests that the legal profession professes to serve.

  4. I have met some highly placed bureaucrats who vehemently disagree, Mr. Smith. This is not your father's time in America. Some ideas are just too politically incorrect too allow spoken, says those who watch over us for the good of their concept of order.

  5. Lets talk about this without forgetting that Lawyers, too, have FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND ASSOCIATION

ADVERTISEMENT