Restorative Justice and Mediation in Ireland

I have the privilege this week of serving as the keynote speaker at the annual Irish Mediator’s Institute conference in Dublin, Ireland. I will talk to this professional mediation organization about the incorporation of restorative justice principles into high emotional conflicts. In this time of family, community, political, national, and international conflict and discord, the principles of restorative justice that call all of us to truly listen to those with whom we disagree, so that we can better understand the deep harm we are inflicting by our name-calling and demonizing others, can help us to recognize our shared humanity and a path to building peaceful relationships.

I will have no shortage of examples of the harm caused by our angry divisions. Whether I talk about the American presidential race, the continuing conflicts in Northern Ireland, or the harm caused by the BBC’s alleged cover-up of sexual abuse claims against a popular children’s television star, the harm has rippled out to affect thousands of people. From the family level to international relations, we see much abusive and threatening language being used instead of people sitting down and respectfully listening to each other’s perspectives and concerns. So many of us speak and act in anger without thinking about the harm that we can cause others by our actions. Restorative justice calls us to reflect about who is being harmed and to identify the nature of that harm and then to work on bringing healing to the people who have been affected.

At the Law School, my students and I have been a part of victim/offender dialogue sessions in which murderers and rapists sit down with their victims (or family members of their victims) to have exceedingly difficult conversations. These meetings always occur because a victim has made a request for that meeting. What we routinely experience is that even with people who have suffered the deepest harm, victims find some peace in having these very difficult conversations. Offenders can answer questions, express their deep remorse, and acknowledge (often for the first time) the incredibly profound harm they have caused. Victims (or survivors as many like to be called) are able to give voice to the devastation they have suffered, get answers to questions that were never addressed in the judicial system, and find some peace in the offender’s apology. Offenders routinely report that they believe answering the victims’ questions is the best thing they have ever done for someone else.

I have seen restorative justice work in almost every setting where this is conflict. The processes do not “solve” every problem, but it reminds the participants that we are all part of a human family. What we do and say matters and can cause harm or bring great joy to others. The way out of our pain and anger is not to lash out but to listen to each other “with out hearts as well as our heads.”

It will be a wonderful experience to work with the Irish mediators and to explore with them how they can incorporate restorative justice into their work.

Continue ReadingRestorative Justice and Mediation in Ireland

Marquette Moot Court Team Success at the NMCC

I had the privilege of working with two outstanding National Moot Court Competition (NMCC) teams again this year. The Region VIII round of the NMCC was hosted by Marquette this weekend.

Please congratulate team members Joseph Birdsall, Nicole Cameli, and Patrick Ritter, who advanced to the semifinal round of competition (top four teams out of 18). The team additionally received the second highest brief score at the competition. Attorneys Emily Lonergan and Jason Luczak coached the team.

Please also congratulate team members Steven Miracle, Megan Mooney, and Ariane Strombom for their performance at the competition. The team advanced to the quarterfinals (top eight teams). Attorneys Jesse Blocher and Michael Cerjak coached the team.

The NMCC is sponsored by the New York City Bar and the American College of Trial Lawyers. Over 150 law schools compete across the country.

I am grateful for our teams’ hard work; they put in many hours of practice to prepare for the competition. I am also grateful for the time donated by the Marquette Moot Court Association and many judges and lawyers who judged the briefs and oral arguments for our NMCC regionals. Finally, thank you to the individuals who judged the teams’ numerous practice rounds.

Continue ReadingMarquette Moot Court Team Success at the NMCC

Thoughts on the Arms Trade Treaty

Last week, the United States announced its support for U.N. efforts to develop a new treaty regulating international trade in conventional arms. The terms are still far from settled, but draft provisions from a U.N. review conference last summer provide a rough guide on how the treaty might work. In this post, I want to highlight some of the key provisions and then explain a likely practical hurdle to U.S. ratification. In a subsequent post, I’ll address a Second Amendment objection raised by treaty critics.

The latest draft suggests that the treaty would have four basic dimensions. First, it would establish a limited number of categorically prohibited international transfers. These include transfers in violation of a measure adopted by the U.N. Security Council pursuant to the Council’s peacekeeping authority; transfers in violation of other international obligations; and transfers made for the purpose of facilitating genocide, crimes against humanity, or certain categories of war crimes.

Second, the treaty would limit the power of states to export conventional arms by requiring assessments on whether proposed exports would contribute to or undermine peace and security. Mandatory considerations would include whether the arms could be used to commit a serious violation of international humanitarian law, human rights law, or an offense under international treaties relating to terrorism. In the event of an “overriding risk” of one of these consequences, the treaty would prohibit the exporting state from authorizing the transfer. The treaty would also require exporting states to “consider taking feasible measures” to make sure that the arms are not diverted to the illicit market, used to commit gender-based violence, or used by transnational organized crime.

Continue ReadingThoughts on the Arms Trade Treaty