My Fourth Year of Law School

By: Omar Ha-Redeye · October 28, 2009 · Filed Under International Law, Law Career, Law School · 2 Comments

From the October 2009 issue of Amicus Curiae

Many law students find law school to be so painful that few can understand or relate when I say I actually enjoy the ordeal. They would probably understand even less if I told them that I enjoy it so much that I actually subjected myself to an extra semester of it voluntarily, and not for an LLM.

This is the story of my 2L summer.

I had the opportunity to work for a local law firm during my first year and through my first summer. I had a pleasant enough experience, but I learned all that I could as a law student in that context. For my next summer I decided to do something different.

Most of my time this summer was dedicated to consulting and writing projects. My work projects took me to several locations, including Calgary and B.C. While on the West Coast, I also managed to catch a federal political convention.

Some of my friends outside of law already joke that I do law school on the side. I figured I could probably pick up some legal experience this summer while I was running around. I checked out some summer law abroad programs, and registered for ABA-approved courses at UofT, Bar Ilan in Israel, and Universidad Autonoma de Guadalajara in Mexico.

Before you get any smart ideas, keep in mind that Western doesn’t accept summer transfer credits, even though many other Canadian law schools do. I’m not saying that they should, but if they did I would have graduated before my January term even began. Yes, it was a pretty intense summer.

The trip to Israel had some personal reasons behind it, in addition to my other activities. During my last trip there about 10 years ago I stayed in (primarily Arab) East Jerusalem and the Territories. I enjoyed a rather privileged lifestyle in the primarily Jewish West Jerusalem, staying in Golan resorts overlooking the Galilee, driving through the Negev desert, floating
in the Dead Sea, and swimming on the beaches of Tel Aviv. The tensions within a very complicated country were highlighted with a visit to the assassination site of Yitzak Rabin.

My last summer destination was Mexico. After an unexpected stop in Monterrey when someone decided to have a baby mid-flight, I arrived at my destination in Guadalajara. I soaked up a lot of local culture during my stay including assorted local crafts, Mexican ballet (sans any sign of tutus), Lucha Libra wrestling, and horseback riding along Lake Chapala.

But it seems that politics and law is inescapable no matter where you go. Prime Minister Harper, President Obama, and President Calderon were in town for the North American Leaders’ Summit. Calderon was even staying a few doors down from me at my five-star hotel. One of the major issues on the agenda for them was the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which was becoming increasingly contentious to citizens of all countries during the current economic turbulence.

So what exactly did I study while I was running around the world? Most law abroad programs focus on international legal issues, for obvious reasons, so there were courses on the International Criminal Court, environmental law, international economics and NAFTA, cyberspace law and human rights. But I also got some specialized training in Jewish law, holocaust law, and national security issues that I probably would not get anywhere else.

Some of the faculty I studied with included world-renowned rabbis, someone who worked on the Rome Statute through an NGO, and even the infamous Kenneth Starr from the Clinton-Lewinsky case. Starr held a special session to discuss his role in Proposition 8, the same-sex bill that was shot down in California last year.

There is one key lesson unrelated to my summer courses that I would like to impart and share with others. In the summer of your second year you will typically be applying for your articling position. I was extremely fortunate that it worked out for me, but I would not recommend taking your interview call on a Tel Aviv beach, actually doing the interview on a Mexican cell phone, and skipping the law firm reception entirely to tour a Spanish cathedral.

You’ll have a hard time making an impression and competing with candidates who actually bothered to be in the country to interview in person.

And no matter how many excuses you make, or how many times you show them this article, they’re just not going to buy that someone voluntarily subjected themselves to additional law school that they won’t get credit for.

Post tags: 2L, Amicus Curiae, Arab, B.C., Bar Ilan, Calderon, Calgary, clinton, Dead Sea, Galilee, Golan, harper, ICC, International Criminal Court, israel, Jerusalem, Jewish, Kenneth Starr, Lake Chapala, LLM, Lucha Libra, Mexican ballet, Mexico, NAFTA, Negev, North American Free Trade Agreement, North American Leaders’ Summit, obama, proposition 8, rabbis, Tel Aviv, Universidad Autonoma de Guadalajara, UofT, UWO, Western Law, Yitzak Rabin

North American Leaders’ Summit Kicks Off in Mexico

By: Omar Ha-Redeye · August 9, 2009 · Filed Under International Law, Labour & Employment Law, Politics · 1 Comment

Over the next couple days Prime Minister Harper, President Obama, and President Calderon are meeting in Guadalajara [From Arabic, وادي الحجارة , "rocky riverbed"], Mexico for the North American Leaders’ Summit.

The meeting is part of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, which seeks to address trade and security issues among the NAFTA partners.

From my vantage point in Guadalajara, the not-so-secret service with earpieces are overshadowed by the armed soldiers in camouflage (literally) hiding in the bushes outside my door. President Calderon is staying in my hotel (“No, yo no trabajo aquí. Soy una estadía aquí.”), just a few dozen meters from me.

There’s good reason for the security, with anti-NAFTA protesters greeting their arrival. Some organizations are even hosting parallel sessions highlighting the failures of NAFTA. The major grievances include corn and bean imports that have hurt Mexican farmers, and the ongoing trade-war over Mexican truck drivers.

Post tags: Bretton Woods, Calderon, farmers, General Motors, Guadalajara, harper, healthcare, NAFTA, North American Agreement on Labour Cooperation, North American Leaders’ Summit, obama, Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, truck drivers

Canadian Options for American Protectionism

By: Navraj Pannu · June 11, 2009 · Filed Under Corporate Law, International Law · Add Comment

Mitch Potter of the Star reported this week on the increase in protectionism in the U.S.,

A small army of Canadian diplomats fanned out across Washington today in a full-court press to “contain the contagion” of Buy America trade protectionism.

Stressing that the frantic round of lobbying was “to educate, not to threaten,” Canada’s Deputy Head of Mission Guy Saint-Jacques led Ottawa’s effort to reach out to more than 75 members of Congress with a barrage of raw statistics showing how the benefits of free trade flow both ways.

Does the US have an argument that there should be an exception in dire situations, such as the current economic recession?

To put a hold on NAFTA and focus their attention domestically in order to revive a severely damaged economy?

With their international trade obligations, the US cannot legitimately argue or act on protectionist measures without some sort of backlash internationally, especially from Canada and Mexico through NAFTA.
The US does have an obligation to abide by NAFTA (although any NAFTA country can opt out of NAFTA so long as a 6 month cancellation notice is provided to the other members)

If US senators do not back down from the “Buy America” mentality and the US acts on additional protectionist measures, to the extent Canadian trade and investment is hindered, possible courses of action for the Canadian government include:

Chapter 11 of NAFTA (which includes article 1122 – requiring each member government to consent to settle disputes by arbitration) – is concerned with investor-state dispute settlement; where complainants (investors) can bring a case against a state in front of a tribunal.
Chapter 19 of NAFTA – deals strictly with goods; and complainants can urge their own national governments to take action.
WTO – that can also issue binding rulings that can issue a reward for damages or compensation to a country

Post tags: Buy America, Chapter 19, Chatper 11, Mitch Potter, NAFTA, protectionism, toronto star, WTO

Black Liquor Sparks New Trade Feud and Old Controversies

By: Omar Ha-Redeye · May 25, 2009 · Filed Under Corporate Law, Immigration Law, International Law, Labour & Employment Law, Politics · 2 Comments

Is Canada listening to calls to assert our national interests?

On Thursday, Canada joined the EU, Brazil and Chile in demanding the withdrawal of tax credits in the U.S. for black liquor.

The credits are estimated at $4-8 billion, passed in 2007, and intended for energy alternatives in paper mills and cogeneration facilities. Paper manufacturers have started mixing F-T diesel with a kraft process byproduct known as black liquor to meet the definition of the tax credit, which Canada claims is hurting Canadian jobs.

Although President Obama wants to terminate the rebate on Oct. 1, Canada and the other countries are threatening action through the World Trade Organization (WTO).

In light of a global recession caused by what some consider fiscal mismanagement and overzealous deregulation in the U.S., Canada’s controversial and convoluted trade relationship with the U.S. warrants greater scrutiny.

Post tags: al-Qaeda, Arturo Sarukhan, “Finlandization”, Barrack Obama, Bowdoin College, Committee on Foreign Affairs, Conference Board of Canada, Congress Doesn’t Respect NAFTA, Council for Canadian Security in the 21st century, Deep integration, Dispatches from the 49th Parallel, Fortress America, Fortress North America, Havana Charter, International Criminal Court, iraq, Jack Granatstein, James Laxer, just-in-time, landmines, Lloyd Axworthy, Lost Decade, Mission Possible, NAFTA, National Missile Defence, Osama bin Laden, Ottawa Treaty, Patrick Rael, Stephen Harper, Sustainable Prosperity for Canada, The Enbridge Northern Gateway Project, Uncertain Access: the Consequences of U.S. Security and Trade Actions for Canadian Trade Policy, UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT

Confessions of an Obamaniac in Canada

By: Omar Ha-Redeye · November 2, 2008 · Filed Under Civil Rights, Environmental Law, Health Law, Intellectual Property, International Law, Law Career, Politics, Pop Culture · 4 Comments

Obamania… Mania.. in the House

With the U.S. presidential elections only days away now, it seems we might just have a president that is more popular abroad than he is at home for the first time in many years.

The French are ecstatic, and have high hopes of reverting back to their name for fried shreds of potato.

Other Europeans offer more succinct explanations. Simon Heffer of the Daily Telegraph says,

Many Britons will feel it would be rather nice to have a vote, too. Well, maybe not a whole vote: I would settle for one worth 50 per cent of those cast by American citizens.

Canada is no exception, with “Obamania” sweeping the country. Some Canadian commentators attribute this to an anti-Bush sentiment – frustration with unilateralism and naked self-interests at the rest of the world’s expense.

But Thomas Walkom offers a word of caution,

Which U.S. presidential candidate talks of expanding the war on terror by attacking more countries? If you answered John McCain, you’re wrong. The correct response, of course, is Barack Obama.

Post tags: Agreement on Internal Trade, Alexandre Batlle, Chapter 11, Conference Board of Canada, Department of Justice, disparity of wealth, gasoline, In re Mavety Group Ltd., In re McGinley, In re Wilcer Corp, Inc vs. United States, methylcyclopentadienyl manganese tricarbonyl, Mission Possible: Sustainable Prosperity for Canada, MMT, Muslim Africa, NAFTA, Obama assassination, Obama Bin Laden, public healthcare, Ralph Nader, softwood lumber, Tembec, U.S. Court of International Trade Agreement, Uruguay Round Agreements Act

Rae: Canada Has Its Own Voice on the International Scene

By: Omar Ha-Redeye · October 10, 2008 · Filed Under Civil Rights, International Law, Law Career, Law School · 2 Comments

Hon. Bob Rae spoke this morning at the University of Western Ontario Law School on A Changing World: New Directions for Canadian Foreign Policy. What follows are notes (not a transcript) from his talk.

Law Students and Public Policy

Rae said that Canadian foreign policy as an issue that is a significant one in the politics of the country. As soon to be lawyers, the issue of Canada’s role in the world is a critical concern to all of us, and one that has tremendous opportunities as law students.

There is no clearer area of public policy where the ideological contrast between parties can be demonstrated. Western has produced some of the great legal minds of our time. Justice Rand, a former Dean of the school, made considerable contributions to the foreign policy of this country.

What is Canada’s Role?

Rae asked whether Is Canada’s role in the world is to essentially ally itself with the U.S. in terms of American foreign policy and position in the world. Or is Canada’s voice in the world one of greater independence – one in which we look to Canada’ expressing strong support for multilateralism, international law, and support for multilateral institutions in relation to trade relationships.

It seems over the past 50 years there has been an implicit debate in the country over these issues, and that Harper has now made this debate explicit. His view in the world is quite simple: Canada is a country whose values and interests are tied up with the U.S., who is our most important trade partner. Our primary role is therefore to be an ally and supporter of the U.S. Other areas of foreign policy are all subordinate to that. That is the key relationship, the driving force between Canada’s role in the world.

This is a view that puts a great deal of emphasis on military power, and expects that Canada has to play a much stronger role in the military side of the equation. It downplays Canada’s traditional role at UN in supporting international institutions. Our efforts against land mines and in support of the International Criminal Court are examples of this.

War in Iraq

Rae pointed to two speeches of by Howard Hampton and Stephen Harper at time of Iraq war. His point was made by a choice made by Chretien at the time – Canada was not willing to participate in invasion of Iraq. Harper saying yes we will. Interesting enough, the words he used were borrowed from President of Australia.

Canada’s decision not to participate in the Iraq war was a defining moment, and was based on two major factors:

The existence of WMDs
An imminent threat

The Canadian government did not believe Saddam had WMDs, or that the evidence supporting assertion was in any way adequate. The U.S. relying on secret information, but the information provided from Hans Blix could not justify assertion.

If Canada didn’t have that information, it would still have to establish some other idea as to why it is justified as act of outside invasion. Canada’s position was clear – but the U.S. and U.K. was emphatically on the other side that whether or not there were WMDs, the risk justified invasion.

It took courage for Chretien and Graham to explain to Canadians why we were not joining our two closest allies. Now people say it’s a no-brainer – because we look at it retrospectively at the mess it created. It was controversial at time, and the criticism came mostly from Harper, who bought Bush/Blair doctrine. Harper insisted that was where Canada’s interests lay, where our values should take us.

Economic Relations

When it comes to trade relations it was Mulroney, following Royal Commission Report, that took the great leap towards negotitiations on free trade that eventually became NAFTA. Mulroney believed that if we could get from out underneath the U.S. trade umbrella and trade harrassment it would be a great deal for Canada. We would benefit from coming firmly within an America economic framework, and at the same time free ourselves from trade harassment.

By way of contrast, many people believe our long term protection is not in bliateral protection but with many countries that include the Americans. The history of our free trade is well-known, and we are going to experience its full effects in the next major while.

And we have not been able to free ourselves from trade harassment. The U.S. Senate is based on states where less than 20 percent of population control 50 percent of Senate, and is therefore dominated by agriculture and natural resource interests. The U.S likes to portray itself as supportive of free trade, but it actually relies far less on free trade than any of its trading partners.

This is just another example of where our decisions to make a special deal has actually proved short sighted.

A Foreign Policy that is Our Own Voice

Whether it is on the economic or political side, do we want to have a foreign policy where we find our own voice, or do we see ourselves as essentially being the junior partners in the American enterprise?

In recent days that choice has become very clear and sharp, and a clear example of that is the case of Omar Khadr, a Canadian citizen. He grew up in Afghanistan and was eventually captured and charged in the efforts to kill an American soldier, and has since been incarcerated in Guanatanamo Bay for that last few years.

We have to try to understand what this issue means for Canada. It’s not just about the politics of do we like what he did or was accused of doing. There are two major issues:

What do we do with child soldiers?
What do we do with Canadians in these situations?

There have been enormous procedural delays in his trial, with the head of the military tribunal recently being replaced. There have been two recent Supreme Court cases in the U.S. critical of Guantanamo, and how it is being administered by the American government.

They stated that the law of habeas corpus does apply, and that it is not simply possible to incarcerate people without letting them know what htey have been charged with. These are fundamental principles of our justice system. The second case is worth reading simply to review the very basics of habeas corpus and its role in the legal system.

Canada is a signatory to the international treaty aimed at rehabilitating child soldiers. It’s fundamental to get these people out to rehabilitate them to let them continue on with their lives.

Sri Lanka has an issue with this on the rebel side, where people can be recruited as young as 12 and sent into battle by the age of 14 or 15. If you capture them, what do you do? Do you treat them as a soldier, as a child, or as a child soldier?

There are protocols that have to be followed. The U.S. military tribunal has said we are not interested in this, and it does not pertain to the treatment of Omar Khadr.

The Question for Canada

The question for Canada is that we’ve gone along for a long time to see what kind of justice people like Omar Khadr can get. We said, let’s hold judgment until we see what kind of treatment he gets.

And frankly, we’ve seen quite enough.

Senator Obama and McCain have both said they would close Guantanamo, and find another method to try people that are there.

We can also look at the issue of members of the Uighur community of Xinjiang in Western China, which has long issues with the extent of which it is being ruled and human rights issues. How do we respond as a country when dealing with the possibility of courts where we disagree with their approach to a legal system?

In the case of Guantanamo, it puts us in a ridiculous position where the only person thinking Omar Khadr should stay in the U.S. and would get a fair trial in the U.S. is Stephen Harper.

Again, even McCain says it should be closed. This is an absurd position for Canada to be in.

Differing with America is not Anti-Americanism

Mr. Rae also distinguished the mission in Afghanistan from that in Iraq. The U.N. agreed to the mission. contrary to Iraq. We believed we were going there to help set up a new government and support them.

The Liberals would like to change the focus to reflect this interest, away from military activities to training the Afghan army and politically helping the government create a more stable arrangement. The 2011 withdrawal date was what was initially agreed upon by parliament, and when all countries said the mission would come to an end.

These are the principles we should try to apply: that we intervene when we believe it is lawful to do so, and when it is justified by international law.

Canada is not a superpower. It is not an empire, and we do not have imperial ambitions. All we want to do is participate in a stable international world order.

That is why we’ve been such strong supporters of the U.N. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was drafted by a Canadian after all.

Our interests as a small country, a relatively small power, are different from that of our neighbours. It means we will agree and disagree from time to time. It does not mean we are anti-American, it just means we have different interests.

Get Involved as Law Students

There are many ways you can be involved and engaged in this world.

Your generation has more opportunity to see more, to do more, to be more engaged than any generation in hum history.

Try to make a difference. Find out what gives you passion, and take those ideals and interests wherever you may go.