University of South Carolina Law School (US originator, USC)
University of Indonesia Graduate Law Program (Indonesian originator, UI)
Gadjah Mada University Graduate Program in Business and Public Law (UGM)
Diponegoro University (UNDIP)
Airlangga University (UNAIR)
National University of Singapore (NUS, only for experimental classes)
Prof. David Linnan (USC)
Prof. Hikmahanto Juwana (UI)
Mr. Marsudi Triatmodjo (UGM)
Public international law is the traditional law applicable between states and multilateral organizations (e.g., the United Nations), now supplemented by human rights law representing the post-World War II recognition of individuals' rights within the international law system. This is an introductory course, and public international law is a self-contained system with a different basis than domestic law which you normally study. The joint portion of the course will be taught by the problem method, under which you are required to purchase a student commentary and then prepare problems for class (posted on a website together with documents). This will be a shared videoconferenced course taught together with foreign universities to make you work through international law problems together with foreign students. US students will cover specific issues of international law's status in the US law system in August before we start videoconferencing. That portion of the course will involve reading of the US Constitution and a few Supreme Court cases as a kind of specialized constitutional law unit. Indonesian students may have separate instruction on public international law's place under domestic Indonesian law.
MEETING TIMES & PLACES
The US class starts meeting at USC on August 22, 2003. We meet alone for the first few weeks because the Indonesian university semester starts later. The joint course will start meeting via videoconferencing 19:00-21:00 in Indonesia, 08:00-10:00 in South Carolina every Tuesday from early September through late October, then because of the change in daylight savings time as of October 28 meeting time would change to 20:00-22:00 in Indonesia, 08:00-10:00 in South Carolina. Indonesian faculty will work out with their students the proper response to Ramadhan, which has been advancing a few weeks each year and should start this year around October 27. We may try to move up the last few class meetings to finish before Ramadhan if at all possible. US students should ask your Indonesian colleagues why, if you are trying to understand what is going on in the Islamic world. We expect to be joined for a few class meetings by the National University of Singapore Faculty of Law (NUS). Singapore time is one hour ahead of Jakarta time.
We have set aside Thursdays as overflow and make-up day, so the course also may meet jointly via videoconferencing at the same time of day on 2-3 Thursdays (particularly if we want to finish in October). The classes may meet separately on other Thursdays from time to time in the US and Indonesia, as determined by local instructors. Classes will meet at USC for videoconferencing in the USC Law Library Computer Lab Videoconferencing Room (Law Library 223), and for any non-videoconferenced meetings in USC Law School classroom 235. Classes will meet at UGM in the PHBK Videoconferencing Facility, at UI-Salemba in the PPS FHUI Videoconferencing Facility, at UNDIP in the PPS (Bidang Hukum) Videoconferencing Facility in the Gedung FH-UNDIP, and at UNAIR in the new FH-UNAIR Videoconferencing Facility.
TEXTS AND CONTACTS
The basic text is, in English, Rebecca Wallace, International Law (4th ed, Thomson Sweet & Maxwell, 2002) and, in Indonesian, the translation of Wallace's first edition (Hukum Internasional). Otherwise, we shall post shared instructional materials including problems and class powerpoints on the course website accessed via the Law & Finance Institutional Partnership or LFIP website (http://www.lfip.org/laws783/index.htm). We shall also be making a digital recording of teaching faculty presentations to put on the website in streaming form. We hope to get them up within 7-14 days following the class meeting.
We shall have a course LISTSERV (email@example.com) to keep in touch generally, and for students in the two countries to carry on their own discussions directly. You must join the listserv to fully participate in this class, since the teaching faculty will use it like a bulletin board for announcements about reading assignments, etc. while students and faculty should use it to ask questions and carry on discussions outside our videoconferenced classes. For those of you unfamiliar with the LISTSERV concept, a LISTSERV is simply a system in which e-mail communications are sent to a single address and then distributed to all LISTSERV subscribers. Please consult the LISTSERV information page at http://www.sc.edu/ars/listserv.html for general directions, and click on the course webpage class administration link for directions about how to subscribe. We will ask teaching faculty to distribute via the LISTSERV their classroom powerpoint presentations as notes. We may also distribute other photocopied materials for class from time to time. Remember, you will not receive the instructors' powerpoint presentations/instructional notes unless you subscribe to the LISTSERV. This course is part of a broader experiment to institutionalize shared and distance education courses between foreign and Indonesian universities, so comments on the experiment are welcome as things develop.
The bulk of this course is devoted to a general introduction to public international law. Public international law is something which all countries share, but no single country controls. Is it law, and how is the border to be drawn between politics versus law? It is sometimes hard for students to understand how the law is formed and frames state actions. International judicial decisions are still the exception rather than the rule, and different groups of states have different views of what the law is, or should be. Add to that disagreements about the role of multilateral institutions versus states, and what do you have (think Iraq)? It is clear that there are differences of opinion concerning international law in the post-9/11 world, and particularly between the US and the Islamic world. Indonesia is both the world's largest Islamic country by population, and a major developing country comparable in size and ethnic diversity to the US. We expect vigorous but principled disagreement among students on certain areas of the law (like armed conflict or human rights law). Your guiding principle in discussions should be that disagreements should be about principles rather than personal in nature, but we do want students to speak candidly with each other.
The shared course will be organized as follows. Doctrinal legal presentations will be made by Prof. Linnan in the US and Prof. Juwana or Mr. Triatmodjo in Indonesia to expand upon textbook readings. We want different groups of students to prepare the different problems as presentations to their colleagues from the US to overseas, and vice-versa. We want you to be able to compare and critique your own and your foreign colleagues' work in part to see how professionals judge these matters.
You are encouraged generally to read the newspapers/websites with an eye toward questions of international law and are invited to bring them up in class for discussion. For example, while writing this the news came out that the UN headquarters in Iraq has been car-bombed, and Sergio Vieira de Mello as chief UN representative died in the attack. How do US students as opposed to Indonesian students view this act in relation to the role of the UN and international law in relation to what is going on in Iraq? What is wrong with this picture, since I suspect US and Indonesian students may disagree on many matters but probably share the view that the UN car bombing is not constructive? What are the hidden views about whether states or multilateral organizations are better for preserving international peace/peace-keeping, and why? By course's end, you should understand the basic issues and legal framework applicable in the broad public international law area.
Grading will be organized locally at each participating university. For US students the primary contributor to your grade will be performance on the final examination. In this course you have the option individually to take one of two kinds of examination. The first kind of examination will be a take-home covering several fact patterns or documents passed out during the last few weeks of class (for your prior consideration in working them up in study groups, if you so desire, with the specific questions covering those fact patterns only to be available when you check out the actual examination). You will find examples of this kind of examination in the on-line past international law examination materials. The second variety of final examination will be a closed book examination on hypotheticals you see only when you take the exam as scheduled during the regular examination week period. The final examination will be graded anonymously in either case. Beyond that, your grade will be determined by project work, either in working up a presentation of an individual hypothetical for class (including powerpoint presentation and fielding questions, hopefully from your Indonesian counterparts too), or in working on the course website's E-Z Human Rights link. The US group projects will incorporate an element of self-grading business-school style, to make sure that all group members invest the required effort in their work.
We shall announce the reading assignments for our joint classes in conjunction with related problems a few weeks in advance. For US students, please read the following materials in preparation for our Tuesday, August 26, 2003 class on international law under US law:
1. The US Constitution, paying special attention to any provision talking about the law of nations (1789 language for public international law), foreign affairs, war or treaties. Based on its language, ask yourself who is in charge of defense, foreign affairs, cross-border matters as between the executive, judicial and legislative branches plus federal and state governments.
2. The following cases,
Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416 (1920)(treaties)
Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957)(executive agreement/treaties)
Dames & Moore v. Regan, 453 U.S. 654 (1981)(executive action and agreements; those of you who have forgotten your basic constitutional law course re executive action with or against congressional action should also read US v. Curtiss-Wright Corp., 299 U.S. 304 (1936) and Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952) )
Whitney v. Robertson, 124 U.S. 190 (1888)(subsequent statute rule re treaties)
Foster and Elam v. Neilson, 27 U.S. 253 (1829)(self-executing treaty; US self-executing treaty law is a mess so we go back to Justice Marshall to ask why)
Cosby v. National Foreign Trade Council, 530 U.S. 363 (2000)(preemption by federal statute and authority)
Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino, 376 U.S. 398 (1964)(judiciary and foreign acts)
LAWS #783 Home