Webdiarist Tamsin Clarke agreed a while ago to write a piece for Webdiary on the State Government engineered collapse of the rule of law in NSW development. This has resulted in vandalism by lawless developers, because they know the law – and the conditions of development they’ve agreed to – will not be enforced by the State. They also know that most citizens don’t have the money or the time to force developer compliance and can be intimidated by threats to sue for defamation and the like.
However the pending war on Iraq saw Tamsin write a piece on the widespread attacks by governments on the rule of law – the foundation of democracy – in general, with the threat by the United States, Britain and Australia to invade Iraq in defiance of international law the latest, and most dangerous, example. Tamsin argues that we’ve taken step two in the march towards fascism, and urges citizens to fight back before it’s too late.
After Tamsin’s piece, the text of a petition to be presented to the United Nations in New York tomorrow by Judge Weeramantry, a former Judge of the International Court of Justice and Professor of Law at Monash University, arguing that a unilateral attack would breach international law. Activism is taking many forms as the world braces for the war on Iraq, and lawyers are in the vanguard. I’ve also published the names and positions of the 130 signatories and the contact details for the group which organised the petition, the International Association of Lawyers against Nuclear Arms.
I’ve just published a brilliant but very depressing analysis on the wreckage of our universities – with even worse to come – by John Wojdylo. In The intellectual holocaust in our universities has just begun, he writes:
Western culture is rationalizing itself out of existence, destroying its own memory of itself. It is transforming itself into a universalized, globalized husk of economic exchange value. Amongst the academic fields threatened with extinction in Australia – virtually without exception – are those that since the Renaissance have played a major role in the development of our – Western – culture. Institutes of philosophy, history, classics and music have been decimated. Australia has lost world leaders in these fields, and is in serious risk of losing most of the rest.
***
Democracy, quality of life and the rule of law
by Tamsin Clarke, Sydney
Tamsin has been a corporate and trusts lawyer for more than 20 years, and is a PhD student at NSW writing about developing an Australian jurisprudence of free speech consistent with racial vilification legislation – ie which looks to European concepts of human dignity and the right to be free from racist speech rather than United States First Amendment concepts of absolute free speech and the ‘market of ideas’. She has written a few academic articles on these issues.
In the light of present world events these concerns, indeed the NSW State election itself, are on one level are quite insignificant. But at the same time, a war context demonstrates to us how essential the rule of law is to the maintenance of any democracy, and why we should be demanding respect for law and compliance with (national and international) law from our own governments. Perhaps if we had done so already we would not be in the situation that faces us now.
What happens in a ‘real’ war, when a country is under military law? Many basic elements of democracy are thrown out the window. The rule of law is one of the first to go. We lose the Westminster system with its balance of powers. We lose our independent judiciary. We lose what we know as the rule of law – which may be when we first appreciate our need for it. Military law is basically, sophistications aside, what its name says – whatever law the military chooses to impose.
In Australia, we have already been brought a considerable way along the path to acceptance of a single body as executive, legislator and judiciary, not because we have been on a war footing (although contemplating that possibility highlights the present failings) but because of the confluence of a number of trends:
(1) the increasing refusal of all levels of Government to enforce their own legislation, or that of their political predecessors, where it suits them – unless forced to do so by court action,
(2) the drafting of legislation which restricts or removes the right of judicial review of executive decisions (known as ‘privative clauses’) and
(3) at Federal level, a general disrespect for international law, conventions and treaties (except relating to trade), for international institutions such as the United Nations and the International War Crimes Tribunal, and even for our own High Court.
The combined effect of these various trends is to nullify and undermine the basic notion of law as a defence of the rights of the individual against an arbitrary executive – with serious implications for Australian democracy. Our collective failure to demand compliance with national and international law has, it would appear, given the present Federal Government the message that Australians will accept the rule of an arbitrary executive.
The concept of a single body as executive, legislator and judiciary is ‘acceptable’ under military law in a war context, despite the fact that there is no redress if the decisions of that body prove to be unreasonable or arbitrary. In other contexts the concept is known as fascism or totalitarianism.
Perhaps the analogy appears too extreme. Let’s examine exactly what is involved.
What is democracy?
The main elements of democracy are generally agreed upon as being:
* individual and group access to the political process,
* regular free elections, with votes of roughly equal weight,
* sequential and/or concurrent sharing of political power, so that no political group is able to maintain power over other groups indefinitely,
* maximisation of information available to voters on political issues, including free public discussion of political issues and free assembly,
* an independent judiciary,
* government self-regulation and accountability,
* just procedures, including in enforcement and interpretation of legislation, and
* maximisation of personal freedom/individual autonomy and privacy of citizens.
At the same time, we regularly put up with defects in these elements and still regard what we have as a democracy. Defects in the 2000 US Presidential election were expressed by the Florida bumper stickers One man one vote (not available in all States) and Don’t blame me, I voted for Gore – I think. Indeed, Justice Scalia of the United States Supreme Court has expressed the view that the US Federal Constitution does not guarantee the right to vote.
While such defects are of concern, what is particularly disquieting is a situation where any of the agreed elements of democracy is regularly or systemically undermined. This is something that has been happening at all levels of Australian government as the rule of law is whittled away by governments who do not want to be answerable to anyone except the TV cameras.
Disrespect for laws and the judiciary
The Liberal Federal Government has encouraged public denigration of the High Court, as it did when in opposition, as being ‘too political’. Now that the majority of the High Court members are Howard appointees, hopefully such criticism will cease.
Neither the Prime Minister nor Attorney General spoke up for Justice Michael Kirby during the infamous allegations against him. The Federal Government has steadfastly refused to honour international treaties or protocols, and came close to voting against an International War Crimes Tribunal. Howard has regularly presented the issue of Australia’s compliance with international covenants on human rights, the elimination of racism, work conditions and the like in terms of an international conspiracy to impose on Australia laws that we don’t want. He doesn’t have the same reservations in relation to international trade agreements, although they too would affect Australia, arguably in much more serious ways.
Former federal president of the Liberal Party John Valder petitioned John Howard to have the cases of the two Australians held at Guantanamo Bay brought before a judicial body. They had been held for more than a year without access to family or lawyers. His efforts were ‘futile’.
Legislation that excludes judicial review
In the last months of 2002, the NSW government passed the Terrorism (Police Powers) Act which purports to protect the decisions of the NSW Police Minister from any judicial review whatsoever:
s 13(1): An authorisation (and any decision of the Police Minister under this Part with respect to the authorisation) may not be challenged, reviewed, quashed or called into question on any grounds whatsoever before any court, tribunal, body or person in any legal proceedings, or restrained, removed or otherwise affected by proceedings in the nature of prohibition or mandamus.
As previously pointed out in Webdiary (eg Democracy’s watchdogs blind to the danger), the contempt that this piece of legislation shows for the Westminster notion of the separation of powers, let alone for the notion of a modern democracy underpinned by the rule of law, is breathtaking. Similar Commonwealth legislation has been brought before the Federal Parliament (ASIO Legislation Amendment (Terrorism) Bill 2002). The Federal Government has already heavily restricted judicial review of its immigration and refugee processing’ procedures.
While it may be argued that the NSW legislation is aimed specifically at terrorism and hence involves the suspension of normal laws, as in a war situation, it is drafted so widely as to protect the police and the government from judicial scrutiny in relation to non-terrorist activities as well. And unfortunately the legislation is consistent with Australian governments’ increasing disregard for the law across a wide range of areas.
Newly-appointed NSW Supreme Court Justice Jeff Shaw recently cautioned that judicial independence is central to democracy and that legislators should not circumscribe the functions of the courts – although there is a long history of governments doing so. The history of that kind of restrictive legislation was reviewed in the same week by the High Court in its decision in relation to the ‘Tampa legislation’ (Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth of Australia [2003] HCA 2). Chief Justice Gleeson quoted Lord Justice Denning’s dictum that ‘if tribunals were to be at liberty to exceed their jurisdiction without any check by the courts, the rule of law would be at an end’. However the court did not hold the legislation unconstitutional as such. Following previous English and Australian decisions the court found that the legislation would be unconstitutional only where it seeks to protect manifest jurisdictional errors or acts which are outside the powers of the government.
What History shows us – the First phase
It is not just the passing of new legislation that is the stratagem we should look for when we seek to protect ourselves against the totalitarianisation of our society. That is what we have been taught to look for, but a closer examination of history will show that the first sign of the approach of fascism is not the introduction of new measures, but the failure to enforce the existing ones that protect the structure of society and the interests of the individuals within that society. It is that first stage of fascism that we are now seeing.
Historically, the core of fascism is the placement of the interest of one sector of society above the interests of all others. One example is the placement of the interests of developers over and above the interests of those who must live in the cities that the developers build. There are no doubt other equally valid examples.
In 2002 the Joint Select Committee on Quality of Building in NSW received evidence about how various Councils across the State failed to implement their own Local Environmental Plans. In some cases, private certifying bodies owned by the Councils themselves certified developments as meeting the required standards without inspections or failed to redress clear inadequacies (such as the building of a house with only half of the correct number of supporting piers). Of course, such arbitrary enforcement of any law is itself an invitation to corruption. (See Developer heaven, Labor hell.)
Regular unjust or arbitrary practices at Local Council level are not investigated or corrected by State Government, nor in NSW by bodies such as the ICAC or State Ombudsman except for the most extreme examples.
Redress in relation to the most minor development matter is thus often only possible in NSW through the Land and Environment Court, where generally costs are not awarded even in favour of a successful applicant. Given that the costs of even a simple case are likely to be in the region of $40,000, redress is therefore effectively ruled out for most people.
Lack of government enforcement of its own laws is not just a practical problem – in this case, to the quality of our built environment and thus to our standard of living – but a real democratic issue. Laws impose restrictions, laws impose moderation. Ideally, laws impose civilised values and protect the rights of the individual against an arbitrary executive.
The effect of arbitrary government decisions, including as to when the government will choose to enforce its laws and regulations, gives the message that law does not reflect real social values. It is not as important as money, or power, or who you know. Or violence. Citizens are set against each other as Local and State and Federal governments fail to fulfil their enforcement roles.
What history shows us – the second phase
Once again, one need only look to history to see what the second stage in the introduction of fascism has been: It is the passing of anti-terrorist legislation. We have that now.
What history shows us – the third phase
What then is the third phase that we should be looking for? In Nazi Germany, it was the demonisation of a recognisable group of ordinary citizens selected by Hitler to be the scapegoats.
We learn through our culture precisely those groups against which we are supposed or allowed to vent our anger – the groups that our culture has stereotyped. By defining the enemy in unmistakable terms, our culture gives us implicit permission to attack. Social permission to act against people who are supposedly different is the first step along the road to genocide. Genocide and war are not due only to labelling, but labelling makes it easier to deny any common bonds.
What remains in the historical pattern is the destruction of the very machinery that brought the ruling party to power. In Nazi Germany it was the Rohm purge. Modern Australia is perhaps more gentle.
The process of introducing fascism or totalitarianism into a society that is traditionally democratic in nature must still in its early stages pass through the electoral process. But this can be interfered with in a variety of ways.
At an internal level, alienated party members are disengaged or overruled in preselections so that the parliamentary executive may have free reign in the choice of candidates and thereby in the construction and political nature of the organs of democracy. At a national level, history shows that what is required to bypass the normal electoral constraints is an external enemy that is seen to create an internal emergency.
Ironically, it is only by enforcing law and imposing laws upon itself that a democratic government can protect its own existence. Otherwise it will be destroyed, not according to the rules (which it has itself devalued), but by any available means. But before that happens, many people will be hurt in the process. And that process is happening now.
If we want to retain a true democracy in Australia we must all act to publicise lack of enforcement of legislation, and to oppose laws that prevent judicial scrutiny. We must put our names to submissions to enforcement agencies at all levels of government. Irrespective of whether or not we oppose the coming war we must protect and support the rule of law by every means available to us, in order to protect our own democracy.
***
Judge Weeramantry, former Judge of the International Court of Justice and Professor of Law at Monash University, has departed Australia to go to New York to release an international appeal drafted by the International Association of Lawyers AGainst Nuclear Arms and endorsed by more than 160 lawyers, law professors and jurists from 30 countries. It will be released at a press conference in the UN on Feb 14 (Australian time).
Here is the text of the appeal, followed by a list of signatories.
International Appeal by Lawyers and Jurists against the “Preventive” Use of Force
We the undersigned lawyers and jurists from legal traditions around the world are extremely concerned about conflicts in the Middle East regarding the suspected proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and the possibility that force may be used in response to this situation.
The development of weapons of mass destruction anywhere in the world is contrary to universal norms against the acquisition, possession and threat or use of such weapons and must be addressed. However, the “preventive” use of force currently being considered against Iraq is both illegal and unnecessary and should not be authorized by the United Nations or undertaken by any State.
General principles of international law hold that:
* peaceful resolution of conflicts between States is required,
* the use of force is only permissible in the case of an armed attack or imminent attack or under UN authorization when a threat to the peace has been declared by the Security Council and non-military measures have been determined to be inadequate,
* enforcement of international law must be consistently applied to all States.
In further enunciating and applying these principles, we believe that the use of force against Iraq would be illegal for the following reasons:
Peaceful resolution of conflicts required
i) The United Nations Charter and customary international law require States to seek peaceful resolutions to their disputes. Article 33 of the Charter states that “The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall first of all seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements or other peaceful means of their own choice.”
ii) Under Article 51 of the Charter, States are only permitted to threaten or use force “if an armed attack occurs” and only “until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.”
iii) In the case of an act of aggression or a threat to the peace, the United Nations Security Council is also required under the Charter (Article 41) to firstly employ “measures not involving the use of armed force.” Only when such measures “would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate” (Article 42) can the Security Council authorize the use of force.
No act of aggression or evidence of imminent threat of such act
iv) In 1991 the Security Council responded to an actual invasion of Kuwait by Iraq by authorizing all means necessary to restore the peace. In the current case, however, there has been no indication by Iraq that it intends to attack another country and no evidence of military preparations for any such attack. In addition, it is generally recognized that Iraq does not have the military capability to attack the key countries in dispute, i.e. the United States and the United Kingdom.
No precedent for preventive use of force
v) There is no precedent in international law for use of force as a preventive measure when there has been no actual or imminent attack by the offending State. There is law indicating that preventive use of force is illegal. The International Military Tribunal sitting at Nuremberg rejected Germany’s argument that they were compelled to attack Norway in order to prevent an Allied invasion (6 F.R.D. 69, 100-101, 1946).
vi) The Security Council has never authorized force based on a potential, non-imminent threat of violence. All past authorizations have been in response to actual invasion, large scale violence or humanitarian emergency.
vii) If the Security Council, for the first time, were to authorize preventive war, it would undermine the UN Charter’s restraints on the use of force and provide a dangerous precedent for States to consider the “preventive” use of force in numerous situations making war once again a tool of international politics rather than an anachronistic and prohibited action. If the use of force takes place outside the framework of international law and the UN Charter, the structure and authority of international law and the UN Charter which have taken generations and immense human sacrifice to establish, would be severely undermined into the foreseeable future.
Consistency under international law must be maintained
viii) International law must be consistently applied in order to maintain the respect of the international community as law and not the rejection of it as a tool of the powerful to subjugate the weak.
ix) Security Council Resolution 687, setting forth the terms of the ceasefire that ended the Gulf War, acknowledges that the elimination of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction is not an end in itself but “represents steps towards the goal of establishing in the Middle East a zone free from weapons of mass destruction.”
x) The International Court of Justice has unanimously determined that there is an obligation on all States to “pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control.” (Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, ICJ 1996). Meaningful steps need to be taken by all States to this end, and States wishing to enforce compliance with international law must themselves comply with this requirement.
xi) Action to ensure the elimination of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction should be done in conjunction with similar actions to ensure elimination of other weapons of mass destruction in the region – including Israel’s nuclear arsenal – and in the world – including the nuclear weapons of China, France, India, Pakistan, Russia, United Kingdom and the United States.
Alternative mechanisms are available to address concerns
xii) The UN Security Council has established a number of mechanisms to address the concerns regarding Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. These include diplomatic pressure, negotiations, sanctions on certain goods with military application, destruction of stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction and inspections of facilities with capabilities to assist in production of weapons of mass destruction. Evidence to date is that these mechanisms are not perfect, but are working effectively enough to have led to the destruction and curtailment of most of the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction capability.
xiii) Mechanisms are available to address charges against Iraq and the Iraqi leadership of serious human rights violations, war crimes, crimes against peace and crimes against humanity. These include domestic courts utilizing universal jurisdiction, the establishment by the Security Council of an ad hoc international criminal tribunal, use of the International Criminal Court for any crimes committed after July 2002, and the International Court of Justice.
The use of force by powerful nations in disregard of the principles of international law would threaten the fabric of international law giving rise to the potential for further violations and an increasing cycle of violence and anarchy.
We call on the United Nations and all States to continue to pursue a path of adherence to international law and in pursuit of a peaceful resolution to the threats arising from weapons of mass destruction and other threats to the peace.
Appeal circulated by the INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LAWYERS AGAINST NUCLEAR ARMS, ialana.
Southern office: Director, Alan Webb, Flat 10, 6 Seymour St, St Mary’s Bay, Aotearoa-New Zealand Auckland. Phone: (64) 9 360-1258 Fax: (64) 9 360-1258, alan@pacificlaw.co.nz
Northern office: Director, Philipp Boos, Postfach 1168, D-35037, Marburg, Germany. Phone: (49) 64 212-3027 Fax: (49) 64 211-5828, info@ialana.de
United Nations office: Director, John Burroughs, 211 East 43rd St, #1204, New York. NY 10017, USA, Phone: (1) 212 818-1861 Fax: (1) 212 818-1857, johnburroughs@lcnp.org
***
Appeal Supporters
Australia
Roy Baker, Project Director, Communications Law Centre, University of New South Wales
Jacoba Brasch, Barrister-at-Law, Brisbane
Patrick T. Byrt, Counsellor-at-law. Convenor- Reconciliation and Human Rights, Norwood.
Peter Cashmane, Maurice Blackburn Cashman, Lawyers, Sydney
Hilary Charlesworth, Professor and Director, Centre for International and Public Law, Faculty of Law, Australian National University
Paulette Dupuy, Legal Officer, Brisbane
Michael Flynn, Barrister& Solicitor Legal Officer, University of Canberra
Kate Gibson, Solicitor, Minter Ellison Lawyers, Sydney NSW
Paul Howorth, Barrister, Brisbane
Michael Hovane, Managing Solicitor, Child Support Legal Unit,Legal Aid WA
Stephen Keim, Barrister, Brisbane
Cressida Limon, Lecturer in Law, Victoria University, Melbourne
Lee McIntosh, Solicitor, Environmental Defender’s Office
David McKenzie, Solicitor of the Supreme Court of New South Wales and of the High Court of Australia.
Elisa Nichols, Lawyer, Environmental Defender’s Office, Sydney
Polly Porteous, Lawyer, Sydney
Guy Powles, Professor of Law, Monash University, Melbourne. Pacific Law Consultant, University of the South Pacific, Vanuatu
Dr Murray Raff, School of Law, Victoria University, Melbourne
Gordon Renouf, Director, National Pro Bono Resource Centre
Peter Semmler QC, Barrister, Sydney.
Ben Slade, Maurice Blackburn Cashman, Lawyers
Jeff Smith, Director, Environmental Defender’s Office, NSW
Gillian Walker BA LLB (Hons) Graduate Lawyer & Lecturer in International Law, Sydney
Adrian Williams, Solicitor, President of Sydney Young Christian Workers, Sydney
Aotearoa – New Zealand
Linley Black, Earth Charter Aotearoa – New Zealand
Prof Dr Klaus Bosselmann, Director, New Zealand Centre for Environmental Law
Duncan Currie, Barrister, Christchurch
Jane Doherty, Lawyer, Auckland
Claudia Geiringer, Lecturer in Law, Victoria University of Wellington
Kevin Glover, Solicitor, Auckland
Kitt Littlejohn, Lawyer, Auckland.
Nicollette Phong, Lawyer, Auckland
Simon Reeves, LL.M. (Virginia), Barrister of the High Court of New Zealand, Vice-president, IALANA
Hon Matt Robson MP New Zealand Parliament. Former Minister of Disarmament and Arms Control. Former Minister of Courts.
Scott Sheeran, LLB hons, Otago. LLM international law, Cambridge, UK.
Alan Webb, Solicitor, Auckland. Director International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms Southern Office
Dr David V Williams, Associate Professor in Law, University of Auckland
Argentina
Anna Petra Roge de Marzolini, Lawyer Asociacion Ambientalista EcoLaPaz, Friends of Earth
Bangladesh
Sara Hossain, Lawyer. Inter-rights.
Dr. Faustina Pereira, Advocate and Public Interest Litigator, Supreme Court of Bangladesh
Belgium
Prof. Eva Brems, Human Rights Centre, Ghent University
Dr Prof.Tony van Loon, Free University of Brussels. Jurist of the public service, Flanders
Canada
Gina Fiorillo, Lawyer,Vancouver, BC
Holly Holtman, Counsel, Canadian Department of Justice
Pierre Sadik, LL.B. Lawyer, Ottawa
Clare Smith, lawyer (Ll.B.), Toronto,
Jane Stoyles, LLB. Lawyer, Ottawa
Michelle Swenarchuk, Counsel and Director of International Programmes, Canadian Environmental Law Association
Costa Rica
Dr Carlos Vargas, Interlaw Consultores Juridicos, San Jose.
Emily J Yozell, Attorney. Director Central America Program, Loyola Law school
Fiji
Sotia Vuli Coutts, Legal Officer, Fiji Law Reform Commission
Ropate Green Lomavata, Solicitor, Fiji Law Reform Commission
Villiame Bokini Naliva, Solicitor
Kemueli Qoro, Solicitor, Airports Fiji Limited
Lavenia Rokoika, Principal Legal Officer, Civil Aviation Authority of the Fiji Islands
Bhupendra Solanki, State Prosecutor
Marama Tubuna, Solicitor, Human Rights Commission
Raijeli Vasakula, Solicitor
Josaia Waqaivolavola, State Prosecutor
France
Monique Picard-Weyl,Lawyer
Roland Weyl, Lawyer, Vice-President of International Association of Democratic Lawyers
Germany
Lars Albath, LLM, Berlin
Peter Becker. Secretary, International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms
Torsten Block, Judge. Vice Director of the Magistrates Court of Neumunster
Philipp Boos, LL.M, Marburg. Director International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms Northern Office
Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Daubler, Law Prof. University Bremen
Prof. Dr. Herta Daubler-Gmelin, Berlin, Tubingen, attorney, former fed. minister of justice
Volker Lindemann, Vizeprasident des Schleswig-Holsteinische=n Oberlandesgerichts, Member of IALANA (German Section)
Renate Reupke. Lawyer. Member of IALANA Germany
Roda Verheyen, L.LM, Research Unit Environmental Law – University of Hamburg; Global Climate Justice Programme
Grenada
Nicholas Barnes, Solicitor General
Hungary
Barbara Bedont, LL.B, Legal Officer Public Interest Law Initiative, Budapest
India
Ms. Niloufer Bhagwat, Advocate, Vice President, Indian Association of Lawyers
Neha Naqvi, BABL(hons) Hyderabad
P.N. Bhagwati, Former Chief Justice of India. Chancellor Hyderabad University
D.J Ravindran, lawyer.
Jitendra Sharma, President, International Association of Democratic Lawyers
Ireland
Professor Fionnuala Ni Aolain, School of Law, University of Ulster. Member Irish Human Rights Commission.
Marie Baker, BL. Lawyer, Cork
Aileen Donnelly BL, Barrister-at-Law, Dublin
Michael Farrell, Solicitor, Dublin. Former Chairperson of the Irish Council for Civil Liberties.
Italy
Joachim Lau, Advocate, Florence
Fabio Marcelli, First Researcher at the Institute of International Legal Studies of the National Research Council of Italy
Japan
Akihiko Kimijima, Professor of Law, Hokkai Gakuen University, Japan
Osamu Niikura, Secretary General of JALISA and Professor of Law at Aoyama Gakuin University, Tokyo
Kenji Urata, Professor of Law, Waseda University School of Law, Tokyo
Netherlands
Phon van den Biesen, Advocate, Amsterdam. Vice-President International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms
Norway
Stale Eskeland, Professor, University of Oslo Institute of Public and International Law
Bent Endresen, Advocate, Stavanger
Fredrik Heffermehl, Norsk Medlemsgruppe IALANA
Hyesterettsadvokat Hkon Helle, Lawyer, Stavanger
Pakistan
Akhtar Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court of Pakistan, Secretary General Democratic Lawyers Association Pakistan. Bureau Member of International Association of Democratic Lawyers
Papua-New Guinea
Brian Brunton, former Judge of the National and Supreme Court of Papua New Guinea, former Chairman of the Law Reform Commission, former Dean of the Faculty of Law, University of Papua New Guinea
Effrey B. Dademo-Kaili, Lawyer, Environmental Law Center, Malagan Haus – Boroko
Philippines
Gregorio T. Fabros, Legal Counsel, National Federation of Teachers & Employees Unions
Alexander Lacson, Legal Counsel, Victims of Toxic and Hazardous wastes in former U.S. facilities
Corazon Valdez-Fabros, Lawyer, Manila Philippines
Puerto Rico
Roxana Badillo-Rodriguez, Esq. San Juan
Roberto A. Fernandez, Esq., San Juan
Marcos Rodriguez-Frese, Puerto Rico Bar
Jose R. Ortiz Velez, Esq., San Juan
Luis Amauri Suarez Zayas, Esq. San Juan
Samoa
Shirley Atatagi-Coutts, Environmental Advocate, Greenpeace – South Pacific
Ioane Okesene, Assistant Legal Counsel, Samoa Tel Limited, Apia
Spain
Victor de la Barrera Naumann, Lawyer and former judge
Juan Ramon Capella Hernandez, Professor of Law, University of Barcelona
South Africa
Adrian Pole, Attorney, LRC-EJP Durban, South Africa
Sri Lanka
C.G. Weeramantry. Former Vice-President of the International Court of Justice. Former justice of the Sri Lanka Supreme Court. President of the International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms
Sweden
Maria Bideke, International lawyer and Director of Law Association Justice International
Switzerland
Urs Cipolat, J.S.D., University of California, Berkeley
Dr. Marcelo G. Kohen, Professor of International Law, The Graduate Institute of International Studies, Geneva
Ukraine
Dr. Svitlana Kravchenko, Carlton Savage Visiting Professor of International Relations & Peace School of Law, University of Oregon Co-Director, Oregon-Lviv University Partnership President, Ecopravo-Lviv
United Kingdom
Geoffrey Bindman, Solicitor. Visiting professor of law, University College London and South Bank University
Emma Chown, Solicitor, London
Lord Anthony Gifford, Queens Counsel, Barrister-at-law
Professor Nicholas Grief, Bournemouth University.
Richard J. Harvey, Barrister, Lincoln’s Inn, London. Attorney at Law, NY, Tooks Court Chambers
Dr Glen Rangwala, MA, LLB, PhD. Lecturer, Newnham College, Cambridge
Peter Roderick, lawyer
James Woolley, Solicitor, Sheffield
United States of America
James Abourezk, Sioux Falls, South Dakota
Ian Anderson, Scottish Advocate. South African Advocate. Attorney & Councilor, State of NY.
Irene Baghoomians, Center for Constitutional Rights
Nancy E. Biberman Esq. New York
Robert Boehm, Attorney, New York. Co-Chair of the Board, Center for Constitutional Rights.
Audrey Bomse, Attorney, member of the National Lawyers Guild.
Lisa S. Brodyaga, Attorney, San Benito TX
John Burroughs, Executive Director, Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy
Juliet Chin, Attorney of Counsel Stevens, Hinds & White, P.C. New York,
Roger S. Clark, Board of Governors, Professor of Law, Rutgers University.
Angela J. Davis, Professor of Law, American University, Washington, DC
Julie E. Dinnerstein, Director of the Immigration Intervention Project, Center for Battered Women’s Legal Services, New York
Mary Dryovage, Lawyer
Anabel Dwyer, Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy
Honorable Laura Safer Espinoza, Acting Supreme Court Justice, New York State
Richard Falk, Professor emeritus of international law, Princeton University
Howard Friel, World Editorial & International Law
Jeffrey H. Haas, Attorney, Taos, New Mexico and Chicago, IL
Christine Haight Farley, Assistant Professor of Law, American University Washington College of Law
Professor Lennox S Hinds, Vice-President, International Association of Democratic Lawyers (IADL)
Wythe Holt, Professor of Law, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL
Mary Howell, Attorney at Law, New Orleans, Louisiana
K. Dean Hubbard, Jr. National Co-Chair, National Lawyers Guild Labor and Employment Committee. Joanne Woodward Chair in Public Policy and Advocacy, Sarah Lawrence College
Jean K. Hyams, Attorney
Abdeen Jabara, Attorney at Law, New York
Alicia Kaplow, Attorney at Law, New York
Natalie Kabasakalian, Attorney at Law, New York
Ken Kimerling, Legal Director Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund
David Krieger J.D., President, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation
Michael Krinsky, Rabinowitz, Boudin, Standard, Krinsky & Lieberman, P.C. General Counsel, Bill of Rights Foundation
Nancy K. D. Lemon, J.D., Lecturer Boalt Hall School of Law, UC Berkeley, Berkeley, California
Judith Levin, Lawyer, Washingtonville, New York
Andrew Lichterman, Program Director, Western States Legal Foundation
Jules Lobel, Professor of Law, University of Pittsburgh Law School. Vice Pres. Center for Constitutional Rights
Saul Mendlovitz, Dag Hammarskjold Professor of International Law, Rutgers University.
Carlin Meyer, Professor of Law, New York Law School
Daniel Meyers; Attorney-at-Law, New York. Executive Committee, NYC Chapter National Lawyers Guild
Howard N Meyer, member American Society of International Law
Binny Miller, Professor of Law, Washington College of Law, American University
Tina Minkowitz, J.D., Staten Island, NY
Phyllis Olin, Esq. Berkeley, CA
Mary Boresz Pike, Lawyer, New York
Pamela Pitt, Lawyer, San Francisco
Severina Rivera, Esq. Director Campaign for Labor Rights, Washington
Celina Romany, Professor of Law, American University
Stephen A. Rosenbaum, Lecturer, Univ. of California, Berkeley School of Law. Adjunct Prof., Golden Gate Univ. Scl. of Law
Harold Rosenthal, Attorney, Pennsylvania
Ronald C. Slye, Associate Professor, Seattle University School of Law
Michael S. Sorgen, Attorney, San Francisco
Andrew Strauss, Professor of Law, Widener University School of Law.
Jan Susler. People’s Law Office, Chicago, IL
Katherine Thomsom, Attorney, San Francisco
Jon Van Dyke, Professor of Law, University of Hawaii Law School
Peter Weiss, President, Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy
Lois Whitman, Attorney, New York
Glenn Wiser, staff attorney, Center for International Environmental Law, Washington DC