|4:00 pm - 4:30 pm||Registration|
|4:30 pm - 6:30 pm||
Keynote Panel — Open to the Public
Using Law to Fight Terror: Can the Law Create Credible Disincentives to Extremist Violence?
Since 9/11, the predominant response to Al-Qaeda and later ISIS by the U.S. and its allies has been military in nature, whether aerial bombardments or targeted killing operations conducted in theater or by remotely piloted drones. A distinguished group of experts will explore using the law to create alternative or supplementary methods for addressing violent extremism on the part of non-state actors. Options range from civil suits to hold states and organizations sponsoring terrorism accountable, to local and international criminal trials, to using legal regulations to freeze terrorist assets and stem the flow of funds to terrorist organizations, to more intangible methods affecting hearts and minds that emphasize rule of law and ethical values as a set of ideals. This panel will address these themes in an interdisciplinary conversation among experts with a wide range of expertise relating to terrorism and the rule of law.
|6:30 pm - 7:30 pm||Cocktail Reception, Open to the Public|
Friday, oCTOBER 28
|8:30 am - 9:15 am||Breakfast|
|9:15 am - 9:30 am||Welcome Remarks: Bill Burke White, Professor of Law and Inaugural Director of Perry World House, Professor Claire Finkelstein, Founder and Director of CERL, Algernon Biddle Professor of Law|
|9:30 am - 10:45 am||
Session 1: Stemming the Tide of Extremism: The Role of Democratic Values and the Rule of Law
Moderator: Prof. Claire Finklestein
In the wake of 9/11 the U.S. took the lead in crafting a military strategy against al-Qaeda and its affiliates, and the same with the more recent emergence of ISIS. Yet the world continues to see a steady influx of recruits to Jihadism, which military action appears to diminish. This Session will ask the question whether adherence and dissemination of rule of law values might provide an alternative ideology whose attractions might rival those of Islamic extremism. It will also consider the clash of ideals that exists among different extremist groups in the Middle East, and it will ask whether rule of law values might be presented to potential extremists in a way that is culturally sensitive and hence maximally attractive. Finally we will consider the concept of non-state actor organizations with state-like qualities, and ask at what point a large scale organization of non-state actors becomes a state? When can we recognize that a caliphate is declared and is it a state under customary international law?
|10:45 am - 11:15 am||Break|
|11:15 am - 12:30 pm||
Session 2: From the PLO to Saudi Arabia: The Effectiveness Using Civil Suits to Combat State-Sponsored and Organizational Terrorism
Moderator: Prof. William Burke-White
Over time, there have been suits by victims of Hezbollah, the PLO, and most recently the victims of 9/11 who will now, with the passage of the JASTA bill have the right to sue the Saudi government for the losses they sustained during the attacks on the World Trade Center and on Flight 93. Is the threat of civil suits likely to provide a disincentive to states and organizations sponsoring terrorism? What are the potential risks inherent in allowing such suits to go forward? What are other means open to cutting off the funding of terrorism? To what degree is a group like ISIS reliant on the funding provided by other sovereign nations and outside organizations?
|12:45 pm - 2:00 pm||Lunch|
|2:15 pm - 3:45 pm||
Session 3: Following the Money: Identifying and Combating Threat Financing
Moderator: Mr. Kevin Govern
A critical aspect of combating terrorism is identifying and attacking sources of funding to terrorist organizations. Taking ISIS as a case study, this Session will discuss the structure of ISIS financing and how can it be targeted. What role do oil sales, black markets in cultural property and control of archeological sites play in the funding of ISIS? How much of ISIS’ finances are externally generated and how much internal? What are the constructs that ISIS has created to gather and distribute its funds? What has the U.S. and its allies done to combat threat financing in recent years?
|3:45 pm - 4:00 pm||
Break - Walk to Penn Law for Keynote
|4:30 pm - 6:30 pm||
Keynote - Open to Public
Old Laws, New Wars: International Law in an Era of Terrorism
Secretary William Lietzau, former Deputy Assistant Secreatry of Defense for Rule of Law and Detainee Policy, will discuss the role of international law and the rule of law in combating terrorism.
Commentary will be given by Andrew T. Cayley, CMG QC, United Kingdom’s Director of Service Prosecutions and former Prosecutor of the Cambodian Tribunal, ICC, and ICTY
|6:30 pm - 7:30 pm||
Cocktail Reception - Invited Participants Only
|7:30 pm - 9:30 pm||
Dinner - Invited Participants Only
Saturday, OCTOBER 29
|8:30 am - 9:15 am||Breakfast|
|9:15 am - 10:30 am||
Session 4: Prosecuting Terrorists: Lessons Learned From Military Commissions, Article III Courts, International Courts and Ad Hoc Tribunals
Moderator: Mr. Nelson Thayer
This Session will review different efforts to prosecute violent non-state actors and compare the success of these efforts across different fora. Where did the US Military commissions fail and where did they succeed, and how do they compare to prosecutions in Article III courts? What is the track record of prosecutions of terrorists outside the U.S., and should we encourage local prosecution or favor our own processes? Domestic and foreign prosecutions should also be compared with prosecutorial efforts in the International Criminal Court (ICC), where the court cannot prosecute a non-state actor without a party state’s referral. Could the ICC handle such a case and what are the factors that slow down and obstruct the ICC’s path to justice? The Yugoslav Tribunal (ICTY) has been considered overall a success while the Lebanon tribunal is struggling without any arrests. Is the ICTY model generally superior as applied to non-state actors? Additional questions about prosecuting war crimes are whether such prosecutions truly bring peace to survivors and their families or whether “truth and reconciliation” commissions are to be preferred. Also, when should such prosecutions should take place? Should we seek to impose justice while battles are still raging?
|10:30 pm - 11:00 am||Break|
|11:00 am - 12:45 pm||
Session 5: Prosecuting Perpetrators of Sexual Violence : Can the Criminal Law Be an Effective Deterrent of Sexual Violence in War?
How can the perpetrators of horrific sex crimes against women in armed conflict and by extremist groups be deterred? Does holding perpetrators of international sex crimes contribute to that deterrence, or are such trials largely symbolic efforts with no deterrent value? What justice is available for women who willingly become ISIS brides and then are held as sex slaves for soldiers?The prosecution of sexual violence began with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR). This session will consider what varied between these courts. What can be learned from the Bemba case? How did the International Criminal Court (ICC) differ from the ICTY and the ICTR, and why was the latter able to hold a senior military leader responsible for the sex crimes of his low level subordinates? This session will discuss the plight of the Yazidi women among other examples.
|12:45 pm - 2:15 pm||
Lunch Time Keynote:
|2:15 pm - 3:30 pm||
Session 6: Looking in the Mirror: Are There Benefits to Domestic Adherence to the Rule of Law in the Fight Against Terrorism?
Moderator: Mr. Adam Thurschwell
This session will examine the merits of engaging in domestic prosecutions of individuals suspected of war crimes and crimes against humanity. What are the costs and benefits of engaging in such prosecutions and what has experience taught us about their merits? The session will examine recent efforts in the UK to bring soldiers charged with war crimes to justice, and address how these efforts would fare in the U.S. and in other allied nations. If such prosecutions are potentially effective, what challenges do we face in carrying them out? If they are costly, what do we risk by failing to prosecute our own? Finally, if domestic prosecutions are valuable, should these be military court cases or should these cases be handled by a civilian prosecutor?