Global Affairs Review Fall 2018 by Penn Law

GLOBAL AFFAIRS REVIEW FALL 2018

Fall 2018 Global Affairs Review

Thank you to the Penn Global Engagement Fund for its financial support of our Fall projects and gracious recognition of the importance of this work to the university and the world. Thank you to Perry World House, Center for Technology, Innovation, and Competition (CTIC), Wharton, and the many student groups we partnered with this fall including: the American Constitution Society (ACS), Black Law Students Association (BLSA), International Human Rights Advocates (IHRA), International Refugee Assistance Project (IRAP), South Asian Law Student Association (SALSA), Women in Entrepreneurship Law Society, and University of Pennsylvania Law Review. Thank you to the leadership of the Swiss Confederation, the Finnish Embassy to the UN, the Egyptian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, representatives of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, World Bank, Craig Newmark of Craigslist, Mastercard, Unilever, Stanford Law's Levin Center for Public Service, and the leadership of Harvard Law School's Celebration 65 for contributing their time and travel to advancing the next generation of leaders at Penn Law.

Editor: Rangita de Silva de Alwis Design, Layout and Production: Lauren Owens Copy Editing: Kait Johnstone

The Global Affairs Review examines Penn Law's strategic role in advancing international legal research, policy and practice through our partnerships with global leaders, policymakers, academic leaders, and multilaterals in ways that respond to the global innovations and challenges of our time.

Theodore Ruger, Dean and Bernard G. Segal Professor of Law

At a time of profound geopolitical shifts and disruptive technologies, what role can Penn Law play in asking important questions and promoting new ideas and policies in the world? -- Rangita de Silva de Alwis, Associate Dean for International Affairs Introduction: The year 2018 was a time when reactionary populism swept the world and a rules-based international order was challenged. It was also a time of global reckoning sparked by the reinvigoration of the #MeToo Movement. The initiatives for the Fall semester were developed to address global changes and position Penn Law as an important actor in shaping new theories and practice in a new global order. At the same time, these extraordinary new global movements are impacting Penn Law students who are asking for new models of discourse that help them grapple with some of the big questions at the intersections of gender, race, culture, and conflict. As a new order takes shape, law schools must come to the forefront with new ideas, and new ways of adapting to this polarized world. Our initiatives this year were organized under two major pillars: Inclusion and Innovation and Plural Perspectives in Foreign Policy. These events saw Penn Law students claiming a seat at the table to ask hard questions and engage with business leaders, policymakers, and decisionmakers. Inclusion, Investment and Innovation: Responding to Critical Global Shifts Against the backdrop of the explosion of disruptive technologies and new gender justice movements such as the #MeToo movement, Penn Law's International Programs has focused on the central idea of inclusion in investment and innovation. Starting with a major institute, which brought Craig Newmark of Craigslist, representatives from Mastercard, Gates Foundation, World Bank, and BNY Mellon, the institute brought together a range of leaders from the world of business, development, venture capital, and entrepreneurship. Advancing the mission of inclusion, investment, and innovation, this project includes a research collaboration with the Gates Foundation and The World Bank, on the Identification for Development (ID4D) Initiative to close the global identification gap and make progress toward robust and inclusive identification systems. Closing the Gender Gap in Global Entrepreneurship While this initiative will help bolster Penn Law women student leadership, it also advances loftier goals. All markets are global and womenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s equal participation in the global markets could add $28 trillion in GDP growth by 2025. 2

One of the key challenges, as highlighted in the Buenos Aires Declaration on Trade and Women’s Economic Empowerment, is that women’s inequality is holding back the economy. These discussions brought together women of color in business leadership to ask questions about diversity and inclusion in women’s access to venture capital and finance. California's new bill requires every publicly traded corporation in California to have at least one woman on their board of directors by the end of 2019 and three women on boards with six or more members on their board of directors. Responding to this new law, we invited leaders from Catalyst for a discussion with student leaders on how gender equality on corporate boards improves gender equality and productivity. In the real world, Penn Law students are working with the Department of Commerce on helping women enter global markets, either directly or as part of global supply chains. Last year, less than 5% of total official development assistance was devoted to women’s economic empowerment – and investments into women-owned enterprises, or initiatives targeted at women and trade, remain largely neglected. Other convenings included leading voices in the #MeToo Movement like Meena Harris who founded exciting new social justice movements in the interstices of larger movements. The emotional tax for women of color has created a troubling new discourse in diversity studies. Carolyn Edgar, Managing Counsel, Technology and Intellectual Property at BNY Mellon, shared insights from Harvard Law School’s 2016 Report on the State of Black Alumni on this often invisible aspect of minority women’s leadership in business and work. Foreign Policy from a Plural Perspective The Leadership Institute for Diplomacy and the Law brought together preeminent diplomats for a fullday closed-door roundtable. Penn students had a seat at the table to discuss some of the most significant changes in a transitioning Middle East. Seventy years after the United States (working closely with the United Kingdom and others) established the liberal world order and international institutions such as the World Bank and the United Nations in the wake of World War II, this rules-based liberal world order is being questioned by the United States and other nations. At the regional level, the last few months have seen rapid changes in the Middle East. Earlier in the year, the United States withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal. Adapting to new power balances, conflict resolution and trade negotiations call for plural perspectives to diplomacy. At the same time, diplomacy in naming disputes such as the longstanding dispute between Greece and Macedonia, go beyond international relations and go to the heart of national identity, nation-building, and contested questions on the ownership of culture. As tensions in the Middle East reach a tipping point, Penn Law graduates will be called upon to address those ripple effects both at home and abroad. The Institute achieved two major objectives: (1) high level leadership skills that advance Penn Law graduates in decision-making roles in foreign policy and diplomacy, while also deepening engagement with international institutions. Strategic lawyering in the 21st century requires a combination of critical skillsets, including partnerships, negotiation skills, and policy; (2) Strengthening pluralism in foreign policy at a time when the US is retreating from multilateralism. The Institute helped students grapple with challenges from different perspectives, hone skills in negotiations in cross-regional, multilateral, and international fora with a special focus on nuclear disarmament, non-proliferation and nuclear energy, trade negotiations, and public diplomacy. In essence, the Institute provided students an immersive exercise in razor-edge global policy. 3

Building International Cooperation and Addressing Global Challenges: The Global Leaders Forum A rise in nationalism and xenophobia challenges Penn Law to recommit to an enhanced role in global and multilateral engagement and public diplomacy. Penn Law’s charge is to educate the next generation of leaders in the law. This enterprise urges us to connect to a higher transformative mission in shaping global institutional, legal, and policy changes. The Global Leaders Forum brought former Solicitor General Donald Verrilli to engage in discussion on the rule of law, and for the first time, a sitting head of state to Penn Law. President Berset, President of Switzerland, has vocally championed the Swiss political system as an antidote to information manipulation, putting forward the Swiss culture of dialogue, political inclusion, and compromise. In this context of a major restructuring of the relationship between society and democracy, President Berset’s arguments for robust and inclusive democratic institutions, in contrast to short-term salves, compliment the proceduralism of John Hart Ely, and presents a much-needed alternative solution for democracy under siege. The President’s remarks and the conversation that followed, focused on how, in an age of rampant populism and nativism, politics can embrace the ideals of international cooperation and equity at the heart of democratic idealism. When the liberal world order and a rules-based international system are being questioned, how can respect for international law and mutualism be restored? Global Thinkers: Penn Law Faculty From Perry World House's cutting edge programming to CTIC's groundbreaking work on connecting the unconnected with the use of mobile phone technology, Penn Law is connecting the world like never before. CTIC’s work on global change has revolutionized research on mobile technologies. Mobile technologies have opened new opportunities for marginalized women in remote communities. Because of technological innovations, socially and economically excluded rural women can access resources, including health care. However, the mere provision of mobile technologies is insufficient in empowering marginalized women. Although technology opens up new opportunities, without corresponding gender equality laws and policies, mobile technologies can sometimes broaden the digital divide. Asking the Big Questions: A Seat at the Table for Penn Law Students Penn Law students are challenged to take a “Seat at the Table” in engaging with big ideas of our time with leaders and public intellectuals. These students are helping to bring fresh, bold leadership in areas such as global development and entrepreneurship to help connect and transform the fields. Penn Law students’ engagement as emerging global leaders at Penn Law shapes new discourse and innovative ideas in both the Penn Law community and the global community. The ethos of students as decisionmakers and interlocutors imbues all we do. From critical global conversations with a head of state and global policymakers, to salon discussions with global peers, to writing opinion pieces and engaging in new podcasts on pressing and urgent issues, Penn Law students are asking big questions and helping to shape a more inclusive global order that bends the arc of justice towards international cooperation. In a thought experiment in 2017-2018, we took the step of pairing students with visiting global leaders. This model of engagement was embraced by students as an empowering one that helped them grow in substantive ways. These opportunities provided students sophisticated leadership skills in engagement and policy-shaping. 4

From conversations on plural identities and recent revisions to the French Constitution, to free speech movements including efforts to overturn the blasphemy laws in Pakistan, students have engaged their peers in critical conversations addressing current global legal challenges. Strengthening the Rule of Law: Leading for the Global Good Whether interning at the ICC, addressing the major challenges to the rule of law at the UNDP, or engaging in fact-finding on access to justice, Penn Law students are being exposed to unique opportunities to strengthen the rule of law. Most recently, a partnership with Dr. Agnes Callamard, the UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary, or Arbitrary Executions allows students to work with the UN Special Procedure to engage in research for her next thematic report to the Human Rights Council under Resolution 35/15. The report will consider questions arising in the context of the use of force by law enforcement and other state officials against persons with psychosocial and/or intellectual disabilities, including in places of detention. The report will be presented to the 41st regular session of the Council, scheduled to take place in June 2019. Advancing Gender Equality Around the World: Honoring Justice Ginsburg’s Jurisprudence “One way to honor Justice Ginsburg's path-breaking inquiries is to continue the ‘international human rights dialogue’ in which she has long engaged. When I asked Justice Ginsburg's advice about the symposium, she urged us to take up the central issues afresh-- to focus on what role law can play in empowering women in all corners of the world, with very different governing legal systems, and to consider what needs yet to be accomplished.” - Judith Resnick, Yale Law School The Global Women’s Leadership Project developed under the auspices of Under Secretary General and Executive Director of UN Women, Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka, as the first phase of UN Women’s Family Law database, has created a clearing house of information on laws that govern women’s status in the family. This is the first mapping of its kind that goes beyond the boundaries of traditional family law to examine the entire legal system of a country to identify the law’s subtle and powerful impact on a woman’s status in her family. Family law is a locus of gender discrimination and magnifies the unequal status of women in the public sphere and limits their opportunity to participate in public life, whether political or social. An exciting new research project with The World Bank brings Penn Law students to The World Bank Group’s Identification for Development (ID4D) initiative. It is estimated that globally one billion people are unable to prove their identity. The majority of the one billion live in low-income countries (LICs), particularly in sub-Saharan Africa and Asia. Women and the poor are less likely to have an ID than other population groups: the ID4D-Findex survey found that 45% of women in LICs do not have an ID (vs. 30% of men) and 45% of the poorest 20% of the population lack a proof of identity (vs. 28% of the richest 20%). Selected Penn Law students will research the gender differentials in laws which circumscribe a woman’s economic choices, including her ability to engage in entrepreneurial and employment activities.

Rangita de Silva de Alwis

Associate Dean for International Affairs Senior Adviser to the Executive Director of UN Women and Under-Secretary-General Phumzile Mlambo Ngcuka 5

Table of Contents Inclusion. Innovation. Investment 8

Overview

Institute on Advancing Financial Inclusion

"Transforming the World through Business and Public Leadership" by Craig Newmark

"The Emotional Tax: Women of Color in Law and Business" by Carolyn Edgar

"Legal, Social and Public Policy Interventions for Diversity and Inclusion in Tech Investing" by Gitanjali Swamy

"Insights from a Woman Entrepreneur with an American Startup Targeting the Chinese Market" by Sally Wang

"Leadership in a Time of Disruption: Women Leading Corporate Boards" by Brande Stellings

"Mobile Technologies to Advance Gender Equality and Women's Voices" by Sharada Srinivasan

Penn Law Partners with The World Bank Group

"Making Women Central to New Trade Deals" by Clark Edmond

Global Leaders Forum: Plural Ideas 36

Overview

Leadership Institute for Law and Diplomacy: Plural Ideas from the Field

Matt Nimetz: A Profile in Global Service

"Ethical Leadership in Diplomacy" by Ambassador Kai Sauer

"Democracy and Distrust: Threats to Democracy in the 21st Century" by President Alain Berset "Serving the Public in Challenging Times" by Donald B. Verrilli

Asking the Big Questions: The #MeToo Movement 56

Overview

#MeToo Goes to Asia by Radhika Saxena

"The #MeToo Shows the Legal System has Failed Indian Women, But There is a Way Forward" by Indira Jaising

What Feminism Means to Emerging Women Leaders at Penn Law

"How My Legal Education Makes Me a More Effective Social Entrepreneur" by Ally Coll Steele

Amplifying Their Voices: The Next Generation of Women Leaders

Student Leaders: A Seat at the Table 70

Overview

"Unpacking Identity Politics and Hybridity" by Seun Adekoya

"Brexit as a Symptom of a Shift in Culture" by Saratu Kitchener

"Blasphemy Laws in Pakistan: Suppressing Free Speech Across Time and Space" by Noman Quadri

Building International Cooperation: Penn Law Signs MOU with LSE

New Research for Penn Law Students with United Nations and Intergovernmental Organizations

Penn Law Faculty: Global Thinkers 8499

Conversations with Faculty: Crossing Borders, Crossing Boundaries

Penn Law on the Global Stage 100106

International Programs Shapes the Global Agenda

"Education does not work nearly as well among homogenous students; they will have a distorted view of the world, will be less well prepared to manage and partner with diverse workforces and colleagues; their prejudices will be reinforced and their horizons left narrow." Nannerl O. Keohane - Higher Ground: Ethics and Leadership in the Modern University

Inclusion. Innovation. Investment Penn Law graduates influence the world as business leaders and innovators. Central to that mission is the commitment to knowledge—and a dedication to the ideals of justice and inclusion. To achieve these lofty goals, law schools must join with leaders in business, governments, and multilaterals to advance the public conversation and propel change. In the margins of the UN General Assembly, Penn Law convened business leaders, technology entrepreneurs, development experts, and venture capital investors for an inaugural Institute on Inclusion. Investment. Innovation: Law and Development. The institute partnered with the UN SDG Fund, Penn Global, Perry World House, Wharton, and Stanford Law's Levin Center, and set the standard for innovative thinking on inclusion and leadership. Craig Newmark, Founder of Craigslist, led the keynote on how men can use their male privilege to advance women’s leadership. Carolyn Edgar of BNY Mellon asked difficult questions on the rising cost of the “emotional tax” for women of color in business and entrepreneurship. Dr. Gitanjali Swamy asked hard questions on how to advance gender equality in an industry like technology transfer in which women-only funds engage a little over 10 million dollars, while venture capital amounts to over 4.6 trillion dollars.

INCLUSION. INNOVATION. INVESTMENT.

Institute on Advancing Financial Inclusion Reva Raghupathi SP2â&#x20AC;&#x2122;19 MBAâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;98

Reva was a student discussant leader at the Institute; she is pursuing her Masters in Nonprofit Leadership, where her focus is parity for women and girls through social entrepreneurship.

n September 21st, in partnership with the UN SDG Fund, Penn Law convened a

a seminal Institute for Law & Global Development entitled Inclusion. Investment. Innovation. The purpose was to ask difficult questions on issues of inclusion and diversity in development, innovation, and entrepreneurship. Distinguished panelists with expertise ranging across technology, business, law, venture capital, development, social impact and entrepreneurship shared experience-driven ideas. 10

The Institute was chaired by Rangita de Silva de Alwis, Associate Dean for International Programs at Penn Law, and attended by graduate and professional students from schools of law, business, and social policy and practice. Themes addressed through the day included gender equality in investment, use of technology to address disparities and innovative thinking about the future of jobs. Panelists shared big themes as well as personal stories and exemplified the interconnections needed to take on these challenges.

In his opening keynote discussion Transforming the World through Business and Public Leadership, Mr. Craig Newmark, founder of Craigslist and Craig Newmark Philanthropies, inspired the audience by sharing his principles of fairness, opportunity and respect, his minimal profit business model, efforts to empower women in STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics), and investments in support of veterans and journalism. The morning panel entitled Inclusion in Development, Finance and Technology, featured Christopher Calabia (Senior Advisor, Financial Services for the Poor, Gates Foundation), Chris Jochnick (CEO, Landesa), Mark Kaplan (Partner, Eachmile Technologies) and Nina Nieuwoudt (Vice President, MasterCard) and was moderated by Penn Law Professors William Burke-White and Shyam Balganesh. Mr. Calabia discussed development, finance and technology, building resilience for individuals and families, and the criticality of identification, which many of us take for granted but is unavailable to over a billion adults. Mr. Jochnick spoke about land rights, with many in rural settings dependent on land but lacking secure rights. Laws and customs particularly disfavor women. Mr. Jochnick discussed the potential for new technologies to help solve land issues without locking in existing inequities. Mr. Kaplan discussed the use of technology to transform global supply chains to be more sustainable, responsible, and profitable. Ms. Nieuwoudt spoke about identity, dignity, and technology, including efforts in South Africa to rapidly convert millions of grant beneficiaries from cash and checks to debit cards, and the use of cards to deliver dignity and choice to underserved populations.

"It was a true honor and privilege to have been at this conference, and discussing the important topics of inclusion, investment, and innovation. Being in the midst of such powerful speakers and leaders inspires, motivates, energizes, and also humbles me." -- Sharmila Pal (SP2)

Carolyn Edgar, Managing Counsel, Technology and Intellectual Property, BNY Mellon, delivered the luncheon keynote. Ms. Edgar insightfully shared her personal experiences navigating and advancing in law and business as a woman of color. The discussant leader was Nicole Smith, JD/MBA’19. The afternoon panel opened a vibrant discussion of Investment in Women: Venture Capital for Women Entrepreneurs. Panelists included Elisabeth Ballreich, Investment Specialist, Women’s World Banking Asset Management, Vanessa Liu, Head, SAP.io, Sally Wang, CEO & Cofounder, DocFlight, and Marissa Wesely, CEO, Win Win Strategies. The panel discussed why women are less likely to get venture capital and angel funding, whether investing approaches to find “unicorns” are flawed and disadvantage women, and impact investing in women-focused funds and the resultant positive effects on poverty, education, and health. Gender funds and venture and angel investments in women continue to constitute an extremely small percentage of available investment capital. The concluding session by Dr. Gitanjali Swamy, Managing Partner, IoTask and Representative to the UN EQUALS Leadership Coalition was on Legal, Social, and Public Policy Interventions for Diversity and Inclusion: Law, Incentives and Culture Reboots in Tech. Dr. Swamy shared data on the risk women face of job loss in the latest industrial revolution, their continued underrepresentation and high levels of attrition, especially in the technology sector, and lack of entrepreneurial opportunities. Yet, data shows that women deliver performance. Gender diversity is good for business. Dr. Swamy shared a portfolio of interventions that can improve inclusion and diversity in the future workforce. The challenges of ensuring true diversity and inclusion are clearly substantial. The panelists at the Penn Law Institute for Law & Global Development shared inspiring insights in legal, business, investment, and development arenas that can accelerate change towards fairness. With informed actions, we may indeed see “an unstoppable global movement of bringing women to the digital age”.

"An amazing opportunity to hear from a distinguished and passionate panel of speakers who connected the dots across the spectrum of law, business, non-profits, government and venture capital...exemplified the interconnections needed to tackle the challenges of inclusion and shared big themes as well as moving personal stories. Inviting students from law, business, nonprofits, policy, social work and other areas also exemplified connectedness and inclusion" --Reva Raghupathi

At a time when disruptive technologies are challenging the status quo, law schools must ask difficult questions on inclusion in innovation. Only 7% of investor funding goes to women-led ventures, and according to digitalundivided, a mere 0.2% of venture deals from 2012-2014 went to black women founders. At some leading tech companies as few as 10% of women occupy tech positions. Women tech entrepreneurs (working from the disadvantage of having received 50% less funding), are still able to generate 20% greater revenue than their male counterparts, according to a Forbes study. Women also performed 63% better than those companies with all-male founding teams, according to a First Round Capital report. Enormous gender gaps are revealed in venture capital funding. According to studies, only 2% of VC funding goes to women entrepreneurs, in spite of the fact that women own 38% of U.S. businesses and represent 7% of venture capital firms. One of the keys to this drastic difference in funding was how VCsâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;both male and femaleâ&#x20AC;&#x201D; framed funding questions for womencreated businesses.

"I learned so much from the Institute. I just had a conversation with Mark Kaplan from Fish Coin, and we discussed a pilot program to explore traceability issues with the Penn Food Service." -- Almitra Gupta LLM'19

Asking Hard Questions on Inclusion. Innovation. Investment

"The reason why I came to law school was to be exposed to a wide range of intellectual theories and ideas. The Law and Development Institute was one of my favorite events at the Law School." -- Lynnewood Shafer L'21

Leaders from Mastercard, World Bank, Gates Foundation, Unilever, and other innovators sparked conversations ranging from the benefits and drawbacks of new technologies, the gender gap in venture capital, to debiasing investment in women innovators. The costs of the marginalization of women in the economy hover between $12 to $28 trillion or amounts to 11% to 26% of annual GDP. Moreover, the world is missing out on innovation and new thinking. If women are to be part of and benefit from the technology driven jobs revolution underway in the Fourth Industrial Revolution, law schools must be at the forefront of global conversations on inclusion in innovation.

The Institute galvanized students from across the university, bringing plural perspectives and diverse inquiries from law, business, engineering, technology, and social impact.

INCLUSION. INNOVATION. INVESTMENT.

Transforming the World Through Business and Public Leadership Craig Newmark, Founder of Craigslist, in Conversation with Rangita de Silva de Alwis

“As a result of inequality, today’s technology - and increasingly today’s world - does not reflect the diversity of women’s experiences, imagination, or ingenuity.” -- Craig Newmark

Introduction by Rangita de Silva de Alwis: I am thrilled to have with us someone who has led in the private sector, but whose voice continues to shape public leadership and public policy. In 2012, Craig and I wrote an op-ed article, which was clearly a clarion call to action, for more men leaders to engage with women in advancing women's leadership. And calling on men to be 'champions of change' for women. One thing that really struck me about Craig's really simple ethos, was that this was all about fairness; fairness that would help to drive 14

the industry to a higher moral ground. Craig's own philosophy is one that continuously asks the question: "how can I use my male privilege to advance women's leadership in entrepreneurship in STEM, in business, and in public leadership?" He sees that the conspicuous absence of women in leadership in STEM, in entrepreneurship, and in industry creates a conspicuous loss for the world. The world loses out on diversity of experience, diversity of ingenuity, and diversity of imagination.

Most of my philanthropy is based in New York. Some of it's in Boston, a little bit in Washington. But the way that I got Craigslist started and helped steer it, was that, when I turned over management, that I was seriously turning over management. There's something called Founder's Syndrome, where somebody starts a company and then really sucks at keeping it going. I decided I needed to get out of the way. In a sense that's the history.

Can you speak to your own journey of founding Craigslist? In early 90's San Francisco, the web was starting up as a thing. I had just started a simple mailing list, which was mostly events that combined arts and technology themes. It just kept growing by word of mouth. Since I had to use a listserv, that meant I had to give it a name. People around me, (who are smarter than me) told me that I’d already created a brand because they were calling it Craig’s List. Then they explained to me what a brand is (remember, I'm an engineer by training). I ran it pretty much by myself for a few years. and hit some good milestones. Even Microsoft Sidewalk, which doesn't exist anymore, offered to pay me for banner ads. I was making enough money doing contract programming at the time, I didn't need anymore, and I kind of hate banner ads. But at the end of '99, bankers and VCs were coming to me, telling me that they'd like to throw a lot of money at me, to run it as a conventional Silicon Valley company.

You are using your philanthropic arm, Craig Newmark Foundation, to fund several initiatives. But you're also creating public policies as a leader in the private sector. Your philanthropic initiatives are built on three pillars. Can you speak to these initiatives? Craig Newmark Foundation’s Work to Promote Women in STEM: I can put my money where my mouth is in doing some of these programs. A lot of it is looking ahead, like programs in high schools. Sometimes colleges or entrepreneurs. [For example], with ‘Women Who Tech’ in Washington, we just did the latest women's startup challenge. Women-run startups present to panels; and the best, most practical ideas got cash awards. But more importantly, they got pushed to the active networks run by venture capitalists, because money tends to go to the people who they know. This comes back to the problem though. Why is there so little money going in for funding for women-run startups and so on? I can speculate about old boys’ networks. I can speculate about the way women are treated frequently.

That's when I remembered, no one needs a billion dollars. So, I decided that Craigslist would be run as a company that minimally monetized. Now that is not altruistic; it's not pious or anything like that. You gotta know when enough is enough. My business model is doing well by doing good. That worked for me. So, I started hiring. I realized that as a manager I suck, so I made someone else CEO. I went full-time into customer service. I stopped coding. I did nothing but customer service. That's what I did intensely for a long time. The company just kept operating. Doing well. I still do a certain amount of customer service, enough to stay in touch with what's real. So, in a dotted line way, in a way unique in American business, I report to Kendra the new customer service manager. But for the most part, I'm just off on my own.

But I want to be clear, our country needs all the smart people they can get into positions like STEM positions. Regardless of their ethnicity, gender, or whatever. The deal is that the way industry is going, the way national security positions are going, we need smart people who can do the job and we really don't care who they are. 15

The Craig Newmark Foundation’s Work with Veterans: I started working with Tammy Duckworth. She's now a senator, but I started working with her when she was at the Department of Veterans Affairs. In the U.S., women veterans are a larger and larger percentage of the veterans force and they're not treated very well. Hospitals often don't know what to do in a lot of cases. In one case directly related to me, a couple went to a Veteran's Affairs office. The Veterans Affairs Veterans Service Officer addressed the male, asking him about his service and what he needed. But it turns out that the woman (his wife) was the veteran. I'm part of a group called ‘Vets in Tech’ run by Kathryn Webster. She had the idea that she could get technology groups to run classes that would train vets in cybersecurity jobs. Cybersecurity is a great career path. We need a lot of people who can do that, and the demand far outstrips the supply. So, Kathryn started a program that has trained over 100 vets in cybersecurity jobs and she's placed most of them. I’ve committed a big chunk of money to start training 300 vets every year, and getting them placed in really good jobs. So, it's a small thing, but it illustrates something that people don't talk about: our country (and any country) needs all the people who they can get into STEM, cybersecurity, and other areas. Not getting women into technology is a national security problem, not only for the U.S. but everywhere. The countries that don't get women into these jobs will be weaker than countries who do get women into STEM jobs, particularly cybersecurity. The Craig Newmark Foundation’s Work on Journalism and Democracy My U.S. history teacher in high school taught us that a trustworthy press is the immune system of democracy. One might say that in 2016, that immune system failed. Part of the reason for that failing was a series of disinformation attacks focused on election interference. 16

"Of the 85 billion invested by venture capital, only 1.9 billion of that goes to women-led teams. Which means that over 89 percent of the venture capital goes to all-men led teams and the rest go to mixed teams. So why that disparity? It is a disconnect that seems to slow the tide of economic growth." -- de Silva de Alwis to Newmark

What I'm doing, is working with groups of people to help establish or re-establish what news consumers think of in terms of trustworthy publications. I work with the Trust Project, which has defined a set of signals that we are trying to get the tech platforms to use. Signals are basically things embedded in articles which say, 'hey here's our ethics code.' Things like 'we're not going to lie to people'. Things like having a diversity code -- do they listen to and employ people of all sorts of ethnicities, political beliefs, and so on. Do they have a corrections policy? If you make a mistake (and everyone makes mistakes) do you fix them? There are now a number of organizations who are doing really good work countering disinformation by first figuring out where it arises (say overseas), and how it's fed to people in groups who then propagate that disinformation for various purposes, one of which is voter suppression. A couple of days ago, the folks at Data and Society did a pretty intense report on how the so-called Alt-Right commits disinformation operations in the US. In publishing this, they've actually put themselves in physical danger. There's not a lot of these good efforts going on.

I fear getting too much attention. I'm not taking credit for good works. And yet in our culture, the way things work is you write a big check, you get attention, and that validates other stuff that you do. It acts as a force multiplier. So, maybe what I need to do,is to get loud, or at least relatively loud, about more of these efforts.

How do you intend to make sure that your voice transcends the borders of the United States? What you are doing Craigslist is global. How will your philanthropic initiatives become global? Something which may matter [the most] is standing up for things that matter on social media on a daily basis. This is one big area that matters in a big way. I just keep telling people to get involved in social media. I talk about creating a new normal. The idea is that if everyone expects things to change, and acts if things are going to change, in principle sometimes you do get a new normal. The best example in the U.S. is that gay marriage became a new normal. How do you make that happen?

We know that according to McKinsey Global, if women have equal access to capital, equal access to gender equal laws, that the GDP in the world will grow 28 trillion dollars. So we're not only talking about this in terms of morality, but we are also talking in terms of macroeconomic policy. Why is there this gender gap? I can't speak for other males. I don't know why people make the decisions that they do. It just felt right to treat people equally. So instead of speculating about the psychology of unfairness, I focus in small ways on trying to quietly, persistently, and relentlessly remind people that we're supposed to be about fairness. The idea is just to keep reminding them of that and just never stop. On top of that, sometimes you add whatever cash and influence you have. The message is, practice what you preach, treat people like you want to be treated. We are taught that our country aspires, hopes, and tries to be about fairness, opportunity, and respect. I do know that we fail in a lot of ways, but the arc of the moral universe is long, and it bends towards justice.

The idea is that in everything I do, I'm finding that what makes things work is a combination of quiet diplomacy among people who do have power, and then standing up for things that I believe in. And doing so on a relentless basis that's ultimately, in a way, a kind of marketing or advertising in the service of fairness, opportunity, and respect. No one needs a billion dollars. And if you're lucky enough to have somehow done well in business, I think it's a good thing for people to make good use of their money. But giving it away is a lot harder than it sounds. The Gates Foundation, Bezos Family Foundation and so on, are finding that out. That's why they seem to move so slowly. That's what I'm trying to do is throughout the whole world. I barely know what I'm doing. And that's possibly a good thing. I don't want to be a jerk and go overseas espousing American values in a lot of places where I don't know what I'm doing. The best thing I can do is to visibly practice what I preach about these things, using whatever international mechanisms I have. And, as it turns out, I have large social media followings overseas for reasons I don't really understand.

"I just wanted to thank you for hosting the event a few weeks ago with Craig Newmark. It was such an amazing opportunity to hear about his impact and the difference that one person can make on the progress of womenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s equality and rights." 17

-- Jonathan Hoffman L'20

INCLUSION. INNOVATION. INVESTMENT.

The Emotional Tax: Women of Color in Law and Business Carolyn Edgar, Managing Counsel, BNY Mellon addresses inclusion and innovation at Penn Law

he state of diversity and inclusion in the legal

profession in America is dim. Three reports that were released at the end of last year and the beginning of this year, together, painted a pretty sobering picture of where we are with diversity and inclusion in America. The first report is The Harvard Law School State of Black Alumni, 2000-2016. This report is the brainchild of Harvard Law Professor David Wilkins, who runs the Center on the Law Profession at Harvard Law School. The findings are grim, especially for Black women. The Wilkins report shows that: 18

1. Only 20% of Black women Harvard Law School graduates who began their careers in private practice in 2000 were still in private practice in 2016 2. Black women Harvard Law School graduates reported substantially lower satisfaction with their careers in private practice than Black men 3. Over 50% of all survey respondents, male and female, reported being the subject of a racist remark in the workplace over the course of their careers.

The findings of the Wilkins report were confirmed by the National Association of Law Professionals’ (NALP) 2017 Report on Diversity in U.S. Law Firms. Similar to the Wilkins report from Harvard, the NALP report found that: 1. Women and minority partners remain “fairly dramatically under-represented at U.S. law firms” 2. The overall percentage of women associates and Black/African-American associates have failed to return to 2009 (pre-recession) levels 3. Only 1.83% of U.S. law firm partners are Black, 0.66% are Black women 4. Only 4.28% of U.S. law firm associates are black, 2.42% are Black women What the Wilkins report and the NALP report tell us is that, not only are firms failing to recruit top diverse talent, they are failing to retain that talent at senior leadership levels, where lawyers of color can make a difference in firm management, hiring, retention, and promotion decisions. The third report, published in February 2018 by Catalyst, helps explain why. The Catalyst report focused on something called the “emotional tax.” The term “emotional tax” stems from the report’s finding that nearly 60% of employees of color felt that they had to constantly be on guard at work against racial and gender discrimination. The report showed that this affected their overall health, wellbeing, and ability to thrive. In my opinion, the lack of diversity and inclusion, and the presence of unconscious bias stem in part from the stories that have been told in this country about people of color, and Black people in particular in this country, in order to justify slavery and institutional racism. Many of those stereotypes persist today. Accordingly, many people don’t have a frame for seeing Blacks and people of color as professionals, let alone as strong, capable leaders. I’m here to tell my story, because I believe that changing the frame requires listening to the narratives told by people of color from their own perspectives. To share my background: I was born and raised in Detroit, Michigan. 19

Both of my parents were born and raised in Mississippi; we are descendents of slaves. Racism in the Jim Crow South made it too difficult for my parents’ families to earn a living off their small family-owned farms. My parents were among the millions of Black Americans who moved North during the period known as the Great Migration. My father spent most of his working life at Ford Motor Company, working in the auto plants. My mother was a homemaker. I am the youngest of their six children. I am a first generation college graduate and a first generation lawyer. My parents weren’t able to receive decent educations in the South, because of Jim Crow laws. For that reason, they were big believers in the power of education and hard work. They instilled those values in their children. My parents’ story is not unique. But in this country, people often hear a different story about Black Americans. You hear that Black Americans are lazy, that we don’t want to work, that we live in bad neighborhoods and go to bad schools not because of systemic racism, but because we don’t want any better. You hear that we don’t want to work hard. You’re told that we’re less intelligent, that we don’t earn our way into good schools and good jobs – we get in because of affirmative action and diversity hiring. We just want to sit around and wait for handouts. It’s unlikely that you heard much at all about Black people like my parents, who worked hard their entire lives to provide good lives for their kids, and who taught us all the importance of education. I made it to the University of Michigan and Harvard Law School because of my hard work and the values instilled in me by my parents. But many people believe a different story. We hear this tired, destructive narrative about Black Americans, not in the past, but right now, in today’s political discourse. Today, politicians still tell a different story about people like me than the one I’m telling you. If you don’t know the history of racism in America, you might believe that if

Black people still don’t have equality, it’s our own fault. And those stories, unfortunately, have an impact on how we as Black people are seen, and not seen, when we enter institutions of higher learning and when we enter the workforce. This is the emotional tax in operation. And I believe that it is the prevalence and the dominance of those false stories that contributes to the emotional tax paid by people of color in the professional workplace. I have dealt with the emotional tax my entire life. My second week of college at the University of Michigan, one of my professors – a white woman – accused me of plagiarism because she said most of her students from Detroit didn’t write “this well.” And I knew that “Detroit” was code for “black.” I knew she would be suspicious of every assignment I handed in from then on. It made me angry. The Catalyst research showed that some respondents were motivated by the emotional tax to prove themselves worthy. That was my experience. I was a first generation college student, but I was also my parents’ daughter, and I had been raised to believe that there was no place I didn’t deserve to be if I had earned my way there. I made an appointment with the Dean of the English Department, and I told him I didn’t want to hand in every assignment under a cloud of suspicion. Unfortunately, my experience is a common one for Black people. Even President Barack Obama was accused of not having actually written his bestselling memoir, Dreams of My Father. Many years later, as a senior associate at my former law firm, I had two racist clients, on deals I was supposed to be leading, who didn’t want to deal with me -- I believe, because I was a Black woman. One guy had no issue with me until he saw me. When he met me, he visibly jumped and was reluctant to shake my hand. After that, everything I said and did had to be reviewed by the partner, or he wouldn’t accept it. And I was supposed to be the lead attorney on this matter. On the second matter, the client would call the white male junior associate instead of me. I would tell him something, he would call the male associate to discuss it. I would call him, he would call the junior associate back. I think this particular person was both racist and sexist. 20

Fortunately, the junior associate was smart enough to call me so we could speak to the client together. But it was humiliating. In both cases, if you didn’t look at the possibility – in my opinion, the fact – that racism and sexism were at play, you might say, this person isn’t inspiring client confidence. The clients don’t trust her. This person isn’t demonstrating the kind of leadership we need in a partner. I knew I had to do something. I talked to the partner in charge, and told him about every single incident. I said, "you know my work. You know that associates like working with me. You know the other partners have good things to say about me. So it would be grossly unfair for the firm to hold these two racist clients against me." I took a risk. I was angry, I was hurt, and I was passionate. When I left the partner’s office, I knew that either I had just improved my chances of making partner, by demonstrating how much I wanted it – or I had proven myself unfit for the promotion, by being so emotional. In that case, it worked out – I made partner. But I am well aware it could have gone the other way. The emotional tax of not having my work judged on the merits because of my gender and race led to a lot of stress that year. The type of unconscious – or perhaps, in the case of those clients, conscious – bias I experienced has been well documented. In an unconscious bias study from a few years ago, partners at a law firm were given an essay that deliberately included typos and writing errors. One group of partners was told that the associate who wrote the essay was a black associate, and the other group was told that the author was a white associate. The exact same essay was assessed much more harshly by the group who thought it was written by a black associate. This is how the emotional tax operates. Your work is viewed through a harsher lens. Every mistake is held against you. You become paranoid about typos, citation errors, even document formatting.

The time a black law firm associate spends polishing his or her work, making sure it’s perfect, is a time he or she does not get to spend engaging in all of the other activities that help build one’s reputation in a law firm as someone who can be seen as a future leader. People of color often don’t get the benefit of the doubt. If all you know about people of color are the stereotypes – if you’ve never engaged with the story of who we actually are, and there are no leaders of color in the organization to help counterbalance those narratives -- then in moments of doubt, it is easy to see how folks rely on those old frames.

It is not up to people of color to fix the lack of diversity and inclusion in our institutions, in America and abroad. We can’t. But it is important for people of color within those institutions to adopt coping mechanisms and skills to help with the emotional tax. We often have to respond to the situation in front of us based on our own personal set of options, power dynamics, and choices. Sometimes, the right answer is to lean in and try to make the situation work, for as long as you can bear it. Sometimes, you have to challenge the status quo. Sometimes, you do have to leave, which is why those law firm hiring and retention statistics look the way they do. Each individual has to make an assessment of his or her own power, leverage, and options.

Every major corporation, every major law firm, every major financial institution talks about the importance of diversity and inclusion. Everyone says that diversity and inclusion are among their core values. And yet, when you look at the numbers, there haven’t been real gains. Catalyst noted that it’s not just the employee who pays this tax, it’s the employers as well, who are losing out on valuable employees who want to contribute and who have a lot to contribute. This finding is borne out by the Wilkins report. We know that companies from consumer products to entertainment are leaving money on the table by not making and selling products to a diverse consumer base. We know good employees are leaving companies and law firms because of the emotional tax. But what can we do to effect change? I believe that, first, we have to remember that institutions are run by people. People are influenced by the frames and the narratives they’ve been raised with and have lived with their whole lives. It’s not enough for an institution to state diversity and inclusion as a core value and to offer once-a-year diversity training. Institutions, and the individuals who run them, have to be willing to take a close, hard look at themselves. Does your organization’s leadership, board of directors, pipelines, and succession plans reflect diversity and inclusion as core values? If not, what stories are you telling yourself about why that is – and how prepared are you to upend those narratives?

It is important for professionals of color to have a variety of networks. Some are networks for support, some of those networks help provide options. Mentors are important, but don’t assume the person who is the right mentor for you will always be the person who shares your racial, ethnic, or gender identity. But change, real change, has to come from those in power. Identifying and challenging one’s conscious and unconscious biases is critical, but it’s not the whole answer. If you are an ally, the answer is not only challenging your own assumptions, but also educating yourself by reading the words and thoughts and opinions of people of color, and not centering yourself in narratives that don’t belong to you. Listening to people of color tell their own stories will help you change your frames about who they really are. To see our systems and institutions change, we have to change the narratives. We have to rework the frames. The power of story can lead to change. Stories help to change the frame.

INCLUSION. INNOVATION. INVESTMENT.

Legal, Social and Public Policy Interventions for Diversity and Inclusion in Tech Investing

Gitanjali Swamy, UN Equals Leadership Coalition, speaks at the Law and Development Institute at Penn Law

INCLUSION. INNOVATION. INVESTMENT.

Insights from a Young Lawyer Turned Entrepreneur: a U.S. Startup Targeting China Sally Wang

Wang spoke at Penn Law's Global Development Institute on the challenges that women face in accessing VC funds.

n August 1, 2016, we woke up to news of Uber’s not-to-so graceful exit from the China market,

after a bloody three-year battle against local competitors. The truce spelled that in exchange for UberChina and a $ 1 billion investment in Uber, Uber and its investors will own a 20% stake of Didi Chuxing, its main rival in China. This is certainly not the result Uber hoped for, but after running a $1 billion-a-year loss and a string of tactical defeats, even a tech giant like Uber can only hold off the inevitable for so long. Many in the American media and public blamed Uber’s failure on Chinese nationalism. 24

Let’s take a step back. Aren’t policies of national protectionism part of the established reality---a factor that should be included in the strategic business calculus prior to entering a foreign market? For China, protectionism is not a new policy. In fact, China’s “open door” policy always had a screen door, and that screen has become less porous on the aggregate over the last couple of decades, arguably in both directions. The initial blind eagerness for foreign investments has been replaced by an unspoken requirement for joint ventures, ensuring that local businesses

also share in the profits from the Chinese market. Certain sensitive data (e.g., health data) and materials (e.g., tissue samples of Chinese patients) cannot leave the country and can not be used by foreign companies for commercial benefit, even when aggregated and de-identified for the purpose of advancing scientific research. This reality is unlikely to change in the midst of the trade wars of the current Trump administration. Moreover, considering that within a few short years of his first term President Xi Jinping has managed to squash corruption, perhaps one of the most challenging social and political problems plaguing China since its economic takeoff, he certainly has the guts and wits to face the American government. China will not become a friendlier market to American businesses in the foreseeable future.

On a micro scale, the government policies reflected changes in the cultural perspectives among the populace. While idolatry of Western businesses, goods, and technology still exist to some extent in China, it has been significantly tempered as Chinaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s own economy strengthens, coupled with a rise in national pride and increasing preference for domestically produced goods. This shift in attitude among Chinese consumers hurts US businesses entering the Middle Kingdom, a literal translation of the Chinese name for China that reflects a default national pride that is strong amongst its people. This nationalism exists in paradox with the Chinese admiration for the West: they are two competing forces that continuously mold the landscape of Chinese consumer demand. The result is the progression of the desire of Chinese consumers from small electronics and fast food offerings in the early 90s, to luxury goods and travel in the 2000s, to real estate, healthcare, education, coffee and wine culture, and other intangibles today. The recent growing demand of wealthy Chinese for American healthcare for serious illness is precisely what we built our startup on.

These are the rules of the game that we, as American companies, must follow to do business in China. When I launched my health tech startup, bridging American doctors and Chinese patients, there were many considerations that are unique to doing business in China. First, it is an unspoken rule that the Chinese government will not let a solely foreign-based business dominate the market when domestic players are also capable of providing this product. We, therefore, use local healthcare companies as referral sources and marketing platforms under a revenue sharing model. This partnership creates a win-win situation, where local firms can reap the benefits of our success and use their established customer base to help us build our business. Second, there are many technical challenges surrounding the Chinese internet, protected by the famous Great Firewall. Our technology team spent a great deal of time making sure that our website can open at an acceptable speed in China and the video function on our virtual medical consultation platform would work. Third, Asia has even greater gender disparity than the US, making doing business as a woman even more difficult. Many of these gender biases are culturally deep-set and historically prevalent.

Capturing that changing demand at precisely the right time can mean great success for American businesses. But that is not an easy task, and certainly not one that can be achieved by looking through American-centric lenses, like the ones that were likely worn by Uber executives when they planned to enter China. As American companies are looking to compete in the what is often the largest market in the world, they must think strategically about the challenges of the Chinese market, especially those barriers particularly designed to tip the scale in favor of homegrown businesses and understand the whims of the fickle Chinese consumer. Cultural, political, and business sensitivity are all necessary for a successful entry into the Middle Kingdom. 25

INCLUSION. INNOVATION. INVESTMENT.

Leadership in a Time of Disruption: Women Leading Corporate Boards The Business Case for Women's Leadership

A meta-analysis of the business case for women’s leadership conducted in 2018, published in the Journal of Management, found that “female representation on the board of directors has a direct association with firm financial performance” (Hoobler et al.) An analysis by Noland, Moran and Kotschwar (2016) examined over 21,000 firms from 91 countries and found that increasing the percentage of women in top leadership positions from 0 to 30% is associated with a 15% rise in firm profitability.

Brande Stellings, Vice-President of Catalyst

International Programs invited Stellings to Penn Law to mark the recent mandate in California calling for quotas for women on boards

ast May, the NYSE appointed its first female CEO, Stacey Cunningham, in its 226-year history. Notable for a couple reasons. The other major stock exchange in the US – NASDAQ-- is also led by a woman, Adena Friedman, who was appointed the prior year. It was also notable that both rose to the top in industries that were facing disruption – taking on jobs with significant challenge [an era of new competitors and some asking if exchanges had the same relevance in the market today]. 26

And both were internal candidates – they were promoted from within. More on the significance of these two factors later. When I spoke to a reporter from the Washington Post about Cunningham’s appointment as CEO, I noted that having two women in these positions was important for normalizing women in leadership positions – so that what gets talked about more is their leadership rather than the fact that they are women.

The unfortunate reality though is that there is nothing “normal” about women ascending to the top position - it is still all too rare an occurrence. The number of women leading the largest companies has always been small – but what’s particularly alarming is that in the past year it got even smaller. The truth is that in my role at Catalyst over the past year, when my phone started ringing with requests for media interviews, I knew – more often than not -- that they were calling because a woman CEO had resigned. Because there are so few women CEOs, the resignation of even one woman CEO is cause for attention – and even more so because in all of the resignations from last year, not one woman CEO was succeeded by another woman. In fact, it is exceedingly rare that a woman CEO is succeeded by another woman – in the entire history of the F500, it has happened only three times. I’m going to address women’s leadership in two very specific realms – as CEOs and as corporate board directors. I will set some context by sharing some data and research insights. Let’s start with women’s leadership of the largest companies. Currently, women lead 24 of the S&P 500 companies, which equals 4.8%. Put another way, over 95% of the largest companies in the world are led by men. Or, as the New York Times Glass Ceiling Index noted, there are fewer women F500 CEOs than there are male CEOs named James. More CEOs named James than women CEOs altogether!

Catalyst – a research and consulting nonprofit with over 55 years of experience – has tracked the historical list of women CEOs in the Fortune 500 from the beginning of time – or rather, from when the first woman CEO was appointed, which was in 1972. In the 45 years since the first woman CEO led a F500 company, a total of 70 individual women have led F500 companies as CEO. Three women have served as CEO of a F500 company twice (Susan Cameron, Irene Rosenfeld, Meg Whitman). In total, women have served as CEO of a F500 company in 73 instances. Only one black woman has served as CEO of a F500 company, Ursula Burns of Xerox (2009 – 2017). In 2017, the F500 gained its first Latina woman to serve as CEO, Geisha Williams, CEO of PG&E. Catalyst also found that the overwhelming majority of women CEOs were promoted internally rather than hired externally (suggesting you need a proven track record at the company). Although we are talking about relatively recent history – and applaud the progress that has been made – the fact that we are still celebrating so many firsts can be dispiriting – as is the fact that the top leadership of companies does not reflect the diversity and gender composition of the general population, the workforce, or the customer base for many of these companies. The Rockefeller Foundation – alarmed by the slow pace of change and its impact on the future of work, launched a campaign two years ago called 100 x 25. The goal is to have 100 women CEOs lead F500 companies by 2025. In research that they released with the announcement of the campaign, they found that 1 in 4 Americans think it’s more likely we’ll colonize Mars before we see an equal number of women and men CEOs in the F500. Let’s pause and think about that for a minute – the idea of gender parity in business leadership is on par – or even more outlandish -- than the stuff of science fiction.

Even though that number is very small, what is even more troubling is that it is a number that has been going down rather than up. In 2017, we ‘celebrated’ a milestone of reaching an all-time high of women CEOs in the F500 – topping out at over 6%. When I spoke to the press then I said we had good news and bad news: the good news is that we’d reach an all time high of 6% - and the bad news is that we’d reached an all time high of 6%. I didn’t imagine that within a year of that we’d be struggling to stay above the 5% mark. 27

As part of its campaign, the Rockefeller Foundation commissioned research to unpack what qualities distinguish the small, elite group of women who have made it to the top of business leadership. In a report called Women CEOs Speak, published last year and conducted by Korn Ferry, they made some interesting findings. The most interesting one to me is that few of them set out to be a CEO. In fact, more than half "gave no thought to being CEO until someone explicitly told them they had it in them." This is important. Think about it – these were top performing business leaders, and it had not crossed their minds to aspire to the top job – until someone else told them they had the talent. External validation from someone else was important to them seeing themselves CEO material. This leads me to the next topic – representation of women on corporate boards. One of the primary responsibilities of a board of directors is to hire and fire CEOs. So as we think about the dearth of women in CEO positions, it is crucial to look at who is doing the hiring of CEOs. Currently, women represent about 22% of directors of F500 or S&P500 companies. Put another way, about 4 out of every 5 directors is a man. The representation of women of color is particularly abysmal. It’s often said that when we talk about a glass ceiling for women, women of color face a concrete ceiling. Women of color represent fewer than 4% of directors. What does that mean in actuality? In the Missing Pieces report released by the Alliance for Board Diversity, in partnership with Deloitte, the number of women of color board directors numbered about 200 in total. Enough to fit in this room. Astonishing when you consider that by the year 2050 women of color will constitute the majority of women in the U.S. Quite simply, our boards do not reflect America. They seem stuck in the past, rather than wired for the future. And yet they exercise enormous control over the products we buy and the places where we work. I realize I am painting a bit of a bleak picture, so I want to focus on some bright spots when it comes to board diversity.

First, although the overall representation of women and diverse people is not reflective of the marketplace of talent and customers, this past year saw that, for the first time, women and diverse directors constituted the majority of new directors appointed to corporate boards last year. Women alone represented 38% of newly appointed directors (Heidrick Board Monitor Report). Second, at least with respect to the largest companies, it is now no longer acceptable to have a board of directors with zero women. The 22% all-time high, rise in new board appointments and dwindling of boards with zero women board directors – all reflects a huge shift in the conversation and scrutiny of diverse representation on boards. In the last couple years, investor interest in boards has risen – and some institutional investors are voting against all-male boards as well as against the chair of the nominating and governance committee (the board committee charged with oversight of board composition and director recruitment). A global conversation about women’s representation on boards has been taking place for over a decade, most notably in Europe. Norway instituted the first quota over a decade ago, mandating that publicly traded companies needed 40% female representation on the board or they would be delisted. Since that time, many other countries have instituted quotas or other regulatory measures that require companies to report on their diversity, and if not diverse, to explain why not. These countries include France, Italy, Spain to name a few. Norway (46.7%), France (34.0%), and Sweden (33.6%) had the highest percentages of women on their boards, in a recent Credit Suisse analysis, [Taiwan (4.5%), South Korea (4.1%), and Japan (3.5%) were the lowest]. One thing we know about quotas: they work. One study found that countries with specific targets, quotas, and penalties for not meeting regulations, including Norway, Iceland, Finland, and Sweden, had nearly double the average percentage of women on boards (about 34%) than countries without those measures had (about 18%).

It also seems true that the threat of quotas works. The UK did not institute quotas – instead a businesscommunity-led voluntary initiative (with the support of the government) focused on increasing women’s representation on boards. In a few short years they doubled their representation from 12.5% [in 2011] to the current 25% on the FTSE 100. In other words, they started behind the US and have outpaced us. Their “voluntary” approach took place against a backdrop of the threat of quotas – if business could not solve the problem on its own, then government would intervene. With all of this focus elsewhere in the world, many people began asking why hasn’t the US made progress? For years, when I did media interviews or speaking engagements, the conversation always turned to quotas. I saw that as a red herring. As others have remarked, Americans are allergic to quotas, I would say. Let’s talk about what’s really possible. So I have to admit I was surprised when California recently passed legislation requiring all publicly traded companies with headquarters in CA to have at least one woman on their board by the end of 2019 and have at least two by the end of 2021. They cited the fact that half of the 75 largest IPOs in the last three years were launched by companies with no women on their boards. Between the high levels of institutional investor interest and scrutiny, and the emergence of a quota approach in the US, the representation of women on boards is likely to continue to rise (albeit slowly given the very low turnover of director seats each year – usually fewer than 400 in the F500). One longer term consequence as boards get more diverse is that there are likely to be more women CEOs. One study found that when boards were more diverse, they were more likely to appoint a female chief executive – and those female CEOs had longer tenures. Catalyst research indicates that having more women board directors is correlated with subsequently having more women in the C-suite. More women leaders beget more women leaders. Profit-and-loss responsibility at the executive level is a key experience for CEO succession planning, as well as board succession planning.

You may have noticed that I have not talked about the business case for diversity. We have over a decade of research – by Catalyst and other highly regarded organizations that focus on these issues – that shows that having women in leadership positions is good for business and good for society—improving long-term business performance and promoting equal opportunity. We know that diverse teams improve problemsolving and innovation. The real question – given women’s representation in higher education, in the workforce, and as customers – is why we are constantly asked to make the business case for women in leadership? What’s the business case for all male or virtually all male leadership teams? What will make change? 1. Make it a kitchen table issue and part of mainstream conversation. Scrutiny from the institutional investor community and the grassroots campaigns of 2020 WOB are helping. 2. Sponsorship. We can make change one relationship and one board at a time. Catalyst’s Women On Board program pairs CEOs and Board Chairs for a two-year partnership with a senior executive woman for a mentor/sponsor relationship. Over 60% of the women have been appointed to boards. Transformative for mentor/sponsors too. 3. Champions. Efforts like the 30% Club and Catalyst’s CEO Champions for Change enlist business leaders to commit to accelerating the representation of women, including women of color, on boards.

And if I leave you with one piece of advice for your career going forward – no matter what path you take – is network, network, network. Start building your social capital now. The relationships you are making now will be important business relationships for you 10, 20 and 30 years from now.

INCLUSION. INNOVATION. INVESTMENT.

Exploring Gendered Barriers to Internet Access and Use Sharada Srinivasan, CTIC Fellow, speaks at a Critical Global Conversation on CTIC's 1 World Connected initiative

Photo courtesy of U.S. Chamber of Commerce Foundation

n low- and middle-income countries, women are 10% less likely than men to own phones,

and 26% less likely to use mobile Internet. A complex web of supply and demand-side barriers prevent Internet access and use, as the story goes. But beyond the numbers, what do these barriers look like and how do we address them on the ground? 30

Fieldwork in the villages of Vanuatu, Rwanda, Nepal, and India in newly Internet-connected communities, and 120 online interviews with grassroots projects extending Internet access, give us some insights. Infrastructure gaps to Internet access affect women disproportionately. Cellular coverage often does not reach homes, necessitating travel to the village square, or to the nearest town, to access the Internet.

Women do not travel as often, restricted to their homes by social norms in several countries in the Global South. Even when they can, the Internet access point is often at the village square, a “space for men,” as one of our interviewees claimed in rural India. Adjacent infrastructure, such as roads and electricity, play an important role in enabling women’s Internet access as well. In rural Balochistan, travel to the Internet access points at local government offices can be unsafe for women, prompting an organisation to pilot wi-fi locations closer to homes. The lack of well-lit roads deters women from undertaking longer journeys to Internet access points, afraid to return home after dark. While access to network and road infrastructure seems a primarily technological barrier on the surface, what our research has shown is that there are gendered connotations to it that are important. Beyond access to Internet infrastructure, there is a device access gap that often goes unnoticed. Women are less likely to own Internet-enabled phones, and to the extent that they do own phones, they are likely to be basic or feature phones, not smartphones with the full suite of Internet-enabled, value-added services. Women are also less likely to be able to repair those phones should they break, and end up suffering disproportionately from the “hardware quality access divide,” as studies in rural Kenya have demonstrated. The phenomenon of phone sharing is rampant, in the villages of Nepal and Vanuatu that we visited. Women proudly claimed being mobile phone users, but could not unlock their phones because the password had been set by their husbands. “My son has the password, I cannot unlock it” exclaimed a middle-aged woman farmer in Vanuatu, twenty minutes into an interview where she joyfully described playing music through her phone at home. Shared phone use, and subtle means of control such as by password setting, are an extension of the power dynamic that patriarchy often uses to subjugate women. The worst policies include a complete ban on the use of mobile phones by women in some khap panchayats in India, but the spectrum of control barely stops there.

How do we surmount these barriers, made complex by the reality of socio-cultural norms that intersect with the lack of digital skills and other resources by women? Our research provides some insights. Working with community leaders, tribal chiefs, and elder women within the community to get their buy-in on a digital skills program can often go a long way in ensuring access to women. Gram Marg, a community network in India, considers its placement of Internet access points in areas that women are likely to be able to use them after hours, in the backyards and around wells and village spaces where women congregate. Fusion, a digital skills training program in Sri Lanka, subsidises transportation costs for women attending their digital skills programs, enabling rural women to access critical education. But even beyond mere provisioning of infrastructure, tailoring the content and delivery of digital skills training can go a long way. The African Women Power Network, an NGO working in the rural state of Taraba in Nigeria, realised quickly that providing an application in English to women farmers in Nigeria was useless, and tailored its agricultural information in local languages to improve take-up. Perhaps the most delightful example is that of Kallyanis in Bangladesh. The program trains young, lowincome women to provide information on healthcare services, agriculture extension service, and IT support for women. This ‘for women, by women’ model reaches women at their homes, providing critical information at the doorstep for those who need it most. Gendered barriers to Internet access are complex, residing at the intersection of technological barriers and socio-cultural norms. Too often, Internet access projects consider themselves gender blind, assuming that women and men will automatically benefit from new Internet infrastructure. To really close the gender digital divide, going beyond this simple mindset is a first step. Thankfully, we have a few pioneers to show us how.

INCLUSION. INNOVATION. INVESTMENT.

Penn Law Global Women's Leadership Project Partners with World Bank Group: Analysis of Gender in ID4D

“Power’s hold on gender is maintained through language, or…from the very fact that it is articulated, a rule of law.” -- Michel Foucault

he World Bank Group's Identification for Development (ID4D) initiative (in conjunction with the Gates Foundation) estimates that globally 1 billion people are unable to prove their identity. The majority of the 1 billion live in low-income countries (LICs), particularly in sub-Saharan Africa and Asia. Women and the poor are less likely to have an ID than other population groups: the ID4D-Findex survey found that 45% of women in LICs do not have an ID (vs. 30% of men) and 45% of the poorest 20% of the population lack a proof of identity (vs. 28% of the richest 20%). [1] 32

There is little evidence about what causes the gender gap in possession of officially recognized IDs, however, and how it might vary within countries between, for example, the rich and the poor and different ethnic groups. It is important to address the gender gap because women’s lack of access to IDs will constrain progress that can be made in other areas that are critical to poverty reduction – but that require proof of identity -- such as financial inclusion, education, ownership of mobile phones, health services, social protection, and other development goals that are critical for the empowerment of women and girls.

Gender differentials in laws circumscribe a woman’s right to travel outside the home, get a job or pursue a trade or profession without permission from a husband or male guardian; sign a contract, register a business; be the head of household or head of family; be able to confer citizenship to her children; decide where her child will attend school; open a bank account; choose where to live; have ownership over property; inherit property; act against the wishes of their husband; convey citizenship to a non-national husband; administer marital property; exercise basic guardianship and customary rights over children and more. These laws, regulations and policies restrict the full capacity of women and constrain a woman’s economic choices, including her ability to engage in entrepreneurial and employment activities.

1. Examining the international and regional law frameworks as critical analytical tools, including, but not limited to: the state parties’ obligations under human rights conventions (ICCPR, ICESCR, CEDAW, CRC, SCR 1325 and the Maputo Protocol) and the SDGs. 2. Analyzing state party reports to the human rights treaty bodies, including the CEDAW/ UPR and other obligations and the General Recommendations and Concluding Observations by the treaty bodies. 3. Gathering and analyzing gender-based legal restrictions on financial inclusion, access to education, health care, employment (unequal retirement age, pensions, social security, etc.), land and property rights, by identifying genderbased legal differences in the legal system that directly or indirectly impact policies affecting women’s economic opportunities. 4. Mapping gender legal differences in formal and customary laws: husband’s permission to freedom of movement; apply for a passport; head of household; choice of residence; confer citizenship to children; husband’s permission for a job; travel outside the home; register a business; open a bank account; sign a contract; woman has to prove her identity to enter an employment contract or access finance. Proof of identity is necessary to borrow from banks. 5. Analyzing asymmetries in laws and policies against the baseline of constitutional guarantees and international treaty obligations. 6. Benchmarking the legal and regulatory environment for women in business and innovation 7. Identifying and analyzing cases that address gender discrimination in the laws. 8. Collecting (if available) quantitative and qualitative data through field research done over skype from the law school. 9. Examining comparative legal systems and highlighting transnational jurisprudence from these legal systems, including reformist efforts in countries that are being studied by the Bank, including best practices from the region and subregion.

As part of the deep dive into gender-based differences in official forms of identification and how this may impact financial inclusion, access to education, etcetera (e.g. social safety nets), law students at the University of Pennsylvania, under the supervision of Associate Dean Rangita de Silva de Alwis, will analyze laws in Nigeria and Tonga, including, but not limited to: gender-based legal barriers to birth registration; gender-based legal barriers to obtaining an ID card; gender-based legal barriers to obtaining a passport; and nationality laws in Nigeria and Tonga. Penn Law students will do this research as an independent study for one semester. Students will undertake legal research as needed, and, when appropriate, attend meetings with ID4D, Legal and Gender teams. The students will produce research memos and a final report of their work will be submitted to the World Bank in May 2019. The research will be used as relevant in the final gender deep dive report developed by the Bank. The research methodology will include:

INCLUSION. INNOVATION. INVESTMENT.

Making Women Central to New Trade Deals Clark Edmond L'19

Clark interned in the summer of 2018 at the International Trade Administration of the U.S. Department of Commerce.

A significant final product of Clark's work was a white paper titled, "The Women's Export Initiative: A Case for Increasing International Trade Administration Exports for Women-owned Businesses," the following is an excerpt.

In developing countries, some of the most significant barriers are cultural and legal and keep women from growing their businesses. According to the World Bankâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s "Women, Business and the Law 2018," 104 economies have laws impeding womenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s economic opportunity, a problem that ITC found to result in increased expenses and lack of growth for women-owned businesses in its 2015 report.

nternationally, only one in five exporting companies is owned by a woman, and women are more likely to face barriers to trade. 34

Non-tariff trade measures, like fixed trade costs, disproportionately affect small-to-medium business enterprises (SMEs) that do not have in-house trade experts. This is a predicament that affects both women owned businesses in developed and developing countries since a majority of womenowned firms are SMEs. Additionally, access to capital, market information, and business networks are common barriers experienced by women business owners in developed and developing countries. International women’s groups currently focus on breaking down barriers by addressing: policy change; the incorporation of gender into trade strategies; connectivity and access to technology; public and corporate procurement; education and skills training; finance initiatives; and child-care. Executive Summary of White Paper Closing the gender gap is recognized as critical to the future of the global economy. The McKinsey Global Institute (MGI) estimates up to $28 trillion additional annual gross-domestic product (GDP) in 2025 if women globally participate in the economy equally to men - which is a significant increase in economic output that would lead to better standards of living and global progress. Gender equality in all of its forms is viewed by the UN as, “a necessary foundation for a peaceful, prosperous and sustainable world,” and international organizations have coordinated to promote the social and economic advancement of women and girls for the benefit of all nations. MGI also reports that the United States could add up to $4.3 trillion in annual domestic GDP in 2025 if women attain full gender equality, and that U.S. states have the potential to add 5% to their GDP in 2025 by increasing women’s labor force participation. Although the U.S.'s Gender Parity Score for women’s labor force participation is relatively good, increasing jobs is a still necessary to reach the projected increase in GDP. Multiple reports on gender equality reasonably note equal pay, childcare, lack of managerial positions, political representation, and violence as factors to address when closing the gender gap to improve the economy.

However, surprisingly few stakeholders report on closing the gender gap among business owners and growing existing businesses to increase jobs and national productivity. This paper proposes that the International Trade Administration (ITA) incorporate the advancement of women-owned businesses into its strategy by creating a Women's Export Initiative [1]. Overall, this paper aims to address what “full gender equality” means in the context of the United States economy and ITA; it argues that enhancing the export potential of womenowned businesses is a step towards improving the U.S. economy. Women-owned businesses are the focus of this initiative because there is existing legislation that specifically mandates federal support of women-owned businesses. Recommendations for implementation of an ITA Women’s Export Initiative are provided to guide ITA executives and staff members toward a global, collaborative effort in increasing exports of U.S. women-owned businesses.

The Global Leaders Forum: Plural Ideas Penn Lawâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s charge is to educate the next generation of leaders in the law. This enterprise urges us to connect to a higher transformative mission. Does Penn Law have a role in shaping global institutional, legal, and policy changes? The aim of the Global Leaders Forum is to develop highlevel leadership skills and advance Penn Law students in decision-making roles in foreign policy and diplomacy, while also deepening engagement with international institutions. Strategic lawyering in the 21st century requires a combination of critical skillsets, including partnerships, negotiation skills, and policymaking. The Global Leaders Forum brought the first sitting head of state to Penn Law, Alain Berset of Switzerland, as well as Donald B. Verrilli, the 46th Solicitor General of the United States. The Law and Diplomacy Institute in partnership with Penn Global, addressed pluralism in foreign policy at a time when the US is retreating from multilateralism. The Institute helped students grapple with foreign policy from multiple perspectives and built skills in negotiations in cross-regional fora. In essence, the Institute provided students an immersive exercise in razor-edge global policy. 36

GLOBAL LEADERS FORUM

The Leadership Institute for Law and Diplomacy Plural Perspectives from the Field

Egyptian President Anwar Sadat, US President Jimmy Carter, and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin at the signing of the peace treaty between Egypt and Israel, March 26, 1979

eventy years after the United States, working closely with the United Kingdom and others, established the liberal world order and international institutions such as the World Bank and the United Nations in the wake of World War II, this rules-based, liberal world order is being questioned by the United States and other nations.

His Excellency Mohamed El Orabi, a former Minister of Foreign Affairs and Egyptâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Ambassador to Israel and Her Excellency Moushira Khattab, the Minister for Family and Population, Egypt and Egyptâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Ambassador to South Africa and Italy discussed the rapid changes in the Middle East and perspectives of American foreign policy from the field.

Earlier in the year, the United States withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal. On July 19th, Israel's parliament passed a law characterizing the country as, principally, a Jewish state.

"This program was unlike any other I have attended at Penn... the smaller and more intimate setting seemed to allow for more Adapting to new power balances, conflict resolution and trade negotiations call for plural frank and open discussion on the perspectives to diplomacy, Kai Sauer, Ambassador significant diplomatic and of Finland to the UN spoke about the trials and political challenges we currently triumphs of diplomacy in the 21st century. face. I also found Matt Nimetzâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s US/UN Diplomat and legendary lawyer, Matt presentation and overview of Nimetz unpacked one of the most intractable challenges of 21st century diplomacy: the longthe Greece/Macedonia naming standing naming dispute between Greece and dispute really fascinating; it Macedonia, that went beyond international served as a great example of relations and to the heart of national identity, nation-building and contested questions on the how effective diplomacy works ownership of culture. to stave off larger and potentially violent conflicts." Bringing plural perspectives to --Jackie Billek, Penn Global diplomacy, conflict resolution, and trade negotiations: emerging leaders from around the university take center stage.

"Thank you so much for coordinating the Diplomacy Institute. Not only was it a momentous opportunity to be in the room with such great leaders, it was also a great honor and privilege to be able to speak with and hear from them. I came away not only inspired, but also empowered and equipped with a new and valuable understanding of diplomacy in our global community." --Fumnanya Ekhator L'20

"[This Institute] was so unique and special... I have never heard of something like it at another law school. There was such a rich diversity of perspectives presented and the speakers covered issues with serious breadth and depth. I have long had an interest in diplomacy and today's event struck a balance between highlevel concepts and daily realities that affect the life of a diplomat. As a new student at the law school, I am glad to have participated today as I begin to think about future career possibilities." --Ryan McEvoy L'21

Students debate real-life diplomatic crises before a highlevel panel of diplomats. Cross disciplinary Student teams simulated high level diplomatic delegations and presented their team's position on the two real-world case studies (given to them prior to the Institute) before the visiting diplomats. A unique facet of the Institute was this hands-on engagement in diplomacy. See opposite page for details of this immersive exercise in razor-edge global policy.

CASE STUDY #1 DIGITAL DIPLOMACY in the 21st CENTURY

CASE STUDY #2 REBALANCING OF POWER AND CLIMATE JUSTICE

Tweet from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs:

"On one side of the debate were the emerging powers considering their quickly-growing share of the total carbon dioxide output. Most of them were seeking to avoid a binding agreement that would limit their growth. On another side were the European nations, still hoping to extend the Kyoto accord that had helped place big burdens on rich nations but given developing countries like China and India a pass. Many poor and small countries, especially island nations, were desperate for any agreement that would help them stave off, or at least mitigate, the climate changes they were already experiencing.

#Statement | KSA through its history has not and will not accept any form of interfering in the internal affairs of the Kingdom. The KSA considers the Canadian position an attack on the KSA and requires a firm stance to deter who attempts to undermine the sovereignty of the KSA. #Statement | The Canadian position is an overt and blatant interference in the internal affairs of the Kingdom of #SaudiArabia and is in contravention of the most basic international norms and all the charters governing relations between States.

I looked across the table at leaders from India, Brazil and South Africa, they represented 40 percent of the world's population. And their place at the table symbolized a profound shift in global influence.

‫ﺗﺮﺟﻢ اﻟﺘﻐﺮﻳﺪة‬ This tweet referred to the Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland’s advocacy for women's rights in Saudi Arabia, including support for Samar Badawi, the imprisoned women’s rights activist. The tech agenda is part of the efforts to adapt foreign policy to the 21st century and bring marginalized groups to engage in deliberative diplomacy. In a networked century, there are comparative advantages and disadvantages that come with digital diplomacy. Key questions to consider: • How does social media diplomacy impact a charged foreign policy agenda? • You can use any case study (real or imagined) to make an argument on the complicated nature of digital diplomacy in the 21st century. • You should also examine the way in which the digital tools have created a new participatory culture in political, social, and human rights diplomacy.

Now here we were making a last-ditch effort. How can you make national commitments to curb carbon emissions?" ---From Hard Choices, Secretary Hillary Rodham Clinton Key questions to consider: • In a changing global power dynamic, how would you renegotiate a new agreement on climate change that would reconcile the concerns of the MENA Region countries and the BRIC countries with the agendas of the OECD countries? • How would you bring the issues of climate change, as argued by President Mary Robinson, as a “man-made problem with a feminist solution" to bear on your arguments? • Use issues of political, economic and cultural diplomacy in your presentations.

GLOBAL LEADERS FORUM

A Profile in Global Service: The Story of a Great American Diplomat and His Advice to the Next Generation

Matt Nimetz at the Law and Diplomacy Institute UN Special Representative for the naming dispute between Greece and the Republic of Macedonia; President Clinton's Envoy; Counselor of the U.S. Department of State to President Jimmy Carter; and former Chairperson of Paul Weiss

Pictured: Secretary of State Cyrus Vance, President Jimmy Carter, and National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski

have been fortunate to have been both a practicing lawyer and a diplomat. I urge you

o think abut careers in these fields. You will never be bored, and given how people behave in this world, there will always be jobs for smart lawyers and effective diplomats. I'm here to tell you bad news and good news. 42

First, as you've learned, there are wars, civil strife, horrific human rights violations, failed states, dysfunctional political systems, racial, religious, and gender discrimination, environmental disasters and other forms of trouble throughout the world. Sadly, I can confidently predict that these conditions will continue throughout your lives.

But here's the good news. In the last century or so, in spite of many bad things happening, life on this planet has actually improved, and we have in fact figured out ways to work more constructively together. l would argue that, for all the trouble in the world, there are effective solutions for many of our problems, if only people through their political institutions would take greater initiative. In my view, individuals like you are an important part of the solution.

"In choosing jobs, I don't think I have considered how much I would be paid....what office I sit in, what perks were provided, and so on. My focus was always on one thing- is this a mission I am excited about....and will I be working for people I admire and can learn from."

Based on my experience, people make a difference, and improvements in the world come about because good people care, and when properly motivated, take action that has demonstrable results. The pending dispute between Greece and its northern neighbor is an example of a very tough problem between neighboring countries where emotions run high, and each side sincerely believes it is right. It is also a situation where there is a fair chance of a resolution because courageous leaders on both sides have decided to try to work out a fair compromise.

I have to admit, first off, that I had very few talents, skills, or assets when I was growing up in the 1940s and 50s in middle class Brooklyn, New York, where I went to the local public schools. My one talent was that I was very successful taking tests in school. Here is Rule Number One that I have followed: exploit the talents that you have to the fullest and don't worry about talents or assets that you don't have. Being good academically is a very useful talent, especially when you're still in school and it led me to do very well in high school, at Williams College, at graduate school at Oxford, and at Harvard Law School. By virtue mostly of having high grades, I had an opportunity to become a Supreme Court law clerk for Justice John M. Harlan, a wonderful judge and person. This leads me to Rule Number Two: to go out of my way to seek out interesting opportunities and to take advantage of the chance to do things that expand your horizon and excite you, even if it involves extra work, risk, and discomfort. By virtue of being a Supreme Court law clerk, some active job searching, and the advice of some friends, I was offered a job at the White House where I worked during the last couple of years of the Lyndon Johnson Administration on the domestic policy staff trying to build the Great Society programs that President Johnson cared so much about.

In 1993, the UN Security Council deemed the dispute over the name to be a matter of regional security; the Secretary General was charged with trying to resolve the dispute. The Secretary General appointed Cyrus Vance, former U.S. Secretary of State, to mediate the dispute, and I became involved as well, first as a U.S. mediator appointed by President Bill Clinton, and later as a deputy to help Secretary Vance at the U.N. When Mr. Vance retired in 1999, Secretary General Kofi Annan appointed me to succeed him as mediator, and I have continued in that role ever since. So how did I find myself in this unique, and somewhat unusual, situation as mediator between the two sides? Well a lot is good luck and being in the right place at the right time. But I have followed a few rules that have guided me in my career development. 43

At the end of that administration, with the Republicans under Richard Nixon coming to power, I decided to leave Washington and return to New York to become a corporate lawyer. I had to make a decision on a law firm, and here I relied on my Rule Number Three: to work at the very best organization, one with the very best professional role models and mentors. I've changed jobs, and even professions, several times, but always I strive to work for the best people in the field I'm focused on. In this way, I learn from the best. In choosing jobs, I don't think I ever considered how much I'd be paid, what my title would be, when I'd qualify for a promotion, what office I would sit in, what perks were provided, and so on. My focus was always on one thing. Is this a mission I'm excited about, is this the best organization engaged in this type of work, and will I be working for people I admire and can learn from?

I worked hard as a young corporate lawyer for eight years and became, without quite knowing how, vaguely competent in what I did. There's my Rule Number Five, take the time to become an expert in some field and gain the respect of your peers in that field. The point is this: although it's nice to jump around from interesting job to interesting job, at some point you need to absorb solid professional knowledge that allows you to be respected professionally by people in your field and by the outside world. That process requires devoting real time, hard work, long nights, and taking on what often turns out to be not the most exciting work. But it is definitely important to put in the time and effort to become competent in your field, more than just competent, I would advise, whether you become a lawyer, diplomat, or choose another professional path. Anyway, one day while I was at my desk working on a contract at the Simpson Thacher law firm, Mr. Vance stuck his head in my office, "The President-Elect", he said, "has asked me to become Secretary of State". Jimmy Carter had just been elected president. "Congratulations, sir'', I replied. "If you want to come down and join me in Washington, let me know Monday", he added. "Yes, sir", I replied. (It was a Friday). Of course, his offer not at all convenient. I had just become a partner at the firm; my wife was four months pregnant; we had just purchased an apartment; and for the first time I was earning a more-thandecent income. But then again, back to Rules Number Two and Three: when some exciting opportunity presents itself, and you have the chance to work for someone you truly respect, say yes. We moved down to Washington, and I spent four years at the State Department.

I must admit I am not very adventurous and probably passed up some wonderful opportunities along the way. I suspect my children think my career a bit boring. Some of my career moves were the result of blind luck, but a common thread was thinking long-term and taking advice from wise mentors. That's Rule Number Four: find great mentors and take their advice seriously. For example, when I was leaving the White House to go back to New York to practice law, I had offers from a handful of excellent firms, but I hadn't the faintest idea how to choose among them. So I asked my White House boss Joe Califano, who had himself been a young lawyer in New York; he said, "I'll ask the President what he thinks when I see him tonight". The next morning Califano said, "the President and I think you should go to Simpson Thacher and work for Cyrus Vance". I said, ''Yes, sir", and did as they suggested. It turned out to be good advice.

"When the opportunity presents itself to work for someone you admire, say yes."

Four years later, in late 1980, my wife and I, with two young children now, moved back to New York, and I joined another major law firm, Paul Weiss, and worked there for 19 years, again as a corporate lawyer, with an interesting and growing client base. 44

It was during that period, in 1994, that my friends at the State Department, remembering that I had been involved in lots of missions involving Greece and also Yugoslavia and the Balkan region during my diplomatic days, recommended me to the White House as a special mediator for the Macedonian name dispute, which was heating up. When the White House offered me the position and my law partners agreed that this was an acceptable pro bono project, I quickly accepted, remembering Rule Number Two-- always to say yes when presented with a challenging new opportunity. Of course, I didn't expect the assignment to last 24 years.

A motivating factor in making my decision was Rule Number Three-that is to work with the best people in the field, people you respect professionally and like personally. Also, I thought private equity was an exciting new field of finance and business that would be transformative. I think I was correct in that analysis. In any case, I remained COO at General Atlantic for 12 years while we built the firm to global company that now manages about $30 billion. And of course, I continued, while COO at General Atlantic, to keep my UN position as mediator of the name dispute. A few years back, I decided it was time to retire as a full-time partner and COO, and my partners gave me the title of Advisory Director, which has very little meaning, but reads very nicely on a business card. I'll conclude with this thought: you are very lucky. Please know that I would change places with any one of you in a nano-second. I've had an interesting and productive life, but the world has so many exciting possibilities right now. So much will happen in the next 50 years that is inconceivable today, and each of you, if you take advantage of opportunities, can have fulfilling and transformative lives and careers. You owe it to yourselves to take full advantage of the opportunities that come your way.

I will quickly mention the last episode in my professional career. My law practice covered many different areas of corporate law, but I gravitated in later years to representing private equity firms. One of my favorite clients was General Atlantic, a group of bright, highly motivated young investors running a small fund investing in tech companies for a small group of families and foundations. One day the head of that firm asked me to leave my law practice and join them as chief operating officer. It was a tough decision, but I decided I would be invigorated and stimulated by moving to something new and challenging, even though I didn't quite know what being a chief operating officer was all about.

Matt Nimetz Explains the "Name" Dispute in Less than 10 Minutes In 1991/2 Yugoslavia collapsed as a nation state; Yugoslavia's six federal states each became independent as a separate nation-state. The southernmost of these was Socialist Republic of Macedonia, which had earlier been part of Serbia, before that part of the Ottoman Empire, before that part of the Byzantine Empire, before that part of the Roman Empire, before that part of Alexander the Great's Macedonian Empire, but never in its history had it been an independent nation state. This new state took the constitutional name "Republic of Macedonia" and applied for membership in the United Nations. Its southern neighbor, Greece, watched all this with concern. It took the position that northern Greece is Macedonia, the people of northern Greece are the true Macedonians; ancient Macedonia is part of the cultural heritage of the Greek people and of the Greek state. Moreover, Greece said, by taking the name "Republic of Macedonia" this new state was implying territorial aspirations to incorporate all of the Macedonian region into its country which constituted a direct threat to Greece, a clear case of irredentism. The dispute was brought to the Security Council of the United Nations; it admitted the new country to the U.N. but not under its constitutional name. The Security Council said that until the dispute was resolved, it could join the UN only under a temporary provisional designation: "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". In June of this year an agreement was reached between the two Governments resolving the dispute, signed at Lake Prespas, which borders the two countries. The Parliaments in both countries still need to approve the agreement, so it is by no means a done deal. The first votes in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia were positive. I am hopeful that, ultimately, the agreement will be approved, but there is lots of debate and active opposition in both countries, so the result is not at all decided. 45

GLOBAL LEADERS FORUM

Ethical Leadership in Diplomacy

Ambassador Kai Sauer, Permanent Representative of Finland to the United Nations Remarks from his keynote at the 2018 Institute on Law and Diplomacy

et me start off by asking how many of you students have considered diplomacy as a career?

It is not a path to wealth, but I guarantee it is interesting it gives you many careers with one employer. It’s like joining the Marines, only without fatigues. And it’s a profession where you can influence. How do you think the politicians get their ideas for policies? Diplomats have power. Satisfaction compensates for the modest salary. When Dean Rangita sent me the title of our lunch discussion ‘Ethical Leadership in Diplomacy’ I thought, “thanks for the curveball.” In the back of my head, there was the thought of an old quote describing the diplomat as, “an honest man who has been sent abroad to lie for his country.” 46

Another old wisdom from our trade states that, “in diplomacy there are no permanent friends, only interests.” I believe it was Henry Kissinger who said this; and history, of course, proves him right. Look at the situation before and after WW2: adversaries for hundreds of years - France and Germany are, today, closest allies. The same applies to the relationship between the former colonial master, England, and the colonies who turned into a super power, the United States. So, is ‘ethics in diplomacy’ an oxymoron, or is there space for ethics in diplomacy? Personally, I think there is - and on several levels. Let’s begin with trust.

In diplomacy, relationships between individuals and government are built on trust. If I want to be a successful diplomat, driving and defending the interests of my country and government, I need to win the trust of my peers. This applies in multilateral diplomacy as well as bilateral diplomacy (the UN with its 193 member states in particular). And this applies to other inter-governmental organizations as well, both regional and sub-regional. It’s a classical network of interdependencies. One day I need your support, the next day you need my support. Whether in negotiations or informal interactions, it is a constant give and take. Interpersonal trust is essential. It applies also to the worst adversaries - Samantha Power and Vitaly Tshurkin respected and trusted each other, despite deep political differences. Inter-governmental relations are similar. Trust is essential. Trust is especially important between neighbors. Where there is no trust, it can be built with confidence-building measures. Take Matthew Nimetz’s efforts to solve the Macedonian name question - it is a huge step forward in terms of building trust. It unlocks potential Greek-Macedonian relations (trade, civil and security) but more importantly, it has important regional implications. Macedonia can now join NATO and move towards the EU which creates stability in the region. My country, Finland, has traditionally been a bridge builder. We live in a sensitive region and we try to export stability. As one form of exporting stability, we invest in promoting peace mediation. Significant diplomatic examples have included Helsinki-based summits between Trump and Putin, Clinton and Yeltsin, the 1975 Helsinki Accords, the CSCE summit, etc. Ethics and trust are also about predictability - about honoring rules and agreements. This is particularly important for smaller countries; I might say especially smaller countries with large, and sometimes expansionist, neighbors. My own country is a good example. Small in population, and next to a nuclear superpower - sharing a long border of 800 miles - which has just invaded territory belonging to one of its neighbors. We depend on a predictable, international rules-based system - they are safeguarding our security and existence.

This is why we have joined international institutions like the UN, the European Union, OSCE, WTO, as well as treaties like ICC, Paris Climate agreement and compacts like the Global Compact of Migration, and several others. Adhering to a rules-based international system provides predictability. Now, the current rules-based international system is under threat. JCPOA, WTO, NATO, PARIS, NAFTA - even the UN are challenged. Agreements which have been carefully negotiated are negated and alliances are tested. At the UN General Assembly, the U.S. statement distanced itself from Global Governance and instead promoted the concept of patriotism. But most of the member states supported a rules-based system; even China and Russia. The future of the rules-based international system is a most popular subject among diplomats. There is a feeling that we are witnessing change, and there will be no return to the old days. With that said, sometime change is good. Ethical decisions have made diplomacy more accessible to women. When it comes to female foreign policy - we are not just advertising it but implementing it - 60% of diplomats are female and 40% of ambassadors – women are controlling the world. I would like to close at the individual level - ethics in diplomacy on a personal level. Sometimes diplomats can face a dilemma when representing their governments. This can be the case when blatant human rights violations take place, or rulers betray the constitution. For example, during the Arab Spring, the Tunisian ambassador resigned because he could not side with his president against the people. Or in Gambia, when the President refused to step down after elections, the UN Ambassador stepped down, ultimately causing the president to also step down. And now the former UN Ambassador is the Foreign Minister. I consider myself lucky not to have had to struggle through an ethical dilemma – but this is a testament to the resilience of Finland’s populism.

GLOBAL LEADERS FORUM

Democracy and Distrust: Threats to Democracy in the 21st Century

President Alain Berset, President of Switzerland, addresses Penn Law

"In the context of a major restructuring of the relationship between society and democracy, the name of this event drew from the seminal work of John Hart Ely. President Berset’s arguments for robust and inclusive democratic institutions in contrast to shortterm salves complimented the proceduralism of Ely, presenting a much needed alternative solution for democracy under siege. ”

The overarching theme for UNGA’s 73rd session was: “Making the United Nations Relevant to All People: Global Leadership and Shared Responsibilities for Peaceful, Equitable and Sustainable Societies.”

On September 27, as world leaders convened at the 73rd Session of the UN General Assembly (UNGA) in New York, the University of Pennsylvania Law School was honored to host President Alain Berset, President of the Swiss Confederation.

At a time when instability is escalating tensions in global governance and international cooperation, President Berset’s philosophy is a much-needed counterbalance to some of the polarizing debates on the issues of multilateralism and the global order. President Berset’s conversation on "Democracy and Distrust: Threats to Democracy in the 21st Century" explored the impact of fake news on

democracy and examines pluralist notions of democracy as an antidote to fake news. The following piece provides his introduction to this vital discussion.

We have 5.4 million eligible voters in Switzerland. With hundreds of thousands of signatures, voters can submit an initiative and vote on amending the Constitution. And, ladies and gentlemen, the last time it happened was five days ago. Both initiatives were rejected.

It is an honor and a great pleasure for me to speak at a renowned university about about Switzerland Switzerland and to speak about the challenges to our democracies. Albert Einstein once said that, "if the world were to end, I'd prefer to be in Switzerland. Everything happens five years later there." Indeed, Ladies and gentlemen, some things do happen very slowly in Switzerland. Switzerland even took its time in deciding to join the United Nations. It's only been sixteen years since the country became a member.

Democracy in Switzerland is not just about voting. The process of consultation and compromise is a social stability we enjoy. It is in no small part thanks to our political culture that four of the biggest parties are represented in our government. In political terms, we are constantly in flux. We hold heated debates and come together again afterwards. We accept compromises despite, or because of our diversity, and our diversity is almost as complicated as our political system.

But since then we have been a committed member of the UN, which is appreciated, as I was able to observe when I appeared before the General Assembly in New York two days ago. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, how is it that a country like Switzerland which always holds the top spot with the US in global competitiveness and innovation rankings can be that slow when it comes to taking democratic decisions? Slowness does not just come naturally to Switzerland, in fact, it takes a great deal of effort to be slow. We work very hard to be slow. Let me give you a brief outline of our legislative procedure. Allow me, if you will, to hopefully bore you in an interesting manner. In Switzerland, the government sends a draft bill out for consultation; it gives all interested parties the opportunity to express their views. Then, the amended bill is submitted to the relevant parliamentary committee of one of the chambers in our bicameral system -- a bicameral system which we copied from you, by the way. And then to the first chamber. Then it buses to the Committee of the second chamber before coming before the second chamber. Each set is then subject to either an optional or compulsory referendum. That means if a political party, group, or individual manages to gather 50,000 signatures, a popular vote is held.

The Swiss Constitution is heavily inspired by the US Constitution. This is why John Hart Ely's insights make sense to me as a Swiss. (Ely's most notable work "Democracy and Distrust" serves as the impulse for today's event). Ely saw that the value of the Constitution lies in defining and protecting the Democratic process. It ensures this process remains open and fair. That, in itself, is not a particularly spectacular observation, but it is precise. It is politically precise because, in political terms, it is restrained. Ladies and gentlemen, Switzerland is a small and open country at the heart of Europe. But Switzerland's openness to the world is by no means set in stone. In 2014, a public vote was held on an initiative against mass immigration and this initiative called for Switzerland to take back control of its immigration. As you know, we are part of the single European market. In respect of the free movement the free movement of persons our labor market is open to five hundred million Europeans.

In our system of direct democracy, we continually have to make the case for international cooperation and seek domestic legitimation only if the public has an underlying feeling of economic, social, and cultural security.

"In a direct democracy, everything is up for debate. Direct democracy is about continual debates, and this serves as a good vent for frustration.." In exactly 60 days, a popular vote will be held which will have an impact on Switzerland's relationship with the world. It is known as the selfdetermination initiative and the question is whether a Swiss law should take precedence over international law. It is a case of persuading the electorates of the advantages of being open to the world and demonstrating solidarity internationally. We have to be able to show that we can rely on international law, that these rules are stable and fair. We are witnessing growing tensions in different societies in Switzerland. We are particularly aware of this because they can be expressed time and again at the ballot box. In Switzerland, we bring out the ballot boxes four times a year and, ladies and gentlemen, we vote on pretty much everything: pre-implantation diagnostics, unconditional basic income, a ban on second homes, but also on the cash cow initiative and the horned cow initiative.

Well... the cash cow initiative is about cow drivers. Don't want to be cash cows when it comes to financing public transport. And the horned cow initiative is about real cows. In November, we will be voting on whether farmers should receive financial support for home-bearing cows and goats. I'm not telling you all this to make fun of our democracy. I take all of this very seriously. In a direct democracy, everything is up for debate. Direct democracy is about continual debates, and this serves as a good vent for frustration. It doesn't exclude outcomes, such as in the vote against mass immigration, but on the wall. Feelings of resentment have less chance of growing to the point where they can easily succumb to propaganda. That means Switzerland's system of direct democracy is an early warning system and we try to systematically decode and diffuse any public unease. And today this decoding has become an existential question for democracies and also for international cooperation in Switzerland. We have learned to question motives, to identify hidden agendas, and to distinguish between arguments which stand up to rational scrutiny. That doesn't mean that fake news couldn't be spread in Switzerland. It is more difficult because everything is discussed intensively. Ladies and gentlemen, we need to take the problem of fake news seriously and when foreign powers use it to interfere in democratic elections, it is tantamount to an act of aggression. However, we should not allow ourselves to get quite so worked up about the fake news tsunami which is unsettling our democracies. We should accept its admittedly disruptive structural change of the public sphere.

The German sociologist and philosopher Jurgen Habermas who coined the term structural change of the public sphere concluded, not altogether surprisingly, that the public sphere is coming to an end. And a public sphere which primarily or even exclusively functions to mass media is, indeed, probably drawing to a close. But the newly emerging public sphere of countless virtual forums which very much have a bearing on political reality. This new public sphere ironically carries many of the old marks which Habermas cited, in the past, as a condition for nonhierarchical debates. To conclude, ladies and gentlemen, the U.S. has a wonderful saying: 'never waste a good crisis.' This also applies to fake news. Crises have to make use of its potential; it forces us to come up with better arguments and think more clearly. Above all, for every political decision we take, we have to consider what it means for the weakest in society-if it will create losers. Whether or not they are absolute or relative losers is politically irrelevant. It is this sense of hopelessness and fear of social exclusion that allows fake news to flourish. And we must not forget the most important lesson of the optimistic post-war decades - it is by strengthening orders that we strengthen ourselves. Nobody needs to lose for you to win. And the world is not a zerosum game. With international cooperation it is a positive sum game. Thank you very much.

"I would like to reiterate how much I appreciate the opportunity to have heard President Berset speak at Thursday's remarkable event. I was seated with other 1Ls and the conversation about democracy spilled over from Silverman Hall and into Center City as we walked home. When I mentioned to friends at other law schools that I had attended an event featuring a sitting head of state -- only one month into 1L -- they were shocked such an opportunity was available to students." -- Briana Fasone L'21

GLOBAL LEADERS FORUM

Serving the Public in Challenging Times

Donald B. Verrilli, 46th Solicitor General of the United States speaks at Penn Law

n September 19, Penn Law had the great privilege of hosting the former Solicitor General

of the United States, Donald Verrilli. He was the nation's 46th Solicitor General of the United States from 2011 to 2016. During that time, he argued dozens of cases before the Supreme Court and was responsible for representing the U.S. government in all appellate matters before the High Court and other courts of appeals. He also advised President Obama and the Attorney General during that time. Some of his landmark cases, include cases like the NFIB vs. Sebelius (the famous individual mandate case), 52

King vs. Burwell (involving taxes for the exchanges), successful advocacy for marriage equality in Obergefell vs. Hodges and U.S. vs. Windsor, and a range of other cases that are among the most important across a wide array of issues. Before that, he had a distinguished career in both private practice and in the government and served in a variety of White House and Department of Justice positions, as well as private law positions.

I think the idea of asking me to speak on this subject was for me to spend some time reflecting with you about my public service and how I perceived that as being public service during challenging times. And I will do some of that, but given what's going on right now in our country, I'm also going to talk about what I, at least, think public service and challenging times should mean now and going forward. So, when I served in the Obama administration, I certainly thought that I was serving the public in challenging times. I joined the administration in the Justice Department in 2009 and was there for a year. And then I was in the White House Counsel's Office for a year and a half. During that period, the nation, as I'm sure you remember, was teetering on the precipice of economic collapse. The national security organizations in this country were being convulsed by revelations about torture and rendition and surveillance. For those of us serving the government in that period, we felt like the stakes could not be higher. We felt that the fate of the country was at stake, and was, in a very real sense, in our hands. And not just in the hands of political officials, but in many, many extraordinary dedicated career public servants with whom we worked and whose energies had to be marshaled to try to meet these crises. By the time I moved back to the Justice Department in 2011 to become Solicitor General, those initial challenges, profound as they were, seemed to be more or less under control. We had staved off the worst. We had begun the process of rebuilding stability and effectiveness and trust across a whole range of issues.

"You are going to be at your best when you decide to stand for something... If you're going to take a stand for something, it's absolutely vital that you do it with integrity." 53

For me in particular, when I became Solicitor General, I was serving in times that were challenging in a different way. It would fall to me to defend the policy choices of a liberal, progressive administration in front of a court whose majority was quite conservative, and by a lot of historical measures, maybe the most conservative Supreme Court majority ever. I experienced that as a considerable challenge. It was true in battles over the Affordable Care Act, battles over establishing the principle of equality before the law for gay and lesbian people, battles over immigration, battles over religious liberty, and so much else. It may be difficult to remember, given how much bombards us each day now, just how intense public engagement on those issues was, and the stakes in which those issues were cast. You may recall the Chief Justice's memorable dissent in Obergefell where he said to gay and lesbian people: "please by all means celebrate today's judgment in your favor, but remember that the Constitution has nothing to do with it." Battles over immigration in the United States against Arizona and United States against Texas where the position that I was advocating for on behalf of the Obama administration was described as: "a historically unprecedented executive overreach to protect undocumented immigrants who are violating our laws every day." What did I learn from that experience? A lot, but I think two things most important that I want to impart today: First, I learned that you are going to be at your best when you decide to stand for something. Now, I want to be clear about this. You know, I was really, really lucky to have the chance to be Solicitor General under President Obama. I got to stand up in court and take those positions that I just described and I got to do that just because I happened to be Solicitor General at the time that those cases came before the court.

That was an opportunity that was presented to me, not one that I created, but I did care a very great deal about the principles that I was advocating for, particularly the principles that everyone should have access to affordable health care in this country, and that gay and lesbian people should be fully equal in the eyes of the law. I tried in my advocacy to really embrace that and I think it helped me a great deal. Let me now move on to the second thing I learned, which is related to the first. And it's this: If you're going to take a stand for something, it's absolutely vital that you do it with integrity. Because you know when you take a stand for something, others are going to disagree with you. They may disagree with you vehemently and it may be, as was the case with some of the things I did, that millions and millions of people are going to disagree with you. For a lawyer in a leadership position in the government, there may well be a lot of people within a government, dedicated career public servants, who are wonderful people and wonderful lawyers, who disagree with what you've chosen to do, or the way you're choosing to carry out what you've chosen to do. It's absolutely vital that the process that you use as a leader to decide matters of this kind, of this consequence, be fair, transparent and participatory. Everyone needs to have his or her say. The matter needs to be debated fully and openly and you need to be able to explain your decision honestly and cogently. That need for integrity is just as important when you are carrying out the decision you made and actually taking your stand in public. Because, especially when you're taking a position in public that's controversial, you undermine yourself if people doubt your motives. You are much more effective and persuasive if people understand that you believe what you are saying and you are doing this because you believe in it. 54

Now, as I said, I really thought that I was serving the public during challenging times. These were real and sometimes daunting challenges for me. But you know, I had no idea what it meant to really serve the country in challenging times. Because the fights we had during the Obama administration (legal policy fights mainly) were about the way the power that our Constitution allocates (to Congress, and to the executive branch, and to the president) were being used within our constitutional structure and system. They were, in other words, normal political disagreements, like disagreements about whether taxes should be higher or lower, or whether we should have more or less regulation. Now, to be sure, the norms that hold our constitutional system together were fraying even then. As I mentioned a minute ago, the rhetoric that was used in those disputes often would give you the impression that the very nature of the constitutional order was at stake. But really, those disputes were all within the guardrails. They were policy arguments and legal arguments of the kind that we, in this country, have been having since the days of the founders when we were arguing about whether there should be a bank of the United States and continuing through our entire history. The key thing, though, is that we are in a totally different place right now. The challenges that all of us face, especially leaders of the legal profession who will hold positions of importance in government, is that we have to recognize that the problems that we face now are of an altogether different order of magnitude than the ones that I thought were so serious just a few years ago. I'm not going to mince words. I have pretty strong views about this but let me just say it: As far as I'm concerned, the commitments to the rule of law-the commitment to the rule of law that binds us together as a people more than anything else, is under direct assault by the President of the United States every day.

I do not fault the men and women at the Department of Justice. For the most part, they are keeping their heads down and forging ahead. They are respecting the rule of law, they're resisting the President's demands and they deserve real credit. But with a few brave exceptions, leaders who are in a position to push back, leaders who are in a position to stand for something namely to stand for the rule of law are just silent and, make no mistake, that silence is not neutrality. We should all be able to agree that the rule of law is more than just a law of rules. What good is it going to be if we have judges who are going to apply the statutes according to the text if the integrity and the independence of the judicial branch, and the integrity of an independent law enforcement, and the public's confidence in those institutions, lies in rubble?

Virgil explains to Dante: "Well, these are the people who would not take a stand when they were living." And what Virgil explains to Dante is that "these people are forced to intermingle with that wicked band of angels, not rebellious and not faithful to God who held themselves apart." Then he explains why they won't even be admitted into Hell. Virgil tells Dante why they are stuck where they are: "loath to impair its beauty. Heaven casts them out." Heaven is not going to let these people in. They don't deserve it. "And the depth of hell does not receive them lest on their account the Evil Angels cloaked." In other words, even Hell doesn't want these people, because at least the people in Hell took a stand. They might have taken a stand for evil, but at least they took a stand. These people aren't even worthy of being in Hell. Far be it for me to presume to predict what fate awaits those who won't take a stand now, but the one thing I will say is it's not too late. So far, the rule of law in our country has absorbed these blows. Maybe shaking some, but it's absorbed these blows and it's still there and it's still standing. It's not too late. I think if there is one thing that all of us members of this profession and aspiring members this profession can take with us, it is the idea that, whatever our political differences may be, our policy differences may be, or our differences may be about how to interpret the Constitution and statutes, we all ought to be able to agree that we want to preserve the constitutional framework of the rule of law in which those disputes can take place honorably and in good faith and get worked out in the way they have in our history. My hope is that in the coming months, which I think are going to be a critical period, that our leaders will take a stand for the rule of law and I shudder to think what will be the case if I'm wrong.

I want to acknowledge, in closing, that this is not a new problem. My favorite author, Dante, was talking about this problem seven hundred years ago. I want to share a little bit of that with you. This is in The Inferno and it's just before Dante and Virgil, his guide, are going to enter through the gates of hell, and they come across this mass of wailing spirits. Dante describes them as, "unfamiliar tongues, horrendous accents, words of suffering, cries of rage, voices loud and faint, the sounds of slapping hands. All these made a tumult always swirling in that black and timeless air, as sand is swirled in a whirlwind." Dante says to Virgil, "Who are these people?"

"We should all be able to agree that the rule of law is more than just a law of rules." -- Solicitor General Verrilli to the Penn Law Review

Asking the Big Questions: The #MeToo Movement At moments of rupture and social change, Penn Law students are asking big questions and helping to shape a more inclusive global order that bends the arc of justice towards international cooperation. Throughout the semester, students engaged with each other at Student Salons at the intersection of race, gender, culture, and conflict. Social entrepreneurs like Meena Harris and Ally Coll Steel reflected on how a legal education prepares law students to create a new social enterprise and take on new challenges.

Myth Muriel Rukeyser Long afterward, Oedipus, old and blinded, walked the roads He smelled a familiar smell. It was the Sphinx. Oedipus said: "I want to ask you one question. Why didn't I recognize my mother?" "You gave the wrong answer," said the Sphinx. "When I asked, what walks on four legs in the morning, two at noon, and three in the evening, you answered, Man. You didn't say anything about woman." "When you say Man," said Oedipus, "You include women too. Everyone knows that." She said: "That's what you think." Higher Ground: Ethics and Leadership in the Modern University by Nannerl O. Keohane

#ME TOO

#MeToo Goes to Asia Radhika Saxena LLM â&#x20AC;&#x2122;19

s the world celebrated a year of the #MeToo Movement, the United States saw the confirmation confirmation of Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh. The hearings brought up familiar questions about sexual violence as did that of Justice Clarence Thomas a few decades ago.

Dr. Fordâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s testimony brought out the inherent power imbalances in society and highlighted the failure of laws in addressing sexual violence in such a world. At the same time, countries like India, China, and South Korea saw a resurgence of the movement, this time, with more women speaking up and even naming their harassers on social media. 58

At a time when the law school itself has been seized with a call for action by students for increased sensitivity to survivors of sexual violence through an open letter in the aftermath of the confirmation hearings, with encouragement from Professor Rangita de Silva de Alwis, Associate Dean of International Programs and the South Asian Law Students Association at Penn Law, students organized the first Transnational Feminist Salon for the academic year to engage in an informed discussion about the various issues in the current feminist discourse.

#MeToo goes to Asia was introduced by Professor Rangita, convened by Radhika Saxena LLM ’19, Farah Chalisa L ’20 and Athira Sivan L ’21 and saw participation by Clark Edmond L’19, Francesca Crooks L’19, Chad Leung LLM ’19 and Ranjani Jagannath LLM ’19. The session began with an introduction by Professor Rangita who spoke about the transnational ideas that the movement has provoked, its contextual adoption, growing men’s rights activism (“The Red Pill”) in response, and a brief background to the resurgence of the #MeToo movement in India by Radhika followed by a culturally diverse and intersectional discussion by the participating students. Athira Sivan and Farah Chalisa shared an Indian American perspective – the movement’s exclusion of women of colour, Clark Edmond engaged with the intersection of race and culture; Francesca Crooks spoke about hostile environments faced by women in metropolitan cities like London and sexual violence by asylum seekers; Ranjani Jagannath discussed the need to tackle internalized patriarchy; while Chad Leung shed light on the movement in China where speech and other aspects of private life are heavily regulated by the government.

Some of the issues addressed during the discussion were: - Organizing on social media – its advantages and limitations; - Internet censorship, consequences on the movement, and creative solutions; - Access to courts; - Activisim and litigation: finding a middle ground; - Backlash to the movement and men’s rights activism; - Laws (where they exist), implementation thereof, and social recognition of (legal or other) wrongs; - Patterns of behaviour – social conditioning, the difference between acceptable and unwelcome; - Gender-based stereotyping and cultural expectations – how they harm and perpetuate violence against women; - The (intersectional) nature of the movement: engagement with women of color, navigating the boundaries of race, class, and community, etc. The salon concluded with a discussion on the movement having exposed a need for inclusion, and human rights mechanisms being culturally blind. A need was expressed for laws to be culturally sensitive, context specific, and related to realities on the ground in order to bring about real change to the current reality, where violence against women is all too pervasive. In the ongoing #MeToo era, the Salon thus provided a safe space for students to deliberate about the #MeToo movement, its effects in Asia, the need for change, and ways in which the movement may catalyze to achieve them.

# ME TOO

The Legal System Has Failed Indian Women, But There Is A Way Forward

Indira Jaising, Bok Visiting Professor and one of Fortune's World's Greatest Leaders of 2018 Appeared originally on Bloomberg Quint

the #MeToo movement proves one thing, it is the failure of the legal systems in the country to deal with a legal injury of a woman who has been a victim of sexual harassment. Enough has been said about the reasons why women choose not to report the predatory nature of their supervisors at the workplace, and in case of #MeToo within Indian media, the editors within the newsrooms.

In response, they are told â&#x20AC;&#x201D; why have you not lodged an FIR; why have you not lodged a complaint with the Internal Complaints Committee; why had you not gone to court when the incident occurred? Often, the trauma which a woman who has been sexually harassed faces, prevents her from accessing courts at the time when the incident occurred.

It also prevents her from communicating the injury to her dignity and bodily integrity with her near and dear ones and her colleagues at the workplace. She carries the secret so deep down that it virtually reduces her to a being less than human. Tragically, the failure to report lowers her self-worth in her own eyes. When women do speak out, even if it is 10-20 years after the incident, they must be taken at face value, heard, trusted, believed — and be given the right to an investigation into their allegations. To report or not to report is an individual decision, and often depends on their emotional readiness to face the consequences. No two persons react to sexual harassment in the same way. Some may settle their scores publicly and instantly; while others may avoid the perpetrator altogether; still others may choose to resign from their workplace. Yet many may have no choice but to continue with the job for economic compulsions. The law requires a customized solution for each of these eventualities. Some of the women who have been outing their harassers want only an acknowledgement of the harassment. A declaratory acknowledgement in a duly constituted forum is a recognized form of justice. Yet others may or may not want prosecution. However, when it comes to rape and sexual abuse, the State is obliged to prosecute regardless of the survivor’s decision. In such cases, the issue that confronts the women happens to be the periods of limitation within which a court of law entertains either a criminal complaint or civil suit. In this context it is worth mentioning that the present government has taken a progressive step in suggesting amendments to the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, extending the period of limitation during which those who were sexually abused as minors can lodge a complaint, from 18 – the age of majority – up to the time when they attain the age of 25 years.

Once this is done, the government should make similar amendments to the law of limitations for filing complaints by adult women. While periods of limitation under Section 354A of IPC for sexual harassment is three years, it should ideally be three years from the date on which the woman is emotionally ready to file a complaint. It is worth noting that in case of rape or serious forms of sexual abuse, these crimes which carry a punishment of above seven years, have no period of limitation anyway. There is an associated problem in filing civil suits. Surely one way forward for women is to claim a huge amount of damages against the employer for having harbored sexual predators and having allowed them to get away with it. Here, the employers do not have the option to say that they had no knowledge — it is their job to be aware of the working environment in their enterprise. The legal problem here is that all civil suits require an exorbitant amount of court fees that a woman complainant would have to pay to make a claim of damages against her employer. This, too, has a simple legal solution. Several years ago, the State of Maharashtra had issued a notification exempting women from payment of court fees in relation to claims for violations of human rights and sexual violence against them.

"What is required is a commission of inquiry to inquire into the failures of the existing legal systems and the Sexual Harassment Act to prevent the happening of these incidents."

Women have been using the same to report sexual harassment, and successfully so. Similar notifications need to be issued by all states, exempting women from court fees in cases of sexual harassment and/or sexual assault against them, which will make a big difference in the number of reported cases of sexual harassment.

What is required is a commission of inquiry to inquire into the failures of the existing legal systems and the Sexual Harassment Act to prevent the happening of these incidents. This can be done by setting up a commission in which women and men have a legal/quasijudicial platform to tell their stories.

This brings us to the question whether there is sufficient understanding of what sexual harassment is at the workplace. It appears that there is no clarity on these issues despite detailed definitions in the Vishaka judgment (1997) as well as in the Sexual Harassment at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act (2013).

It is also necessary because such a platform would also give immunity to women from defamation suits being filed against them for coming forward and telling their version of sexual abuse that they suffered. It would simultaneously give a forum to the person against whom the allegation is made to come forward and place their side. The findings of such a commission cannot result in punitive action against the offenders, but can provide the space for women to speak their truth without fear of legal consequences. The recommendations of the commission may also end in major reforms of the law, helping prevent, or at least, significantly curb sexual harassment at workplace.

Creation of a ‘hostile work environment’ is a very serious form of sexual harassment at workplace. A hostile work environment is created when the workspace has a sexually charged atmosphere. This includes sexually loaded remarks being made by coworkers and supervisors in relation to a woman’s clothes or looks on a routine basis, misogynistic talk, and all-pervasive acceptance of sexual harassment as a form of entitlement, or part of the work culture. Any woman at the workplace, whether she has faced verbal or physical sexual harassment, can complain of a hostile work environment as a form of sexual harassment. In other words, any woman whether she has been personally sexually harassed or not, has the locus standi to bring a case. This takes the burden off the woman harassed who may have not had the necessary courage to bring it to the supervisors. A trade union or a workers’ union operating within the establishment can also raise the issue and file a complaint. We are in a situation where the allegations of sexual harassment are so pervasive — ranging from the judiciary, the legal profession, the newsrooms, the entertainment industry, academia, and politicians — that it would be counterproductive to deal with each case individually and see them operating within silos.

Therefore, what is required is wide-scale sensitization programs organized by the employers who must bear the responsibility of actively creating a non-hostile work environment for the employees.

Finally, the credibility of such a commission will depend upon the people chosen to head the commission. If they are not people in whom the aggrieved women can repose confidence, the women will not come forward to give evidence. After all the Verma Commission was able to inspire confidence in women â&#x20AC;&#x201D; more than 2,000 persons submitted from all over the country their depositions to the commission.

Periodic workshops on prevention of sexual harassment and how to address it without fail, familiarization of the employees with the Sexual Harassment Act by inviting experts from the legal field to give presentations, regular monitoring of supervisor behavior via feedback loops, creating a truly gender-equal workplace where abuse of positions of authority is not only frowned upon but actively prohibited, etc are some of the ways that would go a long way in striking sexual harassment at its root, and carving out a safe and happy work environment.

At the end of the day no law can end sexual harassment at the workplace, so long as it is considered an entitlement by people in positions of authority. The employers will tolerate sexual harassment at workplace, so long as there is impunity for the board of directors of the corporate sector, and sexual harassment will continue to exist. When it came to the board of directors of TERI, very eminent members on the board turned a blind eye to sexual harassment by RK Pachauri, and woke up rather late only after women were out on the streets demonstrating against him.

"When women do speak out, even if it is 10-20 years after the incident, they must be taken at face value, heard, trusted, believed â&#x20AC;&#x201D; and be given the right to an investigation into their allegations. To report or not to report is an individual decision, and often depends on their emotional readiness to face the consequences."

# ME TOO

What Feminism Means to Emerging Women Leaders at Penn Law Shane Fischman L’19, Allyson Reynolds L’19, Teresa Akkara L'17 & Leah Wong L’17

International Programs has created multiple platforms including blogs and podcasts for student conversations on inclusion and transnational feminism. The following excerpts are from the inaugural blog series launched on Gender Equality Day to mark the 98th

anniversary of the 19th Amendment.

Through student conversations, the series on the Global Affairs Blog served as a platform to advance knowledge about gender through the voices of emerging women leaders at Penn Law. The following student conversations reflect their thinking on the relationship between gender and power, and the responsibility of women’s leadership to make a difference for all women of the world. 64

Allyson on Intersectional Feminism "Intersectional feminism, to me, is about inclusion and representation. Intersectionality was originally conceived as a response to the exclusion of black women’s voices in the mainstream feminist movement, which failed to recognize that many women are unable to separate their racial identities (and corresponding experiences of oppression) from their gender identities. If we are the sum of our experiences, it is impossible for us to prioritize which parts of our identities are most worthy of acceptance. Intersectionality recognizes the struggles of women who have not only been oppressed on the basis of gender, but also on the basis of some combination of race, sexuality, class, physical ability, language, nationality, age, and appearance. It’s the idea that there is no “one” feminism.

To acknowledge that women carry varying degrees of societal privilege is to understand that the women’s rights movement cannot follow a unidimensional “one size fits all” approach. If systems of oppression are intertwined, intersectional feminism suggests that systems of liberation must be connected as well. For me, intersectionality seeks to achieve gender equality for all women by amplifying the voices of the most marginalized, encouraging women to listen to one another, and pursuing a maximally inclusive framework." Shane on Feminism in the 21st Century Historically, leadership in a social movement was limited to those who were socially poised to take the mantle, or who were trained and educated in the field. But things are different now; social media has democratized feminism, allowing everyone to have a voice and to amplify their own voices. It minimized the barriers that have separated communities, and lowered the bar of entry to leadership. The audience is broader, the community larger. However, because social media expanded the size and scope of the feminist community, many women don’t feel a need to raise their own voices, assuming, instead, that the responsibility has been embraced by others. The twenty-first century has endowed us with the tools to make a profound impact on politics, society, media, and the corporate world. Movements that have garnered national attention make us think that issues like sexuality and women’s rights are being “taken care of.” We forget that the feminist movement is not only #MeToo– the feminist movement is the cumulative efforts of our individual stories. It is our personal fight and our personal victories. We cannot wait for other people to fight the wage gap, or for other people to make grander waves in fighting sexism. Every victory in the feminist movement was won because of women who showed up and demanded their rights. We need to maintain the audacity of previous generations and we need to not be timid. Forgetting our individual worth is the greatest risk to the feminist movement.

Leah on Female Leadership There are a lot of spaces that continue to need female leadership. But I don’t want to fall into the “liberal feminist” category of only supporting gender equality or women through legal reforms and aspirations of leadership. Gender oppression is complex and not everyone can just “lean in.” Sometimes, I feel like when I’ve taken on leadership positions, because of my passions or interest, it’s seen as some statement and it’s really just survival. When I was deciding what to get involved in at school, it wasn’t so much that I needed to make a statement about female empowerment, but more that I wanted to serve my school or country one day as a female, make decisions that I think would include my experiences, my needs, the communities I care about. I think we’re lucky to be in higher academia, where, for the most part, I don’t feel like my peers are actively or unconsciously trying to undermine my leadership as a woman. But something I’m acutely aware of is to make sure that I don’t try to “lead like a man”, and just be the most possible me in any role I’m in. Especially if I intend to continue leading in various roles in my career, my taking up space will be increasingly unconventional, because despite women graduating from higher academia more, we still aren’t filling the ranks of leadership as we deserve to be. So I’m really grateful for opportunities in school life to solidify my leadership style around empathy, building genuine relationships, a very nuanced thoughtful balance between diplomacy and active resistance. The important thing is not to lose or temper my different lived experiences, but always bring them to the table because it is what makes me unique as a leader. Whether that’s as a woman, person of color, first generation college student, I think it’s just important to lead with the full expression of my experiences, including the shared ones of the communities I represent.

# ME TOO

How My Legal Education Makes Me a More Effective Social Entrepreneur

Ally Coll Steele, President and Cofounder of the Purple Campaign, engages Penn Law

n January of this year, I left my corporate law job to launch the Purple Campaign.

This non-profit organization's mission is to end workplace sexual harassment by implementing stronger corporate policies, establishing better laws, and empowering people to create lasting change in their own workplaces and communities. I co-founded the organization with Jessica Patterson, a techindustry leader with experience at several rapidgrowth startup companies in Silicon Valley. Over the past year, weâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;ve employed our combined expertise to build a diverse coalition to advocate for public policy and workplace policy change in response to #MeToo. 66

I worked for about six years in politics and public policy before attending law school -- so my initial assumption upon leaving my job as a BigLaw litigation associate was that Iâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;d rely more heavily on my prior work experience than on my legal education in my new venture as President of the Purple Campaign. But while I no longer spend my days doing document review or preparing trial exhibits, I have been surprised by the extent to which my law degree -- and perhaps more importantly, the analytical framework it has provided me with -- is vital to the work I do at the Purple Campaign on a daily basis.

Since the #MeToo movement took off last October, there have been dozens of stories about sexual harassment in almost every news cycle, and new events continue to develop every day. It would be impossible -- and likely ineffective -- for the Purple Campaign to weigh in on every policy issue or proposed reform that arises in real-time. In order to prioritize where we spend our limited resources, I am therefore continuously issue-spotting current events to assess whether they present a unique issue, or implicate one that is central to our policy agenda. If so, I then analyze what kind of impact we might be able to have on the issue, and make a determination about whether pursuing such a course of action is a wise use of our limited resources. The recent Supreme Court confirmation proceedings over Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination provide a good illustration of how issue-spotting informs my policy work. When Justice Kavanaugh was nominated over the summer, I worked with our legal fellow to conduct a comprehensive analysis of his prior opinions on workplace sexual harassment. I then surveyed the legal research to assess whether his positions implicated key issues on the Purple Campaign’s policy agenda. I ultimately concluded they ultimately did not do so sufficiently to justify using our limited time and resources to weigh in on the nomination at that time. In mid-September, when allegations of sexual misconduct surfaced about Kavanaugh, I was forced to re-evaluate the question of whether to weigh in on the nomination in light of the new developments. I determined that the Senate Judiciary Committee’s refusal to conduct an FBI investigation into the allegations made by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford implicated a key fairness and process issue that is central to the Purple Campaign’s policy agenda -- on both the public policy and workplace policy fronts. As a result, I decided to invest my time and Purple Campaign resources into weighing in on the issue, which I did by writing an OpEd on the subject for PBS NewsHour and communicating about the issue to our supporters via email and on social media.

"Issue-spotting is just one example of the many legal and analytical skills I use in both my policy and entrepreneurial work." As the President of a nascent organization, I find that I am often issue-spotting in my managerial and entrepreneurial hats, too. As a new nonprofit organization, the Purple Campaign is subject to various federal and local regulations that require us to file regular reports about our activities and establish certain corporate governance procedures. Because my time is often pulled in many different directions, I find that I am continuously issue-spotting to prioritize the administrative issues that require my prompt attention, and to identify those that can be delegated to others or are less timesensitive. As an entrepreneur, I also find that it has served me well to proactively issue-spot questions that donors or prospective partners might have about our programming during a pitch. This skill has allowed me to demonstrate my ability to proactively identify and address tricky issues before they become a problem, which in turn increases investor confidence in the organization. Issue-spotting is just one example of the many legal and analytical skills I use in both my policy and entrepreneurial work at the Purple Campaign. I also have learned to appreciate the role of precedent-setting in both establishing internal processes and in deciding our positions on substantive policy issues. In assessing which policy issues to advocate for, I also often find myself channeling the role of a judge or juror, in order to objectively weigh the evidence and balance the competing interests on both sides of the equation. The experience overall has taught me to appreciate the many dimensions of my law degree -- and to think creatively about how I can use them to have the greatest possible impact on an issue I care deeply about.

# ME TOO

Amplifying their Voices: The Next Generation of Women Leaders

Reflecting on her involvement with the UDHR, Eleanor Roosevelt once said, â&#x20AC;&#x153;I became more of a feminist than I ever imagined.â&#x20AC;?

In Their Own Voice: Penn Law Women Speak

Within my firm, we had a lot of meetings with female partners and female associates to talk about opportunities for women within the firm. I think what I would really focus on are structural changes to make sure that women can stay and move up through the ranks. So, things like: access to great child care, maternity leave, opportunities for flex time, all of those things that make women stay. Attrition is not in any way due to women not wanting to be in positions of power, or not being able to hack it. There are all of these other structural barriers and so, I think, for me, what I look for in a firm and what I hope to provide when I am hopefully in a position to do so later on, are those structural support systems that help people stay and help people thrive.

Penn Law launched a new podcast series on December 10, in honor of the 70th anniversary of the UDHR and its founding mother, Eleanor Roosevelt. The following is a segment from Allyson Reynolds' L'19 interview of Meredith Christian L'19. Q: Have you given any thought to what it means to be a feminist in the legal profession? A: Yes, this summer was interesting, especially because I feel like it was at a moment when a lot of people were talking about [feminism]. 68

Q: What are your thoughts on what it's been like to be a female law student in this era of #MeToo, the Kavanaugh hearings? A: The Kavanaugh hearings were like sitting in a soup of disappointment, where the second they started, there was a recognition that there was no good ending. Nothing good can come of this. And, of course, nothing good did come of it. I think that I would have been a lot more, ‘black-and-white, this man should not be on the court,’ before attending law school. One thing that my experience in law school and interning for a federal judge did for me was that I care a lot more about process now than I did before law school. Having the process, having integrity and it being respected and upheld by all parties is really important to me now in a way it wasn't before. I think there are a lot of things you can say about Republicans' disrespect for process in the Supreme Court, but I am not a fan of the mentality that, 'they did it first, so we'll do it now.' One thing I was a little uncomfortable about with the Kavanaugh hearings were the protests that were disruptive to the process. I was disappointed in a lot of the feminist coverage of the Kavanaugh hearings for that reason. While I agree that I did not want him on the court for any number of reasons, I also thought it was really important to respect how those hearings should have gone down. For example, I was not one who was thrilled to see Margaret Atwood-inspired protests with women in red robes and white hats. I know why people like to see stuff like that. I completely understand and sympathize; but to me that was disappointing. What law school did was complicate my feelings in a way that, on one level, is deeply uncomfortable. I have a lot of cognitive dissonance about it, but, on another level, I'm really grateful for it because I think complexity in the gray area is really lacking from our discussion of politics and feminism at the moment. I think injecting that back in, while uncomfortable, is really worthwhile. 69

Meena Harris At a time in history when the public conversations were focused on the unfolding Kavanagh hearings, we brought to Penn Law Meena Harris, the well-known political campaign-manager, lawyer, tech entrepreneur, and Commissioner for the San Francisco Commission on the Status of Women. In 2016, she launched the Phenomenal Women Campaign. This t-shirt based initiative was inspired by her favorite Maya Angelou poem – “I’m a woman. Phenomenally. Phenomenal woman, That’s me.” Meena Harris engaged in a fireside chat with Ally Coll Steele the founder of the Purple Campaign, a movement built on the heels of the #MeToo movement. In conversation with Penn Law’s students, Meena Harris urged the next generation of leaders to engage fully and deeply in the political and public sphere: “Even if it’s not your full time job or career. Thanks to digital platforms and other tools, literally anyone can start a movement.” “This global reckoning- this is not an isolated movement, it is a global movement. I believe we are witnessing history. People like us, not CEOs or politicians, but students, future lawyers, and business leaders, ordinary people going about our business can drive progress.”

"It is the inbetween space that carries the burden of the meaning of culture, and by exploring this Third Space, we may elude the politics of polarity...." â&#x20AC;&#x2022; The Location of Culture, The Location of Culture, Homi K. Bhabha, Homi K. Bhabha, Harvard University

Student Leaders: A Seat at the Table Penn Law students engage their peers in critical conversations addressing current global legal challenges and have created new forms of discourse through student salons. These salons provoked difficult conversations and asked probing questions. Student salons included conversations on cosmopolitanism, cultural relativism, and issues of identity politics. Exciting new research opportunities with the UN and The World Bank expand these conversations and broaden the global horizons of Penn Law students. A novel series of student letters written from LSE highlight the value of a cosmopolitan legal education.

A SEAT AT THE TABLE

Unpacking Identity Politics and Hybridity Seun Adekoya LLM’19

The following piece corresponds to the Student Culture Salon, "Plural Identities and the World Cup Against the Backdrop of Recent Revisions to the French Constitution," In July 2018, a commission of lawmakers working on the revision of the French Constitution unanimously agreed to remove the word “race” from the founding text of the French Republic. The revision was unanimously adopted by the National Assembly. Seun Adekoya LLM ‘19, a British Citizen of Nigerian origin and a graduate of Cambridge University, led an August salon at Penn Law. 72

Against the backdrop of the recent removal of “race” from the French Constitution, Seun examined some of the broad themes of hybridity (Homi Bhahbha) and cosmopolitanism (Anthony Appiah), to unpack recent debates on identity narratives. On a July 2018 episode of the Daily Show, Trevor Noah responded to a letter he received from French Ambassador Gérard Araud, that criticized him for congratulating Africa on France’s World Cup victory. In this piece, Seun Adekoya LLM'19 uses this as a starting point to reflect on his own identity.

Secondly, this video shows that two multi-ethnic, cosmopolitan nations can have completely differing conceptions of diversity and how individuals see themselves as members of the collective. The French nation is founded on universalist republican ideals and the notion that citizens are simply citizens, not collections of ethnic or religious groups. The sense that collectives of individuals can gain influence by virtue of their background goes against the ideal that all citizens are equal before the state.

revor Noah’s video, though full of inconsistencies and loopholes, raises interesting and pertinent issues: those of duality, hybridity, and hyphenated identity. Firstly, we can consider the personal hybrid identities that are emphasized in the video. The players can be French and African (or more properly from whichever state in Africa they originate), but surely they only won the World Cup for France: they learned to play football in France,

On the other hand, in the United States, hyphenation is ubiquitous. African-Americans, Irish-Americans, Native-Americans, the list continues. This seems to result in greater flexibility and recognition to subcultures within a wider American context. It is possible that the US has endorsed official multiculturalism as a means of trying to reconcile racial tensions, as stated by Vox.

French money was poured into the state-of-the-art facilities in which they trained. Does this mean the players are more French than African? It clearly depends on the context. There is a further question of who gets to decide, surely the player themselves? But sometimes it is not so simple. A few weeks ago, my mum picked me up from the airport. This was a time, during the World Cup, at which the English still thought that ‘football was coming home’, so of course football dominated the discussion. At one point she asked which football team would I support if England were playing Nigeria. At any other time, I would have known the right answer that my Nigerian mum would like to hear, Nigeria. But in a moment of sluggishness and jet-lag I said that I would be torn between the two countries. At which, she let loose and claimed I was denying my Nigerian-ness, that she was disappointed and so on.

Trevor Noah argues that assimilation, in the name of integration, of the French liberal tradition may strip people of who they are and their pride of a community. Do you agree? Further, is it better to focus on what unites us, as the French do, or the factors that separate us as the Americans do? This leads into a general critique of American ‘identity politics’ which prevents the nation from being able to celebrate its differences and prevents liberalism from being the unifying force it ought to be. However, if you remove identity politics from liberalism, you might remove the concerns of the marginalised from the view of politics.

She conceptualises me as a Nigerian first and foremost, but she gave birth to me in London, where I have lived all my life, where all the milestones of my life have occurred. A new Lebanese friend said he thought I was the most British person he had ever met, but he will not hear me my call my grandma by her first name, nor see me forget to bow to her when I greet her. Nigerian practices and values have been instilled in me since birth, and I would not be me without them. I am clearly British, but British plus. The converse is also true, Nigerian plus. And I don’t think I can be any more precise than that. 73

It is interesting to see that two conceptions converge in the treatment of unwanted immigrants, whether illegal or legal. This group is considered by many an unwanted ‘other’ with little hope of assimilation, integration or hyphenation. This contradicts the acclaimed cosmopolitan values that these states hold dear. Cosmopolitan theorists like Kwame Appiah argue that such values include no recognition of an other, as all humans belong to a single community connected through shared minimum values. This is an ideal we should not be sluggish in aspiring to.

A SEAT AT THE TABLE

Brexit as a Symptom of a Shift in Culture Saratu Kitchener LLM'19

In September, Penn Law hosted a student-led salon, which brought together Bok Visiting International Professor Michael Lobban and Visiting Scholar Andrea Tosato to share their insights on the Brexit debate

At a time of uncertainty, this critical global conversation debated the political, economic,social, and cultural challenges that Brexit poses. Two British academics engaged in conversation about the cleavage in the U.K. between young and old, urban and rural, and other divides. Michael Lobban is Professor of Legal History at the London School of Economics and a Fellow of the British Academy. Currently, he is a Bok Visiting International Professor at Penn Law.

Andrea Tosato is an Assistant Professor of Law at the University of Nottingham and an advisor to the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs in matters of international intellectual property and international commercial law. Currently, he is a Visiting Scholar at Penn Law. The following piece was adapted from moderator Saratu Kitchener's introduction to this discussion.

t is a time to redefine British identity.

We are at a time of increased social division in Britain. And the people have called for their national identity to be recast in a way that fosters greater British solidarity. They ask for the inclusion of those left behind by the immigration policy, deindustrialization and financial markets at the centre of the European project. The question is, are we only able to achieve this mandate by the exclusion of others and a return to nationalism? Or does the future offer an alternate solution? The vote by the British people to leave the EU is perhaps the most significant event in Europe since the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. Read – as many commentators have done – as a protest against the economic and ideological models that have been in place for the last three decades, it is an important inflection point in British, European, and even global history. I would like us to frame the discussion today by looking at ‘Brexit as a symptom of the return to the order and security afforded by Nation State Primacy’. Brexit has signaled a shift away from the neoliberal cosmopolitanism that emerged in the late 1970s, diminished the role of nation states and fueled the rise of powerful supra-national institutions and free market economics. Brexit has challenged the assumption that globalization is inevitable. It is a reminder that the global market economy was created by the assent of the people, and that it can be shaped and qualified by present and future political decisions made at the national level. Now if the vote to leave the EU reveals a desire to return to the order and security of Nationalism, by the same token, it must require us to limit some of the core freedoms that underpin globalization. The most notable of the freedoms being limited is the free movement of persons and human capital though immigration. 75

In the wake of terrorist attacks from ISIS, Turkey’s looming EU membership, and Merkel’s decision to welcome Syrian refugees, the freedom of movement rights extended to all accession states by Blair in 2008 are levelling a serious physical and cultural challenge to Britain’s national boundaries. When we recall that the right to defend one’s borders by the exclusion of others is – for better or worse – at the heart of what it means to be a sovereign nation state, we see how easy it is for decisions like this to be perceived as eroding national identity and obscuring the nation state itself. Another is the rejection of the global economic model of a free market by those who feel that it has failed to deliver on its promise to generate widely shared prosperity. Leave voters – mainly inhabitants of the Northern deindustrialized regions, were left behind by a global financial industry led by elites. Contrary to the EEC’s promise of strong economic growth, the age of globalization has been characterized by high unemployment, shrinking European economies and financial markets that lost their legitimacy in 2008. Britons have been confronted by a sense that jobs, living standards, and the welfare state – in particularly the NHS – were all better protected in the heyday of nation states. Mind you, this is not a British phenomenon. With the Trump Presidency, it is also a concern here in the US. Lastly, there is a sense in which the return to nationalism requires a rejection of the concept of ‘equal sovereignty’ at the centre of international law. We have seen the economic autonomy of African and Asian nation states played down by the more elderly "leave" voters in discussions about post-Brexit trade. Their imperial nostalgia has led to the fantasy of the nations of the old empire “queuing up” to sign trade deals with the country that once ruled them.

A SEAT AT THE TABLE

Blasphemy Laws in Pakistan: Suppressing Free Speech Across Time and Space M. Noman Quadri LLM'19

"You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place or worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed - that has nothing to do with the business of the State."

In November, Penn Law hosted a Student Salon on the issue of misuse and abuse of religion as a political tool in Pakistan focusing on Blasphemy Law.

-- Muhammad Ali Jinnah, Founder of Pakistan

The following piece is a brief summary of Noman's remarks at the event.

LLM student, Noman Quadri led a discussion on the history of the Blasphemy Law in Pakistan, and how it has become a tool to suppress freedom of speech and silence the voices of dissent in the society.

lasphemy Law is highly discriminatory in nature, which goes against the vision

presented by the founder of Pakistan, Muhammad Ali Jinnah. These laws criminalize any disrespect or attempted disrespect of Muslim Holy Prophet Muhammad and the Muslim Holy Book Koran and provide for death penalty and life imprisonment respectively. Introduced in the Indian SubContinent by the British in 1860 through the Indian Penal Code, the Blasphemy Laws initially criminalized an intentional harm to a place of worship and malicious acts to outrage religious feelings of any class. The Indian Penal Code was adopted by the newly formed country, Pakistan and was renamed Pakistan Penal Code. During 1980s, the military dictator in Pakistan, General Zia-ul-Haq, in his attempt to appease the religio-political parties and to Islamize the laws in Pakistan, added multiple sections in the Pakistan Penal Code to add more offenses and punishments such as Section 295 (B) and Section 295 (C).

The Blasphemy Law is often misused, and false allegations are leveled against individuals to settle personal scores. The issue has become very sensitive and the accused are often killed by angry mobs even before a penalty is awarded by the courts. Attempts to amend the Blasphemy Law are met with strong opposition in the country, and those leading campaigns for reforms in the Blasphemy law are threatened and harmed. A sitting Provincial Governor and a Minister were killed for advocating for reforms in the Blasphemy Law. Lawyers representing the accused have also been targeted. In 2010, Senator Sherry Rehman in Pakistan initiated a private bill in the parliament to amend the Blasphemy Law which was met with a backlash resulting in her party withdrawing the bill and Ms. Rehman facing death threats. I actively led a civil society campaign for reforms in the Blasphemy Law supporting the bill presented by Ms. Rehman, and as a result, faced threats of dire consequences. Even though the law is still active, the authorities and courts in Pakistan have recently taken strict action against misuse of Blasphemy Law. In a landmark decision in October 2018, the Supreme Court of Pakistan acquitted an accused, Aaisa Bibi and later the authorities cracked down on the religiopolitical party leadership for inciting violence and hate speech.

A SEAT AT THE TABLE

Building International Cooperation: Penn Law Signs MOU with LSE

In a first of its kind agreement, Penn Law and the London School of Economics and Political Science Law Department will facilitate a program for Penn Law JD students to spend the fall semester of their third year enrolled in LSE Lawâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s LLM (Master of Laws) program. This agreement offers students a course of study in law from different perspectives, jurisdictions, and disciplines, while providing a unique opportunity for our students to engage with peers from all over the world and a faculty with a well-deserved global reputation for excellence. 78

Penn Law students will enjoy an unparalleled intellectual experience at LSE Law and will remain inspired throughout their legal careers by LSE scholars. Located in the heart of London, LSE Lawâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s LLM offers the highest quality of teaching in small group seminar settings provided by leading international and UK academics. Their approach to the teaching of law combines views and experiences from different disciplinary traditions and jurisdictions, ensuring that what students learn at LSE Law is relevant to legal study and practice in any jurisdiction.

“Students selected to study at LSE Law will have the opportunity to build global peer networks while studying at one of the most prestigious academic institutions in the UK, in the heart of London." -- Theodore Ruger, Dean of Penn Law

“This is a historic agreement for the LSE Law department. We are delighted to be entering into partnership with the world-renowned Penn Law. We anticipate a long and fruitful relationship, furthering excellence in both research and study abroad.” -- Jeremy Horder, Head of Law Department at LSE

The first Penn Law student at LSE, Shane Fischman L'19, began her term at LSE in October 2018. The following are a few of her 'Letters from London.'

October 15, 2018 Dear Rangita, LSE is going really well. I've been going to some interesting events here as well. There was a panel last week on global extremism, and tomorrow I'll be attending an event on the Muslim Brotherhood and Gulf Monarchs. On Monday mornings I have a class on International Criminal Law: Prosecution and Practice, and one of the tribunals we covered today is the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL). While discussing hybrid courts and the STL specifically, a couple of us got into a very interesting discussion about the nature of justice. The STL was created by international law, but it applies domestic law. They were tasked with investigating a political assassination, yet political assassinations have historically been an occupational hazard. The international community's insistence on establishing the tribunal was obviously seeped in regional political concerns and balancing Iran against Saudi Arabia, but this double standard begs the question of international law's jurisdiction. The investigation was delayed by two years, the trials didn't begin until 2009, and they were still occurring this summer. And Hezbollah, the source of this investigation, has only benefitted by these delays. In the course of these years, they've managed to redefine themselves as a political party, and transform from a terrorist cell and Iran's puppet into a bedrock of Lebanese politics. Because the process stagnated, the guilty had plenty of time to escape and/oror get killed, which is ironic considering the investigation started with an assassination. 79

(continued from prior page)

“Through these Penn Law students, LSE Law will influence the legal profession, government, and academia in the U.S. This agreement is forged at a time when these transnational partnerships are more important now than ever before."

The pursuit of justice often causes political problems, just like political problems often launch a pursuit of justice. However, in this case the international community capitalized on a norm (be it a morally repugnant one) and used it as a guise to regulate regional rivals. Constantly walking out of class with these questions on my mind has been one of the greatest benefits of studying at LSE this semester. I hope you don't mind me sharing these thoughts with you. Best, Shane

-- Rangita de Silva de Alwis, Associate Dean for International Affairs at Penn Law

November 11, 2018 Dear Rangita, The power of war is not the evil it pledges to destroy, but the peace, tranquility and community it births. And the lessons it continues to teach for centuries after. England is a country of tradition, and while in America we give our respects to tradition by embracing change and promising a better future, tradition and history are the sole bearers of the lessons from the past. Remembrance Day is a testament to our duty to listen and adhere to the voices of the generations that sacrificed their today for our tomorrow. As someone who has devoted so much time and energy to these lessons, I wanted to share these thoughts with you— thank you for everything. Regards from London, Shane

Today was Remembrance Day, a communal commitment to the power of collective memory. It’s often uncomfortable being an interloper on a national day of commemoration— at best, you’re a spectator to the emotion of others. But today, I felt moved and encouraged by London’s sentiment. Like the war they were commemorating, the day’s meaning transcended borders, because as an American, and moreover as a citizen of the world, there was a message for me. The eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month, the end of the Great War, marked the birth of the League of Nations, a new world order that, though it failed, was regenerated from the ashes of World War II in the UN -- the world order governing state actions today. It was the beginning of the promise that we, as people, have both rights and duties to live better, do better, and be better. 80

December 3, 2018 Dear Rangita,

My final paper in my Comparative Constitutional Law class is far more theoretical—in evaluating whether a written constitution is inherently antagonistic to fundamental rights, I conclude that the written constitution, with it’s ability to be amended, is the requisite continuation of the reconciliation between natural and written law. This week, I'm handing in a paper for my theory of human rights law class on whether judicial review is undemocratic. This semester in London has been a truly remarkable experience. I have learned so much: from my use of force class, I actually was able to edit the legal section of my paper arguing for a new definition on the law of war. I submitted that paper to the Journal of International Law comments competition and it was accepted for publication. None of this would have been possible without your advocacy on my behalf! Thinking of you in London, Shane

I hope everything is going well! I know I haven’t been in touch in a whil., I've been a bit consumed with my final papers, but I’m writing about some very interesting legal topics and I wanted to share some clips with you. So far, for my Use of Force Class, I wrote a paper discussing how terrorism, rather than being a new phenomenon as pundits have insisted in the wake of 9/11, is a centuries old military technique, reappearing over the years in various iterations. But the policy exercised by governments against terrorists, and the law governing this policy as states, seeks to respond to terror threats by nonstate actors in foreign territory, has not only evolved but has become considerably less constraining in the past fifteen years. For my International Criminal Law class, I wrote a paper on whether the Prosecutor should recommend an ICC investigation into the case with Palestine and Israel, and whether this investigation would constitute lawfare.

A SEAT AT THE TABLE

New Student Research for the United Nations and Intergovernmental Institutions

Whether interning with the ICC, or working with UNDPâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s largest rule of law mission, Penn Law students are being given unique training in research on the rule of law. The following are two new opportunities that will be available to students in 2019.

Strengthening the Rule of Law: Research with the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial and Summary or Arbitrary Executions; Special Advisor to the President of Columbia University The most recent rule of law project focuses on work with Dr. Agnes Callamard, Director of Global Freedom of Expression and Information and Special Adviser to the President of Columbia University. Dr. Callamard is also the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions.

Pursuant to Human Rights Council Resolution 35/15, the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions (“Special Rapporteur”), Dr. Agnes Callamard, has initiated the preparation of her next thematic report to the Council. The report will consider questions arising in the context of the use of force by law enforcement and other state officials against persons with psychosocial and/or intellectual disabilities, including in places of detention. The report will be presented to the 41st regular session of the Council, scheduled to take place in June 2019. The Special Rapporteur is particularly interested in laws, regulations, protocols, policies, guidelines, as well as educational, training and outreach programs which have shown to have positively contributed to improving practices regarding the interactions between law enforcement and persons with psychosocial, intellectual, or developmental disabilities. The ultimate goal is to identify steps and standards that may contribute to the elimination of or decrease in violent incidents between law enforcement and persons with disabilities, and the elimination of or decrease in fatalities. The research methodology will include examining state party reports to the ICCPR and the CRPD Committees and the treaty body jurisprudence on these issues. Penn Law students will work with the Special Rapporteur on her thematic report to the Human Rights Council.

Strengthening the Rule of Law and access to justice through independent fact finding for the IDLO Funding from Chubb will enable Penn Law students to deepen their engagement with International Development and Law Organization (IDLO), in developing the twin pillars of access to justice and independence of the judiciary. A core pillar of IDLO’s work focuses on strengthening the capacity and integrity of institutions to deliver justice and uphold people’s rights.

Its Africa Initiative, launched in Dar es Salaam in June 2017, further seeks to foster the rule of law and development by supporting regional networks and partnerships on access to justice in East Africa. Working together with the IDLO office in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, Penn Law Students will visit Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania and/or Uganda. The students will conduct field research and gather qualitative data on access to justice in East Africa. This fact finding mission will be directed by IDLO and will include interviews with judges, prosecutors, public defenders, justice department officials, court officials, and legal services providers and clients on a range of access to justice indictors including: court structure, judicial appointments (high court and lower courts), conduct of service and tenure, dismissal, suspension and retirement, freedom of expression and association, training of judges, availability of legal services, separation of the executive/ judiciary/legislature, linkages between national judiciaries and the East African Court of Justice, and mechanisms to strengthen linkages between formal and informal systems, including truth commissions. Goal 16 of the Sustainable Development Goals, which underscores the importance of justice for peaceful and inclusive societies, lays out the importance of an independent and efficient judiciary to deliver justice to citizens. Despite important steps, the judiciaries of East Africa continue to be hindered by impediments that block access to justice within the region. The qualitative research will be measured against the OHCHR's Basic Principles of the Independence of the Judiciary and will feed into a Report on Access to Justice in Africa and the longitudinal research conducted by IDLO on the strengthening of access to justice and independence of the judiciary in East Africa. The recommendations by IDLO will be presented to the East African Court of Justice and will identify gaps in access to justice and will constitute an important turning point for the strengthening of access to justice and the independence of the judiciary in East Africa.

Penn Law Faculty: Global Thinkers Crossing Borders, Crossing Boundaries The Global Affairs Review talks to faculty global thinkers and mines the impact of their work on the global policy agenda in crossing borders and pushing boundaries. Whether looking ahead to the Fourth Industrial Revolution or looking to the past to Dante Alighieri's Inferno, these conversations reveal the majestic sweep of the law and its relationship to disciplines ranging from classical literature to emerging technologies.

The Thinker by Piotr Kotlicki by Piotr Kotlicki 85

GLOBAL THINKERS

Eric Feldman on Supporting the Next Generation of Transnational Legal Scholars Q: You forged Penn Law's partnership with Stanford Law School on the International Junior Faculty Forum (IJFF) held at Penn Law in 2016. What is the mission of the IJFF? A: The International Junior Faculty Forum (IJFF) was established to stimulate the exchange of ideas and research among younger legal scholars from around the world. The IJFF is designed to foster transnational legal scholarship that surmounts barriers of time, space, legal traditions and cultures, and to create an engaged global community of scholars.

Q: You have spent much of your academic career mentoring international legal scholars. Tell us about your continuing work with the IJFF. A: The host institutions are committed to intellectual, methodological, and regional diversity. The forum welcomes papers from all parts of the world. Harvard Law was an original partner of the International Junior Faculty Forum. I continue to work with Stanford Law on the IJFF, and was part of the supervising faculty in 2018.

Deputy Dean for International Programs Professor of Law; Professor of Medical Ethics & Health Policy 86

GLOBAL THINKERS

Border Crossings and Boundary Crossings: Beth Simmons's Seminal Study on Border Walls Across Time and Space Andrea Mitchell University Professor in Law, Political Science and Business Ethics

Q: In a time of highly contested debates on walls, your scholarship on state presence at international border crossings around the world examines the impact of these borders on the community and the world. Tell us more about the project? A: I am working on a project that attempts to document and explain the paradox of hardening international borders between states in an era of globalization. I use satellite imagery to document evidence of state presence at international border

crossings and the location in time and space of border walls and fences around the world. My goal is to write a book probing the politics, economics, and social anxieties behind international border â&#x20AC;&#x153;thickeningâ&#x20AC;? and to understand the consequences for development, trade, violence, and crime. My research also informs contemporary accounts of border rules, which must increasingly adapt to needs for cooperative modes of border management.

GLOBAL THINKERS

Chuck Mooney on Shaping International Norms and Treatybody Jurisprudence

Charles A. Heimbold, Jr. Professor of Law

Q: How do you bring the important policy work you help shape to the classroom? A: I continually use examples from substance, context, and negotiations in the classroom for IBT and secured transactions. I draw on these international negotiations as well as having worked extensively on law reform projects in the U.S.

I have been more extensively involved with UNIDROIT over the past 32 years, having worked on the Leasing Convention, Cape Town Convention and Aircraft Protocol, and Geneva Securities Convention, as a member of study groups and then on USG delegations at meetings of government experts and four diplomatic conferences.

Q: Tell us about your work with UN Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL)? A: I have headed up an NGO delegation for the International Insolvency Institute at the Working Group VI (secured transactions) meetings twice a year in NYC and Vienna since 2011. We completed work on a supplemental legislative guide on registries, then the Model Law on Secured Transactions (approved in 2016), then a Guide to Enactment (approved in 2017),and will complete work on a Practice Guide in 2019.

Since 2014, I was on the study group for the Cape Town Convention 4th protocol on Mining, Agricultural, and Construction (MAC) equipment, and then at two government expert meetings on USG delegation (where I chaired the drafting committee). Now there is a diplomatic conference scheduled for November 2019 in Pretoria, South Africa to finalize the MAC protocol, at which I will be on the USG delegation.

Reginah Mhaule, South Africa's Deputy Minister of International Relations and Cooperation, opens the MAC Protocol workshop 88

GLOBAL THINKERS

Regina Austin on Imagined Boundaries and Borders - Prison Walls as a Metaphor Subject to Negotiation and Imagination Q: Your seminal research examines the contributions of visual criminology to the portrayal of the lifers who participated in your video project. This border crossing research and pedagogical approach brings new insights to criminal justice. How can we use this methodology in furthering the boundaries of international criminal law? A: I do qualitative research using visual anthropological techniques; visual criminology is an aspect of that. The representation of the lifers themselves in the video “Second Looks, Second Chances” reflected their participation in the production of a visual text capturing their lived reality of serving life in prison without the possibility of parole.

William A. Schnader Professor of Law

Borders and boundaries are constructed by cultures that embody the dynamic impact of colliding and intersecting material, social and political realities. I have written a piece about borders. The lifers with whom I worked lived on a border in that they had to reconcile the need to build a life within the constraints of prison walls on the one hand, and the longing for freedom and connections on the outside, on the other hand. A prison wall is a metaphor, subject to negotiation and imagination. My next project will involve collecting oral histories from persons who were incarcerated with Reginald McFadden, Pennsylvania’s Willie Horton, who “escaped” by conning his way to obtaining an executive commutation, only to kill two people and rape and kidnap a third. Because of him and how politicians viewed him, other lifers have been unable to obtain commutations; the border that is a prison wall has in essence turned to stone. 89

GLOBAL THINKERS

Cary Coglianese on the Threats to a World Order and International Cooperation Edward B. Shils Professor of Law Professor of Political Science; Director, Penn Program on Regulation

Q: The world order continues to face a wave of political pressure and that has challenged international cooperation. The COP 24 UN Climate Conference in December managed to save the landmark 2015 Paris climate accord, but as Poland's Minister for Engergy said, "the deal hangs in fragile balance." At the cusp of a new year, what are the new threats to international cooperation that you envision? A: The new threats appear as manifestations of the longstanding, deep-rooted challenge of securing international cooperation over a global commons problem: it is costly for countries to pay to avoid environmental harms and make transition from reliance on carbon-based energy sources. The newest threats to international cooperation take the form of robust, even virulent, populist movements that have emerged in countries around the world. For example, the recent “yellow vest” movement in France shows all too well the public resistance that political leaders in many countries fear. The emergence of anti-global populism around the world is likely to slow climate progress, even at a time when scientists fervently warn of the urgent need for global action. Q: Can you tell us the how your new scholarship on “Planning, Populism, and the Paris Agreement: The Paradox of a Management-Based Approach to Global Governance” addresses central issues of global governance? 90

A: In my forthcoming article, I apply what we know about domestic applications of the governance strategy at the heart of the Paris Agreement to assess the agreement’s prospects of success. The Paris Agreement’s main strategy, sometimes called “pledge and review,” has a direct parallel in the management-based regulations that governments around the world have adopted to address a range of domestic policy problems, from food safety to workplace safety. The good news is that managementbased regulations have been shown to be effective to a degree in addressing some domestic policy problems. But the bad news is that even when they are effective, their effectiveness can be short-lived. Moreover, the progress that a management-based regulation can make will in many cases derive solely from incentives other than the regulation itself. What this means for climate change is that, even though the forging of the Paris Agreement signaled an important, historic breakthrough in international cooperation, the agreement itself—even with its new “rulebook” adopted in Poland at COP 24—will likely not provide the significant impetus needed to motivate costly changes in energy use. Instead, strong and sustained domestic political pressures will be needed in countries around the world. Significant climate progress will thus likely require the emergence of globally-oriented, proactive populist action in the United States and other nations in order to counter provincial, reactive forms of populism that have recently taken root.

GLOBAL THINKERS

Herb Hovenkamp on Global Antitrust and the Future of Work Q: What is the future of work in the US and the world? How is your scholarship, research and teaching, helping to prepare a new generation of leaders to take up those challenges? The future of labor depends on a number of policies to protect labor bargaining power. The returns to labor have fallen far behind the returns to capital, particularly in the United States. Of these corrective policies, antitrust is only one component. But it has a special role to play with respect to (a) company mergers that threaten to suppress wages; (b) cartel agreements (“anti-poaching”) that induce firms not to bid for one another’s employers; and (c) labor noncompetition clauses that reduce labor mobility without offsetting legitimate protections for an employer’s investment.

James G. Dinan University Professor

Q: Tell us how your work is helping to shape a new global order. A: The thrust of my recent work in antitrust is to further a vision of antitrust that emphasizes maximum output consistent with competition. This will ordinarily benefit consumers and also help labor, because high output leads to greater employment. It does entail some tolerance for very large firms, however.

GLOBAL THINKERS

Christopher Yoo on the Internet of Things and Debiasing the Outputs of AI

John H. Chestnut Professor of Law, Communication, and Computer & Information Science; Director, Center for Technology, Innovation & Competition

Q: Your work is helping to shape a Brave New World, tell us about it. A: Of the seven billion people in the world, roughly half still are not connected to the Internet. The 1 World Connected project is surveying and assessing innovative projects to bring more people online to find out what is working and what is not to put decisions on a sound empirical foundation. We are also studying the impact that connectivity is having on such key development goals as health care, education, gender empowerment, financial inclusion, food security, and economic growth. Trust has also emerged as a key issue in the Internet. I am the Principal Investigator on National Science Foundation grants designed to improve the security of Internet routing and to enhance the security and privacy of the emerging Internet of Things, with a particular focus on autonomous vehicles and medical devices.

Q: On the cusp of the fourth industrial revolution, what is the future of work in the US? A: One of the key questions about the automation associated with what many are calling the fourth industrial revolution center on its impact on employment. The jobs in this new economy will require higher levels of digital literacy than were previously required. One line of my research is evaluating the effectiveness of different approaches to digital literacy. I am also one of the principal conveners of a Penn-wide initiative called Algowatch that is developing ways to evaluate whether the outputs artificial intelligence-based decisions exhibit bias as well as explore ways to correct that bias. Increasing workplace reliance on AI will make understanding and compensating for any such biases increasingly critical.

Bill Burke-White: Global Agenda Setter

GLOBAL THINKERS

Q: PWH is no longer in its infancy, how will you grow in the next year? A: In the next year, Perry World House will launch and expand several new programs.

Burke-White is the Richard Perry Professor and Inaugural Director, Perry World House; Professor of Law Q: Tell us how Perry World House (PWH) serves as a global hub for the university A: Perry World House’s mission is to bring the academic knowledge of the University of Pennsylvania to bear on some of the world’s most pressing global policy challenges and to foster international policy engagement within and beyond the Penn community. Perry World House is a center for scholarly inquiry, academic research, international exchange, policy engagement, and public outreach on global policy issues while at the same time, it serves as a dedicated institution to educate the Penn community and to prepare students for an increasingly globalized society. Q: Tell us how PWH is helping to amplify new ideas and legal doctrines in the university community and the global community The Global Innovation Program at Perry World House advances research and policy impact in both the university community and the global community and translates academic research into tractable policy impact. Our approach is, first, to convene interdisciplinary conversations that bring together the worlds of policy and academe and, second, to facilitate and generate impactful research projects that influence policy making in global affairs. Under the rubric of the Global Innovation Program, Perry World House has two inaugural research themes—The Future of the Global Order: Power, Technology, and Governance and Global Shifts: Urbanization, Migration, and Demography, both of which promote the examination of international law and legal regimes.

In May 2018, Perry World House launched a new series meant to get its conversations and scholarship directly into the hands of those making and influencing policy in the nation’s capital. In Perry World House’s new Washington Briefs, scholars, practitioners, and policymakers from Penn and elsewhere discuss the latest developments on some of the most influential topics in global affairs. Thus far, two briefs have been held and attracted dozens of reporters, congressional staffers, executive branch officials, and think tank scholars. Perry World House also seeks to support, engage, and connect with the leading emerging scholars in global affairs and formative moments in their careers. To that end, each year the Global Lightning Scholars program will bring a pretenure scholar from a leading research university around the world to join Perry World House and the Penn community for a semester or full academic year in residence in Philadelphia to produce a major research project or book. In addition, in Spring 2018, Perry World House established a course enrichment grant program to build bridges between classes in the Penn curriculum and the world of global policy. The grants, with support from Carnegie Corporation of New York, will allow Penn faculty to make a course more policy-relevant by supporting the design of a new course, curricular redesign of an existing course, guest speakers from relevant policy communities, the development of policyoriented case studies, or other creative connections with the policy world. 93

GLOBAL THINKERS

Stephen Morse on the Relationship Between Art, Literature, and the Law

Ferdinand Wakeman Hubbell Professor of Law; Professor of Psychology and Law in Psychiatry; Associate Director, Center for Neuroscience & Society

Stephen Morse edited the English translation of “The Fifth Line,” a work of art theory and criticism by the Dutch artist and critic, Steven Aalders. Aalders, who is the son of a Dutch clergyman, has a deeply spiritual (although not religious) approach to art and life. The book is designed by Irma Boom, one of the leading book designers in the world. Q: How can we understand the role of art and literature in defining the human experience? A: In a very loose but nonetheless illuminating sense, plastic arts can be like what the English child psychiatrist, DW Winnicott, called ‘transitional objects,’ which allow the mind to fluctuate between internal and external reality. They can be both a source of creativity and a mental resting place. Art can also excite the senses with sometimes ineffable but unmistakable effects. I collect works that may fairly be described as rigorous but bold. That’s also how I like to think about the work I do. Literature also has the loose aspect of a transitional object, but great literature fills the inevitable gaps in our limited human experiences. Law is about arranging how we live together. Literature teaches us truths about psychology and interpersonal relationships that even the most excellent social science scholarship will treat superficially or miss altogether. As I work on my scholarship and teaching in criminal law, mental health law, and law and neuroscience, I am always looking for external sources of inspiration and relaxation. Plastic art and literature have always filled that need. 94

Q: Art has inspired and fascinated legal scholars like you; Can you tell us something about your recent scholarship on Aalders? A: I collect Aalder’s work and the work of many Dutch artists. Aalders asked me to edit the English translation of the book for him. It was a great deal of work, but it was a labor of love because Aalders is exceptionally intelligent and erudite. I recognize that it’s not much about law, but it has influenced the way I look at the world and has influenced my thinking. Q; Can you understand legal texts by reference to methods of literary interpretation, analysis, and critique? A: Some years ago, with law professor Clayton P. Gillette of NYU, we edited the text and scholarly notes of parts of Purgatorio and all of Paradiso in the translation by Robert and Jean Hollander. Bob is an emeritus, eminent Dantist from Princeton and Jean is a professor of poetry and published poet. This translation is considered by many to be the gold standard for modern English translations. The scholarly notes are unparalleled in English. This work, too, has influenced my thinking and scholarship. There is life outside the law that can influence legal scholarship in subtle and profound ways. I am a great fan of George Eliot, and often read passages from her work to my classes. There is hardly a page in her novels that does not contain a nugget of elegantly expressed observation that takes my breath away by its insights. Dante, a pre-modern, has created a work whose metaphysics is quite alien to the modern view, but his characters are our fellows.

GLOBAL THINKERS

Jean Galbraith on the Diplomatic Powers of the President and Congress Q: What is your recent scholarship on Foreign Relations Law? A: I attended the Yale-Duke Foreign Relations Law roundtable at Yale Law School. This is an annual invitation-only roundtable convened by Curtis Bradley, Oona Hathaway, and Harold Koh.

Professor of Law

I presented an early stage paper on how the diplomatic powers are divided between the President and Congress as a matter of constitutional law. My article considers the President’s diplomatic powers and makes new contributions. First, it unpacks these powers and shows them to be four interrelated powers – the power to represent the United States, the power to determine content, the power over agents, and the power over information – and shows how much greater their significance is today. Second, it shows that far from being uncontested, there is considerable congressional practice contesting them, including a fair amount of presidential acquiescence. Finally, it makes practical suggestions for collaborative diplomacy, identifying three ways that Congress could appropriately do more: through bargains, regulation of conduct in international organizations, and control over administrative diplomacy.

Galbraith serves as co-chair of the interest group on 'International Law in Domestic Courts' for the American Society of International Law (ASIL). The group organizes an annual gathering to workshop the draft papers of members. In December 2018, the ASIL workshop was hosted at Penn Law.

GLOBAL THINKERS

Claire Finkelstein Reflects on Key Questions of Ethics and the Rule of Law

Algernon Biddle Professor of Law and Professor of Philosophy; Director, Center for Ethics and the Rule of Law

Q. In a time of unprecedented political upheaval, CERL's leadership and values are now more important than ever before. Can you please elaborate? A: In recent years, I have recalled John Adams’ defining words, “a government of laws and not of men,” too many times. Since 9/11, the growth of the national security state has brought with it an increasing struggle to maintain the legal and ethical boundaries surrounding executive authority, boundaries that help to define and protect democratic governance. In the current political landscape, debates about the scope of presidential power in our democracy have taken on particular importance, and there is a sense that the rule of law is under greater threat in the U.S. than at any time since the Civil War. In 2019, these debates are likely to accelerate, as a divided Congress does battle over fundamental aspects of civilian leadership and the president continues to press an unprecedented vision of the powers of his office in the face of growing threats to his legitimacy and authority. Increasingly, it appears that every aspect of democratic governance will be tested and every institution pressed to the limits of what it was designed by the framers to bear. Questions such as whether a sitting president may be indicted, whether the president’s pardon power under the constitution allows the president to pardon himself,whether the president may use emergency powers to fund and build a border wall, will be contentiously debated and may even find their way to the U.S. Supreme Court in the coming weeks or months. 96

Will our democracy withstand these pressures, and will the country’s confidence in the rule of law be restored? CERL’s work examining threats to the rule of law and defending democratic governance, particularly in the context of urgent national security imperatives, will play a role in helping to safeguard it. CERL’s mission is to protect and preserve ethics and the rule of law in national security, armed conflict, and democratic governance. CERL brings together academics, government officials, and practitioners to expose and analyze, at the highest levels, new and evolving threats to the rule of law, and to provide guidance to policymakers and raise public awareness of these critical issues. We will continue our mission in 2019 as we examine the limits of executive authority, the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) and its effectiveness in curtailing foreign interference, and other laws and policies through the lens of ethics and adherence to the rule of law.

Sarah Paoletti on Family Separation at the Border & Detention Conditions Q. You were at the forefront of the migrant and refugee crisis and showed that what you do locally matters globally. Tell us what you did? A. As family separation and the crisis at the U.S.Mexico border has made national and international headlines, the Berks Family Residential Center just 90 miles from Penn Law continues to operate as the only family detention center outside of Texas. Parents are held with their children – often having been separated from the other parent – for weeks, sometimes months, while seeking the right to apply for asylum before an immigration judge through a process called 'expedited removal,' whereby an asylum officer determines – through a telephonic interview, with the assistance of an interpreter who also often appears telephonically – whether the parent and/or child has a credible fear of persecution on account of one of the five enumerated grounds set forth in the law. While immigrants have the right to be represented by an attorney in all immigration proceedings, the government is not required to provide an attorney or funding for an attorney, so the right remains elusive for those detained far from urban centers, particularly when hearings may be held within days of the initial detention. The Penn Law Transnational Legal Clinic traveled to Berks County in October to spend a week providing pro bono legal representation and counsel to the immigrant families detained that week – preparing them and representing them in their initial 'credible fear interviews', while also providing counsel and representation to individuals appealing their 'negative credible fear determinations' before an immigration judge, appearing via video-conference. 97

GLOBAL THINKERS The clinic students also assisted with 'requests for review' before the asylum office. They ultimately contributed to the release of the majority of clients represented, all of whom have since been reunified with family members across the United States while pursuing their claims for asylum. The intensive, full-time immersion experience gave the students unique insights into the multitude of hurdles asylum seekers face, challenged them to elicit detailed narratives from the clients about what led them to flee their homes, and to provide legal counsel to the clients and to advocate for them in complex – often opaque – legal proceedings. Looking beyond Pennsylvania, the Clinic continued its partnership with Project South, based in Atlanta, to pursue an official Communication sent to various U.N. human rights monitors addressing detention conditions in Georgia, where three detained immigrants had died within a year of each other. We also also partnered with Project South and Freedom University on a second communication to the UN addressing the Georgia Board of Regents’ ban on all undocumented students – including those with DACA status – from receiving in-state tuition rates for any state institution of higher education, and restricting, altogether, their access to the competitive institutions of higher education. As the Trump Administration vocally absented itself from the drafting process of the Global Compact on Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration and stated its refusal to adopt the Compact, the Transnational Legal Clinic continues to teach students how their clients’ experiences are linked to the forces of globalization, while also working towards the domestic realization of internationally established norms, while engaging them in lawyering that crosses cultures, languages, and legal systems.

GLOBAL THINKERS

Jacques deLisle on a Changing U.S.-Sino Relationship

Stephen A. Cozen Professor of Law & Professor of Political Science; Director, Center for East Asian Studies

Q: As a renowned Sino-US scholar, What are your thoughts on a changing US-China relationship? A: The US-China relationship has entered a new and difficult phase. In policy circles on the US side, what had once been a consensus in favor of engagement has shifted relatively suddenly to a mindset that the relationship is increasingly one of rivalry. Some of the reason for this is structural: the rise of China as an economic and, in turn, strategic power, particularly relative to the United States. This creates a classic pattern of the previously dominant power becoming more wary of the rising power and the newly rising power chafing at the constraints of an international order (including its legal aspects) that the rising power sees as not adequately reflecting its inputs, interests, and preferences. Other parts of this story are more substantive and case-specific: the relatively fundamental differences in “system type”—political, legal, ideological, and so on—between the Unites States and China. In such circumstances, clashes of interests and preferences are likely to be all the stronger, and we are seeing that in the US-China relationship today. Still other sources of the troubles are more contingent and "of the moment": frustration in the US that nearly 40 years of engagement with China have not produced the political—or even economic —systemic changes that had been hoped for and, too often, promised by proponents of engagement; rising nationalism and economic nationalism in 98

both countries (particularly since Xi Jinping became China’s paramount leader and since Donald Trump became president in the United States) —something we see reflected in, among other things, the escalating trade war and accusations on each side concerning the other’s malign agenda on matters ranging from economic policy to national security. Approaches to foreign policy on both sides that have become more strident and hostile. This is not to say that a new cold war—or a worse form of conflict—is inevitable, but we are likely in for a long period of greater friction and suspicion that will show up on many fronts, including wrangling over international institutions (including legal ones) that have been central to the postwar international order and that have become increasingly distrusted (albeit for different reasons) by the current leadership in both Washington and Beijing. Q: What is the focus of your current research? A: Much of my work focuses on China’s engagement with the international legal and political orders, especially in areas relating to “sovereignty,” broadly defined. I continue to work on: Taiwan’s international status and China’s, the U.S.’s, and Taiwan’s approaches to those questions; legal and political aspects of the South China Sea disputes; and China's approach to international human rights. I also work on questions of domestic legal change in China, including the general chapter on law for one of the more widely used books on Chinese politics (just revised for 2019), and articles and chapters on “authoritarian legality” in China (and elsewhere in Asia) and several more specific aspects of law’s public regulatory functions in China.

GLOBAL THINKERS

Shyam Balganesh on the Contested Spaces of Intellectual Property and Inclusive Development in India Professor of Law

I will be teaching the Seminar with Bok Visiting International Professor Shamnad Basheer. Basheer is a leading public intellectual in India. Primarily a scholar of intellectual property and innovation law, he is the architect of the influential IP blog (SpicyIP), and worked extensively with India’s government and courts to craft and shape India’s IP policy in various areas. In 2014, the Supreme Court of India invited Basheer to intervene in the Novartis case, India’s internationally-known case on pharmaceutical patents. We will travel to India during Spring break and students will have exposure to India’s leading IP lawyers and legal scholars. Moreover, students will engage in independent research, including qualitative and quantitative data collection for the final research papers.

Tell us about the Global Research Seminar (GRS) you are planning to teach in the Spring of 2019? This Global Research Seminar will introduce students to the most current intellectual property debates and controversies currently playing out in the Indian legal system. In each of these controversies, India has sought to balance its national priorities against trade-related international pressure and market-based considerations, often producing a delicate compromise in its legal rules, norms, and institutional enforcement. What makes the Seminar unique? Over the course of the semester, class sessions will examine five critical issues: patent law and access to medicines; copyright law and educational access; geographical indications protection for indigenous manufacturing; the Indian approach to protecting traditional knowledge; and the protection of plant varieties and farmers’ rights. For each of these topics, the discussion will focus on the doctrinal issues involved, the unique institutional settings for them, and the success/ failure of the attempted resolution.

"Justice Ginsburg... urged us to take up the central issues afresh-to focus on what role law can play in empowering women in all corners of the world.." -- Judith Resnick, Yale Law School

100

Penn Law on the Global Stage Strengthening International Norm Creation Penn Lawâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s higher moral purpose calls upon international programming to inform global public policy, critical debate, and advocacy. Essential to our mission is an understanding of law and legal systems around the world, vigorous inquiry, and advancing the ideals of justice globally.

101

ON THE GLOBAL STAGE

Penn Law on the Global Stage Broadening our impact; Strengthening International Norm Creation

Rangita de Silva de Alwis at World Bank

Through engagement with the World Bank, multilaterals, and business leaders, Penn Law’s International Programs is helping to shape the global conversation and policy agenda on gender equality.

At this tipping point in history, do lawyers, law schools and law students have a higher moral role to play in addressing the shameful legacy of gender discrimination in every community and country?

In the last year, global movements for gender equality– from marches to powerful grassroots organizing and viral social media campaigns, such as #MeToo and #TimesUp in the United States and other countries– have galvanized the world’s attention like never before.

Law schools train the next generation of lawyers, leaders and advocates and help inform the laws and policies that shape the lives of women and men in their countries. 102

Law schools, by virtue of their very mission, must stand up against injustice everywhere. Along with governments, and civil society networks, law schools have a role to play in the profound legal, political, and social changes that are unfolding around the world. In the 21st century, gender discrimination in law remains widespread; according to IFC research, 155 of the 173 economies covered have at least one law that challenges womenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s economic opportunities. There are over 900 legal gender differences across 173 economies. In 100 economies, women face gender-based job restrictions. In 18 economies, husbands can legally prevent their wives from working. However, a powerful new movement that transcends borders and boundaries is driving women to connect, mobilize and lead like never before and law schools must join this global effort.

Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) At a closed-door roundtable with CFR members, Associate Dean de Silva de Alwis addressed raising the age of marriage and influencing the European Unionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s foreign policy directives on child marriage. Cited was the recent Bangladesh Child Marriage Restraint Act of 2017 signed into law by Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina last year. The law significantly increased the punishment for contracting or conducting child marriage. However, it includes a provision in Section 2(10) of the law that undermines the spirit of the law reform: "Within the definition of the law will not be considered an offense if the marriage takes place in special circumstances in the best interest of the underage woman in question."

Union, in the context of its foreign policy and its development cooperation policy, to offer a strategic pact to its partners and to that end require that all its partner countries prohibit early and forced marriage in law and practice. The EU has a critical role to play in influencing policy reform both in the EU member states and outside. The EU and many of its member states contribute significant amounts of development cooperation to countries with high rates of child marriage. However, it is important for the EU to acknowledge that law reform itself can be complicit in undermining the prevention of child or forced marriage. The Resolution points out that in order to comprehensively tackle early and forced marriage, the European Union, as a major actor in global development, must play a leading role.

EU Development Days Associate Dean Rangita de Silva de Alwis was asked to advise the European Parliament on its foreign policy directives on combating early child marriage. She spoke at the EU Development Days with Princess Mabel van Oranje on how EU foreign policy and development cooperation can be an effective tool in raising the age of marriage in compliance with international norms.

Co-opting the primacy of the best interest of the child principle as set out in the Convention of the Rights of the Child, helps the government to legitimize child marriage in a way that the principle was never envisioned. The Draft Resolution "Toward an EU external strategy against early and forced marriage" was unique in the way in which it called on European 103

Rangita de Silva de Alwis speaking on the EU Foreign Policy Directive on Child Marriage at the EU Development Days in Brussels.

UNESCO’S Gender Views: The Legitimization of Gender Inequalities through the Rule of Law

UN Secretary-General Marks the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women

On November 19, the UN marked the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women at the Trusteeship Council Chambers at the UN Headquarters. It also commemorated the UN Secretary-General’s UNiTE Campaign to End Violence against Women.

During an October session of Gender Views at UNESCO Headquarters in Paris, Associate Dean Rangita de Silva de Alwis described the global mapping of family laws conducted as part of Penn Law’s Global Women’s Leadership Project on behalf of UN Women and UNESCO. The mapping identifies provisions in national laws that are inherently discriminatory against women based on a broad range of indicators including inheritance, employment, property, and land ownership, among others. In her presentation, Associate Dean de Silva de Alwis recognized that while some laws are openly discriminatory towards women, others are causing gender inequalities in more indirect ways and are more difficult to identify and reform. In addition, she acknowledged that legislation can be overly protective of women and therefore unequal in preventing women’s access, for example, to employment.

Associate Dean Rangita de Silva de Alwis served as moderator of the opening remarks for the commemoration, where speakers described how their sector is playing a pivotal role in the response to violence against women and girls. In reflection, she stated, “One of the unique features of the commemoration is the UN’s commitment to the role of law enforcement in ending violence against women and girls in private and public spaces. This local-to-global focus at the UN will bring critical perspectives from the UN, Member States, and including for the first time, a local law enforcement agency – the New York Police Department (NYPD). The “violence against women” movement is perhaps the greatest success story of international mobilization. However over 35 percent of women across the world face violence during their life in what the World Health Organization (WHO) calls a 'global health problem of epidemic proportions.'

United Nations General Assembly Side Event: “Lessons learned and promising practices to end sexual harassment in the workplace” In honor of the one-year anniversary of the #MeToo movement, the United Nations General Assembly convened a gathering of individuals from various sectors to reflect on successful practices in ending sexual harassment in the workplace, gather lessons learned, and identify pathways to prevent and respond to sexual harassment while providing support to victims and holding perpetrators of sexual harassment accountable. At this watershed moment, Associate Dean Rangita de Silva de Alwis served as a panelist on the “Global overview of effective interventions”, on which she highlighted new developments in sexual harassment lawmaking around the world. Despite new developments in lawmaking, structural inequalities deter the actualization of these laws. 104

Rangita de Silva de Alwis at UNESCO in October

Women Leaders Global Forum

On November 28, Rangita de Silva de Alwis, the University of Pennsylvania Law School’s Associate Dean for International Programs served as a Conversationist at the major international summit, the Women Leaders Global Forum in Reykjavik, Iceland. De Silva de Alwis moderated a high-level roundtable event titled

“Power

Together,”

featuring

the

participation of several women heads of state and other world leaders, including Prime Minister of Serbia Ana Brnabić, Katrín Jakobsdóttir, Prime Minister of Iceland; Amal Al Qubaisi, President of the Federal National Council of United Arab Emirates; and Nicola

Introducing the Secretary General's Campaign to end violence against women at the United Nations Trusteeship Council

Sturgeon, First Minster of Scotland.

Word Bank Law, Justice, and Development Week 2018 A fireside chat with Rangita de Silva de Alwis and UN Women explored direct and indirect discrimination against women in family laws from around the world, specifically, the law’s power to construct marriage relations and shape women’s inferior status in the family, which can be both subtle or direct. Notions of a woman’s “honor,” “shame,” and “obedience” are intimately tied to the way in which the law constructs those concepts.

This extraordinary roundtable addressed the means by which women leaders can accelerate progress toward peaceful societies, at a time when the global focus is on fractures, chaos and violence. In addition, at the summit de Silva de Alwis facilitated the Reykjavik Declaration, a document which will be signed by the women world leaders and which aims to rededicate their commitments to solving some of the pressing challenges of the 21st century, including threats to multilateralism, extremist violence across the globe, and xenophobia.

High Level Working Group on Women's Access to Justice

As part of the High Level Working Group on Women's Access to Justice, Associate Dean Rangita de Silva de Alwis worked with UN Women's Executive Director, Phumzile Mlambo Ngcuka, the Director General of IDLO, Irene Khan, and the General Counsel of the World Bank, Sandie Okoro, on identifying the policy imperatives for women's access to justice at The Hague offices of the IDLO. Rangita de Silva de Alwis with Vigdís Finnbogadóttir, former President of Iceland and the world's first democratically directly elected woman president, at the recent Women Leaders Global Forum in Reykjavík. 105

Lauren Owens, Assistant Director of International Programs, was awarded a June 2018 Fulbright IEA Fellowship (for U.S.-based International Education Administrators) to engage in an intensive field-based study of Japan's higher education system, society and culture. The related briefings, campus visits, and dialogue with government officials built upon Penn Law's strong relationships in Japan, and gave space for a critical analysis of the new wave of highereducation globalization initiatives underway in Japan, aimed to developing a more globally aware and skilled citizenry. Important new projects and research will come out of this endeavor.

Captions for photos clockwise: Owens at the Fulbright Office in Tokyo; Owens with Mariko Bando, President and Chancellor of Showa Women's University. Bando was the first Director-General of the Japanese Cabinet Office's Gender Equality Bureau and is a pioneering advocate for women's rights in Japan; Owens pictured with other members of the Fulbright delegation

Elise Luce Kraemer, Executive Director of Graduate Programs, was a speaker on the â&#x20AC;&#x153;Pathways to Qualifications: Regulators and the Rule of Lawâ&#x20AC;? panel at the International Bar Association meeting in Rome this past October. Lord Keen of Elie, Advocate General for Scotland and spokesperson for the Ministry of Justice in the House of Lords, moderated a discussion about the overhaul of the qualification framework for lawyers in various jurisdictions. The conversation also touched on how regulators are addressing the rapidly changing practice of law as ever more diverse career opportunities emerge and alternative business structures disrupt the traditional landscape. Elise shared an overview of recent changes to the New York Bar Exam and how those changes influence legal education.

twitter.com/pennlawintl law.upenn.edu/international/blog/