Amal Alamuddin and her work

I do think George's name has alleviated her status. Her firm did announce their engagement and who's work would do that. The life of a barrister, like most self employed people, is you can been busy one minute and have no work the next. So it could just be she is between cases at the moment. A barrister isn't like a lawyer where is a 9-5 Monday to Friday job. You actually can have weeks free at a time. And if an emergency case came up, it can jus be referred elsewhere within her chamber.

Agree. She has plenty of work waiting in the wings.......and she's with a very high-profile forward-thinking chambers I think.

And by announcing the engagement that way meant that there was absolutely no doubt. They didn't jump the gun. They were obviously asked to do it - and were probably then able to get on with their work!

LizzyNY wrote: If she weren't engaged to him would anyone be trumpeting what a wonderful, committed attorney/humanitarian she is?  

 Yes, they would.  She's a rising star in her field.  

The only difference is that if she weren't engaged to George the people trumpeting what a wonderful, committed attorney/humanitarian she is would be the publications that write about lawyers and legal stuff and human rights.  Not the mainstream media.  

To be honest, I don't really know how to respond to this comment.  You surely can't expect the press to not want to write about the future wife of one of the world's biggest film stars?  Not photograph her? Not be interested in what she's doing?

Butterfly wrote:. But I don't think it's fair to glorify her like she is the embodiment of perfection.

Show me even one article where anyone has said she's the embodiment of perfection.  You can't because no one has.  What you're misunderstanding is that the only things we've read about her so far have been the good things she's done; her achievements, her successes.  That's not to say she doesn't have any failings but as they aren't obvious and she's not been that public, it's only the good stuff that we're seeing right now.  Every journalist expects their readers to understand that they aren't giving a comprehensive in depth review of every facet of her personality and just because a lot of what she's done has been laudable that doesn't mean that she's perfect in everything.  Surely that's obvious?

I'll tell you what is unfair: that you're now going to hold her responsible for things other people have said about her (that you've then interpreted as meaning she's totally perfect with no flaws) that she's had no control over. The media has painted her as a high achieving lawyer - they haven't said she's perfect. I'm 100% sure they're grubbing around now trying to find the dirt about her, and as she's only human, they'll find it. And when they do, you'll leap on it and scream "I told you she wasn't perfect" even though she's never said she was and didn't ask anyone else to say it about her.

Butterfly wrote:Also, I dislike how the media celebrates her success much more than George's. He is completely overshadowed by her. This is not fair.

 She's had three weeks of favourable news coverage versus more than 20 years of coverage of George's doings and that's not fair?  Really?  

What she's achieved is a big deal.  

ace wrote: Her firm did announce their engagement  

 No they didn't.  When asked by the media - which had already been running the engagement story - they said they were delighted for her.  They didn't announce anything.  In fact, nobody's made an announcement yet.  Nick and Nina confirmed the story, just as Amal's firm confirmed it.

Why would I "hold her responsible for things others have said about her"? Obviously, I am not. I am simply saying I don't like the media coverage. And no, I WILL NOT be happy if the media finds something negative about her either. My heart is more beautiful than that.

I simply expressed my personal opinion, which I am entitled to on the basis of freedom of the speech.

Butterfly wrote:Why would I "hold her responsible for things others have said about her"? Obviously, I am not. I am simply saying I don't like the media coverage.

Ok, fair point but I know that there are others on this forum who are holding the coverage against her, blaming her for being perfect when she clearly can't be and who will be gleefully pointing it out when she puts a foot wrong. As she will do.

I'm also stating my personal opinion in the spirit of free speech.

Amal has proven herself in her arena, she needs not to prove anything to Hollywood or fans. Why would she need to, if she never goes back she leaves on a high, to start a new chapter in her exciting life.

Prof Olympia Bekou of [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], Amal Alamuddin, Rodney Dixon & Dr Federica Gioia [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— Hemi Mistry (@HemiMistry) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Current Trends in International Criminal Justice: Courts, Cases and the Rule of Law

Thursday 22 May 2014 17:30 to 19:00

Location
British Institute of International and Comparative Law, Charles Clore House, 17 Russell Square, London WC1B 5JP

Participants
Panellists

Amal Alamuddin, Doughty Street Chambers
Professor Olympia Bekou, University of Nottingham
Dr Federica Gioia, International Criminal Court
Chair

Rodney Dixon QC, Temple Garden Chambers
International criminal justice is growing into a very complex, but increasingly functioning international legal system. In addition to the central role of the International Criminal Court, a number of other courts and tribunals - such as ad hoc tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Sierra Leone and Lebanon - supplement the judicial component of international criminal law. The purpose of this seminar is to explore the network of international criminal courts, their case law, and their importance for the advancement of the rule of law at the international level.

Part of the seminar will be dedicated to a launch of the book, recently published by the Institute:

'Contemporary Challenges for the International Criminal Court'
(Co-edited by Dr Andraž Zidar and Professor Olympia Bekou)

This book will be introduced by Iain Macleod, Legal Adviser, Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

The seminar will be followed by a drinks reception.

This event is convened by Dr Andraž Zidar, Dorset Senior Research Fellow in Public International Law.

Click here to download the flyer.

Pricing and Registration
Members:
Individual £40
Full-time Academic £25
Full-time Student £15

Non-members:
Individual £70
Full-time Academic £45
Full-time Student £25

N.B. The Academic rate also applies to staff of government and non-profit organisations.

Thanks Jenn, nice to see her in action again.   

Nice that even non members could have attended

Thanks Jenn for this article interesting.

Although justice works "if there's robust advocacy on both sides", the unfortunate truth is it takes tremendous courage and even personal sacrifice to advocate on the side of the disadvantaged in any society. Being a human rights lawyer in its true sense could be very depressing and certainly would not pay well.  
 
A law firm is a business in the first place, and consistently choosing to defend high-profile or rich suspects is a business decision.  It would be hypocritical to paint it as something more than that. It also seems naive to think of public international law as if it has nothing to do with domestic and international politics and of the players in that field (including lawyers) as if they are only working to promote justice at the global level.

I believe Amal has been doing her job as a trained legal professional in the field of international criminal law and has been implementing the business decision made by her chambers, which is probably also in accordance with her own preference. It's not noble, but it's normal.

jusquatoi2014 wrote:Although justice works "if there's robust advocacy on both sides", the unfortunate truth is it takes tremendous courage and even personal sacrifice to advocate on the side of the disadvantaged in any society. Being a human rights lawyer in its true sense could be very depressing and certainly would not pay well.  
 
A law firm is a business in the first place, and consistently choosing to defend high-profile or rich suspects is a business decision.  It would be hypocritical to paint it as something more than that. It also seems naive to think of public international law as if it has nothing to do with domestic and international politics and of the players in that field (including lawyers) as if they are only working to promote justice at the global level.

I believe Amal has been doing her job as a trained legal professional in the field of international criminal law and has been implementing the business decision made by her chambers, which is probably also in accordance with her own preference.  It's not noble, but it's normal.  

AND the retainers and tax advantages enormous, icc LAWYERS TAX FREE[/i]

Alisonfan - Are you saying that lawyers for the ICC do not pay taxes on their pay?

LizzyNY wrote:Alisonfan - Are you saying that lawyers for the ICC do not pay taxes on their pay?

Amal is adding to the family heritage by offering to defend the likes of Saif al Islam. There is no evidence that she is using her intelligence, to any great effect. What exactly, is the purpose of Amal defending Bahrain's king? Or Mr Senussi, is the principle of 'robust advocacy on both sides' so important that, if no else offered to defend Himmler, then she would volunteer to do so? Why does Amal carry on defending the indefensible whom no one else wants to defend.....or is it for TAX purposes After all these cases carry a hefty lucrative retainer.

North America and Europe, have contributed $1 billion in funding the ICC. In other words, the ICC is mainly a machine for transferring money from Western middle classes to privileged judges and lawyers on both sides.... who don't themselves have to pay tax on their substantial earnings while working for the ICC.

Alisonfan wrote:

LizzyNY wrote:Alisonfan - Are you saying that lawyers for the ICC do not pay taxes on their pay?

Amal is adding to the family heritage by offering to defend the likes of Saif al Islam. .

She isn't "defending" Saif al Islam.  She is arguing that he should not be tried in Libya, where courts are a joke, but instead at the Hague.

From [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Alamuddin said: “At this stage the ICC case is not about whether Mr Gaddafi and Mr Senussi are guilty of committing crimes against humanity; it is about where their trial should be held.  In Libya, where they will face a show trial and then be executed, or before an international court in The Hague? No one is arguing that there should be no trial. But we are arguing that there should be justice.”

Even the bad guys get a fair trial.  That's what makes the rule of law superior to the rule of dictators and despots. A high-profile trial at the Hague also ensures that their horrific crimes will be brought out into the light of day for all to see.   Good on her for making sure the terrible ones are brought to justice in the most just way possible.

These monsters committed crimes in countries where they knew the government was weak  against them. A place where people didn't/don't have a voice. Now they should be tried and treated in the same manner they treated the defenseless. THAT IS JUSTICE!

Maggy wrote:These monsters committed crimes in countries where they knew the government was weak  against them. A place where people didn't/don't have a voice. Now they should be tried and treated in the same manner they treated the defenseless. THAT IS JUSTICE!

That is revenge.  And while it might feel really great to put them through the same awful things they did to people, it makes the state/court/us no better than they were.  You don't make the case that torturing and killing people is bad by torturing and killing people.

A trial at the Hague is also how we give their victims a voice. We make them sit in a courtroom, in front of cameras and a stenographer, and bring their victims up one by one, letting them tell their stories to the world and confront the awful people who hurt them. That's what we did for Milosevic, it's what we did for the Nazis.

And did Milosevic and some Nazis get to live long lives with a roof over their head's with 3 meals a day and recreation? What happened to the victims? Were the dead bough back to life to join their family? Were the homeless given a new place to live, what about the children made orphans by these monsters?

How did a trial at Hague really help. And how is it going to help and make a difference today?

Is it just a big place with big lawyers making big money?

Today, there are many ways victims can have a voice and make the world aware of their suffering. Is us who are not looking and listening.

And if the trial is in Libya where as Missa said, good chance for execution, will that bring the dead back to life? If we behave no better than people like Milosevic, Gadaffi, Senussi then society will truly fail. A trial at the Hague will give the victims a voice, victims who need their awful stories to be told and it may not feel like justice, but we must preserve our humanity.

This is why these heartless people do what they do. They can rely on the justice system of other well developed counties for amnesty and supposedly a fair trial.

It is not about turning back the clock. Is about letting future criminals know
that they will not have the opportunity to buy themselves a safe haven.

True Maggy however if the trial was held elsewhere and this awful person was executed that would be no deterrent to future criminals either. I still think having the world know just how truly awful they are is important for many reasons and I personally would like to see them rot in the tiniest jail for the rest of their natural life, with plenty of time to think about how they got there.

Maggy wrote:And did Milosevic and some Nazis get to live long lives with a roof over their head's with 3 meals a day and recreation? What happened to the victims? Were the dead bough back to life to join their family? Were the homeless given a new place to live, what about the children made orphans by these monsters?

How did a trial at Hague really help. And how is it going to help and make a difference today?

Is it just a big place with big lawyers making big money?

Today, there are many ways victims can have a voice and make the world aware of their suffering. Is us who are not looking and listening.

Okay we should gather a group together; say one for every million people in each country. Then we can just take all these sick f##ks that commit these horrific crimes on people that cannot protect themselves, and just execute them. Why waste time and money on trials.

Before you know it we start thinking that we are all powerful because in fact we are the law; so now we can kill off any groups of people we think might one day do bad things. This is simplified but you get what I'm saying.

Your last statement that I put in bold is true. However all of this takes lots and lots of money, why someone like Amal might take a high paying client. Even if you had the money to get the word out, how much good do you think it would do? Just take Darfur, where is their voice and how much time and money has been spent to get them help. Ten years later they are still being massacred.

With her advisory work to the UN and others it will make the laws clearer how to protect someones human rights; rich and poor; guilty and innocent the same for all. Mind you this is my opinion that I am coming to trying to read about her work.

Maggy wrote:It is not about turning back the clock. Is about letting future criminals know
that they will not have the opportunity to buy themselves a safe haven.

Saddam Hussein was captured, "tried", and executed in his country, by the people he tormented, and it was all on camera for the world to see.

Didn't stop Gaddafi.

Didn't stop Bashir.

Didn't stop Mubarak.

Hasn't stopped Assad, who is currently overseeing the complete destruction of his people in Syria.

These dictators, they live with the threat of death by assassination hanging over them every day. It's why Hussein had dozens of look-alike impersonators, why they're surrounded by security. The idea that they one day might be killed for their actions doesn't faze them. They continue because they are above the law in their respective countries; most of the time, they ARE the law. Taking a person who is used to calling all the shots and living an extravagant lifestyles in spacious palaces, and putting them in a 8'x6' cell for 23 hours a day during which they can't so much as take a shower without asking permission of a guard is not letting them off easy. Sure, they're still alive, but frankly, I'd prefer death to living out my life in that way. Death would be letting them off easy.

Missa I so believe this no matter what the crime is;
Taking a person who is used to calling all the shots and living an extravagant lifestyles in spacious palaces, and putting them in a 8'x6' cell for 23 hours a day during which they can't so much as take a shower without asking permission of a guard is not letting them off easy. Sure, they're still alive, but frankly, I'd prefer death to living out my life in that way. Death would be letting them off easy.

And may God grant them a long life.xxx

"True Maggy however if the trial was held elsewhere and this awful person was executed that would be no deterrent to future criminals either."

Yes, it would. The fear of being tried by the same people they abused would make any criminal squirm out of fear.


Mazzy, you are exaggerating. And I can see why, you believe she is our modern day Robin Hood. Taking from criminals
to help the defenseless. (Except that Robin Hood didn't do the rich any favors.)

I wont say anymore regarding this matter, I don't want to offend your 'Miss Robin Hood Queen'
or offend anyone of you.

Saddam Hussein hid till he was captured.

You know what,  this is the second time today someone has dropped out of a perfectly polite debate on this forum when other posters had the audacity to express a different opinion AND did so while blaming the other posters for their decision. I think if you can't or won't defend your position on an issue, then don't join the debate to begin with and stick to the "Her shoes are so TACKY" threads.

And I'm not sure what Saddam hiding has to do with the price of tea in China, but of course he did. Do you know of many accused war criminals walking out with their hands up and surrendering?

Missa, when I wrote that Saddam hid till he was capture was to prove my point that criminals are afraid of the people they abused.
And of course there wouldn't be any criminals with their hands up surrendering, they know the consequences to follow.

and I wasn't dropping out, I was avoiding all of you descending on me for for speaking out on what i believe.

But if you all don't mind, then am still here   

And no thanks, I wont join the "Her shoes are so TACKY" threads.
She can dress anyway she wants. Her cloths wont make the world
a better place. She can eat and dress anyway she wants, it's her life and her right.

Maggy you most certainly have the right to express how you feel, that is what the rest of us are doing. I don't think for one minute that you have to change you mind because I gave my opinion. Im not going to change mine either unless I find information that convinces me I'm wrong. which is not an impossibility. I just think uniform laws that are the same for all. I totally respect you and your opinion even if we disagree.

Ladies we are all expressing our opinions and debating with each other, I don't think any of us are trying to change anyones opinions here.

Id rather we debate the lack of perceived justice in this world instead of directing frustrations etc at Amal who is doing her job as far as I can see.

There will always be dictactors, assholes who think they are above the law and do the most horrific things to people, but I do believe if society keeps holding them accountable the lawful/legal/humane way then that in itself may start a change.

A change in what way, Theminis?

And for who?

Sorry if I change my address in the discussion! there is no 'doubt for any inhabitant of the world democratic and civilized that even the "bad guys" have the right to a fair trial but my question': Amal and morally 'better than the former (Elizabeth, Stacy, Sarah), so you 'safe? I'm tired of reading that Amal and 'a great lawyer committed to human rights that has many affinities' for this reason with George. Sara 'a brilliant lawyer but it seems to me that she thinks the money coming in his wallet.

Amal has certainly improved GC vision of the world. To say he was not worldly wise on international issue's would be an understatement . He had his "projects" but that was the exstent of it. Would he even know where Ukraine was if it were not for Amal?
She will bring nothing but good to his life, Amal is brainy enough to make him THINK he is the teacher and she the pupil, but in reality he is the tee shirt wearing apprentice. What a wonderful life they are about to embark on together, a life of learning, challenge, education and respect.

I think I'm going to be sick  

ispy wrote:Amal has certainly improved GC vision of the world. To say he was not worldly wise on international issue's  would be an understatement .  He had his "projects" but that was the exstent of it.  Would he even know where Ukraine was if it were not for Amal?
She will bring nothing but good to his life, Amal is brainy enough to make him THINK he is the teacher and she the pupil, but in reality he is the tee shirt wearing apprentice.  What a wonderful life they are about to embark on together, a life of learning, challenge, education and respect.

Amal had no merit on the liberation of Timoshenko because it 'was released after the fall of the leader Viktor Yanukovych and therefore its liberation and' took to external interventions, but only because it 's the party returned to power and the Timoshenko Amal then for Ukraine did not do anything I do and nothing piteva Icraina, if you do not know, is experiencing very bad with dead every day. My God, this and 'history and you can not' invent!

Maggy wrote:A change in what way, Theminis?

And for who?

Well its my simplistic viewpoint I guess, but Id like to think that if society as a whole shows these particular dictators through proper legal recourse that they will be held accountable for their crimes and will in that sense be accountable to the majority of people who abhor their crimes, there will be a change, more people will care, more people will stand up and say what is happening is not acceptable. I know Im in dreamland perhaps, but hate only breeds hate, there is too much of that - I prefer the situation where Saddam was tried in front of the whole word, so that everyone can recognise what a monster looks like.

Couldn't agree with you more, Themi.

It's a tortuous process tho (bad analogy), but the ICC have only just managed to complete their prosecute their SECOND case.........


[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Especially when you're up against this sort of thing:


[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

MAD DOG: Inside the Secret World of Muammar Gaddafi
(A must see video!!)

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

The ICC is so NOT on the radar of the average American. Most couldn't tell where it located let alone what is is and what it's supposed to do.

We have enough trouble dealing with our own political leaders in Congress and the Senate that we don't take much notice of world issues.  The media doesn't help either.  

Big news in the papers, on tv and radio today is Kim and Kanye's wedding.  Really, like I give a fuck.

But that's what we're fed over here.  That and the complete divide between the haves and the have not's that's getting worse everyday.

As to the eye for an eye process it doesn't work IMO.  That just leads to what we've seen which is century after century of wars.  Where one side gets power and persecutes the other until they get ripped out of rule and the other takes over and does the same thing.

As to Amal's work with the ICC - interesting commentary.  I didn't realize lawyers get tax breaks for their work there.

And given that it's only tried it's second case it doesn't say much for anyone's opinion of the ICC.  Sudan's ruler sure hasn't been tried yet if I'm not mistaken.

The only thing these guys pay attention to is when you freeze their global accounts and take their money.  That's when you can stop them but it takes continued cooperation amongst all nations that hold their money and not all want to cooperate.

So I don't know that Amal's efforts will ever amount to much.  Not that she won't keep trying I guess.

She and others will keep trying as long as the money keeps rolling in!

Reading through these posts has made me realize that there is no absolute right or wrong, no black or white on this issue. Emotionally I can see Maggy's point, but rationally, I feel these cases need to be tried by a world court. The point needs to be made that the world community will not tolerate these abuses of power.

Unfortunately, there are too many in power who are willing to turn a blind eye for political or economic reasons. That's why I think George and John are taking the most effective approach - follow the money. Find the sources of funding, publicize it and shut it down.

@ispy - You make George's "projects" seem like he's been making potholders at day camp! I doubt there was much about the world situation she could teach him, other than the workings of the international legal system from which she makes her living. Maybe he can teach her something about compassion.

I agree LizzyNY !!!!

Another good argument for why we need to give these dictators a fair and independent trial is that it's also way too easy to bribe and intimidate in their own country. Does anyone think Berlusconi got a fair trial and reasonable sentence for all he's done?

Yes, I'm aware he's not a monster in the same league as Gadhafi, Hussein et al but I think you see my point.

Just a couple of bits of info for the general discussion; I've already said how I feel about Amal's work.

The ICC has indicted maybe a bit more than a dozen men. They've tried, what, two. Slobodan Milosevic was not one of them; he defended himself before the International Criminal Tribunal of (the former) Yugoslavia -- a case that lasted 5 years and didn't end in conviction because the man died before it ended.

Botha of South Africa never faced an indictment from any international legal venue, despite the atrocities of apartheid. And yet South Africa managed to showcase those atrocities and enforce some level of accountability without their society devolving into revenge-based reciprocal atrocities.

On my defense, I never said anything about revenge, but the trials be held where the crime was committed.

But if they don't have a good legal system then...

No need for a defense, Maggy. I'm not talking to anyone in particular.

ispy wrote:Amal has certainly improved GC vision of the world. To say he was not worldly wise on international issue's  would be an understatement .  He had his "projects" but that was the exstent of it.  Would he even know where Ukraine was if it were not for Amal?
She will bring nothing but good to his life, Amal is brainy enough to make him THINK he is the teacher and she the pupil, but in reality he is the tee shirt wearing apprentice.  What a wonderful life they are about to embark on together, a life of learning, challenge, education and respect.

This is an insult to George in a big way. George has friends in Ukraine first of all. He doesn't have legal degrees granted but he is very intelligent and keeps himself apprised of world affairs in more than Darfur. I'm sure Amal can teach him somethings, however there is much he can teach her from all that he has learned to date in his life. If he was female it's like you are calling him some dumb bimbo. They both have much to bring to their union, I'm sure more than we can even fathom.

ispy wrote:Amal has certainly improved GC vision of the world. To say he was not worldly wise on international issue's  would be an understatement .  He had his "projects" but that was the exstent of it.  Would he even know where Ukraine was if it were not for Amal?
She will bring nothing but good to his life, Amal is brainy enough to make him THINK he is the teacher and she the pupil, but in reality he is the tee shirt wearing apprentice.  What a wonderful life they are about to embark on together, a life of learning, challenge, education and respect.

Phew!!!!!!!!!

Sorry folks long time... but as I read around I have been having this very un-smart question... I mean, what was the basis for Amal being chosen to be part of ICC??   

I mean, what was her contribution / crowning glory that got her there?