Stanford University

Human Rights

Counterinsurgency Without Killing: Public Goods and Violence in the Iraqi Civil War

-

Jacob Shapiro (speaker) is a CISAC postdoctoral fellow. His primary research interest is the organization of terrorism and insurgency. His other research interests include international relations, organization theory, and security policy. Shapiro's ongoing projects study the balance between secrecy and openness in counterterrorism, the impact of international human rights law on democracies' foreign policy, the causes of militant recruitment in Islamic countries, and the relationship between public goods provision and insurgent violence in Iraq and Afghanistan. His research has been published in International Security, International Studies Quarterly, Foreign Policy, and a number of edited volumes. Shapiro is a Harmony Fellow at the Combating Terrorism Center at the United States Military Academy. As a Naval Reserve officer he was assigned to the Office of Naval Intelligence and the Naval Warfare Development Command. He served on active duty at Special Boat Team 20 and onboard the USS Arthur W. Radford (DD-968). He holds a PhD in political science and an MA in economics from Stanford University and a BA in political science from the University of Michigan.

Jeremy Weinstein (discussant) is an assistant professor of political science at Stanford University and an affiliated faculty member at CDDRL and CISAC. Previously, he was a research fellow at the Center for Global Development, where he directed the bi-partisan Commission on Weak States and US National Security. While working on his PhD, with funding from the Jacob Javits Fellowship, a Sheldon Fellowship, and the World Bank, he conducted hundreds of interviews with rebel combatants and civilians in both Africa and Latin America for his forthcoming book, Inside Rebellion: The Politics of Insurgent Violence. He has also worked on the National Security Council staff; served as a visiting scholar at the World Bank; was a fellow at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars; and received a research fellowship in foreign policy studies at the Brookings Institution. He received his BA with high honors from Swarthmore College, and his MA and PhD in political economy and government from Harvard University.

Reuben W. Hills Conference Room

Jeremy Weinstein Speaker
Jacob N. Shapiro Speaker
Seminars
Conflict Resolution

Huda Ahmed

not in residence

0
Visiting Scholar (Iraq) 2007-2008

Huda Ahmed is an Iraqi journalist. She had a joint fellowship for the 2007-2008 academic year at CISAC and CDDRL. In 2006-2007 she held the Elizabeth Neuffer Fellowship, sponsored by the International Women's Media Foundation, at Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

 

Ahmed's interests include international relations, ethnic politics and peace, democracy and religion of the West versus the East, and human rights reporting. She is interested in exploring current issues in Iraq related to politics, the status of democracy conflicts, violence, and the impact of war on Iraq.

Prior to her studies in the United States, Ahmed was a reporter for McClatchy Newspapers (formerly Knight Ridder Newspapers) in Baghdad. Beginning in July 2004, she assisted in coverage and translation for a wide range of breaking news and feature stories including the bloody siege of Najaf, Iraq's historic elections, and corruption in the new Iraqi security forces.

She was recognized by Knight Ridder's Washington bureau for extraordinary bravery in covering combat during the siege of Najaf in Southern Iraq.

Ahmed served as a reporter and translator for The Washington Post in Baghdad, where she assisted in covering the search for weapons of mass destruction, looting after the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime, the secret massacre of students during Hussein's reign, and the abuse of women in the Islamic world among other stories.

Her journalism career began in 1992 when she served as a translator for The Daily Baghdad Observer and Al Jumhurriya Daily, in Baghdad. Earlier in her career, she worked as a translator and a high school teacher in U.A.E, Tunisia, and Libya.

Ahmed, along with 5 other Iraqi journalists from McClatchy's Baghdad bureau, received the Courage in Journalism Award for 2007 from the International Women's Media Foundation.

CISAC scholar leads newly endowed, expanded International Policy Studies program

Authors
News Type
News
Date
Paragraphs

Starting next fall, Stanford's 25-year-old International Policy Studies (IPS) master's program will double in length and expand its interdisciplinary scope to train a new generation of graduates prepared for careers in international policy-making and advocacy.

The two-year program is named in honor of Susan Ford Dorsey, president of the Sand Hill Foundation, who has made a gift of $7.5 million, which has been matched by university funds to create a $15 million endowment. According to program Director Stephen J. Stedman, the funding will be used to better integrate the program into the university's international policy research centers, increase access to courses in the law and business schools, use more full-time faculty to teach classes and introduce a practicum that involves solving real-world problems.

Ford Dorsey's endowment fulfills one of the key priorities of Stanford's International Initiative, according to Stedman, which is to address global problems by leveraging the university's cross-disciplinary and collaborative research and teaching. Ford Dorsey and her husband, Mike, serve on volunteer committees of The Stanford Challenge, which is seeking to raise $4.3 billion in a broad effort to expand the university's role in addressing global challenges and educating the next generation of leaders.

Stedman, a senior fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies (FSI), was asked to lead the program because he has experience in both academic and policy work. In 2003, Stedman served as research director of the U.N. High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change, which former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan established to analyze global security threats and propose reforms to the international system. Upon completion of the panel's report, A More Secure World: Our Shared Responsibility, Annan asked Stedman to stay on as a special adviser to help get support in implementing the panel's recommendations. Following the U.N. world leaders' summit in September 2005, during which more than 175 heads of state agreed upon a global security agenda developed from the panel's work, Stedman returned to the Center for International Security and Cooperation at FSI.

According to Stedman, the revamped curriculum will give students the skills to understand the complex connections between poverty, deadly infectious disease, environmental degradation, resource depletion, food insecurity, interstate conflict, civil war, nuclear proliferation and terrorism.

"In a world where problems cross borders and disciplines, where threats that were previously thought to be independent are found to be interconnected, where distinctions between what is domestic policy and what is foreign policy are becoming more and more tenuous, students need training and perspective to break down disciplinary silos," Stedman says in a statement on the program's website. "They need the tools and dexterity to work across issue areas and in diverse policy arenas. They need to see connections that others miss, and be able to describe and explain those connections so that others will then see them too."

The program, which will be jointly administered by the School of Humanities and Sciences and FSI, will continue to admit about 30 students a year, with up to half coming from outside the United States. Students are required to have taken prerequisite courses in economics and statistics, and to speak a foreign language.

At a Feb. 7 dinner celebrating the newly endowed program, Gareth Evans, president of the International Crisis Group and a member of the U.N. High-Level Panel, talked about the need to "make idealism realistic" and discussed the concept of a state's "responsibility to protect" civilians as a new international norm. "In just five years, which is short in the history of ideas, a brand new historical norm" was introduced and recognized by much of the international community, he said. "This was a historic breakthrough. It should reinvigorate our belief in the art of the possible." Concerning the Ford Dorsey IPS program, Evans said, "When it comes to making idealism realistic  there really could be no better place anywhere in the world that this new master's program at Stanford."

The incoming fall cohort of IPS students will study writing and rhetoric and international economics. They will take core courses in Issues in International Policies, which introduces Stanford's policy research centers and provides analyses of current global issues, and Managing Global Complexity, which teaches concepts and theories of international relations while focusing on issues with competing policy concerns. "The goal is to understand that much of what we study today is marked by trade-offs among various goods that we seek to promote," Stedman says in the statement. "Globalization and interdependence creates opportunities for creative solutions to problems, while sometimes creating negative unintended consequences for policy solutions."

IPS students will take a "gateway" course before selecting a concentration during the second year. These specialized fields include democracy, development and the rule of law; energy, environment and natural resources; global health; global justice; international negotiation and conflict management; international political economy; and international security and cooperation. Finally, students will complete a small group practicum in which they will be required to develop solutions to current global problems.

All News button
1

Barriers and Bridges: An Overview of Legal Reform in China

-

Co-Sponsored by The Center for Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law;

the Stanford Project on Human Rights Diplomacy, the Project on Peace and Cooperation in the Asian-Pacific Region, and the Center for International Security and Cooperation

Dr. Dan Wei will give an overview of the present state of legal reform in China, and will cover such topics as the death penalty and other criminal procedure reforms, and measures to insure the rights of detainees and prisoners.

He is a professor at the Institute for Procuratorial Theory of the Supreme People's Procuratorate of China, one of the four principal branches of the Chinese judicial system. He was a Fellow of the Danish Institute of Human Rights in 2002, and he travels and speaks widely in China and overseas on topics related to the development of Chinese law and practice.

Since receiving a PhD from Wuhan University in 1999, he has published 5 books and more than 40 articles in the field of criminal justice. His book, Comparative Studies on the Crimes of Trafficking in Persons, published by The Law Press of China in June 2004, is the first specialized Chinese publication on the topic of human trafficking.

As the deputy editor in chief of Chinese Criminal Science, he has transformed the journal into the most authoritative publication in the field of criminology in China. The journal now boasts more than 20,000 readers. The State Council granted him a Special Award for Distinguished Service in 2004.

Philippines Conference Room

Dan Wei Professor Speaker Institute for Procuratorial Theory of the Supreme People's Procuratorate of China
Seminars

The Ethical and the Political: Reflections on Peace and Non-Violence

-

Uday Mehta is the Clarence Francis Professor in the Social Sciences at Amherst College. A political theorist, he has taught at Amherst since 2000, has a BA from Swarthmore College, and an MA and PhD from Princeton University. He received a fellowship from the Carnegie Corporation of New York in 2002. On this fellowship, he conducted case studies of minorities in India, South Africa, and Israel as they struggle for political and social recognition. His publications include The Anxiety of Freedom: Imagination and Individuality in Locke's Political Thought, published in 1992, and Liberalism and Empire: A Study in Nineteenth Century British Liberal Thought, published in 1999.

Sponsored by the Program on Global Justice, Stanford Humanities Center, Department of Political Science (Stanford Political Theory Workshop), and Center for International Security and Cooperation.

Download pdf

CISAC Conference Room

Uday Mehta Professor of Political Science Speaker Amherst College
Workshops

The Rise of the Terrorism Expert

-

Lisa Stampnitzky (speaker) is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Sociology at the University of California, Berkeley, and a predoctoral fellow at CISAC. Her dissertation, "The Rise of the Terrorism Expert: The Development of Counterterrorism Expertise in the U.S., 1972-2005," concerns the organization of expert knowledge on terrorism from the 1970s to the present day. It examines how terrorism was first identified as a problem, the role of government in organizing the production of knowledge, and the ongoing efforts of academic and practical experts to define the field. She has also written on the historical construction of cultural capital and its role in elite university admissions. She received her BA in sociology from New College of Florida, and her MA in sociology from the University of California, Berkeley.

John Meyer (respondent) is a professor of sociology (and by courtesy, education) emeritus, at Stanford; a faculty member at CDDRL; and a senior fellow, by courtesy, at FSI. He received his PhD from Columbia University, and taught there for several years before coming to Stanford. His research has focused on the spread of modern institutions around the world, and their impact on national states and societies. He is particularly interested in the spread and impact of scientific activity, and in the expansion and standardization of educational models. He has made many contributions to organizational theory (e.g., Organizational Environments, with W. R. Scott, Sage 1983), and to the sociology of education, developing lines of thought now called neoinstitutional theory. Since the late 1970s, he has worked on issues related to the impact of global society on national states and societies (e.g., Institutional Structure, co-authored with others, Sage 1987). Currently, he is completing a collaborative study of worldwide science and its impact on national societies (Drori, et al., Science in the Modern World Polity, Stanford, 2003), and is working on a study of the rise and impact of the worldwide human rights regime.

Reuben W. Hills Conference Room

Lisa Stampnitzky Speaker
John Meyer Commentator
Seminars

A Chinese Perspective on Human Rights and U.S.-China Relations

-

Professor Li Shian is a Professor of History and Director of American and European Studies at Beijing's Renmin University. He is the Chief Editor of the journal World History and is a Council Member of the China Society for Human Rights Studies, which he has represented at several international human rights conferences. A former Chairman of the History Department at Renmin University, Dr. Li was awarded his doctorate at the University of Birmingham in 1989, and did post-graduate work at Stanford University from July 1990 to October 1992. He is the author of several books, including A Study of American Human Rights History and A History of the Development of Western Capitalism.

Professor Li will deliver remarks on the role human rights plays in US-China relations, from a Chinese perspective. He will begin with an exposition of human rights in traditional and post-1949 China, and drawing on this, review US-China exchanges on human rights post-June 4, 1989. He will discuss different approaches for addressing what Chinese and Americans both recognize as a central if contentious issue in their relations: respect for international laws as they protect both individual and collective freedoms.

Philippines Conference Room

Li Shian Professor of History and Director of American and European Studies Speaker Beijing's Renmin University
Seminars

Criminal Law: Anglo-American Privacy and Surveillance

Paragraphs

Part I of this article looks at the American institution of legal controls on the executive branch and their subsequent erosion post-9/11. It explores three changes incorporated in the USA PATRIOT Act: alterations to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act; the introduction of Delayed Notice Search Warrants; and the expansion of National Security Letters. Outside of this legislation, the weakening of the Attorney General guidelines

increased the FBI's ability to collect information. The article highlights the Department of Defense's ("DOD") movement into the domestic surveillance realm. It discusses a number of operations both inside and outside the DOD, such as TALON, Echelon, Carnivore, Magic Lantern, TIPS, and the use of watch lists. Part I concludes with a discussion of the data mining efforts underway. The article argues that Total Information Awareness, ADVISE, and other projects catapult surveillance into another realm. Moreover, while any one program, such as the NSA initiative, may be considered on narrow grounds, the sheer breadth of current powers raises important concerns.

Part II notes that, until recently, no laws governed police and intelligence service information-gathering authorities in the UK. Extraordinary stop and search powers for terrorist-related offences, and warrants for police interference with property provided exceptions. But physical searches of property conducted by the intelligence services, the interception of communications by law enforcement and intelligence agencies, the use of covert surveillance or "electronic bugs," and the running of covert human intelligence sources operated under the legislative and judicial radars. Beginning in the mid-1980s, the European Court began to raise objections to the lack of safeguards and statutory framework. But each time the Court handed down a significant finding against the United Kingdom, the state responded not just by, at least on the surface, meeting the demands of the European Convention of Human Rights, but, it appears, by expanding executive surveillance authorities. Moreover, the warrant system introduced retained control within the executive branch. Not subject to judicial review, the standard applied is reasonable suspicion--considerably less robust than probable cause. Like the United States, Britain draws on new technologies; the country leads the world in its use of public surveillance systems.

Having laid out legal developments on both sides of the Atlantic, Part III moves to policy concerns: it begins by briefly exploring the substantive, political, legal, social, and economic risks posed by such measures. It then considers six approaches that would help to mitigate the risks. First is the possibility of creating a property right in personal information. The second centers on the regulation of access, transfer, use, and retention of data. Such efforts would satisfy demands for accountability and transparency in both the public and private sector. A third possibility centers on scaling back the existing powers of the state. Fourth, both countries may contemplate placing limits on what constitutes national security. Fifth, alternative safeguards and oversight structures deserve attention - such as reporting requirements, random audits, the creation of ombudspersons, the insertion of the judiciary, and (in the UK) allowing intercepted communications to be used as evidence. Sixth, preventing countries from introducing ever greater powers of surveillance under the claim that they are only temporary in nature would force legislatures to consider the long-term impact of provisions beyond the immediate terrorist threat.

All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Journal Articles
Publication Date
Journal Publisher
Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology
Authors

Europe's defense of free speech rings false

Authors
News Type
Commentary
Date
Paragraphs

Since the controversy over cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad erupted, Europe's leaders have shown remarkable--and uncharacteristic--courage under fire. Refusing to apologize for the alleged slight to religious Muslims, a chorus of Continental voices has instead risen to the cartoons' defense, citing freedom of expression as the very essence of liberty, democracy and the European Way.

Unfortunately, free speech is about the weakest card in Europe's hand these days. An Austrian court's conviction and sentencing of the British historian David Irving to three years imprisonment for Holocaust denial is merely the most recent footnote to European hypocrisy on freedom of expression over the past decade.

The European Convention on Human Rights, which legally binds all EU states and supersedes domestic law, explicitly guarantees "the right to freedom of expression" including "the freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority."

This provision is in keeping not only with the U.S. Bill of Rights, but with the central instruments of international human rights law to which Europe and America claim adherence. Yet Europe's interpretation of free expression has diverged markedly from America's broad deference to First Amendment freedoms of speech, assembly and religion.

American courts have upheld the publication of false, even racist materials, the right of neo-Nazis to rally in Jewish neighborhoods, and the objections of some citizens to the Pledge of Allegiance and to school dress codes on religious grounds.

European governments, on the other hand, have consistently trampled analogous rights, outlawing publication of hate speech, trade in Nazi paraphernalia, and the wearing of distinctive religious clothing, to name but a few recent examples.

According to the Austrian court that convicted him on Monday, David Irving's offense was to have "denied, grossly played down, approved, or tried to excuse" the Holocaust in print or other media, in violation of a 1992 statute. Although he has not been tried at home in Britain, Irving was convicted and fined in Germany in 1995 for "inciting race hatred."

At best, Irving is a monumentally terrible historian, who, only after publishing dozens of books on World War II, read the notes of the Holocaust mastermind Adolf Eichmann and came around to admitting that the Nazi genocide might actually have occurred. At worst, he is an artless but unrepentant bigot, on the model of America's David Duke or Austria's own Jörg Haider, but without any independent political power.

Why, then, is Irving's Holocaust denial, like other minority and extremist views in European society, of such great concern to lawmakers? If European governments want to guard against the repetition of genocide, they should actively educate their citizens in tolerance and respect for different cultures and beliefs, not gag those who express conflicting ideas.

Europe's suppression of free speech is guaranteed to spawn and incubate precisely the kind of bigotry and sectarian violence it is intended to prevent. Hounded for the unthinkable crime of publishing false history, David Irving appears almost heroic as he stands up to censorship, fines and imprisonment, making him a kind of martyr for neo-fascist groups.

Likewise, suppression of young Muslims' rights to dress or worship as their religion requires lends government sanction to already widespread anti- Muslim attitudes. This official xenophobia in turn breeds simmering resentment that has already exploded into mass violence and been manipulated by radical Islamists to recruit willing terrorist agents from within European society.

While European leaders should be praised for their belated conversion to the cause of free speech, outraged Muslims around the world are right to allege a double standard. Until Europe consistently respects its own guarantees of free expression, and actively promotes tolerance instead of clumsily stifling dissent, its brave rhetoric will ring disappointingly false.

All News button
1
Subscribe to Human Rights