Archive for October 7th, 2016

October 7, 2016

Professor Barrett Lectures in Nuremberg, on Nuremberg

On September 30, Professor John Q. Barrett delivered a principal lecture, “Finding Nuremberg and Its Legacies,” at the 10th annual International Humanitarian Law Dialogs. The Dialogs were held this year in Nuremberg, Germany, in conjunction with the 70th anniversary of the September 30 and October 1, 1946, International Military Tribunal judgments on Nazi crimes and criminals.


John Barrett

For video of Professor Barrett’s lecture, click here. It will be published next year by the American Society of International Law, which publishes the IHL Dialogs Proceedings book each year (click here for information).

Professor Barrett is biographer of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson, U.S. chief prosecutor at and principal architect of the 1945-1946 Nuremberg trial, and writes The Jackson List, which reaches well over 100,000 readers around the world.

October 7, 2016

Greenberg Presents paper at AALS Conference

Professor Elayne E. Greenberg presented her most recent scholarship, ” . . . Because ‘yes’ actually means ‘no’: A Personalized Prescriptive to Reactualize Informed Consent in  imageDispute Resolution” at the 10th annual AALS Works-in-Progress Conference at Marquette Law School on September 25, 2016. This paper addresses how lawyers and dispute resolution professionals may work with clients to achieve the client’s meaningful informed consent to participate in dispute resolution procedures.

October 7, 2016

Professor Greenberg’s Article Accepted for Publication in the Ohio State Dispute Resolution Journal

Professor of Legal Practice Elayne E. Greenberg’s article, “Bridging Our Justice Gap With Empathic Processes that Change Hearts, Expand Minds about Implicit Discrimination” has been accepted for publication in the spring issue of the Ohio State Dispute Resolution Journal.


Here is the abstract:

Accusers and those accused of implicit discrimination in our courts too often hear the refrain, “Justice doesn’t apply to you.”  This justice gap is causing increasing numbers of offenders and victims of implicit discrimination to question the application and
legitimacy of our anti-discrimination laws as it has been applied to them. This paper responds to the urgency of this problem and presents a court innovation proposal to bridge our judge gap by introducing empathic processes into discrimination adjudication that changes hearts and expand minds about implicit discrimination. This court innovation design has two purposes. First, the inclusion of empathic processes provide
litigants with an opportunity to constructively and realistically address their implicit bias claims. Second, the integration of empathic processes will help humanize and de-bias the adjudication process in a way that bridges the justice gap between litigants’ court experience and their expectation of court fairness.

%d bloggers like this: