DOHA 2012 Climate Change Conference

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) created the Conference of the Parties (COP) in order to get developed and non-developed nations to produce a plan to lower greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and help prevent global climate change.

Despite recent events like Hurricane Sandy, Doha 2012 COP 18 saw little progress towards a lasting agreement of significant limits on GHG emissions.

No major progress has been made with regard to any of the issues. One of the focal points of this year’s conference has been extending the Kyoto Protocol commitments, which are set to expire at the end of this year. Doha 2012 punted by simply extending Kyoto. The real issue with Kyoto though is how to track and enforce the commitment of different countries. And how to find an equitable solution that will satisfy all stakeholders.

While extending Kyoto is a necessary action, it certainly does not solve our global warming problems. For one, the Kyoto only applied to developed nations, so China, Brazil and India were not a part of any emission reduction agreements. With these nations rapidly industrializing, it is crucial to involve them in some kind of GHG emissions reduction pact. One way is for developed countries to lead with ambitious reduction goals, with the United States participating; something that has not happened up to this point.

Arab countries’ involvement is also critical and many hoped that holding COP 18 in Qatar would help encourage Arab nations to become more involved in climate negotiations. Unfortunately, few Arab nations seem interested. With many of these countries sitting on vast oil reserves with significant solar potential, they have failed to set any targets for solar energy use.

In a recent interview, the U.N. Secretary General said that developed nations should assume most of the responsibility in fighting climate change as historically developed nations have caused the most damage.  While many would not disagree with this assertion, it does not bring the parties closer to an agreement. 

Obviously developed nations are most responsible for our current dilemma. However, developing nations like China, Brazil and India are rapidly industrializing and are now will certainly in the future be a major source of GHG emissions and contribute significantly to global warming. The solution has to involve everyone.  

Assisted by Michael Ciccarone

Citizens United? Evaluating the 2012 Presidential Election in a "Super PAC" World

The 2012 presidential election has been the most expensive to date. The whopping $2 billion that has been spent by both campaigns can be partially attributed to the Citizens United v. the Federal Election Commission decision by the Supreme Court.

This decision, as many of you know, held that corporations and labor unions have a First Amendment right to make independent expenditures that advocate election or defeat of candidates in certain federal elections.

This has led to the creation of “Super-PACs” that can spend an unlimited about of money in federal elections. This has led to a very large increase in paid media advertising. Many believe our campaign finance system is broken.

The American Bar Association Section on Individual Rights and Responsibility is holding a panel discussion to consider the effects of Citizens United on the 2012 presidential election.  Free-speech proponents, proponents of campaign donation regulation and election law practitioners will meet to discuss the lessons learned from this election and how campaign finance has changed.  The legal ramifications of Citizens United, such as the potential effects of shareholder litigation challenging campaign expenditures, will also be discussed.

Campaign finance is a critical issue. This panel is a timely opportunity for those in the DC area to hear civil discourse about an interesting subject. It is free, unless you are requesting CLE credit, in which case it costs $25.

To register for CLE credit, email the Section at irr@americanbar.org.  For more information, contact Patrice Payne at (202) 662-1030.

Lie to Me?!

Sometimes I wish I could just attend courses all day. Am I strange to really like CLE and other professional education courses?

Here is a really interesting seminar sponsored by the UC Hastings College of Law Center for Negotiation & Dispute Resolution:

lie to me?! how emotions matter in negotiation

Scheduled for Friday, October 22 from 8.30 AM to 5:00 PM (Pacific Time). This looks very worthwhile. Here is how you can sign up to register for the online version (assuming you aren’t in San Francisco, in which case you should definitely try to attend).

Hastings describes the course this way:

Featuring renowned scientist Paul Ekman, inspiration for Fox TV’s Lie to Me, and other leading scientists and negotiation experts from law, business, and public service, this live symposium explores several related topics around the hub of emotion and negotiation. Leading scholars will address what we know about the way emotion affects negotiation, how we can better manage emotion, and finally, where does attention and management of emotion take us. Is it a tool for greater cooperation? Ethics? Does it keep us from being duped? Better outcomes for society and for ourselves?

Here are some highlights from the Symposium Schedule:

Welcome

Dean and Chancellor Frank Wu

From Papua New Guinea to Lie to Me to Compassion and the Dalai Lama:

Paul Ekman, Professor Emeritus, University of California, San Francisco Medical School, scientific advisor to Fox TV’s Lie to Me, and author of the book Telling Lies, interviewed by Clark Freshman.

The Science of Emotion and Dispute Resolution: Connections and Perspectives:

Peter Carnevale, Professor, University of Southern California School of Business, will discuss the history of research on emotion and negotiation from years of simulated negotiations—and the newest technology of studying negotiation with computer-generated images.

Michael Wheeler, Harvard Business School Professor, will share his research on psychoanalytic perspectives on negotiation from interviews with people and their images of negotiation.

The Science of Working with Emotion: Mindfulness and Other Types of Meditation:

Shauna Shapiro, Associate Professor of Counseling Psychology, Santa Clara University, and co-author of a recent American Psychology Association book The Art and Science of Mindfulness, will discuss scientific studies of mindfulness meditation.

Erika Rosenberg, Scientific Consultant, Center for Mind and Brain, University of California, Davis, and advisor to the Stanford Compassion Project, will discuss research on meditative and contemplative techniques studied in the Shamatha Project, a controlled intervention trial of the cognitive, emotional, and neurophysiological effects of sustained meditation.

Cliff Saron, Associate Research Scientist, University of California, Davis, will discuss other findings of the Shamatha Project, including the effects on the ability to pay attention.

Choices and Consequences of Working with Emotion: Compassion, Lie Detection, and Deal Making:

Charlie Halpern, former Dean of CUNY Law School and author of Making Waves and Riding the Currents: Activism and the Practice of Wisdom, will explore using mindfulness to cultivate inner wisdom and foster mindful social activism. (Video on Meditation and the Practice of Law)

Clark Freshman, Professor of Law, Hastings College of the Law, will discuss how emotion and lie detection may lead sometimes to greater compassion, sometimes to better deals, and sometimes to exploitation.

Jason Meek, Adjunct Professor of Law, Hastings College of Law, will discuss how emotion and contemplative practices affect his teaching and work as a lawyer and advisor to businesses.

Madeleine Bernhardt, Adjunct Professor, Berlin School of Economics and Law, will provide an international perspective to how the science of emotion can be applied in courts, arbitrations, and court

Frank Wu, the recently appointed Dean of Hastings is a very distinguished scholar and author of Yellow: Race in America Beyond Black and White. He was previously Dean of my alma matter, Wayne State University Law School and is a very good guy.

And by the way, has anyone seen Lie to Me yet? I have not. Is it any good?

I guess now that I’ve seen who inspired the series I’ll have to make a point of seeing it. Thank goodness for TiVo.

ADR and the Rule of Law

Is there a tension between various forms of Alternative Dispute Resolution and the Rule of Law? Many argue there is. Critics suggest that ADR represents the privatization of dispute resolution to the detriment of society because public litigation allows for the refinement and development of the law and published decisions are necessary to define and protect individual rights.

Others argue that ADR weakens the less powerful members of society (See, e.g., Harry T. Edwards, Commentary, Alternative Dispute Resolution: Panacea or Anathema?, 99 Harv. L. REV. 668, 675–82 (1986); Owen M. Fiss, Commentary, Against Settlement, 93 Yale L.J. 1073, 1075 (1984); David Luban, Settlements and the Erosion of the Public Realm, 83 Geo. L.J. 2619, 2622–23 (1995); Trina Grillo, The Mediation Alternative: Process Dangers for Women, 100 Yale L.J. 1545 (1991)). I think those views have lost the argument. Clearly, we are not without written decisions by the courts at all levels, produced through the most vigorous use of litigation.

The University of Missouri Center for the Study of Conflict, Law and the Media, along with the ABA Section of Dispute Resolution is sponsoring a Symposium that will take a close look at the supposed tension between the Rule of Law and ADR.

Scheduled for October 15 at the University of Missouri School of Law, the Symposium claims to be the “first-ever convening of scholars and practitioners from across the globe to consider this relationship more deeply.”

It looks very interesting. Wish I could attend.

If anyone attends and has any comments or responses, please let me know or post your comments here.