Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

You worked hard in undergrad and now you're getting ready to start applying.  But do you know how hard is it to get into law school?  Or more importantly, how do you get into a good law school?

The one thing you need to know about how to get into law school

The answer can be summed up in four letters. LSAT.  You need to demolish the LSAT.  That's the one thing you need to know.

In the topsy-turvy world of law school applications, LSAT is king.

Isn’t GPA / Personal Statement / Recommendations / Whatever More Important for Getting into Law School?

What about GPA?  First, your GPA is pretty much set.  Even if you still have another year of grades before you send in your applications, the A in GPA will ensure that the impact of your best efforts won't have much of an impact.  Secondly, even though most people agree that GPA is the second most important admissions criteria, it is not nearly as important as the LSAT.  A rule of thumb many students use is +1 LSAT point = +0.1 GPA.  It's reasonably common for students to improve 10 points on the LSAT with 4 months of studying.  Good luck bringing your GPA from 3.3 to 4.3 with 4 months of studying :D.

What about Personal Statements, Recommendations, Extracurriculars, Job Experience and Interviews? They make a difference, but not that much.  If you have a lame-duck recommendation or a douchey personal statement, it can tank you.  If you were the President of your home country it'll really help.

Most of the time these aren't going to make a big difference.  At least not compared to the LSAT.  Most of the time, you should put effort into making these shine only after you've taken the LSAT.

WTF?  Why do law schools care so much about the LSAT?

There are some obvious reasons, and at least one non-obvious one.

Among the obvious reasons is that the LSAT isn't subject to grade inflation/deflation and competitiveness of different colleges.  For example, are a 4.33 GPA from Greendale Community College and a 4.33 GPA from MIT equally impressive?  Probably not, at least not academically :)  The LSAT acts as an equalizer.

Another reason is that the LSAT tests abstract logic and reasoning, as well as time pressured reading comprehension skills.  Both of these are extremely important in law school when you grind through endless readings and try to pull out the arguments and implications.

Here's one non-obvious reason: US News & World Report Rankings.

They rank 200 or so US law schools using a bunch of metrics.  One of these metrics is the LSAT.  The better the median LSAT score of a school's students, the better the school's rankings.  The better the school's rankings, the higher the prestige.  More prestige lets the school attract better law students (prestige is like crack for law students), and get a higher median LSAT.  The circle of LSAT continues.

What now?

If you want to go to a good law school, now you know how to get in. You study your ass off for the LSAT.  Sign up for a free trial to get started on LSAT prep.  Or jump right in and prep for LSAT with a full 7Sage Course.

Featured image: How to Get Into Law School - LSAT (photo attribution David Ortez)

2 comments

If you're taking practice LSAT PrepTests, then you need to simulate the test environment.  It is crucial so that you are ready for the real thing.

It’s really important to experience testing with a simulated proctor so you’re not thrown off on the test day by a person announcing a five minute warning or by the lack of time between the first three sections. In a test that’s as psychological as the LSAT, practicing dealing with those things is critical. - Robyn B.

If you're using our video proctor with real LSAT instructions, that's a great start!  But setting up an LSAC approved timer, and finding a place with just the right amount of ambient noise can be a bit of a pain...

So we made an LSAT Proctor App for iPhone/iPad/iPod just for you ;)  We designed it to be easy to use, while including all the features we knew were important from teaching thousands of LSAT students.  Simulate the LSAT test environment perfectly, anytime, anywhere.

This includes procedurally generated distraction noises, turbo mode, realistic virtual timer, five minute warnings, real instructions, and more.  If you like it, give us a great rating!  It'll encourage us to keep making great LSAT tools available for free :D

Get Proctor App

 

Featured image: LSAT-Proctor-App-iPhone-iPad

Comment on this

For those of you taking the upcoming June administration of the LSAT or thinking ahead to future administrations, we'd like to share a few best practices/pro-tips to help ensure that you're in top shape heading into the exam. We've included some guidance for the week leading up to the exam as well as for Game Day itself.

Right up front, we'd like to say that you're not going to learn anything new the week before the exam. The hay is in the barn. You've already done the work that will carry you into the exam. Don't cram PT's; at most, do a few sections to keep your mechanics sharp. You need to make sure that you're fresh and in the right mindset for Game Day.

1) Between today and Sunday, go to bed and wake up at the same time every day (and this should be the same time you'll need to wake up for the June exam). Waking up ~3 hours before the earliest time you're likely to start the test (as soon as 30 minutes after the show-up time) will help ensure that your cortisol levels are up and that you're fully awake. Waking up at this time during this week and Monday June 6th helps to ensure that you'll be tired enough to go to bed Sunday night. Also, no screens/blue light after 10pm. This will help ensure that you're not artificially stimulating cortisol (waking yourself up) before bed.

2) Pre-hydrate. Drink a 3-4 liters of water every day of the week before the test. It's really not that big of a deal to drink that much water, and doing so will ensure that you are well hydrated the morning of without having to drink much (if any) liquid.

3) Practice your game day routine at least twice. This means wake up at the time you'll wake up on Monday, eat the exact same breakfast/lunch you plan for game day. Keep track of what you eat and drink and when you do it. Track your hunger, thirst, and bathroom need levels (just like in The Sims). Pro-tip: if you need to go at 2PM, there's a very strong likelihood that if you follow the same plan/timing, you will need to go in the middle of a section. Which is what we want to avoid. 

4) Day of, general: Don't do anything differently from your dress rehearsals. No magic pills. No extra coffee. No tricks. No surprises. Perhaps get to the test center early and just go for a walk around the grounds if feasible. You might see some very nervous folks in crisis mode. Disregard. You are not them.

5) Day of, warm up: Whatever you do, don't score anything. And don't do any new material. Maybe take a handful of LR Q's, maybe one easy game, maybe one easy RC. Just chill out about it. You're just warming up your mechanics. 

6) Day of, during the break: People will try to talk to you because they are nervous or want reassurance. You are not there to be anyone's friend. You are not there to be anyone's therapist or life coach. However you put up your personal "Do Not Disturb" status—just don't let anyone throw you off your game.

Featured image: Tomasz Dunn

Comment on this

Not sure what all those letters and arrows are that people draw for the LSAT? Watch this video on Sufficient and Necessary Conditions, fundamental to LSAT Logic.

Drawing LSAT Sufficient And Necessary Conditions

LSAT Penguin Logic

This doesn't involve logical arrows, but it's funny.

You've probably heard a lot about sufficient and necessary conditions on the LSAT. They're tough to get a handle on at first, but not that difficult once you get the hang of it.

A sufficient condition is "enough" to tell you that something else is true. Suppose I tell you that a CEO of a fortune 500 company is powerful.

Then if I tell you that Tim Cook is CEO of Apple, a fortune 500 company, you know something. Tim Cook is powerful.

A necessary condition is something that has to be true, when something else is true. "Powerful" is the necessary condition of the statement I just told you. If you find out that Marissa Mayer is CEO of Yahoo, then you know she is necessarily powerful. It can't be any other way.

A conditional statement has a sufficient and a necessary condition. A conditional statement is true 100% of the time.

So if I tell you that all Fortune 500 CEOs are powerful, don't look for an exception. Just assume that it's true. This isn't a good idea in real life, but it's what you have to do for the LSAT.

Drawing LSAT Conditional Statements With Arrows

It's complicated to try to keep track of several conditional statements. And LSAT logical reasoning questions often give you several conditional statements. So you should use a system of shorthand notation to represent them.

The system everyone has settled on has letters and arrows. Take the statement I gave above. Here's a good way to draw it:

C --> P

I prefer to stick to one letter, or two at most. Some people will try to add more letters, like this:

CEOF500 --> Pow

That quickly gets confusing. The letters should serve as a reminder of the statement, but they don't have to mirror every part of it.

Joining Conditional Statements To Form Deductions

If you have multiple conditional statements, you can often join them. Anytime the necessary condition of one statement matches the sufficient condition of another, you can put them together.

example: 

"Every CEO of a fortune 500 company is powerful."

"Everyone powerful is a little arrogant"

C --> P

P --> A

C --> P --> A

"Every CEO of a fortune 500 company is a little arrogant"

You could also draw this as C --> P --> LA, if you prefer to include the "little" in the statement about "arrogant".

Did you like this lesson on LSAT conditional statement diagramming? If so, you'll enjoy our online LSAT course, which has complete lessons on LSAT logic, applied to real LSAT questions.

Featured image: Steven Depolo

Comment on this

[This is a lesson excerpt from our online LSAT course, for which we invite you to enroll.]

19 common, repeated argument flaws that students overlook on Logical Reasoning

Note: This list is not meant to be exhaustive. It is simply meant to be a guide to the more common argument flaws the LSAT tends to exploit.

1. Attacking the source of the argument

To attack an argument you may attack:
1) the premises (which never happens on the LSAT); or
2) the support the premises give to the conclusion

What you DO NOT get to do is to attack the author, his past acts or arguments, his motivation, where the argument comes from, or anything other than (1) or (2).

2. Uses terms unclearly/equivocation

The author uses a term (with more than one meaning) inconsistently.  For example, “public interest” in one sense means what is in the best interest of the public (e.g., clean air, roads, schools).  In another sense, it means what the public is interested in (e.g, celebrity gossip).  The shift in word meaning will often be subtle and hard to notice.

3. Analogies that really aren’t analogous enough

All arguments by analogy fall apart at some point.  At some point the two things being analogized lose their relevant similarities and the analogy cannot continue.  We can say attacking the LSAT questions is like attacking enemy starships.  But, in many ways, it’s not.

4. Appealing to authority in an area outside their expertise

Appealing to an authority where the subject matter is outside the expertise of the authority. For example, a dentist’s opinions on automotive maintenance is not authoritative.

5. Causation confusions

Whenever the LSAT concludes or assumes that A causes B, 99.9% of the time it’s wrong. They’ll tell you A is correlated with B or that A coincided with B and therefore A caused B.  Maybe.  That’s just one possible explanation for the correlation. Here are the other 3 possible explanations:
1) B caused A
2) C caused both A and B
3) A and B are merely coincidentally correlated and really something else, X, caused B.  We see this a lot with accident rate and speed sign questions.  New speed limit sign was put up!  Accident rates drop!  Therefore, it must be that the new speed limit sign dropped the accident rate.  Maybe.  But maybe there was an increase in cop cars patrolling the area and that’s what actually caused the drop in accident rates.  The speed limit sign was just coincidentally there.

6. Circular reasoning

Assuming what you’re trying to prove.  The premise is a mere restatement of the conclusion.

“Everything I say is true. This is true because I said it, and everything I say is true.”

7. Confusing necessary and sufficient conditions

The oldest trick in the book.

8. False dichotomy

A false dichotomy only pretends to divide the universe into two binary halves.  It is not a real contradiction.  Consider this real contradiction: cats and non-cats.  That’s cleanly cuts the universe into two halves.  Garfield?  Cat.  Einstein, MacBook Pro, Love? Non-cat.  Here’s a false dichotomy: Cats and dogs.  See how that leaves out Einstein, MacBook Pro, and Love?  They are neither cats nor dogs.

9. Confusing probability for certainty

Could be is not must be. Even if something is 99.99% likely to happen, it does not mean that it will happen.

10. Confusing is for ought

Don’t confuse the descriptive for the prescriptive.  Descriptive simply describes the state of the world.  The tree is small.  The lake is murky.  Prescriptive reveals values.  The tree ought to be big.  The lake should be clear.   The prescriptive reveals what we care about.  You will typically encounter a descriptive premise leading to a prescriptive conclusion.  For example, the house is on fire therefore we should put the fire out.  That’s not a good argument.  There are a number of reasons why we wouldn’t want to put the fire out.  We always need a bridge premise to take us from the descriptive world of the premises to the prescriptive world of the conclusion.  The bridge in the example argument above would be: Houses that are on fire ought to have their fires put out.

11. Percentages v. quantity

Percentages don’t necessarily reveal quantity and vice versa.

For example, Group A wants a 10% raise and Group B wants a 50% raise. Who will earn more money afterward? Who is asking for more money? We have no way to know based on this information.

12. Surveys and samplings to reach a general conclusion

Remember that surveys and samplings must be random (that is, non-biased). Asking a group of 20 year olds about who they are voting for will only tell you who 20 year olds are voting for (assuming they’re a statistically random set of 20 year olds regarding race, gender, etc.), not who the entire country will vote for.

13. Hasty generalization

Hasty generalization is very similar to sampling error. The difference is that the conclusion is very broad. You cannot make a generalization based on small sample size or based on one or two incidents.

14. Experiments to reach a general conclusion

Experiments to reach a general conclusion must include a control group.  It must also establish the baseline of what is measured before the experiment begins.

15. Your argument fails therefore the opposite of your conclusion must be true

Be careful of arguments that try to do this.  Just because you’ve wrecked someone’s argument, doesn’t mean that you get to conclude the opposite of his conclusion.  If I make a crappy argument for going to the movies tonight as opposed to going to a bar or doing any number of things, you can’t just show me why my argument sucks and conclude: therefore we should go to a bar. First of all, there could be other arguments made to support going to the movies.  Additionally, you still have the burden of making an argument that proves that we should go to the bar.

16. Relative v. absolute

A is faster than B, therefore A is fast? Not necessarily so. A is faster than B in relative terms. It doesn’t imply that A is fast in the absolute sense. For example, we know that the conclusion in this statement is not true: “Hippopotamuses are smaller than an elephants. Therefore, hippopotamuses are small.” Or take this statement: “Turtles are faster than ants. Therefore, turtles are fast.”

17. Confusing one possible solution for the only solution

There are many ways to solve a problem. Just because one solution solves a problem doesn’t mean that particular solution is the only solution that can solve the problem. Nor, for that matter, does it mean it is the best solution. If I nuke Cleveland, I’ll probably solve Cleveland’s homeless problem. This does not make it a good solution.

This flaw can also be used in the negative. This happens when one solution to a problem turns out not solve the problem, and then the conclusion might say that the problem cannot be solved or that the problem shouldn’t be solved. The flaw remains: just because one solution to a problem is inadequate doesn’t mean that the problem itself cannot be solved.

18. Red herring

This happens when the argument doesn’t address the relevant issue.  Rather, it addresses some other issue that is tangential or has nothing to do with the relevant issue but, for some reason, commands your attention.

19. Tradition fallacy and novelty fallacy

The fact that something is old doesn’t mean that it is right or better. In the same vein, just because things have been done a certain way for a long time doesn’t mean that it is right or better. See slavery.

Likewise, just because something is new doesn’t entail that it is best course of action. Nor does it entail that the old thing or idea is no longer relevant or true. Change for the sake of change is not an argument; there must be something that shows the change is better.

--------------

Did you like this list of common LSAT argument flaws? You'll find more information like this in our online LSAT course, along with walkthroughs of hundreds of flawed LSAT arguments.

Featured image: square credit kevin dooley

3 comments

Sometimes it can feel like we are prisoners to our own habits, and indeed, research suggests more than 40% of our daily actions are automatic processes we no longer screen. As author Charles Duhigg explains in his popular book The Power of Habit, "When a habit emerges, the brain stops fully participating in decision making. [...] So unless you deliberately fight a habit--unless you find new routines--the pattern will unfold automatically." For the LSAT, eliminating bad habits and developing productive new ones can be tremendously helpful in improving your score, especially if you're shooting for the 90th percentile and above.

Three elements make up a habit--the cue, the routine, and the reward. Duhigg suggests that one way to replace a bad habit is to change the routine, as smokers often do by substituting gum or other snacks for cigarettes. Another way to tweak an existing habit is to tack on a new, good habit to the routine, such as doing a few squats while brushing your teeth or more pertinently, adding the blind review process to your normal practice test schedule.

What Duhigg calls "keystone habits" should be another point of focus. These are the habits that when changed, can also impact other habits in positive ways. Making one's bed in the morning is one such habit, producing a small "win" early on in the day and instilling confidence that "bigger achievements are within reach." For the LSAT, you can create a pre-test routine of several "keystone habits" to build up confidence with each step--a process that, as Duhigg writes, will help you feel victorious even before you reach the main event of the day.

Although I wasn't aware of it at the time, I built a pre-test routine similar to what Duhigg recommends, practicing it each time I took a sample exam: eat some oatmeal while reading Wired (stimulating but not rocket science), do a really easy logic game to get my brain going, and "free write" my anxieties (i.e. what could be the worst case scenarios, what would be my plan, and reminders that these things had never happened in the previous practice tests). If nothing else, it cut down on my anxiety by making the exam less of an event and more of a natural next step on my checklist.

You can read more about changing habits in the Power of Habit: Why We Do What We Do in Life and Business.

Featured image: Mertie .

Comment on this

Sometimes it can feel like we are prisoners to our own habits, and indeed, research suggests more than 40% of our daily actions are automatic processes we no longer screen. As author Charles Duhigg explains in his popular book The Power of Habit, "When a habit emerges, the brain stops fully participating in decision making. [...] So unless you deliberately fight a habit--unless you find new routines--the pattern will unfold automatically." For the LSAT, eliminating bad habits and developing productive new ones can be tremendously helpful in improving your score, especially if you're shooting for the 90th percentile and above.

Three elements make up a habit--the cue, the routine, and the reward. Duhigg suggests that one way to replace a bad habit is to change the routine, as smokers often do by substituting gum or other snacks for cigarettes. Another way to tweak an existing habit is to tack on a new, good habit to the routine, such as doing a few squats while brushing your teeth or more pertinently, adding the blind review process to your normal practice test schedule.

What Duhigg calls "keystone habits" should be another point of focus. These are the habits that when changed, can also impact other habits in positive ways. Making one's bed in the morning is one such habit, producing a small "win" early on in the day and instilling confidence that "bigger achievements are within reach." For the LSAT, you can create a pre-test routine of several "keystone habits" to build up confidence with each step--a process that, as Duhigg writes, will help you feel victorious even before you reach the main event of the day.

Although I wasn't aware of it at the time, I built a pre-test routine similar to what Duhigg recommends, practicing it each time I took a sample exam: eat some oatmeal while reading Wired (stimulating but not rocket science), do a really easy logic game to get my brain going, and "free write" my anxieties (i.e. what could be the worst case scenarios, what would be my plan, and reminders that these things had never happened in the previous practice tests). If nothing else, it cut down on my anxiety by making the exam less of an event and more of a natural next step on my checklist.

You can read more about changing habits in the Power of Habit: Why We Do What We Do in Life and Business.

Featured image: Made in Canva, image purchased by CL.

3 comments

We're looking for striking photos of 7Sagers to go up on our front page!

Ideally the photos would:
1. include 7Sage student; and
2. include laptop / tablet / phone used to access 7Sage; and
3. be visually arresting and in good taste; and
4. communicate how one uses 7Sage or what 7Sage is or studying for the LSAT.

That's it.

Whether you're cramped up in your 100 sqft NYC "apartment", or sprawled out on the steps of your Savannah portico, or hunched over in a greco-roman columned ass old library room, or looking ever so disdainful in your hipster coffee shop, think outside the box, work the angles, and break out the premium filters. We're looking for some creative stuff!

Submit photos as attachments with subject "7Sage Photo Contest" to jy@7sage.com

Multiple submissions welcome and $100 per photo chosen to use on the site ye shall receive. 

Contest ends June 1st. 

Featured image: Francisco Osorio

3 comments

An expert on human rights law, Rebecca Hamilton is a Research Scholar and Lecturer at Columbia Law School. Prior to her work at Columbia, she was a Special Correspondent on Sudan for The Washington Post and a lawyer for the International Criminal Court (ICC). Here, she talks to 7Sage about her experiences as a joint JD-MPP student at Harvard Law School, her work at the ICC, and her thoughts on the ICC and present-day human rights concerns.

Can you talk about your time at Harvard Law School?

Harvard is like New York City in the sense that its size brings a lot of diversity.

I had an incredible time at the law school. I remember Dean Kagan telling us as 1Ls that Harvard is like New York City in the sense that its size brings a lot of diversity, and I found that to be true.  You have a large number of classmates and so  from among them you can find your own niche. I very much found my human rights niche there with a great human rights clinic that enabled me to do a lot of things that I was passionate about doing.

You did a joint JD-MPP degree. Is that something you’d recommend for students interested in international law?

I don’t think it’s necessary for people going into international law as a career, although any additional experience is invariably useful in whatever you do.

I don’t think it’s necessary for people going into international law as a career, although any additional experience is invariably useful in whatever you do. For me, it was a nice balance of subjects, and I liked having a very policy oriented focus in the mix. I was in the extremely privileged position of having a scholarship, but the costs are significantly higher when you do a double degree – both in terms of the tuition and the opportunity cost of another year out of the workforce – so I really advise people to think hard about whether it is worth them taking that extra burden on.

What were some of your most enjoyable classes, whether in your JD or MPP program?

But I made some great friends, and as a result I’ve now got friends who work on all sorts of areas of the law that I know absolutely nothing about, and that ends up being quite useful in daily life.

The law school’s human rights clinic was certainly a highlight. I also had fantastic seminar experiences in my third year with other students who were doing a joint public policy and law degree. What’s exciting at that point is you’re starting to build a core community that’s going to stay with you after law school and be part of your professional life. In your third year, you have more of your bearings and understand more of what’s going on whereas the first year is generally overwhelming.

Although I will say that my first year, I had a fantastic section. It’s a group of 50 students you do all your required classes with, and most of those people will never go near international law. But I made some great friends, and as a result I’ve now got friends who work on all sorts of areas of the law that I know absolutely nothing about, and that ends up being quite useful in daily life. People come to you, knowing you’re a lawyer, and say, “I’ve got this custody issue, can you help?” As an international lawyer I’m of no use to them, but at least I probably can find them someone who will be!

How did you initially become interested in international law?

I saw what a precarious situation refugees were in, legally.

Back in in Australia, I had worked with asylum seekers, and they seemed to have very minimal legal protections under refugee law. I saw what a precarious situation refugees were in, legally. Only after that did I learn about internally displaced persons (IDP). When you are an IDP, you are suffering persecution just like a refugee but you can’t actually cross the border and get away from the government that is persecuting you The end result is that you have no formal protection of international law because you are still stuck in your country. I couldn’t understand how this could be, and I was really interested in studying and understanding that, which led me to get interested in Sudan. It was a country, which at that moment (and this was pre-Iraq), had the largest number of internally displaced people. So I began working with IDPs there, and everything else flowed from that.

640x589_Flickr_JosefStueferInternational Criminal Court, 
Hague, Netherlands

I know that you worked for the International Criminal Court (ICC) after graduating from law school. Can you talk about that experience?

It was a huge privilege to be working on cases of that scale so early in my career.

It was incredible to be at the ICC at such an early stage in its institutional development. I was really seeing it from the ground up. It was a huge privilege to be working on cases of that scale so early in my career. Just seeing what this radically new court on the international stage was trying to do and the reactions of states was an enormous education.

It was also frustrating—the degree of cooperation that the court was receiving was not as much as it needed to be, particularly with the Sudan situation. After an initial period, the court could no longer get investigator access to the situation at all.

Do you think the U.S. will be joining the ICC in the future?

I don’t think it’ll happen soon but the relationship between the U.S. and the ICC since the second term of the Bush administration has been one of constructive engagement, and I think that’s a pretty functional status quo. Still, I hope at a future point, the U.S. will ratify.

Fatou Bensouda became the ICC’s Chief Prosecutor to much fanfare in 2012. How has she been doing in this role?

I think her tenure needs to take on a different role from the first Prosecutor.

It’s too early in her tenure to make any assessment but I think it’s fantastic to have an African woman at the head of the Court. I think her tenure needs to take on a different role from the first Prosecutor. The role of the first Prosecutor was really to convince the world that this thing called the ICC could be viable and could be a player on the world stage, and that’s an important part of any new institution’s role. The role for the person who comes in after that is really about consolidation and showing that you can do the day-to-day operations and make the trials credible, both procedurally and substantively. That work happens farther removed from the spotlight. That’s the role she’s taking on.

Can you talk more about the article you wrote on the lack of capacity of domestic courts in states where ICC cases are pending?

So the root of the problem is that those domestic jurisdictions can’t – or wont’ - take on the cases themselves because if they could, then the ICC would not be in there at all.

It was in the context of this charge that the ICC is targeting African states, which, despite the over-representation of African cases, is misleading in the sense that most of those situations have been referred to the ICC by those African states themselves, or by the U.N. Security Council. But the bigger issue is that the ICC only gets involved when the domestic jurisdiction is unwilling or unable to do so. So the root of the problem is that those domestic jurisdictions can’t – or wont’ - take on the cases themselves because if they could, then the ICC would not be in there at all. So the question I had was whether these African leaders who are saying that the court is racist are trying to deflect attention from the debilitated state of their own domestic justice systems.

ICCInformation via the ICC

Is that the ultimate goal, to have domestic courts that can handle these types of cases?

Yes, in an ideal world, you wouldn’t need the ICC. In a truly ideal world, you wouldn’t need the ICC because none of these atrocities would be happening. But at the very least, justice is always best if it can be closer to the victims and survivors. So if domestic courts could be prosecuting these crimes, it would be a great result for everybody. But we need an ICC for as long as domestic jurisdictions are unable or unwilling to play that role.

How would we go about doing that, and is there a role for international law in that process?

I think we spend, as lawyers, a lot of the time looking at the legality of getting into situations and not nearly enough time thinking about the exit.

There’s a role for international actors. That’s a little bit of what you’ve seen in Yugoslavia with the ICTY taking on a coordinating role with other actors to help establish the ability to do war crimes trials in Bosnia for instance. It takes a sustained period of work. One of the papers I’m writing now is about how unless the ICC has an exit strategy in place in the situations that they are in, it’s hard to motivate these actors to think about how to get their own domestic systems ready to handle these crimes in the future because they think the ICC will do it. But the ICC should not be doing this on a permanent basis in any one country.

I think we spend, as lawyers, a lot of the time looking at the legality of getting into situations and not nearly enough time thinking about the exit. Yet we know from the perspective of people on the ground that the way exit is handled has a huge impact on long term outcomes.

You have and continue to work with civil society groups against mass atrocities and have significant experience on the ground. What is memorable or surprising about these on-the-ground interactions?

The resilience of people is always absolutely humbling. I’ve spent time with women who’ve experienced things that I feel like would completely destroy me, and yet they are making it work and doing the absolute best possible job for their kids. It gives one a good sense of perspective.

What areas in the world are you concerned about now for the potential of genocide?

South Sudan, where there is horrific violence. What started as a political conflict has escalated. There has been highly irresponsible leadership that has been fueling atrocities between different communities on the ground. But there is any number of places to be watching out for. Obviously, the moral stain that the world is facing with Syria, and similarly with Myanmar and the Central African Republic. And it seems that world leaders never have the bandwidth to deal with more than one crisis at once.

Are there lessons you wish you had known as a law student, or earlier on in your career?

You won’t remember 90% of the actual coursework that you learned but the relationships you make will last.

I think what shocks me still is the degree to which a J.D. opens doors into things even vastly outside of the law. It seems, in the U.S. context in particular, that the J.D. is a unique signal of credibility. I know my ability to work as a foreign correspondent in Sudan for instance was partly perception that well, she’s had that legal training and critical thinking instilled through the J.D. so we can trust her analytical abilities.

And the other is that they always tell you in law school, but that you don’t fully appreciate at the time, is that you learn the most from your colleagues. Turns out they’re right. You won’t remember 90% of the actual coursework that you learned but the relationships you make will last.

You can read more of Rebecca's thoughts on international human rights law at the UN Dispatch and also at her website.

Visit the 7Sage Law School blog to read more interviews with lawyers and law students

Featured image: 640x427_Flickr_TomRoeleveld

2 comments

See the top law school rankings from US News in full technicolor!  You can track the progress of every school that was in the top-100 since 2009, all interactive and pretty like :)

Top Law School Rankings

Screen Shot 2014-04-27 at 4.04.29 PM

Featured image: / // /

Comment on this