Column

Fishing Justice in Yemen and the Limited Value of Grand Design

Sunday morning 3:30 a.m. and my head finally hits a cushion. I have just done an Amsterdam – Istanbul – Sana’a in 11 hours. By Tuesday evening I have been totally submerged in Yemen, even though I do not speak Arabic. To compensate, I have become very sensitive to all other forms of communication: the voice of my interpreting colleague, the pronunciation of the few that speak English, and the sounds and body movements of those I communicate to.

The Minister of Justice, traditionally dressed, welcoming me in the name of Allah the Merciful, together with his ministry colleague, the President of the High Judicial Council. There are plans afoot to separate the two; judges must be independent, also at the highest level, says the international community. The ministry must be reformed, so it can make and direct strategy.

The High Judicial Academy whose dean was chief public prosecutor but was asked to step down by then president Saleh after he had said that those in the security forces who had ordered the shooting of protesters in 2010 should be prosecuted. This is where the professional foundations for the judges of a peaceful and prosperous Yemen are to be laid.

The National Election Commission that needs to register 10 million voters, set up a reliable electronic voting system, organize a referendum on the new constitution that is now being cobbled together, organize parliamentary elections and, if the new constitution so provides, do the election of a president. And all that in about a year, in a country where many power struggles are still dealt with the Kalashnikov way.

The Police Academy, closed off because of a strike: young police cadets ‘democratically’ demand the resignation of its dean because a cohort of new comers – admitted corruptly – failed the exams. This is where the trusted policemen of the future must come from.

Fascinating conversations. There is too much ad hoc. No coordination. I am a young judge, never listened to. Informal justice and politics so often intervenes. Laws and judgement are not enforced properly. We have no management information. And the classic: we need more resources. Voices of people who have often been disappointed, bringing a degree of cautiousness with it.

Where do you start when you want to build a justice system in a place like Yemen? In the villages? With better laws? Elections? Training judges? Top down? Bottom-up? And when is the job done? What can outsiders usefully do? Where do you begin if you want the justice institutions and cultures to change into Danish ones?

My own anecdotal evidence has taught me that a lot of law is culture, changing culture hurts, outsiders are generally not very useful, nothing is linear, all is needed at once, and grand designs don’t work. I do a thought experiment in the plane back home. I am quietly living in my country, Holland, with all its good things – safety and a fair degree of prosperity – and bad things – lots of bureaucracy, permits and rules for almost everything, and authorities everywhere. I have learned to give that all a place and to navigate it to organise my life. Then, one day, in comes the international community. It tells me this is no good and must change: the Dutch system must be ‘informalised’. Prosperity and human dignity can only come to with a lot less rules and a lot more reliance on ‘wisdom’ and ‘common sense’. Research supports this, they say, and they also have an international convention on informalisation to back it up. A massive effort is launched. There is a donor coordination conference. A Big Plan. Experts from other countries fly in. Some of my countrymen see great opportunities and become ‘change agents’. They rise. Others fall. There is much confusion as ‘the way things were’ is demolished without anything clear replacing it except a new law and a new institution here and there. Very few of the experts that are supposed to coach us speak Dutch. We laugh about how little these informationlisation experts know about our informal rules. And they mostly focus on courts.

I need not take this further, except fast forward eight years and 50 billion euros; the Dutch Donor Conference of 2021: “Those damn Dutch keep sticking to their rules; they like ‘em so much. Can’t they see what’s good for them? Most courts have formalized the informal rules we made and the ministries of finance and social affairs are obstructing everything. It’s a bit disappointing what our money has brought. We should pull out. If they don’t want prosperity, that’s their problem!”

Matt Andrews (Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government) just wrote a very good book that sets out how difficult institutional change in development is. He backs up my anecdotes and childish thought experiments with more solid evidence. Some of his main conclusions: there is little value in grand designs, we must work more iteratively, learning as you go, connect to concrete problems and users, involve many people, and there is only so much outsiders can do. The good news: he also shows that when you do these things, deep change can happen. Much of what Andrews concludes about institutional change is confirmed in what almost 100 justice innovators and many rule of law leaders told us over the past years, as we were working to understand innovating justice (distilled, also, in a book). We must change the way we work on change. This is true for both Yemen and The Netherlands. Effective change capacity is needed to avoid that justice systems become stuck because they can’t cope with demands.

Retweet information »

Comments

  1. m. diane kindree

    Your column is full of keen observations on the challenges of change which many countries around the globe are currently facing. I totally agree that the trajectory and outcome for “a grand design”, for reforming the Ministry of Justice in Yemen, is limited for all the reasons you have stated. What concerns me is the unleashing of a level of performance “speed” (1 yr.) which can further change everthing–greater confusion and friction, hidden agendas, political conflict, interdepartmental rivalries, etc. which can derail any good intentions quickly. You have successfully underlined my own belief that there are many keys to effect change but which keys will open the doors of change is a question only insiders can answer.
    I am looking forward to your next enlightening and reaffirming column.

  2. “IMF dirty MF
    Takes away everything it can get
    Always making certain that there’s one thing left
    Keep them on the hook with insupportable debt
    See the paid-off local bottom feeders
    Passing themselves off as leaders
    Kiss the ladies shake hands with the fellows
    Open for business like a cheap bordello
    And they call it democracy
    And they call it democracy
    And they call it democracy
    And they call it democracy
    See the loaded eyes of the children too
    Trying to make the best of it the way kids do
    One day you’re going to rise from your habitual feast
    To find yourself staring down the throat of the beast
    They call the revolution
    IMF dirty MF
    Takes away everything it can get
    Always making certain that there’s one thing left
    Keep them on the hook with insupportable debt”

    Call it democracy by Bruce Cockburn

    Muller, and Andrews whom he praises, are singing their song with lyrics completely at variance with Cockburn’s lyrics (above). However both give the game away when they admit that there is not much that can be done, well maybe a new coat of paint.

    Andrews` tome is has a surfeit of very abstract (there are levels of abstraction!) Hegelian-like words and terminology (leaves out the Spirit though!).

    It is practical though: little steps, keep the external pressure on, and the IMF and World Bank, institutions by the way where the US has veto power, will continue to try to find internal “agents” of change. The book reads like a longwinded 3rd or 4th year paper which was then handed over to an adult who massaged the text with a thesaurus with the goal of substituting Hegelian sounding words for a primitive view of the societal dynamics.

    Just the read the sections on Argentina for proof – won’t take long and proves the point.

  3. Well, Ginger, how would you (or Bruce Cockburn) go about solving the problems described in this column’s third, fourth or fifth paragraph, with the dynamics described in the sixth? Or are they not real problems? Perhaps you have a grand design where Sam Muller can’t see one.

  4. Could be we don’t disagree ?

    Starting from the bottom: with regard to Argentina – there is no mention of the military junta in the mid-70s, nor the 30,000 (at the least) torture and killed, nor of the mothers and grandmothers walking for 20 or more years in silence protesting the killings in a Bueno Aires plaza, nor is there is mention of the billions of dollars of US military aircraft and other weapons (as well torturing equipment for sending high to low charges of electricity through various parts of the body (private parts though preferred, as they say), but sold to the junta in power which weighs heavily in the total external debt, nor of the wholesale and retail sale of government agencies or corporations, and of the rights of water (in the 1990s), and the default of the government on various debts and contracts: 40 or more cases before the courts and ICSID — seems the sanctity of the contract and personalty of the international organization is a barrier to putting an end these very crooked and immoral business transactions, etc. Andrews describes these and various events and facts as a cultural problem — society, monolithic construction in his view, turns on a few concepts like caudissimo, hard positions of the contenting sections of society, etc.

    His approach is akin to the big top preacher — “Ok folks put your differences aside”. Problem with that is that the solutions then proposed work only for one side: those with the control on most of the society’s wealth. Andrews labours hard to create some one-sided consensus based on “agents” of change who would change the system in very little incremental steps, so much so that change is visible but with very little content and has a corresponding impact.

    Now the whole book is backed up with statistics and studies based primarily (highlighting my point: primarily) and overwhelmingly on studies from the OECD, IMF, World Bank, etc and WGI and TI. These studies and statistics form the theoretical rock and practical basis for his diagnosis and for curing the symptoms, and I point out, not for the causes.

    In many of these studies the US and other OECD countries some of the developing world countries or third world countries are included but very few. These studies are used to point these countries in the “right” direction. However given the level of economic, financial and government corruption that is being witnessed since 2008 (theoretically we should go back to 1991 at the very least) in the US and major OECD countries (outright theft — housing fraud, deed fraud, stock market fraud – ie. HFT dominance, fiscal and monetary manipulation, investment bank fraud (including but not limited to Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan, RBS, UBS, Lehman, Barclays’s (and others over LIBOR). All this is reported and condemned regularly in editorials of the Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, The Telegraph, New York Times, sometimes by the Globe and Mail.

    The best I leave for last: the 40 ICSID cases that are before it (ICSID) against Argentina (the other party) are starting to be decided by the ICSID arbitrators. All have gone against Argentina. Argentina is systematically seeking judicial review of these decisions in the courts of the respective jurisdictions that the BITs were negociated. It is unclear how many Argentina will win at this moment but if they lose the majority or if they win or lose a number they are all based on the same legal principle: the state’s ability to protect its citizens. The reasoning you would think should be consistent. The issue of water is probably the most sensitive for all parties.

    The kicker is that the ICSID is a creation of the World Bank. The World Bank president appoints the arbitrators to hear all ICSID cases. The World Bank with the participation of various international IFIs and oversight of the IMF in some cases, funded part or most of these contracts that are being contested and guarantee making whole the losing investors if there are any.

    The ICSID is legal personalty and as an international governmental institution and cannot be sued but the ICSID decisions can be challenged in national courts. So the complainant cannot pursue the World Bank for the appointment of biased, etc. arbitrators if there were. The ICSID cannot be pursued on that issue because it does not have the power to appoint. If the issue of biased appointments if it is to be pursued has to be done in a very convoluted manner (however this brings to mink the Canada Post arbitrator(s) who were struck off by Canadian courts after Harper had appointed an alledgedly biased arbitrator — in Canada that was piece of cake compared to the Argentinian situation).

    Given the Argentina situation: why on Earth would anyone use OECD, IMF, World Bank, etc. statistics and studies to base their normative and positivist solutions ?

    The issue is fundamentally in these court cases the state’s ability to protect its citizens. I have left out the same issue but in an entirely different context: state targeted assassinations. The US, currently the leading example, used to use intermediaries, now it is intermediaries and direct action: drone planes with missiles, etc. The US has veto power over most of the organizations I dealt with in the above section on Argentina. I would sure like someone to make a coherent case for using a few of the statistics and studies that are produced by these organizations and base policy decisions on them??

    But I may have misunderstood your point ?

  5. The long expostulation about Argentina seems to have little enough to do with the key points in the original post. I do not see how it helps answer any of these questions or respond to these statements, for example:

    Where do you start when you want to build a justice system in a place like Yemen? In the villages? With better laws? Elections? Training judges? Top down? Bottom-up? And when is the job done? What can outsiders usefully do? Where do you begin if you want the justice institutions and cultures to change into Danish ones?

    My own anecdotal evidence has taught me that a lot of law is culture, changing culture hurts, outsiders are generally not very useful, nothing is linear, all is needed at once, and grand designs don’t work.

    If a debate on ICSID is wanted, perhaps it deserves a separate post. Canada and several provinces have passed legislation to implement the ICSID Convention, but Canada has not yet ratified it. Do you, Ginger, suggest that Canada should not do so?

    Argentina’s regime of the generals ended about 30 years ago. Are all the cases being arbitrated under ICSID finding default by Argentina in its contractual obligations with foreign investors attributable to the pernicious consequences of that regime?

    What kind of ‘political force majeure’ clause would be appropriate in a treaty intended to allow foreign investors to have some confidence that the rules won’t change in a country after they have made their investments based on the rules in place when it made them? Again, I think that’s a subject for a different thread, since the answer does not help resolve any of the questions posed in the original post here.

  6. Nathalie Des Rosiers was very courageous when she appeared before the House of Commons Committee studying Bill S-7 — … here are some snippets of what she said on Wednesday, November 28, 2012 :

    “We’re not a society that says in general when the police think that someone may not be the…that we should just reduce their liberty for 12 months to give them a cooling period. That has not been the Canadian way.
    That has not been the way in which presumption of innocence works.”

    “You know, you could prevent them from travelling; there are lots of consequences. And they’ve never had their day in court. They will not have a day in court to justify this. The consequences there are immense.”

    “I think the idea of investigating and trying to pursue the route that we know works and that has worked for a long time, protecting the presumption of innocence but at the same time ensuring the safety of the public, is the criminal law route.”

    If one cares to read the rest of the testimony on that day before the Committee you will see that she is treated with absolute and total contempt by some members of the Conservative and Liberal parties. As usual she was extremely dignified and graceful when she interacted with the Committee members. For anyone with an interest in jazz I would say that of what was said of Nina Simone (Mississippi Goddam) would apply to Mme. Des Rosiers: dignity and gracefulness defined. Des Rosiers did not even raise to the bait and did not fire when she could see their white knuckles and the whites of the eyes. I leave aside the knuckledraggers who did not seem to be in attendance.

    On the other hand, “The Lion sleeps tonight” song promises more than love in the morning:

    “In the jungle, the mighty jungle
    The lion sleeps tonight
    In the jungle, the quiet jungle
    The lion sleeps tonight”

    It was a song which many consider to be the first major international anti-apartheid song of the 20th century. In those dark times, (before Soweto) and to the dark times we are living now, the lion is sleeping but there will come a time when the lion will awake. This awakening will not lead to darkness but to the light, to the resolution of “intractable” and insoluble issues that the current political and economic elites find so difficult, and for which for they say there are no substantial solutions to be found. Well not completely, NATO/OECD “humanitarian interventions” have served and are serving the purpose of first putting the “developing” world in its place. Big killers like Bush and now Obama weave and duck nerf ball missiles while the kids, women and the otherwise uninvolved are slaughtered by the hundreds on purely coincidental grounds.

    Now it seems to me that the movement against presumption of innocence is moving along further and faster in other parts of the world than Canada, and perhaps bellyaching on the part of the “pro-humanitarian interventionists” might ring a little hollow when compared to twitchy trigger fingers eating Twinkies and Coke and suffering PTSD over their bombing missions, but safe, sound and in heavenly bureaucratic North America.

    I bring this up because Muller and Andrews are suggesting that all conflict should and must now be dealt with in the manner which Mme. Des Rosiers dealt with the reversal of hundreds of years of Common and Statutory Law as found, to be assented (the old GG could prove his worth and refuse to assent) and proclaimed in law in Bill S-7. But “…while the legal power to veto remains, it is impossible to set out any “rule” which might govern the situation; the private and vigorous exchange of views between Sovereign and Prime Minister would be the best course. Indeed, in practice a Sovereign’s concerns about any legislation actually expressed in private might be of greater constitutional importance than the legal possibility of a royal veto. Further speculation is pointless.” (“Royal assent to legislation” by Rodney Brazier, L.Q.R. 2013 v. 129 (Apr), 184-204)

    And then there is the non-violent but nevertheless contemptuous treatment meted out by Conservative and Liberal Members of Parliament. I think there is general agreement that most change does not have to come by virtue of the taking up of arms or of the gun, in other words: peaceful change can, should and has been the dominant form of societal change. However the majority view has not been what most of the “developing world”, if one simply takes a cursory historical jaunt from about 1492 to the present, has been subject to. In other words, the most significant change came with the use of force whether directly or indirectly: weapons, famine, starvation, killings, genocide, and, the transfer of ownership of property (gold, land, slaves, tobacco, sugar, coffee, etc.) with contractual consideration given in the form of a Bible, various baubles, and an annual per capita grant not indexed to CPI. The acceptance took many forms: silence, retreat to hideaways, peace pipe, and being herded by soldiers and mounted police into “Indian reservations”, etc. It is clear that Golthorpe and Logan ((1943), [1943] O.W.N. 215, [1943] 2 D.L.R. 519) is still good law and is applicable:

    Laidlaw wrote: “If the vendor’s self-confidence had persuaded her into an excessive, extravagant promise, she cannot now escape a complaint from a credulous and distressed person to whom she gave assurance of future excellence and relief from her burden. The strong cannot disregard any undertaking binding in law, however lightly given, and the weak unfortunate person, however gullible, can be sure that the courts of this country will not permit anyone to escape the responsibility arising from an enforceable promise.”

    This segues nicely into the ICSID issue. The ICSID was created (World Bank) to protect investors’ interests primarily through BITs negotiated between individual countries; but these relationships were and are extremely unequal: viz. third world countries on one side and OECD countries on the other. Multilateral treaties for the most part bind the OECD countries within their own group. There is a trend though towards regional multilateral treaties which include both major elements, of the BITs and multilateral treaties, into a new form of “international” institution (US, Canada, Japan, and Southeast Asian countries for example) nevertheless the power relationships remain the same and are heavily weighted in favour of the OECD countries. But it must be pointed out that there is also a vertical pecking order within the OECD as well – small vs. big GNP and by military strength.

    Should Canada sign the ICSID ? Well it belongs to the OECD group so there is little risk, except if we take into account that Canada is the mouse in the company of elephants: US, UK, France, Germany, Japan, etc. The BRICS – time will tell whether they will usher in a different paradigm. Venezuela and the Latin American countries are creating different kinds of multilateral institutions and the US and lap dog (h/t to Tony Blair) Harper/Baird, ostensibly Canadians, are in a petulant mood.

    In a nutshell the Rostow model of stages of economic growth emerged at the same time that the modernization models of social and political development broke loose on the third world. These models were found to be completely intellectually bankrupt in the late 1960s and early 1970s and there is worse to come. These models, which were found to be politically and economically worthless as policy proposals and practices, have resurfaced with Muller and Andrews. The refurbished guise is a cover for the same structural theories – brand new clothing. The clothing as expressed in words is almost incomprehensible and is unintelligible. Meaningful explanations are non-existent and the content is a wasteland of intellectual content and historical truth.

    I think these authors (Muller and Andrews) do believe what they have written; they do believe in the manner that Gore Vidal used to refer Sky God enthusiasts and those Born a Second Time. But the old adage of the sales business applies applies to proselytizers: real sincerity or “once you can fake sincerity” the sky is the limit, in sales. Sincerity real or faked is essential. In any case it does not matter, because both forms arrive at the same result(s). It would be nice if they, Muller and Andrews, could to a little more reading outside the OECD framework. They show that they have read token amounts to pad the bibliography – standard undergrad trick. Reading lots and lots more would be better and they have to vary the reading or content. Let’s encourage them to continue in their approach of quantity first, then encourage them to switch to quality when they feel up to it.

  7. 1. None of this very long text addresses in any manner, nor invalidates, the questions raised by Muller in his text and noted by me in my last post.

    2. ICSID is not relevant to this thread. If you’d like to discuss the merits of ICSID, I can start a thread directly on that point, and you could contribute your views to that.

  8. Ginger Goodwin

    “ For example Miles can use motherfucker to compliment someone or simply as punctuation. ….[T]onal language…the same word can take different meanings according to the pitch and tone, the way the word is spoken.” in Miles: The Autobiography by Miles Davis and Quincy Troupe, p. 414.

    John I can’t thank you enough for the dialogue. What I have finally had to come to accept is that there are a few exceptional writers (Rick Salutin, Thomas Walkom, Michael Tigar, Michael Lynk, are the most prominent for me) who are able to communicate within a discipline and use the concepts the various paradigms or models with ease and be able to make critical sense of the various strands: liberalism, neo-liberalism, weberian, marxist, etc. This is a rare talent and gift which clearly I do not possess. Trying to speak in a different language or idiom is difficult but some have mastered it completely, think of Conrad writing in English. This applies pehaps more so with regard to theoretical and practical models.

    So coming clean: Muller and Andrews are nothing but apologists, maybe not of the lowest order, for the view to dominate and exploit the developing world by the developed world. World systems theory (Arrighi, Wallerstein, Frank among others – only Wallerstein is still alive) would not spend more than 60 seconds on what they would probably call third rate tripe. They would however, as all serious and/or public intellectuals (think Chomsky, Sartre, Sen (the older not the younger), Arendt, Weber, Marx, Lenin, Talcott Parsons (give the devil his due – he is a structuralist), Russell, Eco, Man Yo (in is own way), Borges, Fuentes, and not MacNamara, Kissinger, Nixon as a writer, Carter (as President), W.W. Rostow, Milton Friedman, Jeff Sachs, Petraeus, etc. ) be interested not only in the existence of this model but in how it developed and to where it is going. In that sense, they would write it off as not just another failed, botched but perhaps also a new malevolent attempt to keep the third world in its place.

    So what I attempted to say, in your “language” is that since the rise of the US hegemon/imperial state (in the Marxist sense), this paradigm that Muller and Andrews are passing off as the real thing is nothing but the third iteration of the same structural model thought up in the 1950s. In the 1950s the third world had learned that there had been overall major economic improvement while the US and Europe were fighting the second european civil war. FDI etc. dried up and the links between the imperialist countries and dominated countries were weakened. These are facts. True there were exceptions but on the whole this view holds. Economic and political modernization was the imperialists’ states strategic and tactical offensive against the Third World at the same time that the colonies were not being colonies but sovereign states. For the last 150 years FDI has become dominant with trade taking second place in the dominant countries in economic development theory. Smith and Ricardo stressed trade and societal development was based on producing and trading between countries, not between firms at the international level.

    The counterpart theory to Rostow and Huntington was the dependency theorist primarily based in Latin America aroung ECLA in Brazil and Chile (Brazil military junta closed down the centers in Brazil and incarcerated Caetano Veloso for a time– I guess they didn’t like his singing and in Chile, Pinochet closed these centers as well and killed world reknown musician in the same league as Veloso: Victor Jara). Raul Prebisch was the leading theoretical writer for about 10 years, and then the Marxists and neo-Marxists started using his paradigm but with a twist (not important for undestanding Muller and Andrews but important for understanding current development of Marxist economic and political theory).

    The dependency theorists tried to bridge the gap between FDI dispensing manna from heaven and the other position, a variation of loansharking. Muller and Andrews find themselves between two extremes: the imperialist “let the third world chew on humanitarian intervention” (small smart wars, drones, renditions, Gitmo, NATO humanitarian intervention – third world has noticed the difference North Korea, India, Pakistan, (not Israel) have developed nuclear weapons – Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria have not) and the autarchical/regional conglemerations with no participation or involvement from the imperialist countries. Samir Amin, Chavez, Meszaros and others are for the development of new and substantively different international relationships. The middle position is Muller and Andrews and TWAIL: give money (Cash for projects and now Bonds for projects) with strong accountability on the results and no longer only on the front end processes (“professional assessments”, proper RFPs, double entry accounting, etc.) but on the end result or to put into other words: Black Brazilians are being discriminated negatively – how can some of these projects help them out. The values are again the same as in the earlier pardigms and based on a western view of the world and with the priorities which are, as always, being universalized – to put it charitably values applied regardless of context. So now we have systems in place based on the idea that in the poorest of the poor countries, that actual physical improvement (water, food, medicine, etc.) are not priorites but the legal system is; whether discriminated groups are able to compete for jobs in a non-negative discriminatory fashion or stated differently: merit. I don’t think it stretches the imagination to figure out that a starving child for food or water or death by illness brought on by starvation would not rate merit based competition very high on societal priorities.

    However in keeping with knowing what is happening as opposed to celebrating this new development (Muller, etc.) the money grants, or loans are changing or have changed radically from sovereign to sovereign or IFI (IMF, etc.) to sovereign country, to a more fluid relationship: NGOs to neither IFI or sovereign state. This has caused much concern in the third world.

    Last point: classical Marxist theory brought out the fact that the exploitation between countries was based on FDI and repatriation of fababulous amounts of gold, money capital transfer, etc. from the Third World. This paradigm or fact based model has been turned upside down: exploitation takes place now on the transfer of physical goods from let’s say China, Brazil, Chile, etc. and in return for what some would are worthlelss US dollars or Treasuries in the lingo of today. This development explains in the Marxist view most of the change in the paradigms we are speaking about. One can argue as to the importance of these changes but one cannot deny their existence. Muller and Andrews unfortunately do not dwell long and hard enough on these facts. As well if I was an investor or relied on the third world countries to ship goods, etc. I would want a legal regime in place to guarantee the sanctity of the deal (the contract) and of property – in the latter case not necessarily my property there, but the property of my manufacturers and suppliers. Supply chains are very tight now.

  9. Ginger Goodwin

    Law Day, the ABA and Addressing Reality
    The Law in Crisis

    by RALPH NADER (May 2, 2013)

    ” Whether in the pages of the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal or in Associated Press stories, big corporations such as the banks, oil companies, and drug firms are shown to be, in the words of one concise prosecutor, “lying, cheating and stealing.”

    A corporate crime wave is running amuck eroding people’s savings, pensions, jobs, health and safety! Corporatism is becoming the law of the land as enforcement budgets and political will shrink before the torrent of abuses.”

    “…big firm lawyers have aggressively fostered regimes over the people of one-sided fine print contracts (see faircontracts.org), weakened tort law for wrongfully injured persons and, most brazenly, even lobbied and litigated to place insuperable procedural obstructions before real peoples’ access to the courts. (See Arthur Miller’s Simplified Pleading, Meaningful Days in Court, and Trials on the Merits: Reflections on the Deformation of Federal Procedure.)”

    Substitute NATO/OECD, IMF, World Bank, etc. for US big legal firms and this is what the Third World sees when Muller and Andrews speak of developing legal structures in the developing world.

Leave a Reply

(Your email address will not be published or distributed)