Development experts and human rights activists are logical allies, but until recently each tackled issues such as child labor, land rights or women’s empowerment in their own way. A deeper connection was formed last spring, however, at a conference entitled “Human Rights and Development: Toward Mutual Reinforcement,” co-sponsored by the Law School’s Center for Human Rights and Global Justice and the Ethical Globalization Initiative, with support from the World Bank.

World Bank President James Wolfensohn was the keynote speaker; discussions between other World Bank officials and human rights experts such as Mary Robinson, former United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and chairwoman of EGI, followed. “There was a time not so long ago when human rights discourse was almost always that of diplomats, lawyers and philosophers, while development thinking and writing was the domain of economists and other social scientists,” said Robinson, who also participated in the “Human Rights Perspectives on the Millennium Development Goals,” a Law School symposium sponsored by the Center for Human Rights and Global Justice. “Today, that gap is finally closing,” she said. “Development practitioners are finding that there are obvious—indeed, elephantine— human rights dimensions to many of the principal themes that occupy their attention.”

Wolfensohn also underscored the increasing overlap between development and human rights. “I’ve said to Mary many times: ‘You know, one of the things we have to do in our institution is to try and get things done, but to some of our shareholders the very mention of…human rights is inflammatory language.’ And, it’s getting into areas of politics, and it’s getting into areas that they’re very concerned about. We decide to just go around it and we talk the language of economics and social development.”

Wolfensohn went on to outline the difficulties of achieving the Millennium Development Goals—including eradicating extreme poverty and hunger and achieving universal primary education—that all 191 members of the United Nations have pledged to help make happen by 2015. “There’s a fair chance that statistically we will achieve the poverty goal,” he said. “But if you read the statistics, they are highly biased by China and India. And if you take a look at countries in sub- Saharan Africa you’ll find that statistics are, in fact, going in the other direction.”

Wolfensohn argued that these goals are difficult to reach because of a lack of focus and financing. “We talk about achieving the objectives because the world is united in support,” Wolfensohn said. “It’s nonsense. The world’s governments are spending 20 times the amount of development expenditures on military expenditures….We [the development community and the human rights community] have a common enemy: indifference. …By joining together [we can put] pressure on our leaders to make this world a more focused and…effective place in terms of development and in terms of rights.”

Last May, just two months after the conference, President Wolfensohn announced that he was putting forth a proposal to the World Bank board to promote a human rights-oriented method in the bank’s lending policies. “The institution has up until now refused to deal with its activities using a rights-based approach,” he said.

As an American Jew who has not only mastered constitutional law, but the tenets of Islam as well, Feldman offers a unique perspective on how to design the Iraqi constitution. He has also gained the trust of those who must implement the new system. Even when he was no longer on the government payroll, members of the former Iraqi governing council continued to seek his advice.

Feldman’s first book, After Jihad: America and the Struggle for Islamic Democracy, which was published as the troops closed in on Baghdad, contests the view that Islam is incompatible with the vote. He points out that, historically, there is nothing inherently democratic about Christianity or Judaism for that matter. “From the beginning of Muslim history, the caliphs were understood to be selected by people, not God,” says Feldman. “They were expected to consult with the community.”

Yet Feldman knows change won’t be easy or swift. He sensibly predicted that it would be impossible to hold elections in Iraq as quickly as originally planned, and was in the ranks of those who criticized the U.S. for lax security during the first weeks of the occupation. As he has frequently been heard to say, “I would rather we do this right than do it fast.”

But when Arons pitched his juicy stories, he was met with rejection; editors said his writing was too scholarly for popular reading and too anecdotal for the journals. So, he decided to write a book. Almost four years after sending out the first proposals, Waiting for Rain: The Politics and Poetry of Drought in Northeast Brazil will be published in October 2004 by the University of Arizona Press.

Arons spent his law school years editing his 800-page draft of Waiting for Rain. The 250-page book meshes anthropology, history and socio-political analysis to tell the stories of people who have suffered through drought.

Anthropology professor Nancy Scheper-Hughes at the University of California at Berkeley, writes in the foreword: “This book captures the tough spirit of both the region and the author. It tells a story of epic proportions.”

Arons, who learned Portugese at Yale, first went to Brazil as an undergraduate. He immediately took to the laid-back culture that allowed him to “sit, drink coffee, smoke cigarettes and talk to people” all day.

In 2001, Arons began his legal studies at NYU, where he was a Hays Fellow, president of the NYU American Constitution Society and co-founder of the Indigenous Law Society. His first summer, he interned in Geneva at the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Arons hopes to work in public interest law.

With no publicist, Arons has only modest hopes for the book. He would like to see it in classrooms. “Education should be through stories,” he said. “That’s what you remember.” And, of course, he’s hoping to call attention to the plight of people suffering from drought. “Everyone does their little thing,” he said. “Hopefully, this will be mine.”

As the newly appointed United Nations Commission on Human Rights Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary, or arbitrary executions, Alston will both investigate human rights violations and attempt to head off imminent killings at the pass.

“The objective is to reduce the number of executions taking place,” says Alston, 54, who also serves as faculty director of the Center for Human Rights and Global Justice at the NYU School of Law. “This particular mandate,” he adds, “is very crisis-driven.”

Alston, a native of Melbourne, Australia, was appointed to the three-year Special Rapporteur position by Mike Smith, Chairman of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights. The job, which is unpaid, involves examining and reporting on a broad variety of human rights violations, ranging from genocide to paramilitary executions to deaths of prisoners to so-called honor killings (involving men who kill female relatives for having scandalized their families).

In some situations, the Special Rapporteur also scrutinizes the imposition of the death penalty. For example, the Special Rapporteur has complained about executing defendants for crimes committed as juveniles—which the U.N. considers a human rights offense.

Of course, Alston’s leverage—much like the United Nations’—is limited to political pressure. “The position carries no formal power other than to try to embarrass the government, or to present some international finding that what’s going on is unacceptable,” he says. Still, he hopes to derail imminent killings. For example, the office frequently learns that someone has been targeted for execution— perhaps by an unscrupulous business executive— and that the victim’s government intends to turn a blind eye. In these situations, Alston can attempt an intervention, usually by contacting officials from the other country, letting them know that he’s aware of a death threat, and at least tacitly threatening them with embarrassment. Such tactics have prevented executions in the past, says Alston.

Long before this appointment, Alston was well known for his extensive work for international human rights. “He’s an excellent choice,” says Michael Posner, executive director of Human Rights First, a New York–based advocacy group. “He’s been a leading figure in the human rights movement for a long time,” adds Posner, who has known Alston since the 1970s. “He combines academic excellence and scholarship with the real world of activism.”

Nelson, who had been on death row for 20 years, did not appeal the death sentence itself, but the proposed method of execution. Due to advanced deterioration of his veins from intravenous drug use, prison officers proposed a “cut down” procedure in order to administer the state’s lethal injection. The method involves deep incisions into either the arm or leg, and the insertion of a catheter. Prison officials refused to assure Nelson that medical rather than correctional personnel would carry out the procedure, or that he would receive adequate anesthesia. Nelson appealed on the grounds that the process constituted cruel and unusual punishment and was therefore in violation of his rights under the Eighth Amendment.

His appeal to the Federal District Court was rejected on grounds that it was a second habeas corpus petition, and as such the court had no jurisdiction to act on the case. During a further appeal, however, the Court found that since Nelson did not contest the sentence itself, but only the method of execution, his claim was not a habeas corpus petition. Justice O’Connor, who wrote the unanimous decision, supported Nelson’s claim for protection under the Eighth Amendment and granted him both a “stay [of execution] and permanent injunctive relief.”

Stevenson took the case due to his concern regarding the restrictive approach of the 1996 Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA). “In 1996, Congress barred virtually all litigation by death row prisoners after their initial appeals were complete unless they could present a claim of factual innocence,” said Stevenson. “This left many prisoners who faced cruel or inhumane execution procedures, or people who were incompetent or unjustly sentenced, with no federal remedy. The Nelson case provided some opportunity to challenge the very restrictive approach many federal courts have taken in implementing this provision of AEDPA.”

Stevenson was also disturbed that “Alabama officials were so non-responsive to the serious medical needs of a condemned prisoner who was offering no resistance to his execution, but just wanted basic medical care to avoid what could be torturous pain and brutality.” He hoped that although the judgment “was very narrowly written,” the case might have wider implications for other death row defendants. “The Court has acknowledged that federal courts can’t simply ignore claims of cruel and unconstitutional conduct just because the plaintiff is a death row prisoner who may soon face execution.”

“I still believe that the civility of a society must be measured by how we treat the poor and disfavored, not the wealthy and the privileged,” Stevenson said. “Consequently, despite the difficulty of the challenge, I’m ultimately energized by advocacy that insists on equal justice, respect for the law and human rights even for the most despised and rejected among us.”

“I believe that the psychic and physical trauma that surrounds any execution of a human being will become a more significant issue in capital litigation and the debate surrounding the death penalty,” he added. “This case will obviously be part of that story.”

Justice Sandra Day O’Connor chose Joel Beauvais (’02) and Theano Evangelis (’03)—also the first time two NYU alumni will work together for a single member of the court. Larry Thompson, Jr. (’03) was picked to clerk for Justice Clarence Thomas, but deferred for a year. Justice David Souter selected Christine Van Aken (’02).

Beauvais ranked second in his graduating class. Among his many awards, he earned the Frank H. Sommer Memorial Award for outstanding scholarship, character and professional activities. During the 2003-04 term, he clerked for the Honorable Harry T. Edwards of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

A recipient of the University Graduation Prize given to the highest-ranked student, Evangelis received the Judge Rose L. and Herbert Rubin Law Review Prize for the most outstanding note written for the Law Review in international, commercial or public law. She recently completed a clerkship with Judge Alex Kozinski of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Thompson won the Edward Weinfeld Prize for distinguished scholarship in federal courts, civil procedure and practice. Last year he clerked for the Honorable J. Michael Luttig of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

Van Aken, a Root-Tilden-Kern Scholar, also won the University Graduation award. During the 2002-03 term, she clerked for the Honorable Pierre N. Leval of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and was most recently an associate in the New York office of Arnold & Porter. Crediting the Law School for its support, she says, “Because I enjoyed my professors and fellow students so much it made it easier to reach what I thought was my potential.”

Since he joined the Law School in 1994 from the University of Michigan Law School, Kramer (left) has distinguished himself with first-rate scholarship on constitutional law, including his recent book, The People Themselves: Popular Constitutionalism and Judicial Review, published by Oxford University Press. In announcing Kramer’s departure, Dean Revesz said, “He has been a terrific teacher and mentor for our students, and has devoted enormous time and energy to improving the quality of our students’ educational experience. He has been essential to—indeed, he was often the architect of— both our efforts to build the best faculty in the nation and our work to ensure that the intellectual life at NYU is unparalleled.”

“This is a very special place, much greater than the sum of its parts,” said Kramer, who is excited about his move to Stanford but also sad about leaving a place he cherishes.

Schill (right), a nationally recognized expert on American housing law and policy, has written or edited three books and more than 40 articles on various aspects of housing policy, deregulation, finance, and discrimination. He joined the Law School in 1995 from the University of Pennsylvania.

Dean Revesz commented, “Professor Schill has been a leader in building the Law School, launching the Furman Center for Real Estate and Urban Policy, which has produced influential empirical studies of housing policy, and sponsored numerous conferences, panels, and roundtables that have enriched the educational experience of our students and our community.”

In his message to the Law School community announcing his departure, Schill said: “I don’t think it is an accident that two great law schools chose NYU professors when they were looking for deans this year. NYU is the finest law school in the nation— the special blend of academic excellence, intellectual striving, innovativeness, and engagement in the community is unique among American law schools.”