Podcasts about deputy legal adviser

Two years ago, at the start of the war in Ukraine, $300 billion in Russian assets were frozen in Western banks. The assumption behind Western economic pressure on Russia was that sanctions and seizures of oligarchs' funds would have a chilling effect on both Russia's economy and the pursuit of the war in Ukraine. They have not. As a result, for only the second time in history, the United States is considering seizing Russian assets. Congress, in the lead, has brought the Biden administration around. The President needs new authorities to move forward. But seizing the frozen $300 billion – only $5 billion of which is in the United States – and re-distributing it to Ukraine for reconstruction and other reparation efforts is fraught. Will the Euros go along? Will this radical change affect how states approach seizing aggressors' assets? Perhaps more importantly, is the Biden administration's signal of approval for the policy just talk, or will Washington finally pull together measures that hit Russia where it hurts?Stephen Rademaker, currently Senior of Counsel at Covington and Burling LLP, has wide-ranging experience working on national security issues in the White House, the State Department, and the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives. Serving as an Assistant Secretary of State from 2002 through 2006, he headed at various times three bureaus of the State Department, including the Bureau of Arms Control and the Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation. Previously, he served as General Counsel of the Peace Corps, Associate Counsel to the President in the Office of White House Counsel, and as Deputy Legal Adviser to the National Security Council. Download the transcript here.Read the WTH Substack here.

On Monday, Dec. 4, 2023, the Reiss Center on Law and Security at NYU Law and Just Security co-hosted an expert discussion entitled “Toward a Goldilocks Deal on Section 702 Surveillance Reform.” This Podcast episode is the audio from that discussion, which was co-moderated by Senior Counsel at Perkins Coie LLP and former Justice Department counterespionage prosecutor and FISA oversight attorney David Aaron and Just Security Co-Editor-in-Chief and former Deputy Legal Adviser to the National Security Council and Special Assistant to the President Tess Bridgeman.The panelists were: Elizabeth (Liza) Goitein the Senior Director of the Liberty & National Security Program at the Brennan Center for Justice; Andrew McCabe the Former Acting Director and Deputy Director at the Federal Bureau of Investigation; and Mary McCord the Executive Director of the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection at Georgetown University Law Center. Show Notes: David Aaron (@davidcaaron) Tess Bridgeman (@bridgewriter)Elizabeth (Liza) Goitein (@LizaGoitein) Andrew G. McCabeMary B. McCordParas Shah (@pshah518) Just Security's FISA Section 702 coverageReiss Center on Law and Security at NYU School of LawMusic: “The Parade” by “Hey Pluto!” from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX)Music: “Eyes Closed” by Tobias Voigt from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/tobias-voigt/eyes-closed (License code: XTRHPYM1ELYU8SVA) 

Lecture summary: It is alleged that the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) embodied the victory of Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice’s preference to interpret treaties based on the “ordinary meaning of the words” over Sir Hersh Lauterpacht’s view that one instead should seek to ascertain the treaty parties’ “actual intentions.” But is that so? If, as VCLT Article 31(1) provides, the focus is to be on “the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose,” and if that “ordinary meaning” is not, as per Article 32, “ambiguous,” “obscure,” “manifestly absurd or unreasonable,” then why should resort to “Supplementary Means of Interpretation” be appropriate at all “in order to confirm the meaning resulting from the application of article 31”? If, as many believe, the VCLT is hierarchical, shouldn’t interpretation be complete when an “ordinary meaning” is established that is “unambiguous,” not “obscure,” and “neither manifestly absurd or unreasonable”? Did those preferring to determine the treaty parties “actual intentions” in fact sneak into the VLCT’s text that provision for supplementary “confirmation” of a clear “ordinary meaning”? Is to that extent the VCLT in fact, as is said of treaties generally, “an agreement to disagree”? In reality, given the sequential submissions in international arbitrations, as well as before international courts and tribunals, each party, beginning with the Applicant’s or Claimant’s Memorial, followed by Respondent’s Counter-Memorial, the Reply Memorial etc., from the start places before the adjudicator all of its arguments under Section 3. of the VCLT (Articles 31-33). The fact that Article 31’s “General Rule Of Interpretation” and Article 32’s “Supplementary Means Of Interpretation” are presented to the adjudicator as a unit, and not seriatim, has resulted in some arbitral tribunals not treating those two articles of the VCLT as being hierarchical, and instead applying what has become known as the “crucible approach,” i.e., stirring the two in the pot of deliberations as though they were a regulatory potpourri rather than distinct rules, the later to be applied only if the first did not produce an unchallengable “ordinary meaning.” Thus separate approaches to the VCLT have arisen that have raised the question posed by former ICJ President Schwebel: “May Preparatory Work Be Used to Correct Rather Than Confirm the ‘Clear’ Meaning of a Treaty Provision?” Judge Charles N Brower’s career has been divided between private law practice, first with White & Case LLP in New York City and Washington, D.C., since 2001 as an Arbitrator Member of Twenty Essex Chambers in London, and public service, first with the Office of The Legal Adviser of the U.S. Department of State (1969-73)(successively as Assistant Legal Adviser for European Affairs, Deputy Legal Adviser and Acting Legal Adviser), as Judge of the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal (1983-present), as sub-Cabinet rank Deputy Special Counsellor to the President of the United States dealing with the Iran-Contra affair (1987), as Judge ad hoc of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (1999-2002)(appointed by Bolivia), and the most -appointed of the only five Americans ever to be appointed Judge ad hoc of the International Court of Justice (2014-2022) (appointed by Colombia (1 case) and the United States (2 cases)). Judge Brower's book: 'Judging Iran: A Memoir of The Hague, The White House, and Life on the Front Line of International Justice' is available now to pre-order and will be released on 11 April 2023.

Lecture summary: It is alleged that the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) embodied the victory of Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice's preference to interpret treaties based on the “ordinary meaning of the words” over Sir Hersh Lauterpacht's view that one instead should seek to ascertain the treaty parties' “actual intentions.” But is that so? If, as VCLT Article 31(1) provides, the focus is to be on “the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose,” and if that “ordinary meaning” is not, as per Article 32, “ambiguous,” “obscure,” “manifestly absurd or unreasonable,” then why should resort to “Supplementary Means of Interpretation” be appropriate at all “in order to confirm the meaning resulting from the application of article 31”? If, as many believe, the VCLT is hierarchical, shouldn't interpretation be complete when an “ordinary meaning” is established that is “unambiguous,” not “obscure,” and “neither manifestly absurd or unreasonable”? Did those preferring to determine the treaty parties “actual intentions” in fact sneak into the VLCT's text that provision for supplementary “confirmation” of a clear “ordinary meaning”? Is to that extent the VCLT in fact, as is said of treaties generally, “an agreement to disagree”? In reality, given the sequential submissions in international arbitrations, as well as before international courts and tribunals, each party, beginning with the Applicant's or Claimant's Memorial, followed by Respondent's Counter-Memorial, the Reply Memorial etc., from the start places before the adjudicator all of its arguments under Section 3. of the VCLT (Articles 31-33).The fact that Article 31's “General Rule Of Interpretation” and Article 32's “Supplementary Means Of Interpretation” are presented to the adjudicator as a unit, and not seriatim, has resulted in some arbitral tribunals not treating those two articles of the VCLT as being hierarchical, and instead applying what has become known as the “crucible approach,” i.e., stirring the two in the pot of deliberations as though they were a regulatory potpourri rather than distinct rules, the later to be applied only if the first did not produce an unchallengable “ordinary meaning.” Thus separate approaches to the VCLT have arisen that have raised the question posed by former ICJ President Schwebel: “May Preparatory Work Be Used to Correct Rather Than Confirm the ‘Clear' Meaning of a Treaty Provision?”Judge Charles N Brower's career has been divided between private law practice, first with White & Case LLP in New York City and Washington, D.C., since 2001 as an Arbitrator Member of Twenty Essex Chambers in London, and public service, first with the Office of The Legal Adviser of the U.S. Department of State (1969-73)(successively as Assistant Legal Adviser for European Affairs, Deputy Legal Adviser and Acting Legal Adviser), as Judge of the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal (1983-present), as sub-Cabinet rank Deputy Special Counsellor to the President of the United States dealing with the Iran-Contra affair (1987), as Judge ad hoc of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (1999-2002)(appointed by Bolivia), and the most -appointed of the only five Americans ever to be appointed Judge ad hoc of the International Court of Justice (2014-2022) (appointed by Colombia (1 case) and the United States (2 cases)).Judge Brower's book: 'Judging Iran: A Memoir of The Hague, The White House, and Life on the Front Line of International Justice' is available now to pre-order and will be released on 11 April 2023.

Ali Velshi is in Kyiv, Ukraine and is joined by NBC's Erin McLaughlin, Fmr. President of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko, U.S. Army Colonel (ret.) & Fmr. Deputy Legal Adviser an Senior Ethics Official at the White House National Security Council Yevgeny Vindman, U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Bridget A. Brink, Ukrainian Author ‘Grey Bees' Andrey Kurkov

Marcia Franklin talks with Judge Joan E. Donoghue of the International Court of Justice, also known as the World Court. Donoghue is the first female American judge to sit on the court, which is in The Hague, Netherlands, and is only the third female judge to be seated in that court's history. She discusses the role of the court, which hears disputes between nation-states, her experience on the court, and the importance of international law. The court's opinions are sometimes controversial, and since 1986, the United States has only recognized its jurisdiction on a case-by-case basis. Franklin also discusses that situation with Judge Donoghue. Before being elected to her post in 2010 by the United Nations General Assembly and the Security Council, Judge Donoghue had a distinguished career in the U.S. Department of State. Among her positions, she served as Principal Deputy Legal Adviser, Deputy Legal Adviser, Assistant Legal Adviser for Economic and Business Affairs and Assistant Legal Adviser for Oceans, Environment and Science. Originally Aired: 07/19/2013

This episode features Tess Bridgeman, Berkeley Law Lecturer, Senior Editor at Just Security, former Special Assistant to President Obama, Associate Counsel to the President, and Deputy Legal Adviser to the National Security Council. Kaylene Khosla, Berkeley Law '22 sits down with Pream Akkas , Berkeley Law '23 to discuss what the recent Biden Administration's airstrike on the Syria-Iraq border might mean for the future of international nuclear weapons treaties. Outro music is Fog Lake's "side effects" found on the album "Dragonchaser", released on 2017-02-17. Listen to the complete track here: freemusicarchive.org/music/Fog_Lake…8_side_effects.

This episode of Raise Green is part two of a whirlwind tour through the past and future of global climate policy with U.S. State negotiator Sue Biniaz. In stressed times, how do international organizations and country governments adhere to their climate commitments. For more than 25 years, Sue Biniaz served as the lead climate lawyer for the U.S. State Department. In that capacity, she played a central role in the negotiation of all the major climate agreements, including the Paris Agreement. She was also a Deputy Legal Adviser and in that capacity covered U.S. treaty practice, the law of the sea, Somali piracy, Latin America, human rights, criminal law, and other environmental issues. Raise Green is a 7 episode podcast exploring the climate crisis through the minds of local leaders and global experts. Short, accessible conversations explore new ways of working together via personal stories about creating a healthy, just, and sustainable future. As economic disparity, environmental degradation and social injustices continue emerging as defining issues of the 21st century, we need solutions that scale faster than the pace of the problems. These conversations ask how.

This episode of Raise Green is part one of a whirlwind tour through the past and future of global climate policy with U.S. State negotiator Sue Biniaz. In stressed times, how do international organizations and country governments adhere to their climate commitments. For more than 25 years, Sue Biniaz served as the lead climate lawyer for the U.S. State Department. In that capacity, she played a central role in the negotiation of all the major climate agreements, including the Paris Agreement. She was also a Deputy Legal Adviser and in that capacity covered U.S. treaty practice, the law of the sea, Somali piracy, Latin America, human rights, criminal law, and other environmental issues. Raise Green is a 7 episode podcast exploring the climate crisis through the minds of local leaders and global experts. Short, accessible conversations explore new ways of working together via personal stories about creating a healthy, just, and sustainable future. As economic disparity, environmental degradation and social injustices continue emerging as defining issues of the 21st century, we need solutions that scale faster than the pace of the problems. These conversations ask how.

Drawing from her experiences serving at the White House and the State Department during the Obama Administration, Tess Bridgeman discusses how international law is incorporated into U.S. policy and decision-making at the highest levels, what we are seeing now under the Trump Administration, and what we can expect for the future. For one example, in an abrupt shift in policy, President Trump announced the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Syria in a video posted on Twitter, prompting confusion and public disagreement from allies, as well as President Trump’s own advisers. What do the latest national security and foreign policy decisions of Trump Administration, including President Trump’s decision on Syria and the most recent round of U.S. treaty withdrawals, tell us about the current state of U.S. national security and foreign policy-making processes? Guest: Tess Bridgeman, former Special Assistant and Associate Counsel to the President, Deputy Legal Adviser to the National Security Council, Special Assistant to the Legal Adviser at the U.S. Department of State.

Citing no substantive evidence, President Trump announced that he would not certify the Iran nuclear agreement, setting up a 60-day window for Congress to potentially re-impose nuclear-related sanctions against Iran. This episode dives into why Congress should do what it does best -- nothing -- with Tess Bridgeman, a former Deputy Legal Adviser to the National Security Council (NSC). Music: www.bensound.com

This presentation, by a former Deputy Legal Adviser to the White House National Security Council, and author of a chapter on legal issues in the forthcoming "Case Studies for Implementing the NSA IEM," will provide information security consultants and information technology providers alike with insights into: how emerging United States national security and cybersecurity policies and initiatives could impact the work of consultants and technology providers; emerging standards of potential legal and regulatory liability for such consultants and providers; and strategies for mitigating risk and protecting proprietary and vulnerabilities information. Bryan Cunningham has extensive experience as a cybersecurity and intelligence expert, both in senior U.S. Government posts and the private sector. Cunningham, now a corporate information and homeland security consultant and principal at the Denver law firm of Morgan and Cunningham LLC, most recently served as Deputy Legal Adviser to National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice. At the White House, Cunningham drafted key portions of the Homeland Security Act, and was deeply involved in the formation of the National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace, as well as numerous Presidential Directives and regulations relating to cybersecurity. He is a former senior CIA Officer and federal prosecutor, founding co-chair of the ABA CyberSecurity Privacy Task Force, and, in January 2005, was awarded the National Intelligence Medal of Achievement for his work on information issues. Cunningham holds a Top Secret Security Clearance and counsels corporations on information security programs, as well as information security consultants on how to structure and conduct their assessments and remediation to mitigate potential liability. C. Forrest Morgan (JD (1987), Trained in NSA IAM) has extensive experience in corporate practice and structure including contracting, corporate formation, and operations. Mr. Morgan advises information security consultants on drafting and negotiating contracts with their customers to best protect them against potential legal liability. Mr. Morgan's practice also has emphasized commercial contract drafting and reorganization, and corporate litigation, providing in-depth understanding of the business and legal environment. He has represented both national corporations and regional firms in state and federal courts and administrative agencies in matters of litigation, creditors' rights, bankruptcy, administrative law and employment issues. Mr. Morgan served as the Regional Editor of the Colorado Bankruptcy Court Reporter from 1989 to 1992, and he co-authored the Bankruptcy section of the Annual Survey of Colorado from 1991 to 1997. As a Principal of the Denver law firm of Morgan and Cunningham, LLC, Mr. Morgan's practice also includes corporate information and security consulting. He counsels corporations on information security programs, including development of corporate policies and procedures to minimize business risks and litigation exposure.

This presentation, by a former Deputy Legal Adviser to the White House National Security Council, and author of a chapter on legal issues in the forthcoming "Case Studies for Implementing the NSA IEM," will provide information security consultants and information technology providers alike with insights into: how emerging United States national security and cybersecurity policies and initiatives could impact the work of consultants and technology providers; emerging standards of potential legal and regulatory liability for such consultants and providers; and strategies for mitigating risk and protecting proprietary and vulnerabilities information. Bryan Cunningham has extensive experience as a cybersecurity and intelligence expert, both in senior U.S. Government posts and the private sector. Cunningham, now a corporate information and homeland security consultant and principal at the Denver law firm of Morgan and Cunningham LLC, most recently served as Deputy Legal Adviser to National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice. At the White House, Cunningham drafted key portions of the Homeland Security Act, and was deeply involved in the formation of the National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace, as well as numerous Presidential Directives and regulations relating to cybersecurity. He is a former senior CIA Officer and federal prosecutor, founding co-chair of the ABA CyberSecurity Privacy Task Force, and, in January 2005, was awarded the National Intelligence Medal of Achievement for his work on information issues. Cunningham holds a Top Secret Security Clearance and counsels corporations on information security programs, as well as information security consultants on how to structure and conduct their assessments and remediation to mitigate potential liability. C. Forrest Morgan (JD (1987), Trained in NSA IAM) has extensive experience in corporate practice and structure including contracting, corporate formation, and operations. Mr. Morgan advises information security consultants on drafting and negotiating contracts with their customers to best protect them against potential legal liability. Mr. Morgan's practice also has emphasized commercial contract drafting and reorganization, and corporate litigation, providing in-depth understanding of the business and legal environment. He has represented both national corporations and regional firms in state and federal courts and administrative agencies in matters of litigation, creditors' rights, bankruptcy, administrative law and employment issues. Mr. Morgan served as the Regional Editor of the Colorado Bankruptcy Court Reporter from 1989 to 1992, and he co-authored the Bankruptcy section of the Annual Survey of Colorado from 1991 to 1997. As a Principal of the Denver law firm of Morgan and Cunningham, LLC, Mr. Morgan's practice also includes corporate information and security consulting. He counsels corporations on information security programs, including development of corporate policies and procedures to minimize business risks and litigation exposure.