Podcast appearances and mentions of Tom Ginsburg

The University of Chicago is known for its commitment to free speech and academic freedom. Why are these values important to the university? Where do they originate? And how do they help administrators navigate conflicts and controversies? Tony Banout and Tom Ginsburg direct the University of Chicago's Forum for Free Inquiry and Expression, which received a $100 million gift last year. They are also editors of “The Chicago Canon on Free Inquiry and Expression,” a new book that collects foundational texts that inform the university's free speech tradition. Enjoy listening to our podcast? Donate to FIRE today and get exclusive content like member webinars, special episodes, and more. If you became a FIRE Member through a donation to FIRE at thefire.org and would like access to Substack's paid subscriber podcast feed, please email sotospeak@thefire.org. Read the transcript. Timestamps:  00:00 Intro 03:31 Origin of book 07:14 UChicago's founding principles 12:41 Free speech in a university context 19:17 2015 UChicago committee report 32:03 1967 Kalven report 38:02 Institutional neutrality 57:41 Applying free speech principles beyond the university 01:04:21 Future steps for the Forum 01:06:35 Outro Show notes: - The University of Chicago's Report of the Committee on Freedom of Expression (2015) - Chicago Statement: University and Faculty Body Support (last updated 2024) - The University of Chicago Kalven Report (1967)

International law is a live instrument in the current global geopolitical crisis. This latest RevDem Rule of Law podcast, conducted by Konstantin Kipp with Professor Tom Ginsburg, reflects upon the potentially authoritarian nature of international law in its function of enabling relations between states. Authoritarian regimes have traditionally been reluctant to engage in robust forms of international cooperation. Reasons for this may include strong nationalist views, and concerns that cross-border engagement could invite interference in domestic affairs or constrain the government's autonomy. Consequently, international law has largely been shaped by liberal democracies. However, this stance appears to be shifting in the 21st century. Just as authoritarian regimes once recognized the strategic value of adopting new constitutions and utilizing seemingly democratic institutions in order to gain legitimacy, they are now beginning to see international law as a potential tool to legitimize their policies and strengthen the pursuit of their preferences. This development was identified by Professor Tom Ginsburg in his 2020 article “Authoritarian International Law?” published in the American Journal of International Law. Half a decade on from this publication, Professor Ginsburg discusses his findings on this still-emerging phenomenon and considers its potential future developments. Past, Present, and Future Authoritarian International Law Ginsburg provides an introduction to the history of Authoritarian International Law (AIL), highlighting the pivotal turning point as marked by the year 2006. He claims that this was the peak for global democracies and that subsequently the story is one of decline.  The conversation explores current developments in international law, raising a concern that the United States' potential shift towards isolationism could cede the international playing field to authoritarian forces like China or Russia, thereby fueling the development of AIL. Ginsburg describes AIL as “designed to extend the survival and reach of authoritarian rule across space and/or time.” AIL is seen as having the potential not only to secure the persistence of existing authoritarian regimes, but also to be a possible trigger for further authoritarianism. The podcast addresses the extent to which this feature is inherently embedded within AIL, given that liberal democracies tend to pose a challenge to authoritarian regimes. Ginsburg reflects upon whether there is a danger that authoritarians might create entirely new international legal systems and institutions, or else seek to capture and transform existing bodies. While an American return to isolationism might fuel the development of AIL, there is also significant concern that the U.S. could veer toward dictatorship during Donald Trump's second presidency. Statements by President-elect Trump, such as suggestions that people “won't have to vote anymore,” imply at the very least authoritarian aspirations. Ginsburg reflects upon whether U.S. isolationism is truly the main danger to international law, or instead whether a government under Donald Trump may actively engage in promoting AIL. Ginsburg offers his view on why, despite his authoritarian nature, Donald Trump will not be able to become the dictator of the United States of America. Authoritarian European Union Law? While the European Union continues to embody relatively strong democratic values among most Member States compared to other regions, right-wing populism with authoritarian aspirations has also been on the rise. The EU's most notable authoritarian leader, Viktor Orbán, has recently advocated that right-wing populists should “occupy” Brussels. Ginsburg considers whether the emergence of authoritarian EU law may be possible. One of the EU's current strategies for addressing “backsliding” on its values, including democracy and the Rule of Law, is financial conditionality. It remains to be seen whether this tool may effectively halt the trend towards authoritarianism in the long term, or whether it may indeed exacerbate it. Ginsburg concludes his reflections on the supranational dimension of AIL by musing upon whether the Eurasian Economic Committee, discussed in his 2020 article, could evolve into a serious competitor that promotes authoritarian rather than democratic values in the Europe-Asia region. Preventing the Emergence of Authoritarian International Law Tom Ginsburg suggests that there is a strong possibility that the 21st century will be known more as an authoritarian century rather than a democratic one. The notion that international law guarantees a right to democratic governance has faced substantial criticism; Ginsburg challenges this idea as well. The podcast concludes with reflection upon the options for democratic countries to prevent international law becoming authoritarian. Could civil society – whether or not such societies aspire to be ‘open' or not – prevent the authoritarian transformation of international law? Ginsburg concludes his contributions by emphasizing how recent developments in South Korea illustrate the vital role of civil society in the struggle for democracy. Such struggle, for democracy and against authoritarianism, is set to continue in the second half of the 2020s.

This week, our co-hosts Professors Tom Ginsburg and Claudia Flores discuss bitcoin, the cryptocurrency soaring in both popularity and value. In the last month, the price of a single bitcoin has risen from around $70,000 to almost $100,000. Its cultural impact is immense, yet confusing and controversial. Those who associate bitcoin with MAGA conservatives and get-rich-quick day traders might be surprised to learn that some see it as a tool to protect human rights.  Alex Gladstein, Chief Strategy Officer at the Human Rights Foundation, is optimistic about the revolutionary power of bitcoin to enable resistance and challenge global structures of economic inequality. In this episode, we hear from him on how bitcoin is uniquely positioned to support global human rights efforts. 

United Nations special experts have a crucial role in upholding international human rights law. These independent specialists hold mandates to report and advise on different areas within human rights as special rapporteurs, independent experts, or members of working groups. But how exactly do these appointments work, and what are the responsibilities, capabilities, and on-the-ground impacts of these experts? In this episode, we hear from our very own co-host, Professor Claudia Flores, member of the UN Working Group on Discrimination against Women and Girls and Professor Fionnuala ni Aolain, former UN special rapporteur on counter-terrorism. Professors Flores and ni Aolain describe their work as UN mandate holders and how they address the most pressing issues in their areas of expertise. 

Can American democracy survive the encroachment of authoritarian regimes? This episode of "After America" tackles this critical question by exploring the global impact of authoritarianism and democratic backsliding. We take a close look at the establishment of post-World War II institutions like the United Nations, NATO, and the International Monetary Fund, and analyze how these have contributed to global peace and stability. Using case studies from Hungary, Russia, and China, we examine the erosion of democratic norms and its influence on foreign policies, posing the unsettling question of what might happen to global stability if key democratic nations, particularly the United States, were to falter.We highlight the rise of authoritarianism and its profound impact on global governance, and we dissect how regimes like Russia and China undermine multilateral institutions like the United Nations and the World Trade Organization, opting for unilateral actions and exclusive alliances. Through examples such as the Russia-China partnership and Russia's involvement in Venezuela and Syria, we reveal the mechanisms these regimes use to maintain power and challenge democratic nations. The potential consequences of an authoritarian shift in traditionally democratic countries, such as the United States, are scrutinized, underscoring the risks to global peace and stability.Finally, we ask the questiono - what would the world look like with a second Trump presidency? We discuss how European allies might scramble to forge new security pacts and bolster their defenses, and consider the broader risks of unilateral actions by an increasingly isolated United States. The episode concludes with a sobering look at the future of global stability in a world without American leadership, posing profound questions about the fragile state of democracy and the global order.Guests: Dr. Tom Ginsburg, Dr. Bruce Bueno de Mesquita, Stephen Marche, and Dr. James RobinsonCredits:JFK Speech: Courtesy of the JFK LibraryTrump on NATO: Courtesy of CSPANInfados - Kevin MacLeodDark Tales: Music by Rahul Bhardwaj from Pixabay-------------------------Follow Deep Dive:InstagramYouTube Email: deepdivewithshawn@gmail.com

What happens when a cornerstone of democracy begins to show cracks? On this episode of After America as we scrutinize the U.S. Supreme Court's transformation and its far-reaching impacts on American democracy. We trace key moments from Justice Antonin Scalia's death to the rapid confirmation of conservative justices under President Trump. This episode unpacks the historical roots of the judiciary, its intended role as an independent arbiter of justice, and the seismic shifts that have led to a 6-3 conservative supermajority.We confront the controversies marring the Supreme Court's image, from contentious nomination processes to ethical dilemmas involving Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh. We also explore how these controversies are eroding public trust and threatening the judiciary's credibility.  Landmark cases like Roe v. Wade and Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization underscore the judiciary's evolving influence on societal values and individual liberties, and alert us to the grave consequences of increasing partisan divides in judicial appointments.Is American democracy at risk? We discuss how the judiciary might bolster or dismantle democratic values amid these challenges. From the strategic delays in confirming justices to the potential chaos of a future Trump presidency, this episode offers a sobering look at the judiciary's pivotal role in safeguarding—or undermining—democratic principles. Guests: Dr. Sara Benesh, Dr. Tara Grove, Dr. David Faris, Dr. Tom Ginsburg, and Stephen Marche Credits:Infados - Kevin MacLeodDark Tales: Music by Rahul Bhardwaj from Pixabay-------------------------Follow Deep Dive:InstagramYouTube Email: deepdivewithshawn@gmail.com

What if the very institutions designed to protect American democracy are now its greatest threat? In this episode, we scrutinize why Donald Trump remains a formidable candidate nearly four years later, and how key democratic norms and institutions like the rule of law, free and fair elections, and a free press are being systematically eroded. This sets the stage for the 2024 election, framing it as a critical battle between authoritarianism and democracy.We also unpack the structural weaknesses that plague American democracy today, focusing on the Senate, the Electoral College, and the House of Representatives. These institutions, originally designed to balance power, now disproportionately benefit Republicans, leading to governance and policy outcomes that undermine public trust. Partisan gerrymandering and the Senate's counter-majoritarian design are scrutinized for perpetuating poor governance and eroding faith in our democratic systems. We also discuss the role of bureaucracy, technocracy, and neutral institutions in safeguarding democracy.Finally, we delve into the fragility of American democratic norms and the judiciary. Discussing the politicization of judicial appointments and challenges to electoral legitimacy, we explore the consequences for democratic stability. The rise of Christian nationalism, deregulation, and threats to climate initiatives signal troubling trends, especially with the prospect of Donald Trump's return to the presidency. Guests: Dr. Sara Benesh, Stephen Marche, Dr. David Faris, & Dr. Tom GinsburgSources:Bush v. Gore Clip - Courtesy of the United States Supreme CourtMcConnell Senate Speech on Garland Confirmation - Courtesy of C-SPANInfados - Kevin MacLeodDark Tales: Music by Rahul Bhardwaj from Pixabay-------------------------Follow Deep Dive:InstagramYouTube Email: deepdivewithshawn@gmail.com

The word apartheid gets used in many different contexts to indicate the severity of crimes across the globe. But its use is controversial because the word has a very specific definition in international law. Even more controversial is the concept of expanding the term to include gender.If there is one place on earth where it could be argued that a gender apartheid designation is needed its Afghanistan. Since the US withdrawal from the country, the Taliban have instituted a brutal repression of women. But is it gender apartheid?What would it mean for us to create this designation and assign it to Afghanistan? Does cultural relativism throw a legitimate wrench into this argument or does that take the concept too far?We discuss all these questions on this episode with Mohammad “Musa” Mahmodi, a Research Fellow in Law at the Schell Center for International Human Rights at Yale, Zahra Motamedi, an Associate Research Fellow at Yale, and Karima Bennoune, the Lewis M. Simes Professor of Law at the University of Michigan and author of “Your Fatwa Does Not Apply Here”.

In recent years, book bans have swept the nation. According to PEN America, more than 4,000 books have been banned in some capacity in public schools since July 2021. Books that discuss topics like racial justice or have characters that identify as LGBTQ+ are just some of the examples that have received widespread attention. While book bans are not a new phenomenon, parents rights groups have accelerated their attacks on what books can be put on school's shelves, leaving a bigger question up for debate: Who should decide what books are available, and moreover, who has the right to read certain books?The American Library Association has been helping to support libraries as democratic institutions for decades by providing resources to librarians about what books to select based on the information needs of the communities to which they serve. In this episode, we speak with Deborah Caldwell-Stone, Director of the American Library Association's Office for Intellectual Freedom and Director of the Freedom to Read Foundation. Caldwell-Stone discusses why book bans have increased in recent years, and why she says the right to read needs to be protected.

As kids, we all heard someone tell us that it's wrong to lie...but as we grew older, we realized that people lie all the time. Politicians, presidents, and even executives at corporations tell lies—big and small. As citizens, there are obvious exceptions where lying is wrong, for instance; perjury, lying on your employment application, or lying to get a bank loan. But do we have a right to lie? And if so, what are the boundaries?On this episode, we speak with UCLA Professor of Philosophy and Law Seana Shiffrin and George Washington University Professor of Law Catherine Ross. They discuss both the philosophical arguments against lying and the legal arguments against notorious lies made by President Trump and former Congressman George Santos. 

Tony Banout, Executive Director, and Tom Ginsburg, Faculty Director of the University of Chicago's New Forum for Free Inquiry and Expression join Steve McGuire, ACTA's Paul and Karen Levy Fellow in Campus Freedom, to discuss institutional neutrality -- the idea that universities should not take official positions on social and political controversies. While explaining how this position supports the truth-seeking purpose of the university and free expression on campus, they also explore its history at the University of Chicago, tracing it from the 1967 Kalven Report to the University's founding. Finally, they discuss various exceptions to the rule and times when universities might be obligated to speak up, even while adhering to a general policy of institutional neutrality.

We're doing something special for this month's episode. In October of 2023, we hosted a live recording here at the University of Chicago. Tom Ginsburg was joined on stage by renowned scholar Genevie Laikier to have a conversation about free speech on social media. In other words, it was very relevant to our current season about the right to free expression.We're going to share that recording with you this month. We hope you enjoy, and thanks to everyone who listened to our podcast this year.

We all know the phrase: “sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.” But is that actually true? Recent research in psychology has shown that words can cause a plethora of different harms. Should this make us re-think our approach to hate speech?In the US we've been hesitant to regulate hate speech, while other countries have been incredibly stringent. Which approach is right, and why? And, how do we even define what hate speech is anyway?To get some answers we sit down with Yale Professor Robert Post and Laura Beth Nielsen the Chair of the Department of Sociology at Northwestern University. 

On the third season of Entitled, we're circling back to the first fundamental right: the freedom of speech. Lawyers and law professors Claudia Flores and Tom Ginsburg begin this season by peeling back the curtains of how this right is currently playing out at universities across the country. In recent years, there have been tensions — and intense clashes — around speakers invited to campus, what professors are allowed to say in the classroom, and what subject matter should even be allowed to be taught. Now, with many of these cases making their way to the courts, is free speech at universities entering a dangerous new era?In this episode, they speak with Robert Post, Sterling Professor of Law at Yale Law School; and Ben Wizner, Director of the Speech, Privacy and Technology Project at the ACLU; and Komi Frey, Director of Faculty Outreach at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression.

Free speech is probably one of the most polarizing public topics of debate. And those arguments only become more intense when it comes to free expression on college and university campuses. Should professors be allowed to say whatever they want? What about speakers being invited to campus? Who gets to say what is acceptable and unacceptable?The University of Chicago has had a unique and long history of defending free expression, and this year is building upon that commitment by launching The Chicago Forum on Free Inquiry and Expression. That forum is being led by renowned UChicago law professor Tom Ginsburg. He joins our podcast along with President Paul Alivisatos to talk about why universities must have a commitment to free inquiry—and how this new forum plans to promote free and open discourse, while addressing present-day challenges.

On our last season, we focused entirely on the idea of equality from an international perspective. But when it comes to domestic questions of equality, or equity, they often focus on an important and specific topic: race. And one of the leading voices in that conversation is Dr. Ibram X. Kendi.Kendi is most famous for his 2019 book "How To Be An Anti-racist". The book argues that the opposite of racism isn't “not racist” but anti-racist. Meaning, rather than just being neutrally against racism you actively try to remove the inequality generated by racism and racism itself from society. This year he released a graphic novel version of his earlier history of slavery which is called "Stamped from the Beginning: A Graphic History of Racist Ideas in America"Although we missed out on having Kendi on last season we thought, with the recent Supreme Court decision on affirmative action, that this was the perfect time to talk with him about how his views intersect with human rights, international law, the concept of the University and his thoughts on the recent case.

For the first time in decades, the future of abortion rights in the US is uncertain. With the overturning of Roe v Wade in 2022, The Supreme Court has forced Americans to reconsider and fight for a new vision of a right to abortion should be.But it's important to remember that debates about abortion don't end at our borders. The end of Roe will have global ramifications for how other countries think about abortion rights but, as the US re-enters this international debate, are their lessons we can learn from how other countries have constituted, or failed to constitute, a right to abortion?

In a world with personalized laws, each person would be subject to different legal rules and their own personally-tailored laws. For example, if you're a good driver, you could be rewarded for that good behavior with less stringent laws. Through this idea, and the acceleration of AI, technology could be used to comprehend our data from various places to create laws individual to us. These are some of the ideas that Omri Ben-Shahar writes about in his book, Personalized Law: Different Rules for Different People.In this episode, we speak to Omri Ben-Shahar about the questions and concerns that personalized law presents, and how it could be used in the future. Ben-Shahar is professor of law at the University of Chicago, and Director of the Coase-Sandor Institute for Law and Economics. 

More than half a million people are currently homeless in the United States. It's a crisis that extends beyond California and is trending upwards in other states, too. Most jurisdictions in the US have no right to shelter, and the right to have a home at all is not a guarantee. But just across the border, Canada recognizes the right to adequate housing as a fundamental human right affirmed in international law. In this episode, we speak with Canadian lawyer Leilani Farha, the former Special Rapporteur on the right to adequate housing, about how we ended up with a homelessness crisis and what remedies should look like. Leilani is also Global Director of The Shift, a housing initiative.

Artificial intelligence is all around us—it listens to us, even watches us, and waits for our daily demands. From Alexa to Siri, to Sophia, the social humanoid robot, AIs want to be our companions (at least, the companies who build them want us to think so). However, some people fear that the more sentient AIs become, the more they will have to be treated with basic rights. Do AIs deserve rights? And if they do, what would those rights entail? In this episode, Tom and Claudia imagine a not-so-distant future where AIs have rights, what those rights could look like, and whether or not this would play out like a dystopian sci-fi novel. They get a myriad of perspectives from Andrew Stout, a robot software engineer; Agnes Callard, a philosopher at the University of Chicago; Aziz Huq, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Chicago; and Alex Hanna, Director of Research at the Distributed A.I. Research Institute.

Sixty-one million adults in the United States live with a disability — that's one in four adults, a staggering number when you consider how widespread ableism is. In a society that largely operates without adequate infrastructure, accommodations, and services for disabled people, what does the right to equal opportunity look like? In this episode, Tom and Claudia explore this question through the perspectives of three disabled individuals. Michael Stein is the executive director of the Harvard Law School Project on Disability, Elsa Sjunneson is a deafblind disability rights activist and science fiction writer, and Stephen Hallett is the Project Manager of the East Asia Disability Rights Project. Together, they help paint a picture of what it would really mean to take the rights of those with disabilities seriously.

Fixing discrimination isn't as easy as putting anti-discrimination laws on the books. But, there is a tool that can at least chip away at the effects of discrimination: quotas. Over 130 countries have adopted gender quotas…and around one-quarter of the world uses some form of affirmative action programs. So, do quotas actually work at creating more diverse and equitable societies? In this episode of Entitled, Claudia and Tom learn how quotas are working—or not working—around the world. They speak with Rumbidzai Kandawasvika-Nhundu, senior adviser for democracy and inclusion at International IDEA; Tarunabh Khaitan, professor of Public Law and Legal Theroy at the University of Oxford; and Jessie Majome, former member of the National Assembly of Zimbabwe.

Back then as a child, when it was normal that we couldn't ride on all buses and sit on all park benches and be allowed to go and watch a movie in a cinema together. Today, our children simply don't know that we had those experiences. But in it lies the wonders of the successes of what we have achieved. And if we managed to change that, then I think we have the ability to change from where we are currently into the future.Hassen EbrahimSupport Democracy Paradox on Patreon for bonus episodes, ad free episodes and exclusive updates and information. Preorder the new book Constitution Makers on Constitution Making: New Cases here. Make a one-time Donation to Democracy Paradox.A full transcript is available at www.democracyparadox.com.Hassen Ebrahim was Executive Director of the Constitutional Assembly of South Africa, and is an advisor on constitution building. He participated in the construction of South Africa's constitution. He is the author of the chapter "Decisions, Deadlocks and Deadlines in Making South Africa's Constitution" in the forthcoming book Constitution Makers on Constitution Making.Key HighlightsIntroduction - 0:50Meaning of a Constitution - 2:54Hassen's Political Journey - 10:07Constitutional Process - 20:22Unifying Event - 29:15Areas of Disagreement - 36:48Future of South Africa's Democracy - 46:18Key LinksRead the Constitution of South AfricaConstitution Makers on Constitution Making: New Cases edited by Tom Ginsburg and Sumit BisaryaDemocracy Paradox PodcastJoseph Fishkin on the Constitution, American History, and Economic InequalityDonald Horowitz on the Formation of Democratic ConstitutionsMore Episodes from the PodcastMore InformationDemocracy GroupApes of the State created all MusicEmail the show at jkempf@democracyparadox.comFollow on Twitter @DemParadox100 Books on DemocracySupport the show

There are two words that sound pretty similar, but they're not synonyms: equality and equity. While equality means that everybody should be given the same resources or opportunities, equity recognizes that we live in an unequal system, so we need to allocate more resources and opportunities to people without equal access. So, what does it really mean to live in an equitable society? In this episode of Entitled, Claudia and Tom zoom out on what equity practices look like around the globe, and zoom in, to see if they're working in the US. They speak with Dian Shah, a constitutional law professor at the National University of Singapore; Cathy Cohen, a renowned political scientist at the University of Chicago; and South African anti-apartheid hero Albie Sachs.

Back then as a child, when it was normal that we couldn't ride on all buses and sit on all park benches and be allowed to go and watch a movie in a cinema together. Today, our children simply don't know that we had those experiences. But in it lies the wonders of the successes of what we have achieved. And if we managed to change that, then I think we have the ability to change from where we are currently into the future.Hassen EbrahimSupport Democracy Paradox on Patreon for bonus episodes, ad free episodes and exclusive updates and information. Preorder the new book Constitution Makers on Constitution Making: New Cases here. Make a one-time Donation to Democracy Paradox.A full transcript is available at www.democracyparadox.com.Hassen Ebrahim was Executive Director of the Constitutional Assembly of South Africa, and is an advisor on constitution building. He participated in the construction of South Africa's constitution. He is the author of the chapter "Decisions, Deadlocks and Deadlines in Making South Africa's Constitution" in the forthcoming book Constitution Makers on Constitution Making.Key HighlightsIntroduction - 0:50Meaning of a Constitution - 2:54Hassen's Political Journey - 10:07Constitutional Process - 20:22Unifying Event - 29:15Areas of Disagreement - 36:48Future of South Africa's Democracy - 46:18Key LinksRead the Constitution of South AfricaConstitution Makers on Constitution Making: New Cases edited by Tom Ginsburg and Sumit BisaryaDemocracy Paradox PodcastJoseph Fishkin on the Constitution, American History, and Economic InequalityDonald Horowitz on the Formation of Democratic ConstitutionsMore Episodes from the PodcastMore InformationDemocracy GroupApes of the State created all MusicEmail the show at jkempf@democracyparadox.comFollow on Twitter @DemParadox100 Books on Democracy Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

After years of community protests, and months of legal work, Chile finalized a draft of a brand new constitution this summer. Chileans will vote to pass or reject this constitution in a few days. In this episode of Entitled, Claudia and Tom head to Santiago, Chile! We hear their conversations with local Chileans, from musicians and taxi drivers to the lawyers who helped draft this new constitution, like Ricardo Montero Allende and Isabel Aninat, and Mapuche linguist and Indigenous rights activist Elisa Loncón Antileo. We find out why Chileans want a new constitution and what it would mean for equality in Chile.

Would you put a price tag on your rights? If you had to choose between your socio-economic rights or your freedom to peacefully protest, what would you choose? It's a question that might get a lot of mixed responses, but some might argue you can't have one without the other. In this episode of Entitled, Claudia and Tom discuss these two groups of rights: socio-economic rights and civil and political rights. They take a deeper look at the United States with Margaret Huang, president and CEO of the Southern Poverty Law Center, about why the US has had a hard time increasing socio-economic equality. Lastly, they speak with Jamil Dakwar, director of the ACLU's Human Rights Program, about why we need to think about human rights more holistically.

Lawyers and law professors Claudia Flores and Tom Ginsburg kick off the second season of Entitled — and this time, they're focusing on one human right (and not just any right) — the right to equality. In the first episode, they explore what equality means in different contexts and to different people. Is it possible or even preferrable for every person to be equal in every way? When do we want equality? How do we get it? And what do we mean when we ask for it? This episode they speak with human rights historian and law professor Sam Moyn; public philosophy professor Elizabeth Anderson; and philosopher and professor of law and ethics Martha Nussbaum. Join the conversation this season as they try to unravel the complexity of equality and what “being equal” really means.

Recent US Supreme Court rulings on abortion, religion in school, gun control, and climate regulation will have far-reaching implications for Americans. How does the role that the Supreme Court plays in US democracy compare to Supreme Courts in other democracies? Constitutional law experts Daniel Brinks and Tom Ginsburg join Deep Dish to explore the uniqueness of the US Supreme Court and what we can learn from the functioning of the judicial branch of other nations' governments. Like the show? Leave us a rating and review!

From the Russian invasion of Ukraine to the rising dominance of China as a superpower, a fresh examination of international law's role in the global division between dictatorship and democracy has rarely been more relevant. This special episode of Borderlines features award-winning scholar Tom Ginsburg discussing ideas and theories from his recent book, Democracies and International Law. Tom Ginsburg is the Leo Spitz Professor of International Law at the University of Chicago, where he also holds an appointment in the Political Science Department. He is a Research Professor at the American Bar Foundation, a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and currently co-directs the Comparative Constitutions Project. Listen as Tom recounts his formative years in Berkeley, takes us behind the scenes at the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal, and shares first-hand stories about crafting constitutions from Mongolia to Honduras. His unique world view will expand listeners' perspectives beyond western approaches. As the balance of power between democracies and authoritarian regimes continues to shift in the twenty-first century, issues of human rights, the scope of cooperation across governments, and the comparative concepts covered in Episode Six of Borderlines will impact citizens of virtually every nation. Borderlines from Berkeley Law is a podcast about global problems in a world fragmented by national borders. Our host is Katerina Linos, Tragen Professor of International Law and co-director of the Miller Institute for Global Challenges and the Law. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

En este capítulo especial y en inglés, el profesor de la Facultad de Derecho de la Universidad Adolfo Ibáñez (UAI), Rodrigo Correa, analiza y discute el borrador de la nueva Constitución con Tom Ginsburg, experto en constitucionalismo comparado y profesor de la Escuela de Derecho de la Universidad de Chicago, quien estuvo de visita en Chile y en la UAI.

The world is unfair — but how much of that unfairness is inevitable, and how much is just contingency? After centuries of efforts to arrive at formal theories of history, society, and economics, most of us still believe and act on what amounts to myth. Our predecessors can't be faulted for their lack of data, but in 2022 we have superior resources we're only starting to appreciate and use. In honor of the Santa Fe Institute's new role as the hub of an international research network exploring Emergent Political Economies, we dedicate this new sub-series of Complexity Podcast to conversations on money, power, governance, and justice. Subscribe for a new stream of dialogues and trialogues between SFI's own diverse scholastic community and other acclaimed political economists, historians, and authors of speculative fiction.Welcome to COMPLEXITY, the official podcast of the Santa Fe Institute. I'm your host, Michael Garfield, and every other week we'll bring you with us for far-ranging conversations with our worldwide network of rigorous researchers developing new frameworks to explain the deepest mysteries of the universe.In this episode, we talk with SFI President David Krakauer about the goals of this research theme and what SFI brings to the table. We discuss the legacy of long-standing challenges to quantitative history and mathematical economics, how SFI thinks differently about these topics, and a brief outline of the major angles we'll explore in this sub-series over the next year-plus — including the roles of dimension, causality, algorithms, scaling, innovation, emergence, and more.Subscribe to Complexity Podcast for upcoming episodes with an acclaimed line-up of scholars including Diane Coyle, Eric Beinhocker, Ricardo Hausmann, Doyne Farmer, Steven Teles, Rajiv Sethi, Jenna Bednar, Tom Ginsburg, Niall Ferguson, Neal Stephenson, Paul Smaldino, C. Thi Nguyen, John Kay, John Geneakoplos, and many more to be announced…If you value our research and communication efforts, please subscribe to Complexity Podcast wherever you prefer to listen, rate and review us at Apple Podcasts, and consider making a donation — or finding other ways to engage with us — at santafe.edu/engage. You can find the complete show notes for every episode, with transcripts and links to cited works, at complexity.simplecast.com.Thank you for listening!Join our Facebook discussion group to meet like minds and talk about each episode.Podcast theme music by Mitch Mignano.Follow us on social media:Twitter • YouTube • Facebook • Instagram • LinkedInMentions and additional resources:Emergent Political Economies and A Science of Possibilityby David Krakauer for SFI Parallax Newsletter, Spring 2022 EditionPolicing stabilizes construction of social niches in primatesby Jessica Flack, Michelle Girvan, Frans de Waal, and David Krakauer in NatureConflicts of interest improve collective computation of adaptive social structuresby Eleanor Brush, David Krakauer, and Jessica Flack in Science AdvancesThe Star Gazer and the Flesh Eater: Elements of a Theory of Metahistoryby David C. Krakauer in History, Big History, and Metahistory at SFI PressThe Cultural Evolution of National Constitutionsby Daniel Rockmore, Chen Fang, Nick Foti, Tom Ginsburg, & David Krakauer in SSRNScaling of Hunter-Gatherer Camp Size and Human Socialityby José Lobo, Todd Whitelaw, Luís M. A. Bettencourt, Polly Wiessner, Michael E. Smith, & Scott Ortman in Current AnthropologyW. Brian Arthur on Complexity Podcast (eps. 13, 14, 68, 69)Reflections on COVID-19 with David Krakauer & Geoffrey West (Complexity Podcast)The Dawn of Everythingby David Graeber and David Wengrow at Macmillan PublishersMitch Waldrop speaks on the history of SFI (Twitter excerpts)The Hedgehog and the Foxby Isaiah BerlinWar and Peaceby Leo TolstoyOn the Application of Mathematics to Political Economyby F. Y. Edgeworth in Journal of the Royal Statistical SocietyHow Economics Became A Mathematical Scienceby E. Roy Weintraub at Duke University PressMachine Dreamsby Philip Mirowski at Cambridge University PressAll Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace (TV series)by Adam Curtis for BBCCan't Get You Out of My Head (TV series)by Adam Curtis for BBCThe Collective Computation Group at SFISeeing Like A Stateby James. C Scott at Yale BooksUncertain timesby Jessica Flack and Melanie Mitchell at AeonAt the limits of thoughtby David Krakauer at AeonPreventative Citizen-Based Medicineby David Krakauer for the SFI Transmissions: Reflections seriesThe uncertainty paradox. Can science make uncertainty optimistic?by Stuart Firestein (SFI Seminar)

Welcome back to the Peaceful Political Revolution in America podcast.When you look around the world at different constitutions, and how political systems are formed, you quickly realize that they are all quite different, even amongst the democratic nations. Every democratic country does democracy a little differently, and the results vary just as much. The conditions which lead to a new constitution can be as unpredictable as the events that follow. Constitution building is risky and complicated, which is why it is so hard to do and so rarely achieved. When conditions are right, however, citizens can make significant and meaningful improvements to their form of government. That constitutional moment came to Iceland in 2008, and it has yet to be resolved. The Icelandic people will have to figure it out, in part because, in Iceland, it is the constituted powers that make that decision, not the constituent powers. In Iceland, it remains the responsibility of the government to adopt any new constitution, not the people. This is not the case in America. In America, that power, called sovereignty, rests with the people. With you and I. That is the truly radical and democratic principle upon which our nation was formed and it is what makes America a truly exceptional nation. It is the source if you will, of all our freedoms.For most countries, a constitutional crisis is not just an opportunity to replace an unjust or corrupt political order, it is also an opportunity to reevaluate national and social objectives, to set the country on a new and better path. Hopefully, it is an opportunity to adopt a better and more effective form of representation. In 1787, it was the realization that the political order was no longer adequate which gave birth to our new and present political system. As Madison put it in Federalist One, "AFTER an unequivocal experience of the inefficiency of the subsisting federal government, you are called upon to deliberate on a new Constitution for the United States of America." Constitutional moments do not come along every decade, or even every century, yet it is common sense that as societies evolve so must their political systems. Like everything else in life, political and economic systems must continually adapt to new technologies and new challenges. If they do not, they may become vulnerable to corruption and gradually become ineffective and irrelevant.It is beneficial for a nation to refresh its understanding of itself from time to time. The citizens must find agreement in their principles, and their objectives as a nation or divisions become rather permanent. They must consider the issues confronting them as a nation and when necessary, devise better ways of addressing the threats they face. It is a momentous occasion for any country to take a serious and long hard look at itself. To conceptualize a better process through which the vast majority of the citizens might be governed in a more just and equitable way is our most sacred duty as citizens. When we fail to do this, we fail to live up to the expectations of the very people who gave us this nation. Constitutions can be complex documents, but happily, there has been a lot of research and development in the field of democracy since our second constitution was created 230+ years ago. Today we can all look around the globe and see multiple examples of democracies, and that was not the case in 1787.The United States was the first nation to place sovereignty in the hands of the people, and although you may believe, as I do, that the framers did a relatively bad job of getting a true democracy up and running, the responsibility to improve our constitution was never taken away from we the people. Our most

Today, Fabio talks to Tom Ginsburg, a professor of international law and political science at the University of Chicago and the author of "How to save a Constitutional democracy" (with Aziz Huq) and the brand-new "Democracies and International Law". Fabio and Tom discuss how modern autocrats use law to consolidate power, how the US has proven vulnerable to democratic erosion through law, and whether improvements in legal design (domestically or internationally) may help slow or stop these processes.

At the end of the day, I am optimistic despite all the evidence. First of all, I think there are a lot of resources that democracies can use. A lot of areas of law, where as long as we recognize what it is we're fighting for, democracy is worth fighting for and have a common view as to what that means that we can advance it in many places, not just here but abroad. And this might sound a little hokey, but there really is a genuine human demand for freedom and that's not going away.Tom GinsburgA full transcript is available at www.democracyparadox.com or a short review of Democracies and International Law here.Tom Ginsburg is a professor of international law and political science at the University of Chicago. He is the coauthor of How to Save a Constitutional Democracy with Aziz Huq and the author of Democracies and International Law.Key Highlights IncludeHow is international law made and enforced?How do democracies approach international law differently than authoritarian regimes?Is there a right to democracy?Differences and similarities between the approach of China and the United States towards international law.How do regional organizations support democratic norms?Additional InformationDemocracy Paradox PodcastMore shows from The Democracy GroupDemocracies and International Law by Tom GinsburgFollow Tom Ginsburg on Twitter @tomginsburgHow to Save a Constitutional Democracy by Tom Ginsburg and Aziz Huq

At the end of the day, I am optimistic despite all the evidence. First of all, I think there are a lot of resources that democracies can use. A lot of areas of law, where as long as we recognize what it is we're fighting for, democracy is worth fighting for and have a common view as to what that means that we can advance it in many places, not just here but abroad. And this might sound a little hokey, but there really is a genuine human demand for freedom and that's not going away.Tom GinsburgA full transcript is available at www.democracyparadox.com or a short review of Democracies and International Law here.Tom Ginsburg is a professor of international law and political science at the University of Chicago. He is the coauthor of How to Save a Constitutional Democracy with Aziz Huq and the author of Democracies and International Law.Key Highlights IncludeHow is international law made and enforced?How do democracies approach international law differently than authoritarian regimes?Is there a right to democracy?Differences and similarities between the approach of China and the United States towards international law.How do regional organizations support democratic norms?Key LinksDemocracies and International Law by Tom GinsburgFollow Tom Ginsburg on Twitter @tomginsburgHow to Save a Constitutional Democracy by Tom Ginsburg and Aziz HuqDemocracy Paradox PodcastCharles Kupchan on America's Tradition of IsolationismJohn Ikenberry on Liberal InternationalismMore Episodes from the PodcastMore InformationDemocracy GroupApes of the State created all MusicEmail the show at jkempf@democracyparadox.comFollow on Twitter @DemParadoxFollow on Instagram @democracyparadoxpodcast100 Books on Democracy

The rights of nature are enshrined in a number of constitutions around the world, and there is a growing movement to extend rights to nature as it faces increasing threats. The extension of rights to nature prompts fundamental questions about the nature, enforcement and evolution of rights. Does nature have rights, or do they belong only to humans? Are the rights of nature human rights in disguise? Is the extension of legal rights to nature enough to ensure its protection? In the final episode of Season 1 of Entitled, University of Chicago Law Professors Claudia Flores and Tom Ginsburg talk to Frank Tumusiime, Coordinator and Senior Research Fellow at Advocates for Natural Resources and Development (ANARDE) and Aaron Mills, Assistant Professor at McGill University Faculty of Law and Canada Research Chair in Indigenous Constitutionalism and Philosophy.

The right to bear arms is an American touchstone, found in very few other countries. Many think it should not be a right at all, and the debate over it is highly polarized. This episode broadens the lens to show how other countries handle guns, and suggests ways to cut through the charged discussion here at home.

The University of Chicago Podcast Network is excited to announce the launch of a new show, it's called "Entitled" and it's about human rights. Co-hosted by lawyers and UChicago Law School Professors, Claudia Flores and Tom Ginsburg, Entitled explores the stories around why rights matter and what's the matter with rights. We're taking a much needed break at the end of the summer, so we're going to share the first episode of that show with you this week, and recommend you go subscribe! We'll be back in two weeks with a new episode of Not Another Politics Podcast!

The collapse of the Afghan government has raised grave concerns for the future of the country, particularly for women. Exit is not a generally available option, but should it be? On this episode, we continue our conversation about migration, and the limits of the current human rights system for protecting the rights of women.

The right to seek and enjoy asylum has never been more important than in today's global landscape. At the same time, countries have never been more committed to finding increasingly creative ways to avoid having to take in refugees. Today on Entitled, we discuss the right to asylum and what our rights are at the border of another country. We know the movement of distressed migrants at sea and nations' borders is the cause for a lot of human tragedy. Are borders necessary – can we conceive of them in a different way? What duties should nations have to assist these migrants? Joining Professors Claudia Flores and Tom Ginsburg this week are Nina Kerkebane, an Algerian asylee and an entering graduate student at the University of Chicago Harris School of Public Policy; Ayelet Shachar, author of The Birthright Lottery: Citizenship and Global Inequality; Maya Elzinga-Soumah, Senior Legal Associate with the UN High Commissioner for Refugees in Aruba and Curaçao; and Itamar Mann, Director of the Global Legal Action Network and a Senior Lecturer at the University of Haifa Faculty of Law.

The University of Chicago Podcast Network is excited to announce the launch of a new show, it's called "Entitled" and it's about human rights. Co-hosted by lawyers and UChicago Law School Professors, Claudia Flores and Tom Ginsburg, Entitled explores the stories around why rights matter and what's the matter with rights. We're going to share the first episode of that show with you this week, and recommend you go subscribe! We'll be back next week with a new the second installment of our meritocracy series! Please enjoy Entitled, and we'll see you next week!

The University of Chicago Podcast Network is excited to announce the launch of a new show, it's called "Entitled" and it's about human rights. Co-hosted by lawyers and UChicago Law School Professors, Claudia Flores and Tom Ginsburg, Entitled explores the stories around why rights matter and what's the matter with rights. We're going to share the first episode of that show with you this week, and recommend you go subscribe! We'll be back next week with a new Big Brains about an incredible scientific breakthrough that will have huge implications for climate change, cancer treatment, and food scarcity! It's a must listen! Please enjoy Entitled, and we'll see you next week!

Free speech is one of those all important rights but one whose scope changes over time. Today, it is more likely to take place behind a screen rather than in the town square. What does the right to speak freely really look like when we are speaking in likes, comment bubbles and Tiktok videos? In this episode of Entitled, we explore freedom of speech, how and whether we still have it. We talk to Vietnamese pop star, MaiKhoi, an Artist Protection Fund fellow in residence at the University of Pittsburgh, who went from being dubbed the Vietnamese “Lady Gaga” to an exiled free speech activist, and to David Kaye, a UN expert on freedom of opinion and expression. Who's protecting the right to free speech now that companies like Facebook, Twitter and Instagram control the spaces where speech takes place?

Lawyers and law professors Claudia Flores and Tom Ginsburg have traveled the world getting into the weeds of global human rights debates. On this first episode of Entitled, they begin their journey of exploring the stories and thorny questions around why rights matter and what's the matter with rights. Joining them are professor of ethics and legal philosophy at Oxford University, John Tasioulas; constitution building expert Zaid Al-Ali; and Columbia law professor Jamal Greene, author of "How Rights Went Wrong: Why Our Obsession with Rights is Tearing America Apart." Join the discussion on how we might begin to better understand the role of rights in our diverse and yet increasingly connected world.

On this edition of Politics: A Love Story, host Bob Bushansky interviews Tom Ginsburg and Aziz Z Huq. Their latest book is: “How To Save A Constitutional Democracy,” and explores the extraordinary challenges democracies face from populist leaders today, above all in the United States. They suggest that our institutions may not be as resilient as we would like to believe, and propose concrete ways in which they might be strengthened based on wide ranging knowledge of the experiences of other countries facing similar threats. That’s Politics: A Love Story, alternating Friday mornings at 9am on KZYX and Z.

Political Scientist Seymour Martin Lipset wrote, “A person who knows only one country doesn't know any country because you're not sensitized to what is unique, what is different, what is special about your country.” Brazil offers a parallel to the United States because it has a populist President who is active on social media and has been indifferent to the pandemic and hostile to the environment. But it also has differences in culture, development, and religion. The past week has largely been about the American Presidential Election for me. Like most of you my attention was focused on the results until this past weekend when Joe Biden was officially declared the winner. But now I am exhausted talking about American politics, so I invited Amy Erica Smith to discuss politics in Brazil. She is the author of Religion and Brazilian Democracy: Mobilizing the People of God and a Professor of Political Science at Iowa State University. My conversation with Amy Erica is about Brazil, but in many ways, it is illuminating about the United States. Everyone will have theories about American politics after a consequential election. But an examination of other countries tests those assumptions in different contexts. Populist leaders have found success in many parts of the world, but Jair Bolsonaro feels eerily similar to Trump in so many ways. And yet, “Bolsonaro is a Brazilian invention.” Brian Winter writes in Foreign Affairs, “He is a product of the singularly awful economic and political crisis the country has endured over the last decade and, just as important, of Brazil’s long tradition of being ruled by conservative white men of military background.”The most striking of those similarities and differences is the way religion has interacted with politics in Brazil. Amy Erica’s research is amazing. She is a political scientist’s political scientist but also part of a new generation of scholars who combine field research with statistical analysis to give anecdotal observations new meaning.We cover a lot of ground in our conversation. We talk about Jair Bolsonaro. We discuss the Workers’ Party. We talk about Catholics, Evangelicals, and Pentecostals and... you really just need to listen. This episode marks the start of my second season. Each episode stands alone so there is no theme or topic for each season. But I do feel the podcast has grown in its production and sophistication over the past 20 episodes. And the new election gives me a chance to mark this growth with a new season of episodes. Next week begins the three part series "Liberalism, Capitalism, Communism" about the global ascendance of China. Stay tuned!Thanks to Apes of the State for permission to use their tracks "The Internet Song" and "Bill Collector's Theme Song." You can find their music on Spotify or their Bandcamp.Please visit my blog at www.democracyparadox.com. I have written 80 reviews of both classic and contemporary works of political science with an emphasis on democracy. This week I reviewed Tom Ginsburg's Judicial Review in New Democracies. Please visit the website and read my book reviews. And don't forget to subscribe to keep up with future episodes.

CheckIn by GovSight. This week, GovSight Editor Camryn Pak and Business Strategist Thomas Gordon check in with Leo Spitz Professor of International Law and Political Science Tom Ginsburg about ongoing protests, police reform, coronavirus and upcoming elections.

Catherine is joined by Dr. Tom Ginsburg, Professor of International Law and Political Science at the University of Chicago, to discuss his recent article “Authoritarian International Law?” in the American Journal of International Law. Their wide-ranging conversation explores the liberal foundation of international law, how countries with authoritarian governments may be re-writing those very foundations, and the implications that can have for democracies. Catherine and Dr. Ginsburg also discuss the responses to the COVID-19 pandemic in states around the world and why those responses may not quite be a harbinger of new authoritarian trends.

Manu Saunders, Univ of New England, Australia, on the Australia wildfires' impact on animals. Jerome O'Connor, author of "The Hidden Places of WWII", on the British spying on German generals. Charles White, Univ of Connecticut, on the risks of generic drugs. Tom Ginsburg, Univ of Chicago, on international impeachment. Emilie Blevins, Xerces Society, on mussels dying off. World Awaiting host Rachel Wadham on the link between access to books and literary achievement.

Are we in the midst of a global crisis of decline in democracy? And is the United States vulnerable to that trend? Sharing insights from their book “How to Save a Constitutional Democracy,” University of Chicago law professors Aziz Z. Huq and Tom Ginsburg to explain why they think democracy might be headed for “death by 1,000 cuts” in places like Hungary and Poland and is at risk elsewhere in the world—but offer solutions to save it. They also evaluate the state of democracy in the United States through the lens of the Special Counsel investigation, access to the polls, and institutions like the Electoral College. National Constitution Center Director of Content and Constitutional Fellow Lana Ulrich moderates. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

A series of three lectures by Professor Tom Ginsburg, Leo Spitz Professor of International Law, Ludwig and Hilde Wolf Research Scholar, Professor of Political Science, The University of Chicago Law School. All lectures are held at the Lauterpacht Centre at 6 pm on Tuesday 12 March, Wednesday 13 March and Thursday 14 March with a Q&A at 1 pm on Friday 15 March (sandwich lunch from 12.30 pm). Lecture Two: International Law and Democratic Backsliding We live in an era of democratic erosion, in which the number of democracies has been declining and even long-established democracies are coping with systemic challenges from populism and institutional decay. What, if anything, can international law do about this? This lecture surveys the role of regional institutions in Africa, Latin America and Europe in confronting threats to democracy. The evidence to date is mixed, and we should be modest in our expectations. Nevertheless, I argue that international law can play a more robust role through richer normative frameworks which are emerging. The Hersch Lauterpacht Memorial Lecture is an annual three-part lecture series given in Cambridge to commemorate the unique contribution to the development of international law of Sir Hersch Lauterpacht. These lectures are given annually by a person of eminence in the field of international law.

A series of three lectures by Professor Tom Ginsburg, Leo Spitz Professor of International Law, Ludwig and Hilde Wolf Research Scholar, Professor of Political Science, The University of Chicago Law School. All lectures are held at the Lauterpacht Centre at 6 pm on Tuesday 12 March, Wednesday 13 March and Thursday 14 March with a Q&A at 1 pm on Friday 15 March (sandwich lunch from 12.30 pm). Lecture Three: Authoritarian International Law? In the final lecture, I ask what international law will look like if current trends continue. In an era dominated by authoritarian and not democratic regimes, what role will international law play? To be sure, we do not want to blindly project forward from current trends, and it is possible that democratic systems will prove resilient. But the rise of authoritarian China, with its own increasingly resilient legal system, along with a newly assertive Russian regime, suggests that the question of authoritarian international law is worth exploring. This inquiry involves examining the international mechanisms established and utilized by these states. As I shall argue, the role of international law in a world dominated by authoritarian regimes will in some ways resemble its role in the earlier Westphalian era. The Hersch Lauterpacht Memorial Lecture is an annual three-part lecture series given in Cambridge to commemorate the unique contribution to the development of international law of Sir Hersch Lauterpacht. These lectures are given annually by a person of eminence in the field of international law.

A series of three lectures by Professor Tom Ginsburg, Leo Spitz Professor of International Law, Ludwig and Hilde Wolf Research Scholar, Professor of Political Science, The University of Chicago Law School. All lectures are held at the Lauterpacht Centre at 6 pm on Tuesday 12 March, Wednesday 13 March and Thursday 14 March with a Q&A at 1 pm on Friday 15 March (sandwich lunch from 12.30 pm). Lecture 1: Democracies and International Law In this lecture, I seek to explore whether and how democracies behave differently than non-democracies in their use of international legal instruments. Understanding this relationship requires returning to some of the foundational assumptions of the literature, especially those associated with liberal theory. Scholars in the 1990s argued that international law among liberal states was qualitatively different from that among illiberal states. This is, as I argue, an empirical question, and the first lecture will go about testing whether liberal states are indeed more likely to cooperate using legal mechanisms. I show that international law in our era is largely produced by and utilized by democratic states, but I go on to argue that liberal theory did not provide a complete theoretical account. Instead I draw on the theory of public goods to develop an explanation for international legal institutions. The Hersch Lauterpacht Memorial Lecture is an annual three-part lecture series given in Cambridge to commemorate the unique contribution to the development of international law of Sir Hersch Lauterpacht. These lectures are given annually by a person of eminence in the field of international law.

Back in Glen's garage for the first time since the infamous 9/11 episode - special guest Tom Ginsburg joins the show and shares a bad experience at the gym. Dave and Tom form an instant bond over their luxury cars.

In episode two of Rule of Law Talk, Professor Tom Ginsburg joins us to talk about what can be done to preserve democracy around the world. His new book, "How to Save a Constitutional Democracy," examines current trends in democratic governance. Drawing on comparative constitutional and political analysis, Ginsburg and his co-author, Aziz Huq, provide insight into the elements of institutional design that can make a difference in the face of an authoritarian onslaught. More info available at our episode page: goo.gl/GMr9PL. Rule of Law Talk features conversations with leading lights on the front lines of understanding and advancing government accountability, fundamental rights, open government, safety and security, access to justice, and other rule of law topics. This podcast is brought to you by World Justice Project.

If we were starting from scratch, as our guest Aziz Huq puts it, how should our constitution deal with criminality by high government officials? We talk about the constitutional designer's perspective, the criminalization of politics, and the politicization of the rule of law. This show’s links: Aziz Huq’s faculty profile (https://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/huq) and academic writing (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=1266817) Aziz Huq, Legal or Political Checks on Apex Criminality: An Essay on Constitutional Design (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3185835) Thomas Ginsburg, Zachary Elkins, and James Melton, The Lifespan of Written Constitutions (https://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/lifespan-written-constitutions); Tom Ginsburg and James Melton, Does the Constitutional Amendment Rule Matter at All? Amendment Cultures and the Challenges of Measuring Amendment Difficulty (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2432520); Aziz Huq, The Function of Article V (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2406089) Aziz Huq, Hippocratic Constitutional Design (https://books.google.com/books?id=pg3PDAAAQBAJ&lpg=PA64&pg=PA39#v=onepage&q&f=false) in Assessing Constitutional Performance (https://books.google.com/books?id=pg3PDAAAQBAJ) Tom Ginsburg and Aziz Huq, How to Save a Constitutional Democracy (http://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/H/bo28381225.html); Aziz Huq and Tom Ginsburg, How to Lose a Constitutional Democracy (https://www.uclalawreview.org/lose-constitutional-democracy/) (see also the version of these ideas in Tom and Aziz's article for Vox (https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/2/21/14664568/lose-constitutional-democracy-autocracy-trump-authoritarian)) The Comparative Constitutions Project (http://comparativeconstitutionsproject.org) Special Guest: Aziz Huq.

In this episode, we sit down with Professors Aziz Huq, Tom Ginsburg and Lawrence Sager to discuss threats to constitutional democracy and how well America’s constitutional democracy might fare in the face of those threats.

In The Democratic Coup d’Etat, Prof. Ozan Varol challenges the conventional public understanding of the coup d’etat, which often evokes the image of a militarized group of elites who seek to overthrow an existing government in order to consolidate power. Often, we consider coups contrary--and even more a threat--to democracy. Prof. Varol argues that coups do not always match that public understanding, and often are used to establish a democracy or advance democratic principles. He traces democratic coups throughout history--from 5th century BC Athens, to actions in the American colonies against corrupt British officials, to the democracy-building revolts against military regimes in countries like Guinea-Bissau, Portugal, and Colombia in the 20th century. In his historical analysis, Prof. Varol explores questions regarding the political nature of coups and the differences in military powers which can lead to the fostering or suppressing of democratic societies. In this episode, Prof. Ozan Varol of Lewis & Clark Law School and Prof. Tom Ginsburg of the University of Chicago Law School discuss The Democratic Coup d'Etat. The Democratic Coup d'Etat is available here.

In The Democratic Coup d’Etat, Prof. Ozan Varol challenges the conventional public understanding of the coup d’etat, which often evokes the image of a militarized group of elites who seek to overthrow an existing government in order to consolidate power. Often, we consider coups contrary--and even more a threat--to democracy. Prof. Varol argues that coups do not always match that public understanding, and often are used to establish a democracy or advance democratic principles. He traces democratic coups throughout history--from 5th century BC Athens, to actions in the American colonies against corrupt British officials, to the democracy-building revolts against military regimes in countries like Guinea-Bissau, Portugal, and Colombia in the 20th century. In his historical analysis, Prof. Varol explores questions regarding the political nature of coups and the differences in military powers which can lead to the fostering or suppressing of democratic societies. In this episode, Prof. Ozan Varol of Lewis & Clark Law School and Prof. Tom Ginsburg of the University of Chicago Law School discuss The Democratic Coup d'Etat. The Democratic Coup d'Etat is available here.

We focus on the United Kingdom's decision to leave the European Union. We speak to University of Chicago law professor law professor Tom Ginsburg about direct democracy. And Dr. Robert Scott joins us to discuss the potential economic impact.

Libertarians often assert that regulation is unnecessary because the market will meet any existing consumer demand. The issue of smoking in bars is a paradigmatic context in which this argument arises. Libertarians argue that bar patrons (and employees) are free to patronize or work in whichever bars they choose. Accordingly, if workers or patrons want smoke-free bars, the market will provide smoke-free bars. For the libertarian, the fact that nearly every bar in every city allowed smoking prior to the enactment of smoking bans is proof that this is what employees and patrons really want. The market equilibrium is the efficient equilibrium. Our work calls this conclusion into question. We suggest that in many contexts there are many possible equilibria, not just one equilibrium. The fact that we live in one equilibrium rather than another might be merely a product of path dependence. For instance, the vast majority of bars might allow smoking (absent smoking bans) simply because behavior has evolved from a time when smoking was always allowed and not even viewed as harmful. If smoking had been banned until recently, and then the ban were repealed, a very different equilibrium might have emerged. If this is the case, then what follows? The recent wave of behavioral economics has led some theorists to advocate the possibility of "libertarian paternalism," where regulators designing institutions permit significant individual choice but nonetheless use default rules to "nudge" individuals toward informed or salutary choices. Here, we propose a type of libertarian paternalist intervention aimed directly at the question of multiple equilibria: temporary law. If an equilibrium exists only because of path dependence, there is no need for a permanent restriction on liberty. A state or city could simply pass a temporary law, allow the law to expire, and then examine the state of affairs that emerges. We thus propose imagining regulations that include an expiration date, and we will describe the many advantages of that approach. This talk was recorded on February 25, 2014. Tom Ginsburg is Leo Spitz Professor of International Law, Ludwig and Hilde Wolf Research Scholar and Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago Law School. Jonathan Masur is Deputy Dean and Professor of Law at the University of Chicago Law School. Richard McAdams is Bernard D. Meltzer Professor of Law and Aaron Director Research Scholar at the University of Chicago Law School.

Libertarians often assert that regulation is unnecessary because the market will meet any existing consumer demand. The issue of smoking in bars is a paradigmatic context in which this argument arises. Libertarians argue that bar patrons (and employees) are free to patronize or work in whichever bars they choose. Accordingly, if workers or patrons want smoke-free bars, the market will provide smoke-free bars. For the libertarian, the fact that nearly every bar in every city allowed smoking prior to the enactment of smoking bans is proof that this is what employees and patrons really want. The market equilibrium is the efficient equilibrium. Our work calls this conclusion into question. We suggest that in many contexts there are many possible equilibria, not just one equilibrium. The fact that we live in one equilibrium rather than another might be merely a product of path dependence. For instance, the vast majority of bars might allow smoking (absent smoking bans) simply because behavior has evolved from a time when smoking was always allowed and not even viewed as harmful. If smoking had been banned until recently, and then the ban were repealed, a very different equilibrium might have emerged. If this is the case, then what follows? The recent wave of behavioral economics has led some theorists to advocate the possibility of "libertarian paternalism," where regulators designing institutions permit significant individual choice but nonetheless use default rules to "nudge" individuals toward informed or salutary choices. Here, we propose a type of libertarian paternalist intervention aimed directly at the question of multiple equilibria: temporary law. If an equilibrium exists only because of path dependence, there is no need for a permanent restriction on liberty. A state or city could simply pass a temporary law, allow the law to expire, and then examine the state of affairs that emerges. We thus propose imagining regulations that include an expiration date, and we will describe the many advantages of that approach. This talk was recorded on February 25, 2014. Tom Ginsburg is Leo Spitz Professor of International Law, Ludwig and Hilde Wolf Research Scholar and Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago Law School. Jonathan Masur is Deputy Dean and Professor of Law at the University of Chicago Law School. Richard McAdams is Bernard D. Meltzer Professor of Law and Aaron Director Research Scholar at the University of Chicago Law School.