Lynda Kellam: hi everyone, welcome to the GODORT and GRS webinar series, my name is Lynda Kellam I am the chair of GODORT and this series Help! I’m an Accidental Government Information Librarian is brought to you by the Government Documents Round Table and the North Carolina Library Association’s Government Lynda Kellam: Resources Section. In the future GODORT will be Lynda Kellam: taking over the webinars and the organizations are working Lynda Kellam: together to bring you this series.
So thanks for coming. Lynda Kellam: We are in a webinar mode for this presentation Howard Carrier: So we do encourage you to use.
00:42 - Lynda Kellam: The Q & A or the chat box for communicating with our presenter and you can use either one, but if you do use the chat make sure that you are choosing all attendees and panelists, so that we can all see your questions.
00:59 - Lynda Kellam: If you have questions specifically for me feel free to choose my name, you should be able to do that or.
01:08 - Lynda Kellam: i’m. Lynda Kellam: The if there are technical issues, please email me at LM K 277 at cornell. edu and we’ll try to guide you through some solutions, but in the worst case scenario, we are recording this session, and we will have it up on our YouTube channel as soon as possible.
01:27 - Lynda Kellam: We have some plans for new webinars coming up, you will see our topic for April 22 is the World Trade Organization, and that is in conjunction with ACRL’s Politics Policy and International Relations Section so we’re excited to have Lynda Kellam: them work with us on that one and then in May we have someone talking about researching state legislatures.
01:54 - Lynda Kellam: We have more coming in the fall, but if you have ideas for presentations or presentation presenters or presentation topics, please let me know we are always looking for new topics and new presenters.
02:07 - Lynda Kellam: or old topics and old presenters as well, so please just get in touch with me if you have ideas and I’ll put a link to our YouTube Channel with our past presentations as soon as possible.
02:18 - Lynda Kellam: Please follow us if you are YouTube user and you are free to use any of our past recordings, for your work.
02:28 - Lynda Kellam: And you can link to them in LibGuides you can do that if you would like so today’s webinar is Lynda Kellam: Researching Law in Europe and our presenter is Howard Carrier, who has presented with us a couple of times before. He’s the Copyright Librarian Lynda Kellam: and Liaison Librarian to the Department of Justice Studies and Political Science at James Madison University.
02:51 - Lynda Kellam: Although his work and scholarship is principally founded in the areas of copyright and fair use, he maintains strong interests in EU Law, the law of the European Convention on Human Rights, and legal systems and structures.
03:13 - Lynda Kellam: You should have access to share now.
03:18 - Howard Carrier: Okay, thank you very much indeed Lynda. I’ll go ahead and share my screen in just a moment. I’m assuming everybody can hear me all right, there’s no technical issues of that sort? Howard Carrier: Okay, jolly good, well, first of all I’d like to thank you all for coming today for a couple of reasons, first of all, taking time out of your busy work days to sit and listen to Howard Carrier: a talk on researching law in Europe and, certainly, because I imagine you’re just like me and completely zoomed and webexed out so.
03:56 - Howard Carrier: You know there’s there’s times in the normal run of things where a webex meeting can be something to look forward to when you sat through hundreds of them in the last 12 months, it gets a little bit more arduous, so thank you very much indeed.
04:10 - Howard Carrier: Let me share my screen and pull up the PowerPoint and then, as I say, as they say, I will begin so.
04:20 - Howard Carrier: First of all, the powerpoints.
04:25 - Howard Carrier: there it is on my screen, let me make sure that you can see it on yours.
04:44 - Howard Carrier: Alright, I will go ahead and pull up the PowerPoint and begin.
04:51 - Howard Carrier: So i’m guessing you can see the PowerPoint if you can’t please, please go ahead and tell me now otherwise today’s talk might be somewhat lacking in the illustration.
05:02 - Howard Carrier: We can see it. Good I’m pleased to hear that. Thank you Lynda.
05:07 - Howard Carrier: So yeah researching law in Europe, so a couple of things about this first of all.
05:15 - Howard Carrier: I’ve done a couple of these in the past as Lynda said. In fact I’ve done three. I did one some time ago, Howard Carrier: quite a long time ago on researching British law and then another one on researching European law, particularly focused on the European Union and then relatively recently I did one on BREXIT the great British desire to take aim at your left foot and pull the trigger.
05:45 - Howard Carrier: Today this is going to be a little bit different and I apologize in advance that this is not what you expect.
05:54 - Howard Carrier: I was giving some thought, because those are still valid and they’ve been recorded, I went back and had a little look at them.
06:00 - Howard Carrier: relatively recently some of the database interfaces have changed and some of the functionality has changed a little bit, but those were focused very much on finding things. This one today is a little bit more theoretical and I’ll explain why.
06:17 - Howard Carrier: I was sort of looking around for an Howard Carrier: analogy, to explain this to you and the best one I can come up with is this: Howard Carrier: In the room where I am sitting there are –where I have been sitting for 12 months it seems, there are a number of things, there is Shelby the Beagle in her crate, who is appalled at being in her crate.
06:40 - Howard Carrier: Ordinarily if this was just a faculty meeting I let her out to destroy things or try to stop her from destroying things, Howard Carrier: But she is safely contained for the next hour.
06:51 - Howard Carrier: The other thing that exists in great preponderance are electric guitars. Because, like any middle aged man approaching his midlife crisis and indeed cresting the wave of his midlife crisis you go back to the things you did when you were young.
07:08 - Howard Carrier: And if you’re you know struggling to persevere with developing as a guitarist you naturally just buy more of the things because somehow you will subliminally Howard Carrier: acquire that expertise. Think of it like this: I’m a reasonably competent guitarist but I know virtually nothing about musical theory what I know could comfortably fit on the back of a postcard.
07:29 - Howard Carrier: And sometimes that’s not a good thing you kind of encounter bumps in the road hurdles which would be more easily overcome, if you knew some musical theory.
07:38 - Howard Carrier: You know I can tell you that the F sharp minor pentatonic sounds very nice over an A major chord but I can’t tell you why.
07:46 - Howard Carrier: And so today it’s a little bit looking at the underlying theory how the pieces lock together.
07:52 - Howard Carrier: There will be some description of finding there will be some demonstration of relevant databases.
07:58 - Howard Carrier: But what I’m really trying to do is lay out without being turning into a constitutional law lecture the underlying theory, because I think for those who don’t know too much about this, the underlying theory might be quite helpful.
08:12 - Howard Carrier: And I also say this because, when I first arrived in the United States 16 years ago, having trained as a lawyer in the United Kingdom, I found myself thinking well how much different can it be? You know they’re both common law systems common law is common law.
08:27 - Howard Carrier: You know what what what what difficulties could possibly exist without understanding or even beginning to realize until I sat down in Chapel Hill Law Library, as I was Howard Carrier: finishing off a PhD I wasn’t desperately interested in which never actually got finished, I went to SILS and became a librarian instead.
08:43 - Howard Carrier: But suddenly realized that US lawyers codify, the British don’t do that common law was common law. It isn’t always, so you know, a big part of this has been inspired by my own journey understanding the legal structure of a different country.
09:02 - Howard Carrier: So what is the webinar about? well putting together putting the pieces together of researching law in the quasi-federal European landscape.
09:11 - Howard Carrier: I’ll talk quite a bit about this quasi-federal idea, it’s pretty intrinsic to again how these pieces are put together.
09:18 - Howard Carrier: Some of the different legal models to prevail in Europe and how it affects research and, particularly, how it affects the type of research I am going to be talking about today, which is primarily Howard Carrier: how intergovernmental organizations have intertwined themselves within domestic legal systems in Europe.
09:40 - Howard Carrier: Using some noteworthy examples from European jurisdictions to highlight these ideas so yeah useful things to to kind of amplify these.
09:51 - Howard Carrier: I will point to some of the key research tools, but those are really the subject of the previous webinars so in the Europe one I went through, in the EU one I went through info curia in great detail I shouldn’t be doing that, today, other than to point to specific examples.
10:09 - Howard Carrier: Attempting and failing, not to make this to UK centric yeah I set off with this grand idea of Howard Carrier: You know, and there will be references to other European country’s legal systems.
10:22 - Howard Carrier: But ultimately you know, both for language reasons.
10:26 - Howard Carrier: I have some facility in German, schoolboy French as they say, and some proficiency in English, I think.
10:34 - Howard Carrier: There is that barrier, but also the fact that it was easier, perhaps to make some of these points, linked to the UK system.
10:41 - Howard Carrier: And when I say this, you know it’s when we delve into this, BREXIT has not drawn a complete line between the UK and Europe, despite what some of its more Howard Carrier: vociferously adherents might be hoping for. I’m thinking about Europe both in terms of simple geographic terms as well as the jurisdictional issues that arise. When we get to the EU section of this you’ll see as I’m sure many of you are already aware, that EU law still has a very heavy Howard Carrier: presence within UK domestic law.
And then just discussing some thoughts about the post BREXIT situation.
11:22 - Howard Carrier: Where did the idea come from? Well, as I said ironically enough, it came from teaching American university students about their own legal system in the United States.
11:32 - Howard Carrier: I taught Classical Justice 301 last fall, I hasten to add I’m not a law librarian. I trained as a lawyer in one country Howard Carrier: And then became a librarian in a different country and my work today as as Lynda mentioned in her introduction, a generous biography, is that I’m a copyright librarian so apparently all those years in law school weren’t wasted. I don’t think I could do that as well without having Howard Carrier: some sophisticated understanding of legal systems and structures.
12:06 - Howard Carrier: But going back to the class what I observed the novice students is that they really struggled with this relationship between Federal and State law Howard Carrier: in the United States. As we approach the question of how to become a legal scholar, how to read a case, how to read a statute, how to think about sources of law.
12:26 - Howard Carrier: And then, more importantly, to think about how those sources of law interplay with each other in a country, you know with with multiple jurisdictions, like the US, and they really struggled with this this idea of Howard Carrier: the relationship between Federal and State law. Now, I hasten to add that nothing I’m about to show you is recycled from teaching a 300 level justice studies class.
12:51 - Howard Carrier: What I’ve tried to do is accept that there are people perhaps in this webinar today with varying degrees of experience from people who are perhaps Howard Carrier: new to researching law here in the United States through to those who are experienced and want to learn a little bit more about approaches within Europe.
13:10 - Howard Carrier: So with all things these things is it’s it’s a little bit hard to gauge them some things you feel can be quite basic and some things you worry that you’re countering over.
13:20 - Howard Carrier: If things are complex in the federal legal system or people find them complex it’s likely that they are even more confusing in quasi-federal law so I’ll bear that in mind, as I go along.
13:31 - Howard Carrier: And yeah they struggled with stare decisis the idea of a precedent, and again in terms of Federal and State law.
13:39 - Howard Carrier: Because of that, and because one has to be realistic about what can be Howard Carrier: achieved in a hour long webinar.
13:48 - Howard Carrier: I’m going to focus very much on case law today, rather than statutes.
13:53 - Howard Carrier: When we get to talking a little bit about the legal systems, perhaps that will become more obvious but in terms of finding things today and discussing them, you can assume that this is a webinar about case law.
14:04 - Howard Carrier: Caselaw has evolved, just as a word in the last few decades, you know what used to be two words and it became hyphenated and legal dictionaries and now compounding it so caselaw Howard Carrier: has its own unique entity, if you will, and I’m, beginning with the premise that scholars of American law, however sophisticated are used to dealing with a Codified common law system, and that is highly unusual.
14:27 - Howard Carrier: As I said, it kind of blew my mind when I arrived in the United States, I thought, these people are remarkably sophisticated.
14:34 - Howard Carrier: Because it doesn’t exist in England. It’s easier, now that we have Westlaw and LexisNexis and things like that to find cases decided under a particular statute.
14:44 - Howard Carrier: But years ago it wasn’t and, if you like, that codification is really being done by legal database providers, rather than by you know the US Council of Revision like it happens in the United States.
14:58 - Howard Carrier: It’s not done by a government entity, you could do it, to some degree, through Halsbury’s and things like that, but it was hard to do.
15:05 - Howard Carrier: In America it’s always much simpler to find what is the law of the land you’re not plowing through pages and pages and pages of the statutes.
15:12 - Howard Carrier: You’re going to the minutia, the important bits that have been pulled out and presented in the US code.
15:18 - Howard Carrier: And then you can relatively easily through those legal tools find cases decided under those provisions. So that’s what I’m assuming that people are used to.
15:28 - Howard Carrier: I accept that this could be an international audience, if there are European law scholars out there they’re probably going to be throwing virtual fruit and booing as I progress, but you know we’ll start with that basis.
15:43 - Howard Carrier: So lessons from a truly federal nation.
15:47 - Howard Carrier: In the United States it’s relatively simple because I appreciate that there are entire monographs devoted Howard Carrier: to the question of whether or not the United States is a true federal system, but by any measure and by any objective measure, it is.
16:05 - Howard Carrier: And you could point to the supremacy clause that makes things relatively easy. Article VI, paragraph 2, tells us that the federal constitution and federal law generally takes precedence over state laws, when there is conflict of law, the federal law prevails.
16:23 - Howard Carrier: This is the method or the lesson of true federalism. So why did the students find it so hard to understand? Howard Carrier: Well, we can also look to a little bit to the obligation of State courts under the supremacy clause, and this is actually very relevant Howard Carrier: to what are I will be talking about in the European context, in a few minutes time.
16:45 - Howard Carrier: State courts are bound to give effect to federal law when it is applicable and to disregard State law when there is a conflict. So the supremacy of federal law in this federal system is arguably not under any serious doubt.
17:02 - Howard Carrier: In those instances in a common law system in the United States, like the United States or specifically in the United States, in other words, where federal law doesn’t provide but State law does.
17:14 - Howard Carrier: The Erie doctrine, as you know, beloved or maybe not beloved of one year law students throughout the nation as they begin their JD programs the Erie doctrine is consolidated or refined in Hanna v. Plumer it’s pretty straightforward.
17:30 - Howard Carrier: Where the federal law does not provide and the federal courts are sitting in judgment, they simply do not create judge-made law instead they look to State law, Howard Carrier: State practices, as is stated in Hanna v. Plumer and this appears in certain circumstances it’s not universal but we’re thinking in terms of where there is diversity.
17:53 - Howard Carrier: a venue if you will, where state laws collide, there are also some questions of quantum related to this, I believe.
18:00 - Howard Carrier: But, in other words you don’t simply supplement federal judge made law where existing State law exists in the common law or indeed within statute. So in this sense, this is a model of federalism, which is relatively easy to understand.
18:19 - Howard Carrier: We talked about Stare Decisis which they found quite confusing in the context again of the relationship between Federal and State law. When are the federal courts Howard Carrier: adjudicating offering judgements and opinions on the nature of State law? and to what extent do State courts question or you know involve themselves interpreting federal law.
18:47 - Howard Carrier: Ironically enough, given that we are dealing with the American system this comes from Osnabruck University but it’s a nice little diagram that shows the question that arises, or how this can be interpreted.
18:58 - Howard Carrier: Where do courts bind themselves and on what matters so you’re seeing their Howard Carrier: courts being bound them questions of federal law and binding on questions for State Law and the blue line that goes up from state Supreme Court to the US Supreme Court is significant.
19:15 - Howard Carrier: It tells us that in those instances, the United States Supreme Court is bound to give consideration to State law when it is adjudicating on those matters.
19:29 - Howard Carrier: Again, they struggled with this, this question is this question of precedence and I wondered whether it was simply being confronted with unfamiliar legal terms, and so we spent a lot of time going over this.
19:41 - Howard Carrier: But the idea of courts being able to bind themselves and again within the federal system of the United States, this I wouldn’t say it’s necessarily logical.
19:52 - Howard Carrier: But it’s relatively easy to understand. We’re looking at courts that essentially are bound by you know the hierarchy of the courts from the Supreme Court Howard Carrier: To federal courts in their districts and then, subsequently US District courts and we’re seeing that.
20:10 - Howard Carrier: You know the US Court of Appeals in the same district essentially binds itself, we talked a lot about the United States Supreme Court’s ability Howard Carrier: or inability to bind itself and we accepted as we will see with the European Courts, that once you’re dealing with these constitutional courts Stare Decisis within that particular court doesn’t necessarily mean a great deal.
20:34 - Howard Carrier: There are many, many instances of the Supreme Court essentially reversing itself from you know, taking one position now the most obvious example is Roper v. Simmons and the execution of people who committed their crimes as minors Howard Carrier: or or applying the death penalty to minors.
20:54 - Howard Carrier: For minor criminals, you see within 25 year period, a noticeable shift.
21:00 - Howard Carrier: So these were the underlying problems that the students I taught about US federal law and State law and found and I wondered well that question, if this confusion exists in a relatively certain federal system, it must be even more confusing in a quasi-federal system.
21:21 - Howard Carrier: Yes, wait, I thought this webinar was supposed to be about Europe. It is, don’t worry, we are simply trying to apply the lessons of you know Howard Carrier: 250 years of American jurisprudence to what is actually a much newer jurisdiction and that sounds rather strange, but, of course, in terms of European style federalism you are only going back to after the Second World War.
21:47 - Howard Carrier: I will be looking at the two big intergovernmental organizations that provide for that the Council of Europe and the European Union. So, whereas in many ways Howard Carrier: you’d had a constitutional convention in 1787 and then this whole 200 years plus of constitutional law developed under that written constitution.
22:09 - Howard Carrier: In Europe, the system is complicated, perhaps, both by its novelty it’s newness, if you will, and also by the fact that as we’ll see in a moment we’re not talking about Howard Carrier: a pure federal system.
22:24 - Howard Carrier: Why called Europe quasi-federal? Howard Carrier: What Howard Carrier: an excellent idea what an excellent question. So I looked around for the first instances when this term was used.
22:37 - Howard Carrier: Inevitably it’s used in the United Kingdom it’s used before and around the time of the Maastricht Treaty and it’s used disparagingly in the light of conversations about domestic sovereignty.
22:50 - Howard Carrier: I can say with confidence, I think, well, maybe I can’t but I’ve only really lived in two countries my life has almost been split between two.
22:59 - Howard Carrier: My early life in the United Kingdom in my later life in the United States, but if there are two countries that worry about domestic sovereignty, the most I would say it is those two nations.
23:11 - Howard Carrier: So so much of this question about this this this concern as criticism of encroaching federalism.
23:20 - Howard Carrier: In Europe this is if we’re drawing a parallel this is Patrick Henry stuff.
23:26 - Howard Carrier: Maybe because in Europe it’s Patrice Henri but in fact I would stick with the anglophone Patrick Henry because it is principally a British concern.
23:41 - Howard Carrier: The term first crops up in the 1980s, this is from The Times Good Europeans, and this is the Times, having a good whine Howard Carrier: about quasi-federalists arguments to the contrary, this is not common sense, the EEC is not a federal it’s not a federal structure. It’s important to remember the evolution of the European Union from essentially a coal and steel trading organization Howard Carrier: In the 1950s, 1960s into the EEC a purely economic community.
24:18 - Howard Carrier: And where you see the beginnings of a single markets are transferred to a single market.
24:27 - Howard Carrier: which you know stems from the original Treaties of the European Union as it continues to develop the way that single market Howard Carrier: becomes more Howard Carrier: you know entrenched within Europe. You see the evolution into the European Community and that’s really where this comes from.
24:49 - Howard Carrier: This quasi-federal term crops up a lot in the 1980s and the late the early 1990s.
24:57 - Howard Carrier: And the reason for that is because of the Maastricht Treaty, which is really sets the parameters, the the the three big pillars as they’re called or were called of the European Union.
25:09 - Howard Carrier: A shared economic environment, a single market.
25:15 - Howard Carrier: A Howard Carrier: shared pillar of justice and security matters sorry , of security matters and Defense matters and then ultimately at the third pillar, which is the Social Chapter.
25:30 - Howard Carrier: Important social provisions within Europe social chapter which gives rise to workers rights, if you will, the right to paternity and maternity leave, parental leave things like that.
25:43 - Howard Carrier: In the late 1980s and early 1990s, particularly in the United Kingdom, this is where this concern about federalism and quasi-federalism really begins to come in.
25:57 - Howard Carrier: For those who are interested in examining in greater detail the federal or quai-federal nature of Europe see this book by by David McKay. He’s a professor of political science at the University of Essex designing your comparative lessons from the Federal experience.
26:17 - Howard Carrier: A little bit old, but what i’ve tried to do throughout this this presentation today is point you to some of the the key resources that might be helpful if you wish to explore these conversations these questions in greater detail.
26:33 - Howard Carrier: So here we are, as we, as we move forward, you are dealing with a system that has relatively modern Howard Carrier: intergovernmental organizations beginning the process of what some see as quasi-federalism. So everything I’m going to say, from this point forth, particularly as we look at case law, Howard Carrier: is going to be linked to this, the interplay between these not top down, and I don’t like that term and they’re not federal in the strictest sense so we’ll stick with quasi-federal Howard Carrier: EU regulations and directives.
Regulations being things that have to be applied within the States directives which give states Howard Carrier: the opportunity to create their own law in such a way that meets the purpose of the European Union directive. We’re going to look at the Council of Europe and the European Convention on Human Rights and talk about that in some some detail too.
27:30 - Howard Carrier: Yes, just a reminder that we are in fact still talking about actually researching law, and I promise, from this point forth this isn’t going to be strictly a constitutional law lecture about European law.
27:44 - Howard Carrier: So three basic premises, to consider, as you begin this process.
27:51 - Howard Carrier: And I would ask you to bear these in mind as you, you know as we use Librarians as we begin the process of looking for things for students Howard Carrier: or patrons, sorry, it does help to have this this this some of this underlying theoretical knowledge, I think, and I think we can, if you like Howard Carrier: condense them down to these. The continent of Europe includes countries with common law systems and civil law systems which provide some additional consideration for the incorporation of quasi-federal rules within domestic law.
28:24 - Howard Carrier: That sounds, having written that, I almost regret that it sounds awfully pompous, but what it’s basically saying is that Howard Carrier: we have to accept that countries do have very different legal systems to Howard Carrier: the ones that we use the ones we are used to in the United States, or indeed, the ones I’m used to in both the United Kingdom and the United States. And sometimes that does have a bearing on how we go about looking for things or particularly what we should expect to find let’s say that.
28:57 - Howard Carrier: Quasi-federalism can arguably be found in Europe from two leading other… Let’s try again… quasi-federalism can be arguably be found in Europe from two leading inter-governmental organizations which, as I told you are the EU and the Council of Europe.
29:15 - Howard Carrier: And then there is the question of quasi-federalism or federalism within the states themselves and the example I’m going to point you to if I have time and I think I will, at the end of this presentation is the situation regarding devolution within the United Kingdom.
29:32 - Howard Carrier: If you like this is perhaps more of a model in some respects of American style federalism and certainly those who are opposed to devolution in the United Kingdom Howard Carrier: Have stressed this. The example I will point to is Scotland and we’ll talk a little bit about the Scottish Parliament, the Scottish court system and its relationship with the Westminster Parliament and the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom.
30:01 - Howard Carrier: So what’s all this about different legal systems in Europe? Howard Carrier: Let me take a sip of water and I’ll explain.
30:14 - Howard Carrier: Having pointed to a diagram from on Osnabruck University Howard Carrier: to explain Stare Decisis and the hierarchy of the courts in the United States federal system, Howard Carrier: I thought it’s pleasing irony to point the Georgetown Law Library, to explain what is a civil law system.
30:35 - Howard Carrier: Essentially it’s this I really like this definition, a civil law system, which places a greater emphasis on statutes is found within various codes, instead of case law.
30:45 - Howard Carrier: The idea of precedent, stare decisis does not come into play in civil law systems as each case is based on an individual basis, based against that codified law.
30:55 - Howard Carrier: And then the other thing that typifies these and this I do rather like is that they are investigatory Howard Carrier: rather than adversarial in nature. In other words the basic premise is that the court is looking to ascertain if you will, the reality of the situation legally based against the code Howard Carrier: as opposed to listening to compelling arguments from two quarreling Counsel and perhaps being more compelled by one than the other.
31:28 - Howard Carrier: Now, the thing to bear in mind with that is you are still basing it against Howard Carrier: legal sources. It isn’t a debate society. So as we talk about looking to ratio decidendi in cases, looking at the basic premise the basic legal reasoning, upon which case opinion is founded, Howard Carrier: you can see the overlap there, but what you would say, is in the civil war system in France, you are dealing with what is essentially, if you like, the Napoleonic code, if you will, as as adapted.
32:01 - Howard Carrier: In common law systems like the United Kingdom, and this is from the Open University, Howard Carrier: primary legal principles being made and developed by judges to form what is called precedent, where the lower courts are bound to follow principles established by the higher courts in previous cases.
32:17 - Howard Carrier: Common law judge made law, I would ask you to bear one thing in mind when you think about the common law.
32:25 - Howard Carrier: And it is an important distinction, this. It’s often written about in legal textbooks or legal books generally as though you are thinking about a distinction between Howard Carrier: the common law itself that which just arose from judicial precedent and statutes or codes, on the other side, and in fact I would say that, in a modern common law system like the United States or the United Kingdom it’s both. You have the supremacy of the Statute, Howard Carrier: the British Nigel Farages of this world who worry so much about parliamentary sovereignty will be delighted by that statement.
33:04 - Howard Carrier: You know, Parliament is supreme, in other words the Statute takes precedence over the common law but, in fact, you can see, the common law as including the statutory interpretation Howard Carrier: provided by the courts, so it isn’t just simply the natural flow of common law that has developed from the courts, but also the common law that has developed through judicial consideration of statutes.
33:28 - Howard Carrier: So you do have that initial distinction going into this when you’re working with European legal research. Are you dealing with a civil law Howard Carrier: jurisdiction? In which case precedent is important and all the things that we teach students in the United States about shepardizing cases, looking for cases that have been Howard Carrier: expressly overruled, those which have been distinguished is arguably much less important in the civil law system where as the Georgetown librarians correctly pointed out, Howard Carrier: two cases which are relatively similar on their facts could theoretically be decided very differently, based upon the judicial interpretation of the code.
34:11 - Howard Carrier: So let’s actually get into our work for today at a practical level.
34:19 - Howard Carrier: Because I only have about 25 minutes left I’m going to begin with the Council of Europe and the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, for the most selfish reasons of all.
34:34 - Howard Carrier: It’s probably the area of European law that I am most versed in. Actually that’s not true, I studied European Union law, to a great extent as well, but I’m much more interested in the ECHR.
34:47 - Howard Carrier: For those of you who don’t know this I’m sorry to state something which is obvious for those who do know it, Howard Carrier: it is extremely important that you do not confuse the European Union and the Council of Europe.
35:02 - Howard Carrier: They are two completely separate intergovernmental organizations within Europe. Now increasingly the lines between them are not being muddied exactly, but rather the relationship between them is growing.
35:15 - Howard Carrier: In other words, for example when countries now seek to join the European Union, it is a mandatory requirement that they also Howard Carrier: become signatories what are called high contracting states to the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
35:33 - Howard Carrier: But they are completely separate and it has been a great disappointment to the so-called brexiteers to discover as they got upset about decisions in the Strasbourg court, the European Court of Human Rights, which they felt went against the British interests or Howard Carrier: British common sense, as they saw it in terms of how British law should be applied to discover the brexit has done nothing Howard Carrier: to remove them from the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, because brexit only concerned the EU.
36:09 - Howard Carrier: There are rumblings and grumblings about a bill of rights for the United Kingdom and what it would mean to look what it would look like to to come out of the ECHR.
36:18 - Howard Carrier: I would say to you that would be a very, very different position to coming out of the EU, which at its heart is still very much a trade organization, a single market.
36:34 - Howard Carrier: Here we are at the ECHR, what is this? Well I am sure most of you know, this is Europe’s Bill of Rights. As you can see from the screen in front of you, this is our right to be free from inhuman or degrading treatments, the right not to be enslaved.
36:51 - Howard Carrier: The right not to arbitrarily be killed the right to have criminal charges against you heard by a competent Criminal Court, these sort of things.
37:03 - Howard Carrier: The link to the Charter itself the Convention itself is there.
37:09 - Howard Carrier: The cases arising under the ECHR are heard by the European Court of Human Rights, based in Strasbourg in France. It’s very important to tell you, the European Court of Human Rights is not a court of appeal.
37:23 - Howard Carrier: It does not have that function which, to some degree, for example, the United States Supreme Court does. Its jurisprudence is only limited is limited strictly to the question of state’s conformity with the Convention and you’re dealing here, mostly with what’s called vertical effect.
37:43 - Howard Carrier: These terms, come up with a great deal when you’re researching law in Europe: vertical effect and horizontal effect.
37:51 - Howard Carrier: Think of it this way vertical effect is really the relationship between the state and the individual and horizontal effect is the application of law between individuals. EU law has both.
38:07 - Howard Carrier: The possibility does exist for both within European Convention of Human Rights law, but primarily you’re dealing with with with the practical effect.
38:19 - Howard Carrier: You’re dealing with the relationship between the individual and the states and the states ability or inability to conform, to make its laws suit and adapt and meet the standards required of the European Convention of Human Rights.
38:38 - Howard Carrier: Cases of law to the European Court after all domestic remedies have been exhausted, that is fundamental.
38:45 - Howard Carrier: So it’s a court that’s looking at whether or not it’s not a court of appeal it’s looking at whether or not a member state, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Italy, whoever it may be, has properly represented the individuals rights as guaranteed under the Convention.
39:03 - Howard Carrier: So this was the comment that I was just making about direct effect and, to an extent there is a horizontal effect as well in the sense that, when you’re dealing Howard Carrier: with government agencies and things like that anything which has been touched by government, maybe exists with statutory authority or something like that.
39:22 - Howard Carrier: Then, yes, that if you like, is the state and so it’s subject to potential review by the European Court Howard Carrier: of Human Rights. But here’s the important part, Howard Carrier: the ECHR really to some degree, has to be incorporated into domestic law.
39:46 - Howard Carrier: Now this argument raised 10 years ago by a scholar called Augenstein is accurate. It’s, this is a really good definition of it, description of it but there’s more than one way of doing it. In other words it’s not necessarily mandatory to incorporate the law into your domestic system, Howard Carrier: But you have to have a domestic legal system, which at least matches the requirements of the European Convention on Human Rights.
40:14 - Howard Carrier: And there is the obligation to interpret domestic law in such a way that it complies with the convention’s guarantees.
40:23 - Howard Carrier: Now there are different ways of doing this and you’ll hear or you’ll read a lot about dualist versus monist states, in other words those which, like United Kingdom have attempted Howard Carrier: a dualist approach both domestic law and still respecting Convention law. And others that simply perhaps adopt a more laid back approach, if you will, of just relying on the courts to answer questions about ECHR as they apply their judgments.
40:54 - Howard Carrier: Why this is some relevance and here, by the way, is the definitive guide to this, this is, if you if you want to understand more about this, this is the best source, I could find.
41:05 - Howard Carrier: A comparative study of the ECHR at the national level, it really does go through how each country has has gone ahead and done this.
41:15 - Howard Carrier: The question sorry that I just wanted to amplify yes, it is necessary to appeal all domestic.
41:22 - Howard Carrier: The domestic courts until you actually bring your case to the European Court of Human Rights so reminding ourselves it’s not a court of appeal. In a civil law system like Germany, introducing the ECHR is relatively straightforward Howard Carrier: because again you’re dealing with a code. All Germany did was simply point to article 59 Howard Carrier: essentially, of its constitution, Howard Carrier: it’s code, and simply use that as a mechanism to say that this is a treaty signed on behalf of the Federation lawfully and therefore in a way, almost to the monist approach but bringing the ECHR into the federal law of Germany.
42:11 - Howard Carrier: We will look at this example for just a second, Howard Carrier: if it will let me.
42:26 - Howard Carrier: I think it took me out of full screen mode to do that, yes, it did.
42:31 - Howard Carrier: Once you start messing around with with PowerPoint things become inevitably complicated, let me just grab this and I will quickly show it to you.
42:40 - Howard Carrier: can stop let’s go back one click.
42:48 - Howard Carrier: There we go. Howard Carrier: So you’ll see here it fairly stresses a German case in 2004 Howard Carrier: dealing with Article eight of the Convention and you see a very logical and Howard Carrier: you know, approach to this by the Federal Constitutional Court so it’s actually Article 6.
43:10 - Howard Carrier: family court proceedings as well as Article 8. It’s simply the German court saying well look, this is included in our federal law.
43:21 - Howard Carrier: By virtue of it being brought in as a Treaty obligation to which Germany has committed.
43:27 - Howard Carrier: And the domestic court just goes ahead and considers it based on the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights and basically it’s judication of the conformity of German law with its Convention obligations.
43:43 - Howard Carrier: Go back to the PowerPoint. Howard Carrier: In the UK, things are a little bit more complicated you’re dealing with the Human Rights Act of 1998, and this is perhaps where common law systems, to an extent they don’t have the flexibility Howard Carrier: or even the inflexibility see which way you like of civil law systems, in other words the civil law system simply brought in the law and codify that.
44:03 - Howard Carrier: The code already existed existed in the form of the European Convention of Human Rights. In the United Kingdom, you have this problem that basically writing an act, if you will, that goes ahead and Howard Carrier: to a large degree, simply reflects those rights as enshrined in ECHR writing them into domestic legislation.
44:25 - Howard Carrier: The reason this has to be done is twofold first of all because you need to ensure conformity with the ECHR and, secondly, there had to be a mechanism, because of parliamentary sovereignty, where the courts, would be able to make declarations of in compatibility.
44:41 - Howard Carrier: For constitutional law scholars that’s important Parliament is supreme so where Parliament has made law which directly conflicts with the Howard Carrier: ECHR owing to the question of parliamentary sovereignty within the common law, Howard Carrier: The courts do not have the power to just expressly repeal a statute, only Parliament can do that, so instead of declaration of incompatibilities made this Statute as it stands does not comply with the ECHR and therefore you’re going to have to do something about it.
45:15 - Howard Carrier: So what I’m going to do for the next five minutes is show you a little bit of this research, because it would be a bit unfair to ask you to come to a presentation in a library webinar series and not do some hands on searching and talk a little bit about that process.
45:35 - Howard Carrier: Law legal research. Howard Carrier: I think law because, by its very nature, is really in a way commenting on where society has failed.
45:46 - Howard Carrier: Where we cannot simply meet our obligations or promises to one another, and so they have to be given legal force and in the criminal law, sadly, of course, it’s when an individual Howard Carrier: extensively has shown that they are unable to conform to, if you like, the the the civil contract that binds us together.
46:09 - Howard Carrier: And this is such an instance it’s a desperately unhappy case the murder of a child in my hometown of Liverpool.
46:16 - Howard Carrier: Back in the 1990s, what made it particularly harrowing was the fact that the perpetrators were themselves children. They were only very young, I think they were nine and 10 years old, something like that.
46:29 - Howard Carrier: This case from 1993 became, if you like, the Howard Carrier: The best example of why the European Convention of Human Rights needs to offer these guarantees because you’re saying the hard cases sometimes make for bad law.
46:47 - Howard Carrier: That was certainly the experience in the English courts and then you’re left in this uncomfortable position Howard Carrier: of dealing with two children who have in fact been found guilty of a truly horrific murder there’s no reason to go into the Howard Carrier: the nature of what they did other than to say they did murder a two year old child. The question of the rights of the child and also just the general rights that apply to any Howard Carrier: convicted person, however, heinous their crimes sets us up rather nicely for this kind of conflict.
47:21 - Howard Carrier: So let’s go ahead and follow this through the English courts and the European Court of Human Rights. So researching English law, the very best place to begin Howard Carrier: is BAILII, the British and Irish Legal Information Institute.
47:39 - Howard Carrier: Let me come out of the PowerPoint for a second go to Chrome and I will show you how I did this, or how you could do this.
47:52 - Howard Carrier: As ever citation, particularly in Howard Carrier: legal research is of paramount importance, and this would of course be much easier if I just found the citation for you, but that wouldn’t really be a great deal of fun, would it? It would be rather easy, so instead we’ll go ahead and find it by hand if you will.
48:16 - Howard Carrier: We’ll do our case law search. Now perpetrators of this crime record Thompson and the other one was called Venables there was considerable concern at the time, given their status as children as to whether or not their names should even be released.
48:31 - Howard Carrier: Subsequently, the Court decided to do that, which in many ways, I think probably made the situation much more difficult, but for us as legal researchers at least we can go ahead and find those cases.
48:46 - Howard Carrier: These are ex parte cases. Howard Carrier: They will be the Crown versus the Secretary of State for the Home department.
48:54 - Howard Carrier: The Howard Carrier: Home Secretary, in effect, but you can have some success, you will have some success searching against the Howard Carrier: defendant so in this instance I can actually put in the plaintiffs names. we can do ex parte venables and let’s see if it finds it for us.
49:15 - Howard Carrier: Look at this. Howard Carrier: We are dealing here with the division between the different legal systems in the United Kingdom. Scottish law has always been, if you will, its own thing.
49:28 - Howard Carrier: With the question of the quasi-federal I’m about to come to as I talk about Scotland.
49:35 - Howard Carrier: We’ll search it’s going to be a House of Lords case or a supreme court case.
49:41 - Howard Carrier: The older judicial division of the House of Lords became the Supreme Court, so if I go ahead and search in here I should find the most.
49:54 - Howard Carrier: You know, to dig deep. Howard Carrier: The appeal by Venables to the highest court in the land, which was then the House of Lords.
50:03 - Howard Carrier: Okay, there we go the Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Venables and Thompson. So yeah the the ex parte language was important, and you can see, this was decided in 1997. This is a pre Human Rights Act case, and if we look at it Howard Carrier: you’ll see that all the arguments that would then subsequently come up, as this was heard at the European Court were pretty much arbitrarily dismissed by the House of Lords.
50:36 - Howard Carrier: The real essence was this: the plaintiffs, which is what they are they in this instance the tables have turned.
50:44 - Howard Carrier: They are essentially saying two things first of all that their rights under Article three of the Convention have been breached.
50:53 - Howard Carrier: And that is because the trial that they received I remember trials are not televised in the United Kingdom like they are in the United States. They are presented on the evening news in this sort of horrible artist rendering.
51:08 - Howard Carrier: But they were trying to essentially in an adult court and English criminal courts, particularly at a senior level.
51:17 - Howard Carrier: Not the magistrate’s court once you get into the High Court fairly intimidating places, so you had these two children who have no idea really what the Howard Carrier: nature of the proceedings were. You couldn’t even see over the Dock confronted by the full spectacle of an English court sitting in its wigs and it’s robes. So there was that question. But the much more important question was whether or not Howard Carrier: the proceedings themselves have been fair.
And the reason that question came about was because the actual tariff they received, the tariff is the penalty Howard Carrier: that’s handed down to prisoners and with juvenile offenders in the United Kingdom it’s a little bit uncertain. It used to be called being detained at her majesty’s pleasure.
52:02 - Howard Carrier: And the person, you know you would look to the courts to ultimately make the decision about how long in prison, they would serve, but this became very highly politicized, particularly because Howard Carrier: it was a huge situation in England in those days, you know there were sort of mobs on the streets begging for justice, it was a pretty horrific scene.
52:25 - Howard Carrier: The Home Secretary, decided to intervene to use his prerogative powers, if you will, and he decided that the Court set of 15 year tariff, they would serve 15 years in prison, he decided to extend that.
52:38 - Howard Carrier: A Conservative Prime Minister looking to make a decision, he had the position of being very strong on criminal conduct or misconduct.
52:48 - Howard Carrier: The Court in English court dismissed this and said no, not our problem, you know they they received a fair trial and that’s all there is to it.
52:57 - Howard Carrier: You can go and find the European Court of Human Rights decision at BAILII as well, if you want to do that, you would go to where it says databases.
53:07 - Howard Carrier: Europe. Howard Carrier: The European Court of Human Rights, you can find them by case, I happen to know, it was in 1999 but if I search for at the European Court they went back to.
53:23 - Howard Carrier: The initial so it’s actually going to be V.
53:27 - Howard Carrier: We’ll do V versus the United Kingdom.
53:35 - Howard Carrier: Well we found, six of them and I haven’t found it maybe it’s Venable Howard Carrier: It actually Howard Carrier: could be T and V Howard Carrier: I will find it by date.
53:51 - Howard Carrier: 1999. Howard Carrier: European Court of Human Rights it’s going to be there were actually co joined cases from memory it came down.
54:02 - Howard Carrier: As I recall, yeah there, they are T and United Kingdom and V versus the United Kingdom.
54:09 - Howard Carrier: And this is a decision by the European Court in which they found that the Home Secretary, setting a tariff was indeed a violation of Article six.
54:17 - Howard Carrier: And this caused particular outrage in the United Kingdom at the time, the more sophisticated way to do this, searching is through HUDOC. The HUDOC interface is intimidating, Howard Carrier: But I think I’ll find it much more quickly through this ironically enough, then in the more keyword based search common language search in BAILII Howard Carrier: It is important, just to know a little bit about these upside. Originally the European Court of Human Rights was split between the Court itself and its Commission.
The Commission was involved in deciding whether or not the case had merit to even come before the Court.
54:57 - Howard Carrier: Some years ago, the Commission was abolished and replaced by, if you like, a series of chambers.
55:03 - Howard Carrier: Cases are initially screened by a chamber to see whether or not they meet admissibility requirements, in other words.
55:10 - Howard Carrier: You know, is it actually a convention case in the first place? has the case actually been adjudicated through the domestic courts before being brought to the European Court of Human Rights? The Grand Chamber Howard Carrier: is, if you like, the principal judicial division of the European Court of Human Rights, consisting of 17 judges.
55:31 - Howard Carrier: When you’re looking for the most significant judgments, you will want to have both of these checked. Actually with the most significant ones, you could just have the Grand Chamber checked.
55:41 - Howard Carrier: We’ll go ahead and do our advanced search, we will do V versus –we’ll do T v United Kingdom.
55:52 - Howard Carrier: Search. Case of T in the United Kingdom.
55:56 - Howard Carrier: I prefer this because it gives a Lexis style summary of the case before you go ahead and actually start reading the judgment in its entirety.
56:05 - Howard Carrier: No violation of Article 3 violation of Article 6 right to a fair trial, and that violation was founded in the unfair setting of the penalty, the term of imprisonment by a politician, rather than by a judge.
56:22 - Howard Carrier: In the remaining time I have, because I’m almost a time going to have a breakneck kind of a you know sort of run through this.
56:31 - Howard Carrier: From Howard Carrier: that particular case, we then come to post Human Rights Act cases this is an example of Howard Carrier: a case in which the prisoner was denied access to his correspondence. It happens after the Human Rights Act as being enacted it’s an interesting judgment.
56:53 - Howard Carrier: By the way, if you were ever confused as to what the letters mean remember the Cardiff Index to Legal Citation if you were to go there and just plug in those letters UKHL it tells you where it’s come from.
57:06 - Howard Carrier: In fact it’s come from the United Kingdom House of Lords, as you can imagine, and, in this instance it, you know you can see it as the supreme court cases that came to be.
57:17 - Howard Carrier: It’s where the United Kingdom courts step in and say there’s no point doing anything not doing anything about this because, ultimately, it will be appealed.
57:26 - Howard Carrier: Not appealed but taken to the European Court of Human Rights, and this is exactly what the Human Rights Act is designed to do the person that has a right to his correspondence so to a domestic level, the Court ensures compliance with the ECHR.
57:43 - Howard Carrier: As with the ECHR and the Council of Europe, the same is true in many ways of the European Union, this document here, perhaps Lynda will share this PowerPoint with you.
57:52 - Howard Carrier: um it’s a really good description of the relationship between EU law and national legal systems.
58:01 - Howard Carrier: But basically you’re seeing the same things within the European Union that you’ll see within the ECHR the obligation to interpret domestic law Howard Carrier: in a way, that complies with European obligations. How has this changed since BREXIT? Well actually not very much it’s an evolving situation.
58:20 - Howard Carrier: To withdraw agreements the United Kingdom arrived at with the united with the European Union basically respected the fact that EU law Howard Carrier: pertaining to the united, you know, to the United Kingdom as a Member States was brought within the UK legal system, the domestic legal system, and that was done within the withdrawal act as Britain sought to leave the EU.
58:46 - Howard Carrier: Obviously that will now change because there was no longer have the status really have constitutional statutes, they are statutes, which can be made and unmade.
58:55 - Howard Carrier: by the UK Parliament so as the brexit situation develops undoubtedly that will develop too, but it’s also balanced against the nature of the withdrawal agreement that Britain arrived at with the EU.
59:08 - Howard Carrier: Bookkeeper cases at the European Court of Justice level that’s infocuria you’ll find references to that in the webinar I did on European Union law.
59:18 - Howard Carrier: And lastly, quasi-federalism within the States and this is the example of Scotland. What has happened here is as Britain moved towards a model of devolution within the late 1990s principally introduced by the government.
59:34 - Howard Carrier: You introduced. Howard Carrier: A legal system within Scotland, the Scottish legal system has always been different, but the creation of a Scottish parliament Howard Carrier: allowed the Scots themselves to create law to come to make statute on a certain number of matters. There are certain matters which are called ‘reserved’ which remain within the province of the Westminster Parliament but Scotland makes its own law in the areas that are devolved.
60:03 - Howard Carrier: The flip side of that is Scotland is still represented in the Westminster Parliament as well as it should be given that you created this quasi federal system.
60:11 - Howard Carrier: In which Scotland has some independence and yet it’s still pretty was still subject to UK domestic law in other matters, the courts of session in Scotland civil Supreme Court.
60:24 - Howard Carrier: In instances that are subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom that Supreme Court does have the opportunity to adjudicate on both devolved and non devolved issues. So Scotland is an interesting curiosity.
60:42 - Howard Carrier: Some autonomy within its own Parliament, its own court system and still subject to in other instances to UK domestic law as created by the Westminster Parliament. And there you have it, if you like, a more complete federal system to some degree.
61:01 - Howard Carrier: We talked about relation to the EU and the ECHR. I went through that really quickly and I ran four minutes over time, for which I apologize.
61:11 - Howard Carrier: I’m happy to take questions now. I hope it’s being of some interest to you, I appreciate it was not a conventional Howard Carrier: library webinar workshop in perhaps exploring the intricacies of the resources that make this information available to us, but rather an overview, perhaps, so that when you use those you might understand better how the pieces go together.
61:36 - Howard Carrier: that’s all I have for you, thank you very much indeed for listening.
61:39 - Lynda Kellam: Thank you very much Howard let’s yes, thank you, and it definitely if you have questions feel free to.
61:47 - Lynda Kellam: put them in the Q andA and I will Lynda Kellam: See.
61:57 - Lynda Kellam: So there is a question, Barbara is asking she uses Modern Legal Systems Cyclopedia and she was wondering if that is a good recommendation.
62:06 - Lynda Kellam: For. Lynda Kellam: overviews of legal systems.
62:09 - Howard Carrier: Absolutely yeah within Hein online, yes, certainly.
62:14 - Howard Carrier: You know it’s it’s, I suppose, like all to an extent tertiary sources, it gives you.
62:24 - Howard Carrier: The yeah the it’s a good it’s a good overview.
62:32 - Lynda Kellam: Great and that’s it for yeah for other people that might be something to look at is.
62:35 - Lynda Kellam: Modern Legal Systems Cyclopedia. Sso we don’t, Iknow people have to start to going.
62:42 - Lynda Kellam: have to start going to other things and I don’t want to keep everyone, but I just want to thank Howard very much this is great, and it was really interesting to think about this in terms of the both the domestic.
62:54 - Lynda Kellam: I’m muted? Lynda Kellam: y’all can hear me? Samantha (Tech Support): I can hear you.
62:59 - Lynda Kellam: Okay, so it’s really great to listen to this, or think about this in terms of the domestic and the international and you know and Lynda Kellam: the interaction between those two I you know, rather than just looking truck trying to look at individual systems, I think that was a great way to to to to focus this.
63:21 - Lynda Kellam: it’s really interesting examples that you gave there on that it’s definitely one that webinar they have to go back and listen to again, I think, to catch some of the things Thank you so much for for all of that.
63:34 - Lynda Kellam: That you covered and and all of the resources you brought together.
63:40 - Lynda Kellam: Because we are a little bit over time I’m going to I don’t see any more questions coming in, but I will invite you to feel free to get in touch with Howard, I think he has been very generous with his time with other people in the past and happy to help out.
63:57 - Lynda Kellam: yeah we want you to release the beagle Lynda Kellam: I will be posting this to YouTube within the next week.
64:07 - Lynda Kellam: and Lynda Kellam: will be I can include the powerpoints as well on the YouTube side, so that you’ll have access to that so definitely we will send that out to everyone who registered for this session oh there we go.
64:22 - Lynda Kellam: that’s the best part about zoom life work from home is the fact that we get to see the the animals.
64:29 - Lynda Kellam: Everybody has so thank you for that Thank you again Howard.
64:36 - Lynda Kellam: Yes, Emily was saying that it’s been very well explained very, very well explained and I definitely look forward to looking through the sharing this with some of the people who work here, and then we’re looking through the PowerPoint as well.
64:49 - Lynda Kellam: Okay, there are no more questions.
64:54 - coming in. Lynda Kellam: Well Thank you everyone for coming I hope to see you all April 22 we will be talking about the World Trade Organization, so we’re on a bit of an international organizations kick aninternational kick this semester.
65:16 - Lynda Kellam: Again, if you have any questions or you have any topics or ideas or if you’d like to do a presentation yourself, please get in touch with me, I will put my email in.
65:28 - Lynda Kellam: Oh, I almost put my old email in. My email is in the chat feel free to get in touch with me, and let me know.
65:36 - Lynda Kellam: and other than that Thank you and hope you all have a wonderful rest of your day Thank you Howard so much. .