International Human Rights is not as cool as you think Forum

[worldtraveler]

You want to be an international human rights attorney. Do you know what that actually is?

1. If you work in a headquarters office or the government, 95% of your work will be sitting in an office or in meetings. Really the same as biglaw but with less pay. As a junior you'll get mundane stuff to do.

2. If you're with an NGO or anyone without funding you'll be doing legal research and writing but without fancy Westlaw/Lexis to assist you. You won't have any librarians to make your job easier. You really need a book? Too bad, no money in the budget for it. Good luck. You'll also be doing research on stuff that's harder to find, with no help, and still expected to do it well.

3. Everything will be dictated by a donor. Donors are usually old rich white dudes who have no idea what the hell is going on. Too bad, they still decide what you do. And have fun spending 30% of your time just telling them what you did.

4. If you're a field person, like doing interviews with refugees or something, your life will be rough. Get used to secondary trauma, being away from friends and family, dangerous conditions, sleeping wherever and eating whatever is available. Most people you'll work with will have some kind of self-destructive tendency or they wouldn't be there in the first place. Lots of alcoholism, lots of ill-advised relationships.

5. You need so many freaking credentials. Elite degrees, languages, field time. It takes forever, it's expensive, and most people fail anyway. You sure you want to spend years and thousands of dollars for a tiny chance at a job that probably isn't as cool as you think it is?

6. The pay often sucks. Yeah you can make a lot if you're lucky but starting out you'll likely be in NY or DC living on a fellowship budget. Have fun with that.

7. A lot of the jobs aren't LRAP or PSLF eligible. Have to limit yourself to working for a US 501c3 for that. That eliminates maybe half the jobs.

8. The same problems other fields of law has, we still have too. There are still assholes and tyrannical midlevels, still worrying about bullshit work no one will ever see, still a lot of long hours. Probably not as bad as big law, but still not like it's roses and puppies.

9. You will be useless. You probably won't accomplish much of anything unless you're extremely lucky. You'll do whatever can be funded and that doesn't mean you do what will work.

10. The work isn't different from other law work, it just has international in the title. Also you'll deal with fake laws instead of real laws.

[09042014]

but its muh dream

[Nebby]

9/10 Would do.

[Pneumonia]

well WT let me ask you this: would you do it all over again? If yes then you are a hypocrite and I don't have to listen to you; if you say no then you are not dedicated and I am dedicated so I don't have to listen to you.

[anyriotgirl]

but how else will I help people?

[quijotesca1011]

...

[worldtraveler]

well WT let me ask you this: would you do it all over again? If yes then you are a hypocrite and I don't have to listen to you; if you say no then you are not dedicated and I am dedicated so I don't have to listen to you.

I would do it all again but I also love fieldwork and thrive on it, whereas 99% of people do not.

But if continuing in this field means working in a DC office or in NY, I'd rather go teach high school or something, so in that case not worth it.

[hcrimson2014]

But who wouldn't want to end up like her http://www.doughtystreet.co.uk/barriste ... -alamuddin.

Anyways, in all honesty, the only reason that an international justice system even exists is because the Americans and to a far lesser extent the Western Europeans are constantly channeling their ideological and moral idealism (which is often times hypocritical) through their Military/Economical/Technological superiority. However, as the pendulum of geopolitical power shifts from the unipolar American supremacy to a multipolar world, this international justice system like the UN and the WTO will gradually fade into oblivion. All 0ls (myself included) need to understand that moral philosophy about human rights etc that sounds nice on paper does not enforce the law, state power does. As the US becomes increasingly unable to enforce the international justice system (often against its only self interest - see the Muslim take over in Egypt and Lybia), human rights issues will continue to be sidelined in favor of state interests.

It is justice that the ICC in Hague ruled against the Rwandan generals responsible the genocide, but what good does a piece of paper in the generals v. humanity case with a guilty verdict written on it serve if all major powers are trying to court the same generals for mining rights in Rwanda? (disclaimer, the bold part is hypothetical and not reflective of real life events) Similarly, Amal Alamuddin might have successfully defended the right of Yulia Tymoshenko in court but she would have probably died in prison if it weren't for the Ukrainian revolution. Go into social work if you are a bleeding heart liberal and want to make the world a better place, the education required is far cheaper and less frustrating.

edited to add the disclaimer

[chizzy]

Wow, her profile is very impressive.

[Onomatopoeia]

That girl iz finee

[worldtraveler]

But who wouldn't want to end up like her http://www.doughtystreet.co.uk/barriste ... -alamuddin.

Anyways, in all honesty, the only reason that an international justice system even exists is because the Americans and to a far lesser extent the Western Europeans are constantly channeling their ideological and moral idealism (which is often times hypocritical) through their Military/Economical/Technological superiority. However, as the pendulum of geopolitical power shifts from the unipolar American supremacy to a multipolar world, this international justice system like the UN and the WTO will gradually fade into oblivion. All 0ls (myself included) need to understand that moral philosophy about human rights etc that sounds nice on paper does not enforce the law, state power does. As the US becomes increasingly unable to enforce the international justice system (often against its only self interest - see the Muslim take over in Egypt and Lybia), human rights issues will continue to be sidelined in favor of state interests.

It is justice that the ICC in Hague ruled against the Rwandan generals responsible the genocide, but what good does a piece of paper in the generals v. humanity case with a guilty verdict written on it serve if all major powers are trying to court the same generals for mining rights in Rwanda? Similarly, Amal Alamuddin might have successfully defended the right of Yulia Tymoshenko in court but she would have probably died in prison if it weren't for the Ukrainian revolution. Go into social work if you are a bleeding heart liberal and want to make the world a better place, the education required is far cheaper and less frustrating.

I don't agree with a word of this.

[hcrimson2014]

But who wouldn't want to end up like her http://www.doughtystreet.co.uk/barriste ... -alamuddin.

Anyways, in all honesty, the only reason that an international justice system even exists is because the Americans and to a far lesser extent the Western Europeans are constantly channeling their ideological and moral idealism (which is often times hypocritical) through their Military/Economical/Technological superiority. However, as the pendulum of geopolitical power shifts from the unipolar American supremacy to a multipolar world, this international justice system like the UN and the WTO will gradually fade into oblivion. All 0ls (myself included) need to understand that moral philosophy about human rights etc that sounds nice on paper does not enforce the law, state power does. As the US becomes increasingly unable to enforce the international justice system (often against its only self interest - see the Muslim take over in Egypt and Lybia), human rights issues will continue to be sidelined in favor of state interests.

It is justice that the ICC in Hague ruled against the Rwandan generals responsible the genocide, but what good does a piece of paper in the generals v. humanity case with a guilty verdict written on it serve if all major powers are trying to court the same generals for mining rights in Rwanda? Similarly, Amal Alamuddin might have successfully defended the right of Yulia Tymoshenko in court but she would have probably died in prison if it weren't for the Ukrainian revolution. Go into social work if you are a bleeding heart liberal and want to make the world a better place, the education required is far cheaper and less frustrating.

I don't agree with a word of this.

Should have disclaimed that the case in the bolded sentence is a hypothetical scenario, major powers are not actually courting Rwanda for mining right (the known size of their reserve is not large enough for state intervention and the US did not intervene due to domestic popular opinions after black hawk down). I used this extreme hypothetical case to make the point that law is futile without an authority capable of enforcing the law but the incentives behind the scenario is readily apparent nonetheless, you need to look no farther than the lukewarm/half-hearted response from the international community when the Saudis stone gay people to death.

[worldtraveler]

Yeah I know it's hypothetical. That still isn't what happened with the court, but I don't want to get into a huge discussion and derail the thread.

[rad lulz]

If u want to do human rights join the us army and effect regime change

[hcrimson2014]

If u want to do human rights join the us army and effect regime change

[quijotesca1011]

...

[MistakenGenius]

Post removed.

[Pneumonia]

well WT let me ask you this: would you do it all over again? If yes then you are a hypocrite and I don't have to listen to you; if you say no then you are not dedicated and I am dedicated so I don't have to listen to you.

Can't tell if you're serious or being sarcastic. If serious, then I'm beginning to think you've created your entire username just to piss me off, as all your posts invariably do.

Lol no MG I was joking; someone said something similar in another thread earlier this week, I was just making fun. Did not realize I was that disturbing to you though.

[Flanker1067]

I don't do human rights law, but I am surrounded by people who do because I live in "the field." I don't even disagree with most (and only to an extent) of your points, but here are the positives as seen from being in the field:

1. you get to live in unusual places that face problems a lot more serious than whether Apple infringed some patent that they probably didn't know about and couldn't have understood anyway;

2. the people are from around the world and have a large array of skills, which makes work more interesting than working with the hordes of American k-jd t14 graduates day in and day out;

3. generally there is good time off, and ability to travel since you are already in a place far away from home;

4. once in awhile, you get a real success, which probably will feel awesome. This is probably the same as working in PI law at home though, except your successes will be less frequent;

5. depending who you work for, your work will vary a lot more than lawyers at home. There probably won't be enough international human rights law work of any particular kind to keep you busy, so some days you may write grants, talk to the press, go out with investigators, whatever.

That's about all I can think of right now.

Add: It sounds more like worldtraveler is venting frustrations (probably legitimate) than giving a fair comparison or analysis of the job.

Second Add: I agree entirely with worldtraveler in that I don't agree with a word of what hcrimson2014 said in the post above.

[nerd1]

...

[NYSprague]

Add: It sounds more like worldtraveler is venting frustrations (probably legitimate) than giving a fair comparison or analysis of the job.

This applies to most graduates in this forum.

I have no idea why you feel she is not being honest and direct in a chance to educate people who have no understanding of her job and the job market.

I want to add that someone needs to do these jobs, because they matter, but there are few of them, are difficult to get, require extraordinary qualifications that most biglaw lawyers couldn't possibly touch and pay very little.

It is a difficult road to travel and people need to have their eyes open.

For what's its worth, I feel that 0 Ls truly have no understanding about biglaw corporate practice and have the same, or worse, resistance to learning the truth about biglaw practice. Example: I've been on TLS a lot lately because I've been working on transactions that have required me to work almost all night 3 days out of the last 10. These little did distractions help me stay sane.

[Flanker1067]

Add: It sounds more like worldtraveler is venting frustrations (probably legitimate) than giving a fair comparison or analysis of the job.

This applies to most graduates in this forum.

I have no idea why you feel she is not being honest and direct in a chance to educate people who have no understanding of her job and the job market.

I want to add that someone needs to do these jobs, because they matter, but there are few of them, are difficult to get, require extraordinary qualifications that most biglaw lawyers couldn't possibly touch and pay very little.

It is a difficult road to travel and people need to have their eyes open.

For what's its worth, I feel that 0 Ls truly have no understanding about biglaw corporate practice and have the same, or worse, resistance to learning the truth about biglaw practice. Example: I've been on TLS a lot lately because I've been working on transactions that have required me to work almost all night 3 days out of the last 10. These little did distractions help me stay sane.

I don't know if you are commenting on what I said or the response, but I already said that I agreed with worldtraveler on mostly everything. I disagree with your point about "qualifications that most biglaw lawyers couldn't possibly touch" though. Some human rights lawyers are ex-biglaw lawyers, and others wish that they could get into biglaw but have been out of that type of work for too long. It's definitely true that there are less positions and require certain skills that biglaw lawyers may or may not have, so it could be "harder," depending on who you are and what skills you have.

Add: remember though, I'm commenting about human rights lawyers in the field. As for jobs in DC and elsewhere, yea, sometimes they have outrageous requirements. But there are outrageous requirements for all super-prestigious jobs.

[hcrimson2014]

Second Add: I agree entirely with worldtraveler in that I don't agree with a word of what hcrimson2014 said in the post above.

So you are saying that totalitarian governments will surrender themselves voluntarily in accordance with the verdict of the ICC without sufficient US pressure (either because they are US allies or they are allied with China/Russia). On a smaller scale, why do American lawyers who travel to a foreign land with a superficial understanding of the law of the land always assume that their expertise is needed and will be beneficial for the locals? There is a shortage of teachers, doctors, and engineers in the third world for sure and I am sure some American lawyers have championed human rights laws successfully in places like South Africa but do you seriously believe that the ngos in which foreign lawyers tend to work at in South Africa could not find native South African law graduates, who are actually admitted to the South American Bar btw, to champion the same causes? I think we don't have lawyers without borders for a reason. I stand by my point that it is far more effective for Americans who want to make the third world a better place to lobby congress and raise awareness domestically and if people want to do field work for humanitarian aids, a diploma in social work/nursing will be much much more useful than a law degree.

Edit: having re-read your post, the benefits that you have ascribed to the practice of international human rights (like traveling and not having to work with a cohort of kjds) are firstly unlikely for many international human RIGHT Lawyers who are based in the UN headquarter or dc, and secondly can all be attained without a law degree (teachers with borders in Gaza provides most of the benefits that you have stated for example) and even if those alternatives did not exist, one's proclivity for adventure/meeting interesting people is a pretty weak argument for getting a law degree.

[Flanker1067]

Second Add: I agree entirely with worldtraveler in that I don't agree with a word of what hcrimson2014 said in the post above.

So you are saying that totalitarian governments will surrender themselves voluntarily in accordance with the verdict of the ICC without sufficient US pressure (either because they are US allies or they are allied with China/Russia). On a smaller scale, why do American lawyers who travel to a foreign land with a superficial understanding of the law of the land always assume that their expertise is needed and will be beneficial for the locals? There is a shortage of teachers, doctors, and engineers in the third world for sure and I am sure some American lawyers have championed human rights laws successfully in places like South Africa but do you seriously believe that the ngos in which foreign lawyers tend to work at in South Africa could not find native South African law graduates, who are actually admitted to the South American Bar btw, to champion the same causes? I think we don't have lawyers without borders for a reason. I stand by my point that it is far more effective for Americans who want to make the third world a better place to lobby congress and raise awareness domestically and if people want to do field work for humanitarian aids, a diploma in social work/nursing will be much much more useful than a law degree.

I'm not knowledgeable enough to point out, with specificity, how ridiculous you are being without making some errors myself, probably. But here are some thoughts:

1. Places with Totalitarian governments are not the only places where human rights law is applied. But even those government have to consider a lot of things, including a host of threats not related to US interest, including from their own people, from neighbors, trading partners, etc. They may act in accordance with foreign law to solve a host of different problems.

2. American lawyers don't travel into foreign lands automatically thinking that they are needed, rather they go there and ask what they can do. Good human rights lawyers serve, rather than seek to impose.

3. "but do you seriously believe that the ngos in which foreign lawyers tend to work at in South Africa could not find native South African law graduates, who are actually admitted to the South American Bar btw, to champion the same causes?" I am not in South Africa, but where I am, the answer to this question is a resounding yes. I do think there is a shortage of qualified people in this country to fight for these rights. It's painfully obvious to anyone who has been here for more than a month. The education system is shit generally, language skill is low, which is necessary to appeal to foreign funding or foreign courts, the people don't understand human rights laws or criminal laws that affect the poor because it's specifically not taught, and getting qualified costs a shit ton in bribe money that most people don't have. The list of areas in which capacities are low could go on for days.

[twenty]

1. If you work in a headquarters office or the government, 95% of your work will be sitting in an office or in meetings. Really the same as biglaw but with less pay. As a junior you'll get mundane stuff to do.

4. If you're a field person, like doing interviews with refugees or something, your life will be rough. Get used to secondary trauma, being away from friends and family, dangerous conditions, sleeping wherever and eating whatever is available. Most people you'll work with will have some kind of self-destructive tendency or they wouldn't be there in the first place. Lots of alcoholism, lots of ill-advised relationships.

is there anything in between spending your entire career on connecticut ave. and spending your entire career in cameroon?

it seems that a lot of the people wanting international human rights have this idea that they'll fly to belgium/south africa for a month-long law thing once or twice a year.

7. A lot of the jobs aren't LRAP or PSLF eligible. Have to limit yourself to working for a US 501c3 for that. That eliminates maybe half the jobs.

may be wrong on this, but I thought several law schools, UCB included, provide LRAP benefits to employees of foreign NGOs even if that means no PSLF time. How exactly does that work if someone later goes to a PSLF-eligible position?