I am presently researching and writing a micro-history of Article 49(6) of the 4th Geneva Convention, which provides, "The occupying power may not transfer or deport its own civilians into occupied territory." The meaning of this provision has been the subject of enormous dispute: Does it imply the forcible movement of people? Is it designed to protect the people who are transferred or deported, the people in an occupied territory, or both? As substantially all novel aspects of the 1949 Geneva Conventions had as their genesis various Nazi behavior during World War II, to what specific behavior did this provision refer? Georg Cohn, a Danish international lawyer and important theorist about neutrality between the two world wars, represented Denmark at a Stockholm Red Cross conference in August 1948 that prepared the drafts to be considered by diplomats in Geneva the following year. Cohn proposed the sentence that later became Article 49(6) to skeptical delegates from other nations at a legal subcommittee meeting there.

In a different article, I discussed what the delegates at the Geneva Conference probably understood by the provision. In my present research, I am trying to divine what Cohn himself had in mind. This past summer, this search for meaning took me to Jerusalem (to talk with one of his daughters) and to Copenhagen (to meet one of Cohn's grandsons, a Danish lawyer, and to search the National Archives). I am using this micro-history as a vehicle to explore certain Nazi forced movements of various populations during World War II and, in that both Cohn as a theorist and Denmark as a country were rather rigidly neutral prior to World War II, theories of neutrality prior to World War II.

At the same time, I have been working on a piece exploring the primary reasons for, and the consequences of, the recent advent of various forms of business and professional enterprises that allow for limited liability of participants in those enterprises (e.g., limited liability companies and limited liability partnerships).

I recently completed an article, "The Unexplored Option: Jewish Settlements in a Palestinian State," that will be published shortly in the Penn State International Law Review. The article explores why Israel cannot both retain the West Bank and remain a democratic and predominantly Jewish state, argues that continuance of Jewish settlements under Palestinian sovereignty is an option preferable to their removal, and articulates the conditions under which this resolution is possible. Part of this discussion relates to the legal arguments that have been advanced concerning the legality of the settlements under international law.

I am one of four co-editors of a volume, From the Protocols of the Elders of Zion to Holocaust Denial Trials, Challenging the Media, the Law and the Academy, scheduled to be published this year by Valentine Mitchell Press. The volume is based upon an interdisciplinary conference held at Northeastern University several years ago that explored how different disciplines approached issues of "truth" in dealing with anti-Semitism and genocide during the 20th century.

Until fairly recently, I had spent many years working on a draft of the new Massachusetts Business Corporation statute, which became effective on July 1,2004. My co-reporter, David Herwitz of Harvard, and I were joined by a very active group of Boston lawyers from the Boston Bar Association, who worked on the project for more than 10 years.

I recently finished reading Wittgenstein's Poker, by David Edmonds and John Eidinow. The book concerns a 10-minute period in October 1946, the only time two of the 20th century's most prominent philosophers, Ludwig Wittgenstein and Karl Popper, met, despite their somewhat similar background as Viennese refugees from the Nazis. The context was a presentation by Popper to the Cambridge University Moral Science Club, chaired by Wittgenstein. Popper challenged Wittgenstein's conception that the only legitimate philosophical questions were linguistic puzzles. Following a nasty interaction between them, Wittgenstein walked out of Popper's presentation after either brandishing the poker in a threatening fashion (Popper's version of the event) or simply having it in his hands. The authors skillfully use the incident to relate 20th century philosophy, fin-de-siècle Vienna, anti-Semitism and the role of English elite universities. Perhaps I was so attracted to the book because I am similarly using the micro-history of Article 49(6) of the 4th Geneva Convention to explore wider issues.

I am somewhat of a news buff, at least skimming four newspapers daily. For physical relaxation, I play tennis, usually doubles about three or four days a week during the spring, summer and fall. I attend a Talmud class every Saturday morning, and increasingly have grown to appreciate this ancient but still current source of wisdom. And in recent years I have fallen in love with Martha's Vineyard and frequent it for a break away from the busy noises and concerns of the city. Most importantly, I'm looking forward to the birth of my first grandchildren (twins) this coming January.

To view past faculty profiles, go to http://www.slaw.neu.edu/faculty/facultywords.htm.

[ go to faculty index ]