In 1999, Louise Arbour was the judge who indicted former President Slobodan Milosevic of the Federal Republic of Yugoslovia. Nine years later, dressed in a smart suit and armed with a confident smile, she summarized the relationship between international and domestic law to Brandeis students and faculty.When creating an indigenous body of international law, Arbour explained, it is important to acknowledge that there is "no pre-existing objectively superior view to organizational or institutional settings."

Arbour, 62, former Supreme Court justice of Canada, former chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and former United Nations high commissioner for human rights, addressed students and faculty in the International Lounge Nov. 6 as the keynote speaker from the North American Judicial Colloquium.

The NAJC brought together 19 judges from domestic and international courts to "[explore] the intricacies of the question: What can international and domestic judges learn from one another?" according to Daniel Terris, director of the International Center for Ethics, Justice and Public Life.

Arbour has been one of the "key role figures both in developing and enforcing human rights and building bridges between international and domestic law," Terris said.

Terris opened the event by discussing the moment when Arbour "made history" by indicting Milosevic as responsible for inflicting "crimes against humanity."

Terris said that Arbour's actions marked the first time that a chief public representative of a political state was called before an international court.

Focusing in particular on the need for an international body of criminal law to protect human rights, Arbour discussed the Nuremburg Laws of 1935, which advocated for racial discrimination against the Jewish population in Nazi Germany. Arbour said the human rights violations in the Nuremburg Laws were only the first step in alerting the world that there was a need to protect those rights in international law.

Arbour said she considers the current body of international criminal law, which is upheld by the International Criminal Court (a permanent tribunal that prosecutes individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and crimes of aggression) a "hybrid" because it reflects different countries' legal systems.

She emphasized the need for a "truly indigenous international criminal law system" that is "unanchored in any particular legal system and unsupported by any particular state."

Arbour also discussed flaws that prevent the achievement of international judicial independence, a doctrine that states the decisions of the judiciary should be impartial and unable to influence the legislative and executive branches of the government.

The existing principles in the U.N.'s model for the independence of the judiciary are not a "code of conduct or a code of ethics" that guide international judges' behavior. These principles merely "serve to shrine," rather than explain "the fundamental principles of judicial independence," Arbour said.

Because these principles are not accompanied by "commentaries" that elaborate on their applications, Arbour explained that the principles leave many questions regarding the application of judicial ethics "unanswered."

Therefore, Arbour said she doesn't view the International Criminal Judiciary, an organization created based on the U.N.'s principles for independence of the judiciary, which hears criminal cases, as a branch of the international government. Arbour argued that international governments can only see the "orderly evolution" of the law if they improve dialogue between different branches of international government.

Elaborating on the need for dialogue between branches of international law, Arbour spoke about the need for "intellectual bridging" between judges who decide cases related to continental civil law and those who decide common law.

Prosecutions unfamiliar with the culture and language used in specific cases will have trouble understanding the facts presented before them.

Arbour discussed the importance of creating a body of "general knowledge" on the international criminal jurisdiction based on the dialogue between international and national judges.

Yunus Karahan IBS '09 questioned Arbour's view of the relationship between international and national law.

Referring specifically to the war in Iraq and the U.N.'s failure to intervene in that country, Karahan asked Arbour if the international community is responsible for protecting a population when its national government fails to do so.

Arbour responded that the Iraqi people had been under a government that did not fulfill "its responsibilities to protect its own people," and she admitted that the U.N. "came too late in the process." Arbour argued that the international community got involved by "default."

Some students in the audience found Arbour's theories on international law particularly persuasive.

Anthony Medeiros '11 agreed with Arbour about the function of the ICC, explaining that the organization should become more "credible, in order to gain the "support of individual nations."

Other students were inspired by Arbour's passion for justice in the legal system.

"As someone who might consider a possible career in international relations, I found [Arbour's] remarks concerning the independence of the international judiciary quite enlightening," Christopher Lau '12 said. "It galvanized my interest in international law.