United States security law is in the process of significant reform. Too little attention has been paid to parallel reform undertaken elsewhere. First and foremost, this panel will correct that deficit by bringing together experts on security law from various regions and perspectives to illuminate the American reform debate. Secondarily, the panel is meant to exemplify the persistent pathologies that plague comparative law theory and methodology. Rather than agonizing over whether a comparison of national security law would be fruitful or even plausible, the panel simply undertakes to do so. The panel has applied ambitions, with Professor Chesney participating not as a comparativist but as a leading commentator on and contributor to the American security reform debate. The propriety of traditional classifications like “Western” and “Asian” will be self-consciously treated even while they form useful demarcations for the panel presentations. Post-colonial criticism and the trend towards the globalization and harmonization of law, both of which are seen as significant challenges to the comparative law tradition, are given their due on the panel.
Business Meeting at Program Conclusion.