Andrew Mamo

Lecturer on Law

Spring 2020

Biography

Andrew Mamo is a Lecturer on Law at Harvard Law School and a Clinical Instructor at the Harvard Negotiation & Mediation Clinical Program. At HNMCP, Andrew supervises teams of clinical students in representing clients on a range of dispute systems design projects. Andrew is also a member of the teaching team for the law school’s Negotiation Workshop. Andrew’s research broadly concerns the experiences of disputants within the legal system. More specifically, he studies the history and theory of dispute resolution and negotiation, with a particular focus on the history of dispute resolution practices, the role of technology in dispute resolution, and the professionalization of third-party neutrals. His current projects include a study of race and negotiation theory and a study of the use of non-judicial dispute resolution mechanisms in international law.

Prior to returning to Harvard Law School, Andrew worked on cross-border capital markets and project finance transactions at a major international law firm in Singapore, and clerked for Judges Hisashi Owada and Julia Sebutinde at the International Court of Justice in The Hague. He received his J.D. from Harvard Law School in 2014, his Ph.D. in history from the University of California, Berkeley in 2011, and his S.B. in physics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 2004.

Areas of Interest

Andrew B. Mamo, Three Ways of Looking at Dispute Resolution, 54 Wake Forest L. Rev. (forthcoming 2019).
Categories:
Civil Practice & Procedure
Sub-Categories:
Dispute Resolution
,
Negotiation & Alternative Dispute Resolution
Type: Article
Abstract
At the heart of contemporary dispute resolution theory stands the method of interest-based negotiation. The reliance on interests to resolve disputes has been seen by critics over the years as minimizing the protections of legal rights, and as corrosive to concepts of group solidarity. Taking a broader view of dispute resolution reveals three distinct strands of the theory: a liberal, state-centric, rights-based approach; a neoliberal, individualistic, interest-based approach; and an anti-liberal, communitarian, relationship-based approach. The origins of these strands of dispute resolution theory can be located within the political and legal landscape of the United States in the late 1970s and early 1980s, when contemporary dispute resolution theory began to take shape. While the structure of dispute resolution theory (and its privileging of the interest-based framework) continues to reflect the concerns of that era, it no longer speaks to the immediate concerns of the present. Instead, current questions in dispute resolution theory signal growing interest in more relationship-oriented approaches. Developing such approaches requires understanding the tensions inherent in dispute resolution theory, lest the shortcomings of relationship-based theories create new problems for the practice of dispute resolution. This Article charts a path to rethink the foundational structures of dispute resolution theory.
Andrew Mamo, Getting to Peace: Roger Fisher's Scholarship in International Law and the Social Sciences, 29 Leiden J. Int'l L. 1061 (2016).
Categories:
International, Foreign & Comparative Law
,
Civil Practice & Procedure
,
Legal Profession
Sub-Categories:
Dispute Resolution
,
Negotiation & Alternative Dispute Resolution
,
Foreign Relations
,
International Law
,
Biography & Tribute
,
Legal Scholarship
Type: Article
Abstract
This article examines Roger Fisher's scholarship in international law in the decades prior to the publication of Getting to Yes. Fisher engaged with the same major questions as other international law scholars during the Cold War, but his scholarship was distinguished by the degree to which he grappled with the cutting-edge social science of the mid-century. Even as Fisher collaborated with game theorists and nuclear strategists to understand the theory of conflict, he maintained a critical view of the basic assumptions of game theoretic analysis – defending certain normative elements of the methodology even as he denied its descriptive claims. Subsequent work sought to generate robust descriptions of the role of law in international decision-making during crises. Fisher's normative and descriptive studies of the role of law in such crises led directly to Getting to Yes, creating a body of ‘meta-game theory’ that situated formal studies of conflict within a lawyer's understanding of dispute resolution. Fisher's engagement with social scientists helps illuminate current methodological debates in international law by highlighting the stakes of these theoretical questions and the tensions between scholarship and practice in international law.
Andrew Mamo, Introduction to the Mini-Symposium on Croatia v. Serbia, 28 Leiden J. Int'l L. 887 (2015).
Categories:
International, Foreign & Comparative Law
Sub-Categories:
Human Rights Law
,
International Law
,
Treaties & International Agreements
Type: Article
Abstract
On 3 February 2015, the International Court of Justice delivered its Judgment on the merits of the Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Croatia v. Serbia) case. This Judgment concludes the Court's involvement with allegations of state responsibility for genocide in the Balkans, which has spanned more than two decades since Bosnia brought a case against Serbia under the Genocide Convention in 1993. The many judgments and separate and dissenting opinions in the Bosnia and Croatia genocide cases have not only addressed the elements of the crime of genocide itself and the obligations imposed by the Genocide Convention, but have also considered jurisdictional questions, matters of state succession, and the relationship between the International Court of Justice and the work of the ad hoc tribunals, in particular the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. The Leiden Journal of International Law has organized a mini-symposium about the Croatia Judgment in order to address this important decision. The six articles in this symposium address several of the main issues raised by the judgment. A brief summary of the judgment follows.
Andrew Mamo, History and the Boundaries of Legality: Historical Evidence at the ECCC, 29 Colum. J. Asian L. 114 (2015).
Categories:
International, Foreign & Comparative Law
,
Government & Politics
Sub-Categories:
Courts
,
Military, War, & Peace
,
Politics & Political Theory
,
East Asian Legal Studies
,
Foreign Law
,
Human Rights Law
Type: Article
Abstract
The Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC) began operations in 2006, after a generation of historians and archivists had already collected documents, interviewed victims, perpetrators, and bystanders, and written accounts of the 1970s that directly addressed both the factual questions of what happened in Cambodia and legal questions of individual responsibility. Today, the Documentation Center of Cambodia (DC-Cam) remains the focal point for this historical and archival work. This paper examines the dyadic relationship between the ECCC and DC-Cam and the way that lawyers, scholars, and activists have drawn boundaries between the work of the court and the work of research and scholarship within Cambodian civil society. It argues that, within the prevailing understanding of the relationship between law and society in Cambodian human rights circles, while each element of this dyad needs the other, each must also retain some separation in order to comply with the norms of both fair trial practice and historical scholarship. Two mechanisms make that separation impossible: the use of historians as expert witnesses within the trials; and the debate over reparations as a way to use the trials to contribute to social remembrance of the victims of the Khmer Rouge. Each instance underscores the complex relationship between the ECCC and DC-Cam. The impossibility of this separation need not threaten the court’s legitimacy, as many have argued; instead, it can support a more comprehensive idea of judicial legitimacy.
Andrew Mamo, “The Dignity and Justice That Is Due to Us by Right of Our Birth”: Violence and Rights in the 1971 Attica Riot, 49 Harv. C.R.-C.L. L. Rev. 531 (2014).
Categories:
Constitutional Law
,
Discrimination & Civil Rights
,
Criminal Law & Procedure
Sub-Categories:
Eighth Amendment
,
Prison Law & Prisoners' Rights
,
Civil Rights
Type: Article
Abstract
The response to the Attica riot has tended to focus on the spectacle of violence — the acts of the rioters and the state’s response to those acts. This paper distinguishes the violent events of the summer of 1971 from the grievances that inmates wished to express and their claims about rights and justice. This paper examines how the range of possibilities for theorizing and responding to prison violence and inhumane conditions that existed in the early 1970s was narrowed to a framework that recognized specific civil rights named by the state, obscuring deeper claims.

Current Courses

Course Catalog View