At the outset of Harvard’s Master of Laws centennial celebration, a panel of leading jurists from around the world shared their varied perspectives on international law and the ongoing challenges to administering justice. They also recalled how they handled some of their thorniest landmark cases.
Moderated by Vicki Jackson, Harvard Law School’s Laurence H. Tribe Professor of Constitutional Law, the event’s first plenary panel included former U.K. Supreme Court Justice Mary Arden, Lady Arden DBE of Heswall LL.M. ’70; Supreme Court of México Justice Alfredo Gutiérrez Ortis Mena LL.M. ’98; International Criminal Court Judge Raul C. Pangalangan LL.M. ’86 S.J.D. ’90; and International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea Judge Zha Hyoung Rhee LL.M. ’00.
Despite hailing from vastly different corners of the globe, the panelists quickly found common ground in saying they never envisioned ascending to where they sit today.
“Getting to the court was absolutely unexpected,” recalled Gutiérrez who, at the time of his appointment, had already verbally agreed to join a firm in Washington, D.C. “I was at home watching the news with Tanya, my wife, and we heard that three names had been rejected by the Senate. When she turned around and said, ‘They’re going to call,’ I just laughed.”
“‘Pathway’ sounds like I had an overall plan. I didn’t,” recalled Mary Arden, who was a U.K. Supreme Court justice from 2018-2022. “I came to Harvard because I loved the law. I didn’t have any career move in mind.”
Rhee was similarly surprised to be nominated to his high post. “Becoming a judge was not a thing that I ever thought of,” said Rhee, who was appointed to her present position a year ago. “I was serving as a legal advisor because the ministry wanted to make the most of my legal studies and experience … even though I enjoyed my life as a diplomat much more.”
While Pangalangan did not deny wishing to become a judge, he did recall doubting that the International Criminal Court, on which he eventually served from 2015-2021, would exist in the first place.
The four Harvard L.L.M. alumni on the panel called “Judges and Judging on International and Supreme Courts” also spoke candidly about their experiences working on landmark cases and controversies.
As a U.K. Supreme Court Justice serving during the tumult of Brexit, Britain’s complicated departure from the European Union, Lady Arden said the nation’s royal roots surprisingly regained political relevance. During the negotiations with Europe, then-Prime Minister Boris Johnson advised Queen Elizabeth II to exercise the monarchy’s authority to “prorogue,” or suspend, sessions of Parliament. The ensuing legal challenges tasked the Supreme Court with determining the extent of the “royal prerogative” in today’s government.
“In the Supreme Court, we said that the question was, in reality, a question about the extent of the royal prerogative. When could the monarch dissolve Parliament? And we said that the monarch could only do so where it did not frustrate and prevent Parliament from carrying out its primary role.”
Gutiérrez, who has served on Mexico’s Supreme Court for 15 years, discussed three landmark cases involving gender perspective. He said the tribunal has embraced change by establishing precedent on child custody, femicide, and LGBTQ+ marriage. Opportunities to foster social progress have provided his most memorable experiences on the bench.
“We have many cases where we discuss the encroachment of legislative to the executive, or the executive to the legislative or state-federal issues. But I think the cases that touch upon and have a transformative effect on society are the ones I’m going to take with me when I leave the bench. It’s a very special feeling as a judge when you’re drafting the legal opinion, and you know that opinion is going to have an impact, and you know that that opinion, once it gets read, is going to change society.”
A Philippine national, Pangalangan shared his perspective on how a nation’s history of colonization often continues to pose systemic challenges in the present. He recalled that while collaborating on drafting the Rome Statute, the treaty that established the International Criminal Court, the lack of cultural identity embedded in the law became particularly evident. He said the absence of nationally based legal systems is a key reason why common law is such a crucial tool.
“These former colonies never presented their own versions of their own cultures and their civilizations because they were such good colonies that for their lawyers and for their legal professions it was a matter of pride to show that they mastered the legal system of the colonizer.”
Rhee, whose court has only existed since 1994, discussed how the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea recently shaped how international courts should approach disputes on regulating greenhouse gas emissions. Despite the absence of specific references to climate change, his tribunal issued a unanimous advisory opinion that greenhouse gas emissions qualify as pollution within the convention’s authority to regulate.
“Borrowing the terms from relevant international legal instruments as well as authoritative scientific works like IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] reports, the tribunal was able to adapt to the new challenges. This body of law is evolving to address new challenges and also contributing to the overall development of international law in the light of advancing scientific knowledge and emerging global concerns. But we have yet to see how much impact this advisory opinion will have on potential contentious cases, and also we do not know yet how much impact it will have on the ongoing climate change negotiations.”
In closing, the judges reflected on the value of studying comparative law and credited the education they received in the LL.M. program as a catalyst for their ascension to their high judicial positions.
“After Harvard, I was asked by one American journalist who’s writing an article about graduates from the ivy league universities in the U.S.,” recalled Pangalangan. “Having graduated from the LL.M. program, I replied that, after Harvard, I feel neither American nor European, but at ease with both ways of thinking. That’s what remains with us, and that’s the biggest value of having graduated from the Harvard Law School.”
Want to stay up to date with Harvard Law Today? Sign up for our weekly newsletter.