Craig Mokhiber, having resigned from his U.N. position and being a human rights lawyer, could indeed act as a lawyer in a case challenging the Biden administration's actions under Section 620I of the Foreign Assistance Act, provided:
Licensure: Mokhiber would need to be licensed to practice law in the jurisdiction where the case would be filed, typically in a U.S. federal court. If he is not currently licensed in the relevant jurisdiction, he would need to either:
Expertise: His background in international human rights law could be very relevant, especially if the case involves interpreting Section 620I in light of international law principles, humanitarian aid, and the legal implications of U.S. foreign assistance policies.
Ethical Considerations:
Role in Litigation:
Resources: Litigation of this nature often requires significant resources, including time, legal research, and possibly funding for expert witnesses or travel for discovery. Mokhiber would need to ensure he has the support necessary to handle such a case.
Strategic Considerations:
Mokhiber's profile as an experienced human rights lawyer with a focus on international issues makes him potentially well-suited for such a role, but the specifics of his participation would depend on his current legal status, ethical considerations, and the strategic needs of the case.
Francesca Albanese, as the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, could potentially play several roles in legal actions against the U.S. administration, although direct involvement in lawsuits against the U.S. has its complexities:
Expert Witness:
Advocacy and Reporting:
Supporting NGOs:
Amicus Briefs:
Policy Influence:
Official Capacity: As a UN Special Rapporteur, her primary role is to report and recommend, not to litigate. Her involvement in legal proceedings might be limited by her mandate and the need to maintain impartiality.
Immunity: UN officials often have immunity from legal process in national courts, which could restrict her direct involvement in litigation.
Political Sensitivity: Her role is politically sensitive, and any legal involvement could be scrutinized for bias, especially given the controversies surrounding her statements and positions.
Conflict of Interest: Engaging in legal actions against a member state like the U.S. could be seen as a conflict with her role as an independent expert, although her reports do critique actions by states.
Support Role: She could still play a supportive role behind the scenes by offering legal analysis or by lending her name to advocacy efforts without becoming a direct litigant or legal representative.
In summary, while Francesca Albanese could not directly sue the U.S. administration herself due to her position and the nature of her role, she could significantly contribute to legal actions by providing expert insights, supporting NGOs with information, or influencing policy through her official duties and public advocacy.
@threadreaderapp unroll