Andre A. Borgeas, an associate attorney at the law firm of Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps LLP, headquartered in San Diego, California, participated in the Health Emergencies in Large Populations and Health, Ethics, Law, and Policy course, held this past summer in Honolulu, Hawaii.

Andre was asked to interview because as a corporate attorney his perspective promised to be a fresh and insightful addition to this International Humanitarian Law-inspired issue of The Liaison. He graciously accepted.

RH: How did you find out about HELP?

AB: While a student at Georgetown Law School I was accepted into a joint degree program in International Affairs at Harvard University. However, I was anxious to start practicing law and instead of completing the IA degree I jumped into private practice as an associate at Luce Forward. I was still interested in human rights law and humanitarian assistance. A Harvard faculty member referred me to Professor Doug Bond who teaches a course in preventive measures and he informed me of the program in Honolulu. And here I am.

RH: Tell me about the difference between the way a civilian lawyer may approach a problem and the way a military lawyer would.

AB: Through my very limited experience, military personnel feel uncomfortable with the uncertainty of law and the way abstract legal concepts work. In military operations, like logistics, answers are rendered with some certainty. Right or wrong the directive is clear. When there is uncertainty in the military it can cause confusion and general disruption. Therefore the dynamic between lawyers and military personnel is an interesting one because military abide by the chain of command without question, but law itself begets questions. Neither party walks away fully satisfied with the other's approach, so it's an interesting dynamic between the two applications.

RH: So, if you were to project yourself into the military as a lawyer, do you think that it would be difficult to maintain a balance between those points of view?

AB: I think it is a matter of experience. I think that any lawyer or any person that deals with people in general is going to learn how best to teach and [how] best to communicate and be taught by the people they are dealing with. Law requires a lot of mental and intellectual flexibility that is usually not expected in very detailed oriented types of work.

An engineer, for example, may have difficulty coming to terms with the grayness of international law because an engineer deals with the black and white of physical laws.

RH: In the IHL component, the instructors conducted interactive exercises you told me you found interesting. Is it the case that there seems to be a lot of questions asked, but not a whole lot of answers?

AB: I think that's it exactly. There are a lot of questions. That seems to be the problem with international law as viewed by people who are not thoroughly familiar with it. It's working in and around the uncertainty. The HELP course hosts a lot of military personnel, field operatives, and medical and social servicers. The idea that there can be this over-arching political or legal ideology that would protect someone's rights when right before your eyes all the devastation proves to the contrary – well, it's far removed and appears academic, and utterly detached from reality, but I think it's important.

IHL has to be appreciated in its own context. A foundation of law is needed despite the fact that it may not yet be as legitimate as people would like. A lot of time these international courts are all gum and no teeth because they lack enforcement capabilities. And that's why some people think that [IHL] is a theoretical exercise. They deal with the reality of others in distress and have little patience with law that has difficulty getting applied.

RH: Do you think that IHL is behind the curve as far as its ability to address issues like child soldiers?

AB: Absolutely, but [the lag] is not limited to IHL. It's law in general. Law is very reactionary. No legislature is going to be able to pass laws as fast as people are able to contrive ways of working around or manipulating existing ones. So it is forever a reactive enterprise. However you can't just brush off the fact that people shouldn't be doing these things; the nature of our legislative and judicial system is one of constant progress, an evolving effort to protect our way of life. In our system laws have to be on the books and that's the best we have right now.

RH: Where do you think the HELP experience will lead you?

AB: I am in the process of incorporating human rights work into my private practice on a pro bono basis. The firm I work for encourages its lawyers to do projects in public interest and one of my goals is to try a case in an international court – like The Hague or the International Criminal Court. I see international courts as the way of the future.

RH: It's a growing field then?

AB: It can only grow bigger. As far as HELP is concerned, everything that I have learned here will have bearing in the future.

RH: I was wondering about that because HELP is so diverse, yet you feel that it's all very useful information?

AB: Extremely useful. Without a medical background or field experience the learning curve for epidemiology may be steep, but being exposed to the A through Z of disaster management will have great bearing on cases presented to the international criminal court as to the human rights abuses that took place in refugee camps, for example. Knowing the limitations and capabilities of the NGOs and support teams and understanding operations provides me with a better background on the environment. Lawyers have to be able to piece together what took place and understand what was going on at the time. All the material is extremely relevant, not to mention if you were to become an in-house counsel and you're on site at these refugee camps, you're participating, and this information is imperative. Having participated here,

I can now walk away with more confidence that I have a frame of reference about operations.

RH: So the challenges facing the victims in the camp or the displaced, as well as the different organizations with their strengths and weaknesses, would be important to the practice of IHL?

AB: Absolutely. I wouldn't claim that anything could be taken in lieu of real fieldwork but learning from others has been a rewarding experience. No one knows 100% of everything being discussed. Everyone has their area of expertise and they have their areas of weakness – that's the beauty of it – our backgrounds compliment one another. The synergy in the learning environment makes for an amazing learning experience.

RH: Do you have anything to add?

AB: Yes, I have two things. One, broaden the scope of the international humanitarian law covered and two, select more private sector attorneys and international affairs personnel – these disciplines go hand in hand. I'm looking at it from a general administrative, legal standpoint. If you were to get the word out that international humanitarian law is a critical element in the disaster management effort, I think you would get a positive response and a positive response from private sector attorneys.

RH: Other disciplines, including law, could use the same foundation and they don't have that right now.

AB: Absolutely. When I told Luce Forward about the course, naturally as lawyers they had some questions. They put it in a larger perspective: as attorneys provide pro bono human rights services, they should have a firm background and understanding of all that goes into human rights. [So] the firm encouraged me to attend this conference. If word gets out, private practitioners that normally would not jump into this area of work may consider it. Private practice law firms are open to the idea of diversifying the legal services they provide. They would express a lot more interest and this interest would generate a higher profile for the law firms and the Center of Excellence.

RH: Great! Thank you.