Newsmaker: Charles C. Jalloh
Charles C. Jalloh, an assistant law professor at the University of Pittsburgh, gave the invited lecture at the International Criminal Court in The Hague, Netherlands on Feb. 12. Entitled “What Makes a Crime Against Humanity a Crime Against Humanity,” his lecture attempted to identify the essence of crimes against humanity in international law.
Noteworthy: Jalloh gave the invited lecture at the International Criminal Court in The Hague, Netherlands, on Feb. 12, titled “What Makes a Crime Against Humanity a Crime Against Humanity.”
Residence: Squirrel Hill
Family: Wife, Jan; three children
Occupation: Assistant professor at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law
Background: Served as legal counsel in the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes section of Canada's Department of Justice, as legal adviser to the Office of the Principal Defender in the Special Court for Sierra Leone, and clerked at the United Nations International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda in Arusha, Tanzania
Education: Bachelor's degree from University of Guelph, Ontario; Bachelor of Laws and Bachelor of Civil Law from McGill University, Montreal; master's degree in international human rights law from Oxford University, England
Quote: “The lineup of previous (lecture) speakers is nothing short of intimidating, because it has included the who's who of international criminal law scholarship and practice, some of whom were from elite law schools here in the United States, but also many other respected legal minds from other leading institutions around the world.”
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.