Kip Hale

Aoifinn Devitt: This podcast was made possible by the kind support of Guylaine Charles and Charles Law PLLC, a law firm representing clients in the negotiation of a wide range of financial trading agreements based in New York City. A career in international criminal law is for some the ultimate dream. It is also neither for the faint-hearted nor the impatient. Let’s hear how our next guest plotted and pursued his journey. I’m Aoifinn Devitt, and welcome to Welcome to this 50 Faces focus series, which showcases the richness and diversity of inspiring people in the law. I’m joined today by Christopher Hale, better known as Kip, who’s an attorney specializing in accountability for atrocity crimes, a term that encapsulates the crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. Over 15 years in this field of law, Kip has served as senior counsel at the American Bar Association Center for Human Rights in Washington, D.C., and founding director of its International Criminal Court project. Previously, he was a prosecuting attorney at the United Nations-backed Khmer Rouge Tribunal in Phnom Penh, called the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia, and did defense work and advised judges at the UN International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in The Hague, the Netherlands. He is a term member of the Council on Foreign Relations and writes widely on international criminal justice issues. Welcome, Kip. Thank you for joining me today.

Kip: Thank you, Aoifinn. It’s great to be here.

Aoifinn Devitt: Let’s start with talking a little bit about your background and your journey into law.

Kip: Yeah, great. Everyone always thinks that I was destined to be a lawyer. My great-great-grandfather, I believe, I don’t know if I got it, the many greats it was, but he started Hale and Dorr, which is today now called WilmerHale. And that’s the oldest law firm in the United States. So I came from a background of lawyers, but my father wasn’t a lawyer and his father wasn’t a lawyer. So as my grandmother used to kid, I restored the family tradition. I was always very much fascinated with what being a lawyer enabled you to do, to see people not just practicing law, but other things that a law degree, again, enabled.

Aoifinn Devitt: And what interested you in particular in going into this field of international law?

Kip: As I always say, I’ve been incredibly fortunate in so many different ways. My father, as I mentioned, he was a politician, a local politician in Colorado. And so he very much dedicated his life to public service. And my grandfather, who I unfortunately didn’t get to meet, but he had a very distinguished career as a historian. And he was actually the very first archivist of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. And so public interest was always around me, and I was very much inspired by that. And then I also just very much enjoyed traveling, obviously, and being abroad, but more importantly, what traveling enabled, the perspective that you get. So when I went into law school back home in Colorado, I really just knew I wanted to do public service and I wanted to do international work. That was just it. One thing I always tell to law students who ask me is you have to be really open-minded because these opportunities come your way. And I think if you have too narrow of a focus, like I need to do this or I can’t do that, you miss opportunities. And so in law school, I was very much inspired by the eminent Professor Ved Nanda. And so from there, I knew, okay, international law. And public international law is something that’s perfectly right down what I was thinking, but I didn’t really know within it what I wanted to do. And it was in my second year of law school that I attended a speech who is now a friend. His name is David Akerson. And David at the time was a prosecuting attorney at the ICTY, which is the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. And I heard him give a speech about his work both at that tribunal and one in Tanzania for the Rwanda genocide. And I just immediately, I remember just right afterwards going up to him and says, how do I get involved in this field? And he told me, go home, apply to be an intern at the ICTY. And as they say, the rest is history. And so I just became very— it just really spoke to me, this field of what we call international criminal justice. In so many ways. What I love about it is that it’s both obviously this burgeoning field of law. Of course, there was the background of the Nuremberg Tribunal after Tokyo Tribunals after World War II, but it had really been hibernated as a field due to the Cold War up until the So, ’90s. And with the IC2I and the Rwanda courts that I previously mentioned, and so it was really burgeoning field of law But it’s also, as I’m sure we could talk about it, it’s also in the cross-section of geopolitics. And so, which was obviously for me something very engaging, why I like being abroad and just really spoke to me in different ways. And so, yeah, so I was just really fortunate along the way to really string opportunity to opportunity and ended up, as you read in my bio, the different posts that I’ve had. I was quite fortunate meeting these people, and that’s what I always tell students. You have to be really open-minded because had I not gone to that speech and really been open to what’s out there, who knows what would happen.

Aoifinn Devitt: And besides being open-minded and perhaps having an interest in politics and travel, are there other traits that lend themselves to being successful in this field? Maybe working individually or working as a team, what kind of do you think personalities thrive in your sector?

Kip: Your question makes me think about something I also tell when people say, how did you get here? Because again, in this field, there’s no, you know, script, let’s say, or no traditional routes. Virtually everyone who works in this field has very interesting backgrounds, have done criminal work in their home jurisdiction or kind of human rights work out in the field in various places around the world. So there’s no traditional routes. And so I, I often tell people who ask me how to get involved, I say you have to be persistent. And I say borderline annoyance. Again, because there’s no traditional route. For instance, if you want to go work at a law firm, you don’t just go intern at the law firm and then, you know, hopefully you get a job and go on, you know, that type of traditional route, let’s call that, is not really available in this field. So you have to be persistent and you also have to be able to get out of your own perspective. Being in an international field such as this, you’re working with people from vastly different backgrounds, different legal traditions. And if you’re too, let’s say, dogmatic or focused on, ‘Oh, this is how we do it in the United States,’ or ‘This is how we do it in Australia,’ or so on and so forth, it’s harder to get ahead in this particular field. So I feel you have to be open-minded, be able to check your perspective at the door, There’s a range of different traits that you need, but those are the ones that stick out to me right now.

Aoifinn Devitt: Anything that’s in the crosshairs of any kind of politics, I would imagine, is subject to being perhaps either slowed down or sped up or really at the behest of those are, who whose interests are behind the politics. I’m wondering, is this area sometimes beset with slow progress or maybe protracted processes? And how do you cope with that when it might not be easy to measure success in real time or to get feedback on some of the work that you’re doing?

Kip: In terms of progress and being able to judge how far we’ve made in this field, I think there’s a lot with the 24/7 news and the such that makes international criminal justice seem that it is either flagging or It’s having existential crisis all the time. However, we really do need to take a step back and think about how you for, know, most of human history, impunity was the norm and getting away with war crimes and crimes against humanity and genocide was, was almost the default position. But now we see that there’s a real expectation of justice. Both from world leaders and the international community writ large to affected communities and civil society. And I think one you important, know, example to flesh that out is how the Nuremberg Trials, the post-World War II trials in Europe, played out. And those trials were, at the time, not very well received by the German community or lots of affected communities in that area and of the world. And it wasn’t, you know, it actually took many decades for the Nuremberg legacy really to achieve the kind of the vaulted pedestal that it is on now. And now Germany very much embraces that Nuremberg legacy and now was a real true leader in international criminal justice. And so unfortunately, I think justice does not— and accountability does not play nice, so to speak, with 24/7 news cycle or kind of our sometimes our sense of immediate gratification or immediate impact that we want to see. But it does build societies that are more democratic, or help, I should say, help build societies that are more democratic, more respective of human rights in freer, more stable places. And a lot of empirical data is showing that impact over time. And so I say all that to bring back that, yes, progress is difficult sometimes to see, particularly when you’re in the thick of it. But we do see progress over time, and it’s in that vein that very much myself and others keep working in this field and keep pushing on the proverbial ball.

Aoifinn Devitt: And a career that involves some of these atrocity crime tribunals that you mentioned has got to be fairly highly charged at times. What would you say were some of the high and low points of what you’ve been working on so far?

Kip: Certainly, you know, high points have been the trial against a prison warden. His nickname was Doy Keng Gek. Iev was his full name. And he was charged with overseeing a prison called Tuol Sleng. S-21 was the code name that the Khmer Rouge used for it. And we charged him with overseeing the torture and murder of over 12,000 people. It was actually a bigger number, we believe, but We had solid evidence on over 12,000. And to see that go to conviction was undoubtedly a high point in the sense of more for the— to see the reaction of victims. In Cambodia, and probably very similar in lots of countries around the world, myth sometimes is more powerful than the truth, or is more pervasive, I should say.. And to see that we developed a record of, of the truth of what happened at S21 and were able to ventilate that in a court of law, and to particularly hear the powerful testimonies of survivors, the very few survivors. I should have mentioned that we believe over 16,000 people walked into S21 and only 6 or so came out alive. And so to see the very few survivors that were still alive discuss their experience and to see the families of victims from S-21. It’s odd to call that a high point, but to see that the truth was again ventilated, was aired, to see so many people come to that tribunal to witness even just a day of the trial. It was over radio and television. It was broadcast all over Cambodia. As it relates to a low point, one that definitely sticks out to my mind is back in mid-2020 when the Trump administration exacted financial and other types of sanctions on the International Criminal Court and staff members, and also as well their families. By way of background, US sanctions of this kind or were only ever used for human rights abusers, nuclear proliferators, human traffickers, drug smugglers, things of this ilk. And so to see U.S. Administration, a government that for since Nuremberg has been seen and has has promoted— been seen by others and promoted it by itself as the true champion of international criminal justice, and to see such a flagrant disregard for the rule of law and democratic values by my own government was truly a low point. To draw a parallel, it would be like, you know, a mayor of a city sanctioning a local judge working on a controversial case or a local lawyer and having political consequences for doing their rule of law work, to be doing as independent, impartial judicial practitioners. And then further, not only with the sanctions, but to see some of the words that were coming out of U.S. Government One, officials. You know, U.S. Ambassador at the Merce time, Tann, talking about the potential dismantling of the ICC in response to, again, these sanctions I just said earlier were in response to the ICC’s investigation being activated in Afghanistan, and then potentially now has been since those sanctions were in Palestine as well. And thankfully, the Biden administration, albeit a little, a lot later than a lot of people in the field would have liked to have seen, has eliminated those sanctions. But certainly, undoubtedly, that was a low point for me and I think for a lot of my fellow Americans and even non-Americans who work in the field to see such a kind of depraved behavior from a US administration.

Aoifinn Devitt: It’s very interesting. I think also it probably indicates maybe there’s selective memory that the high points maybe outweigh the low points. And I suppose in this field, you certainly do have to have maybe a glass half full approach or you wouldn’t enter it in the first place. There’s a podcast I listened to recently that featured Juan Manuel Santos, who is credited with ending the civil war in Colombia. And one point he mentioned there was the trade-off between peace and justice, that sometimes in order to achieve peace, you may have to not achieve justice according to, in the eyes of everyone. You may just have to let some things like that in your frame of reference.

Kip: There’s one quote that really sums up the way that I feel about this field, and it’s something that I constantly remind myself and say to others, but it’s a quote by Martin Luther King Jr. In 1958 where he said, “True peace is not merely the absence of tension. It is the presence of justice.” And so yes, there has been compromises made. You can see many different conflicts where justice was sidelined. And I would argue and others would argue in the field that However, more often than not, where you’ve seen that justice has been compromised or has been sidelined, you see that conflict comes back. And so you’d still always see an expectation of justice, what we were talking about earlier. Now you see affected communities talking about the need for senior leaders to be held accountable, seeing from all sides. Not just one side as well. I think it’s incredibly important that we emphasize that justice and accountability is not just for the weak against the people who are maybe not powerful anymore, but needs to be applied against those who are— still remain in power.

Aoifinn Devitt: And another area where we’re seeing progress, I think, across law would be perhaps in having more diversity in the ranks. And my original podcast series was specifically about the world of investment, and we were really digging into how diversity was improving there and what more needed to be done. What’s your perspective on how the legal profession is doing in terms of diversity and maybe your field in particular?

Kip: Not good enough. That would be my simple answer. Now, with that being said, obviously working in international criminal justice is something that you would see, say, let’s say facially more diversity, seeing people from various continents and backgrounds who are involved. So in, in some respect, I would say on the surface there is a good deal of representation had. But if you look at these institutions top to bottom, there needs to be more women in senior roles, not just to titular at the head, but throughout. There needs to be people from different particularly the Global South, in positions of power, top to bottom. Certainly the current prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Fatou Bensouda, who’s from The Gambia. And I can only imagine the impact that she’s had on women and girls around the world to be that visible optic example of diversity being realized.

Aoifinn Devitt: And going back now to your personal story, were there any key people who influenced you along the course of your career so far that you can mention here?

Kip: There’s only almost too many people to mention. I feel when I keep saying I’m very fortunate, it’s because I owe so much to so many people who’ve helped nurture me and guide me and give me different perspectives along the way. As I mentioned, Professor Ved Nanda, where I went to law school at University of Denver, always to this day I talk to him. I mentioned David Akerson and his sage advice that he’s given me along the way. There’s been so many people that come to mind, but I could be talking for hours about that. And I really genuinely mean it when I say that, you know, you do have to pay it forward.

Aoifinn Devitt: And you’ve had a global career working around the world, and I’ve had a little bit of that myself, probably not in as frontier destinations as you. But sometimes some of the advice that I’ve received in those global places or the creeds or the mottos of those places has stuck with me. Have there been any pieces of advice or creed or a motto that you live by?

Kip: Well, certainly there’s lots of different creeds and motto that I’ve lived by or pieces of advice that have been given to me. Two things that do step to the forefront in my mind. One was my late father, Thomas Hale, who often said to me that 80% of life was showing up. You know, at the time when I was younger and him saying that, I I think that was encouragement for me to get out of bed and go do things. But as I’ve gotten older and, you know, he continued to say that even as I was in law school and after law school, it really took on new meaning that it’s so easy to cut corners or maybe miss, skip certain meetings or not engage with a potential partner or any, depending on the field, how how it may manifest itself. But his underlying point was that you need to be there, you need to be present, you need to engage and potentially seek out new opportunities, but also learn from others and show the respect that showing up has. When you come to a meeting or you come to a situation, it’s very disrespectful if you just ditch out. How many things in my life was because I was in the— I showed up. Virtually everything was because I showed up and an opportunity presented itself, or I learned something that was incredibly important, or I met somebody that had such an impact on my life. And I can almost trace back with a lot of them how easy it would have been not to have shown up, and I would have gotten away with it, or there would have been no consequences, maybe a better way of saying it. And I think that has really proven its worth over time for me. And so that was one that really resonated with me. And it has parallels with another piece of advice I received from someone I mentioned earlier in this interview, David Akerson, who said to me that always make yourself indispensable. And that’s certainly how I received that is to really go to the nth degree, the cliché 110%. That is something that you have to apply not just in the big projects or the flashy things that one may do in one’s industry, but to do that in every single thing from making copies to taking down notes from a meeting to whatever it may be that you need to show your worth. You need to demonstrate that you do things to a very high standard. And what he said to me when he first gave me that advice was an example where, when he was working at the Yugoslav Tribunal, how graduates from very prestigious law schools around the world really felt that they were entitled to come in and start working on you know, the, the big motion of the day or whatever everyone’s talking about around the proverbial water cooler. And he said that he very rarely relied upon those people. He relied upon the people that were willing to do anything for the benefit of the team, benefit of the mandate, people who really pushed themselves to do a very excellent job on even very routine memos or routine work. And he said, you know, the point was that how could I trust someone who just wants to come in and feels entitled versus someone who’s really demonstrated their worth and demonstrated their capacity. So those are the ones that stick out to my mind.

Aoifinn Devitt: And is there any of such advice maybe that you would like to give your younger self? Anything that you wish you had known perhaps coming out of law school or in your 20s that you know now?

Kip: There’s so many things I would love to talk to my younger self about. Again, I’ve been, I keep mentioning it, but I’ve been incredibly fortunate and I don’t necessarily, of course, with hindsight, things can be done better and done differently. But I don’t necessarily have too many, let’s say, deep regrets in that respect. But if I were to go back to my younger self, I would definitely preach patience and the importance of not just again, paying lip service to being patient, but actually practice patience, certainly with other people, and most importantly, with yourself.

Aoifinn Devitt: Well, those are lovely words to leave us on. And I think it’s fair to say, at least from my perspective, you are living what I think for many law students would be the dream, the dream job. I think, you know, that the world of international law has a certain high mystique, but it is certainly, I think, one to which many law students would aspire. And thank you for breaking it down for us here and demystifying some of that, reminding us of how it’s accessible and of some of the high stakes involved. And I think it’s been a very interesting discussion, and thank you for sharing your insights with us.

Kip: Well, thank you, and thank you for doing this podcast. Appreciate it.

Aoifinn Devitt: I’m Eefan Devitt. Thank you for listening to our 50 Faces Focus Series. If you liked what you heard and would like to tune in to hear more inspiring lawyers and their stories, Please subscribe on Apple Podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts. This podcast is for information only and should not be construed as investment or legal advice. All views are personal and should not be attributed to the organizations of the host or any guest.