Freedom House announced today that my dear friend and colleague, Mark P. Lagon, has been selected to be president of the respected human rights organization. The Freedom House press release explains:

Mark P. Lagon, a distinguished scholar of global politics and human rights, and former diplomat, will become president of Freedom House on January 2, 2015, the organization’s Board of Trustees announced today.

Lagon is Chair for Global Politics and Security at Georgetown University’s Master of Science in Foreign Service Program, and a former U.S. Ambassador at Large and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State. He will succeed David J. Kramer, who has served as president of Freedom House since 2010.

“Mark Lagon has broad and deep experience in the field of democracy and human rights, and brings great passion to these issues,” said Kenneth I. Juster, chairman of the Board. “His appointment reinforces Freedom House’s commitment to address threats to freedom, wherever they may exist, through its unique combination of research, advocacy, and programs.”

At the State Department, Lagon served as U.S. Ambassador at Large, directing the Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons, from 2007 to 2009, and previously as Deputy Assistant Secretary in the Bureau of International Organization Affairs, with responsibility for human rights, humanitarian issues and United Nations reform. He is Adjunct Senior Fellow for Human Rights at the Council on Foreign Relations.

“The promise of freedom and the challenges it faces are central to our time,” Lagon said. “It will be a privilege to lead Freedom House, which sets the standard for analysis of political and civil rights, provides a clear voice for freedom around the world, and empowers frontline activists to uphold fundamental rights and advance democratic change.”

Lagon received a Ph.D. in Government from Georgetown and an A.B. from Harvard University. He is the author of numerous articles on international affairs and co-editor of the recently released book Human Dignity and the Future of Global Institutions.

“The Board and staff are extremely grateful to David Kramer for his outstanding leadership,” said Juster, the board chairman. “No one could have been a more forceful or articulate advocate for our cause, for which we owe David sincere thanks.”

In a letter to the Master of Science in Foreign Service community sent earlier today, I shared these thoughts on my great friend and colleague:

It is impossible to overstate Ambassador Lagon’s signal contribution to Georgetown. For the past 4 years, his leadership and creativity have been evident in so many ways. He has worked diligently to reconceptualize and strengthen the Global Politics and Security curriculum, adding, among others, a new ethics course to the concentration. He has internationalized and diversified the faculty in his concentration, bringing in outstanding practitioner faculty with extensive experience in international affairs. He has worked tirelessly with students and alumni as a mentor, a career advisor, and colleague. Moreover, as the senior Concentration Chair, Professor Lagon has been as a vital member of the MSFS leadership team. During his time at MSFS, he has served on the Admissions Committee, participated in on-line chats, and played a critical role in recruiting great new students. He has organized substantive and career panels for DC Days, the New York Trip, and a host of other events. He has also played a major role in alumni relations and fundraising, travelling to China, London, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, New York and elsewhere to connect with MSFS grads. And, of course, who can forget his Gettysburg presentation on General James Longstreet and the need to “speak truth to power.”

Needless to say, all of us at MSFS are truly excited about Dr. Lagon’s new role as President of Freedom House! We know that he will bring the same great energy, commitment, and innovation to Freedom House that he brought to MSFS and will continue to advance the promotion of human dignity in the world. We also know that he will continue to work with MSFS in a variety of ways in the future and are excited to announce that he has agreed to serve on the MSFS Board of Advisors.

On a personal note, let me say that Mark Lagon has been a dear friend and a trusted confidant throughout. He has been an inspiration to me and a great pleasure to work with. I look forward to continuing our collaboration in new and exciting ways.

As Professor Lagon departs, we are happy to announce that Dr. Jeffrey Gedmin, former President of the Legatum Institute, will be serving as Concentration Chair for Global Politics and Security for the Spring Semester, beginning on January 1. We will also be starting a search to fill the position beyond this and will be providing more information shortly.

So, with sadness and joy, I would ask all of you to join me in thanking Ambassador Mark P. Lagon for his great service to Georgetown and beyond and in wishing him tremendous success as President of Freedom House!

Amb. Mark P. Lagon Named President of Freedom House was originally published in Anthony Clark Arend on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

Mark Lagon and I are excited about the publication of Human Dignity and the Future of Global Institutions. From the Georgetown University Press website:

What does human dignity mean and what role should it play in guiding the mission of international institutions? In recent decades, global institutions have proliferated — from intergovernmental organizations to hybrid partnerships. The specific missions of these institutions are varied, but is there a common animating principle to inform their goals? Presented as an integrated, thematic analysis that transcends individual contributions, Human Dignity and the Future of Global Institutions argues that the concept of human dignity can serve as this principle.

Human dignity consists of the agency of individuals to apply their gifts to thrive, and requires social recognition of each person’s inherent value and claim to equal access to opportunity. Contributors examine how traditional and emerging institutions are already advancing human dignity, and then identify strategies to make human dignity more central to the work of global institutions. They explore traditional state-created entities, as well as emergent, hybrid institutions and faith-based organizations. Concluding with a final section that lays out a path for a cross-cultural dialogue on human dignity, the book offers a framework to successfully achieve the transformation of global politics into service of the individual.

We are particularly excited about an outstanding group of contributors. Here is the table of contents:
Introduction

Human Dignity in a Neomedieval World
Mark P. Lagon and Anthony Clark Arend

I. Traditional Institutions
1. The United Nations Security Council
Nancy E. Soderberg
2. The Responsibility to Respect: Victims and Human Dignity at the International Criminal Court
Tod Lindberg
3. The UN Secretary-General and Human Dignity: The Case of Kofi Annan
Abiodun Williams
4. Regional Security Organizations and Human Dignity
Chester A. Crocker
5. Inclusive Growth, Institutions, and the Underground Economy
Anoop Singh
6. The Global Human Rights Regime: Assessing and Renovating the Architecture
Mark P. Lagon and Ryan Kaminski
7. The Human Dignity Lens on Terrorism and Counterterrorism
Anthony Clark Arend

II. Emerging Institutions
8. Transcending HIV/AIDS Social Stigma: Putting Human Dignity Center Stage in Global Institutions
Rosalia Rodriguez-Garcia
9. The New Global Landscape for Poverty Alleviation and Development: Foundations, NGOs, Social Media, and Other Private Sector Institutions
Raj M. Desai and Homi Kharas
10. Statelessness, Sovereignty, and International Law: Promoting the “Right to Have Rights”
Benjamin Boudreaux
11. Fighting Human Trafficking: Transformative versus ‘Cotton-Candy’ Partnerships
Mark P. Lagon
12. Religion and the Global Politics of Human Dignity: The Catholic Church and Beyond
Thomas Banchoff
13. Faith-Based Institutions and Human Dignity: A Growing Presence on the Global Stage
Nicole Bibbins Sedaca
14. Business, Human Rights, and the Internet: A Framework for Implementation
Michael A. Samway

III. Institutions and Values: The Future
15. Constructing a Dialogue on Dignity: The Path Ahead
Mark P. Lagon and Anthony Clark Arend -

And we are honored to have several wonderful reviews of the book:

Reviews
“The concept of human dignity is powerful, but the international institutions and legal regimes charged with realizing it are not. Lagon and Arend have assembled a wealth of new strategies for strengthening these institutions to make human dignity a reality in the lives of more people.” — Elisa Massimino, President and CEO, Human Rights First

“Anthony Arend and Mark Lagon have compiled an important and timely set of essays exploring the relevance of the concept of human dignity for the dialogue about the global institutions and human rights. These essays invite readers to examine emerging concepts that may impact policy, scholarship and activism alike for generations. All who seek to improve the human condition could benefit from this thoughtful book.” — Dan Porterfield, President, Franklin & Marshall College

“With this robust volume, Lagon and Arend importantly focus the discussion on human dignity, distinguishing it from human rights while providing a broad platform to observe how the concept is operationalized in a wide variety of governance settings. With traditional international structures coming under strain, and as the world develops new models, the studies contained in this book provide invaluable lessons on both the importance of embedding an ethic of human dignity and the mechanisms to do so.” — Ana Palacio, member of the Spanish Council of State, former Foreign Affairs Minister of Spain

“Anthony Arend and Mark Lagon have constructed a definition and a framework of human dignity that provide a foundation for advancing human rights by transcending time-bound and increasingly sterile debates about civil and political versus social, economic, and cultural rights. The essays in this volume are both reflective and practical, informed by a compelling blend of philosophy, advocacy and institution-building.” — Anne-Marie Slaughter, President, New America Foundation

The book should be available in August of 2014.

We want to offer specials thanks to the Mortara Center for International Studies, the Berkley Center for Religion, Peace and World Affairs, and the Council on Foreign Relations for sponsoring several roundtables for the development of the book.

Forthcoming: Human Dignity and the Future of Globlal Institutions, eds, Mark P. was originally published in Anthony Clark Arend on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

In his West Point Commencement Address today, President Obama discussed a variety of foreign policy issues. One area that he explored was the importance of international law. And much to my surprise — and pleasure — he expressed frustration that the Senate has not given advice and consent to the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea. The President said:

You see, American influence is always stronger when we lead by example. We can’t exempt ourselves from the rules that apply to everybody else. We can’t call on others to make commitments to combat climate change if a whole lot of our political leaders deny that it’s taking place. We can’t try to resolve problems in the South China Sea when we have refused to make sure that the Law of the Sea Convention is ratified by our United States Senate, despite the fact that our top military leaders say the treaty advances our national security. That’s not leadership; that’s retreat. That’s not strength; that’s weakness. It would be utterly foreign to leaders like Roosevelt and Truman, Eisenhower and Kennedy.

I could not agree more. But expressing frustration with the Senate is different from demonstrating leadership. What is the President going to do to secure Senate advice and consent?

Obama Calls for Ratification of the Law of the Sea Convention — But What is He Doing to Secure… was originally published in Anthony Clark Arend on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

We are always taught that decisions of the Supreme Court are the “final” word on federal law in the United States. But what does this actually mean — especially in this day of instant electronically published opinions? According to a forthcoming article in the Harvard Law Review by my former Georgetown colleague Richard Lazarus, substantive changes may actual be made to opinions long after they are announced from the bench.

Most of those who study the court know that the Court’s website contains a logical disclaimer:

The “slip” opinion is the second version of an opinion. It is sent to the printer later in the day on which the “bench” opinion is released by the Court. Each slip opinion has the same elements as the bench opinion — majority or plurality opinion, concurrences or dissents, and a prefatory syllabus — but may contain corrections not appearing in the bench opinion.

* * *

Caution: These electronic opinions may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official printed slip opinion pamphlets. Moreover, a slip opinion is replaced within a few months by a paginated version of the case in the preliminary print, and — one year after the issuance of that print — by the final version of the case in a U. S. Reports bound volume. In case of discrepancies between the print and electronic versions of a slip opinion, the print version controls. In case of discrepancies between the slip opinion and any later official version of the opinion, the later version controls.

But I think most of us would have thought changes made to later versions would have been minor typographical, grammatical or other such errors. But as Lazarus demonstrates, the practice of making substantive revisions to announced decisions dates back to the earliest days of the Court. Indeed, Lazarus notes that during the nineteenth Century, Justices “routinely” made “extensive substantive changes after the opinion [was] first announced in Court.” While there is not as much amending today, Lazarus explains:

The Court nonetheless has retained practices regarding the revision of opinions that are long overdue for revision. Unlike any other domestic court, the nation’s Highest Court formally issues its opinions before they have been fully reviewed and checked for errors within the Court itself. The Justices do so apparently because of institutional pressures they feel to release opinions as quickly as possible, perhaps related to the desire to formalize an achieved majority before it might potentially change. But, whatever, the reason, the Justices have long embraced the odd, but by-now settled practice of routinely revising their initial opinions and justifying their doing so by asserting, in a largely-ignored notice, that only the U.S. Reports volume published many years later constitutes the “final,” “official” version of the Court’s opinions.

How should this practice be addressed? Lazarus makes a number of recommendations in his article, concluding:

At the very least, the Court should end the fiction of labeling its initial, published opinions as neither “final” nor “official,” and any specific changes should be subject to after-the-fact public notice. The latter reform in particular should mitigate electronic media’s tendency to perpetuate inaccurate versions of opinions. The mere fact of publication will also likely have positive effect on the Court’s procedures for determining when and what revisions are necessary and appropriate.

As described above, the Court should also consider a series of changes in its current practices that would provide greater structure and coherence to the revision process. Such reforms would extend to the possibility of notifying parties about certain categories of proposed changes prior to their adoption. However, precisely how those reforms should, in distinguishing between types of categories of error, strike the balance between providing greater transparency and
maintaining the essential confidentiality of the Court’s deliberative processes, is less clear — at least to an academic on the outside looking in. It is plainly not cost-free to invite over-eager advocates to have another round of input. And those within the Court are far better equipped than anyone on the outside to determine how best to re-strike that balance.

Lazarus makes good recommendations. We will see if any associated with the Court will take them to heart. But in any case, Lazarus’s article should be a useful word of caution to judges, scholars, and others who study, cite and rely on Supreme Court decisions to be on the look out for revisions.

HT: Adam Liptak, Final Word on U.S. Law Isn’t: Supreme Court Keeps Editing

Are Supreme Court Decisions “Final”? was originally published in Anthony Clark Arend on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

Video: Syria, Chemical Weapons and International Law was originally published in Anthony Clark Arend on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

Dr. Erwin Tiongson will be joining the Master of Science in Foreign Service Program (MSFS) in the Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University in August as Professor in the Practice of International Affairs and Concentration Chair for International Development.

Dr. Tiongson is currently a Senior Economist at the World Bank for Latin America and the Caribbean Region. Prior to that he worked at the Bank for the Europe and Central Asia Region. His country operational experience has included Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, FYR Macedonia, Georgia, Jamaica, Mexico, Moldova, Philippines, and Russia.

Dr Tiongson has been an Associate Professor at the Asian Institute of Management in Metro Manila in the Philippines. He has also been an External Research Fellow at the Centre for Research and Analysis of Migration (CReAM), Department of Economics, University College London, and — no stranger to Georgetown — Dr. Tiongson is currently a Visiting Scholar at the Institute for the Study of International Migration (ISIM) at Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University.

He is the author or co-author of numerous publication, including three World Bank books, Back to Work: Growing with Jobs in Europe and Central Asia; The Crisis Hits Home: Stress Testing Households in Europe and Central Asia; and Growth, Poverty and Inequality: Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union.

Dr. Tiongson holds a Ph.D. and M.Phil. in Economics from The George Washington University, an M.P.P. from the McCourt School of Public Policy at Georgetown University, an M.A. in Economics from Fordham University, and a B.A. in Philosophy from Ateneo de Manila University in the Philippines.

Georgetown University Names Dr. was originally published in Anthony Clark Arend on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

From The Hoya:

The Georgetown Amnesty International and The Asian Studies Program held the second event of the Drone Awareness Project, “Drones and International Law” on Wednesday.

The discussion featured Anthony Arend, government professor and the director of the Master of Science in Foreign Service, who focused on the use of drones since the 9/11 attacks and their associated legality on an international scale.

“There are different ways of evaluating the efficacy of [remotely piloted aircrafts] — politically, militarily, legally and ethically. You may have different outcomes depending on the way you look at it. You may determine they are ethically abhorrent but still legal, for example,”Arend said.

Arend identified the two strands of law relating to such attacks, the jus ad bellum and jus in bello.

“Our jus ad bellum issue is, if an armed attack has occurred, does the United States or any other state involved have the right to use military force in response to that? If that armed attack is still going on, is it something we can still respond to? If it is, and we still are connected to that, there would seem to be a lawful use of force for that,” Arend said. “The second law related to the conduct of hostilities — the law that outlines how all parties have to behave in an international conflict is the jus in bello.”

In assessing the legality of a drone strike, Arend also touched on the proportionality of the attack and the legitimacy of targets attacked. While much of the international community has come to the consensus that attacks should be proportional to a prior attack or perceived threat, and that some targets are legitimate and some are not, it is largely subjective to determine what is considered proportional and when illegitimate targets lose their legitimacy.

“My ultimate conclusion is this: There is nothing per se illegal in international law about the use of remotely piloted aircraft. You may think there are political problems with their use per se or ethical problems, but from a legal perspective there is nothing illegal about their use any more than there would be about an M16 or an AK47,” Arend said.

Georgetown Amnesty International member Bassam Sidiki (COL ’16), who helped out with the event, felt the discussion gave a much more accurate representation of the issue, as it separated legal and ethical issues.

“As I am a Pakistani-American, this is something very close to my life. I moved to the [United States] … four years ago and this is an issue that many of my friends in Pakistan are very passionate about. Many think that it’s an infringement on Pakistani sovereignty. I want to bring about a more nuanced transnational conversation to this issue,” Sidiki said.

To many students, the event allowed them to partake and dissect a more nuanced view on drones.

“Speaking for Amnesty International and myself we are against the use of drones. The lecture made me agree that drones are legal in international law but the way the … [United States] is applying them to force must be proportional,” Georgetown Amnesty International President Joseph Lanzilla (SFS ’16) said. “I think there is still a lot of gray area … [with] the appropriate use of drones, how we define legitimate targets and react to the people who help the wounded and rush in immediately after a drone strike.”

The remaining three events in the Drone Awareness Project series will take place after spring break.

On Remotely Piloted Aircraft was originally published in Anthony Clark Arend on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

With the tense situation in Ukraine, there has been much discussion about the so-called Budapest Memorandum, in which the United States, Great Britain, and Russia reaffirmed their commitment to “to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine.” Two questions: Is this a legally binding agreement under international law? Does this agreement mean that the United States is under an international legal obligation to to use military force to support the new Ukrainian government?

Is this a legally binding agreement under international law?

Based on the language of the agreement, it would seem to be binding as a matter of international law. Some have raised the question of whether the Senate has provided advice and consent and whether the President ratified the treaty. A review of the official State Department publication Treaties in Force indicates that the Budapest Agreement was not formally submitted to the Senate for approval. Nonetheless, as a matter of international law that would not effect the legal status of the Agreement.

Does this agreement mean that the United States is under an international legal obligation to to use military force to support the new Ukrainian government?

No. The pertinent portions of the Memorandum provide:

1. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine;
2. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, and that none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine except in self-defence or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations;
3. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, to refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind;
4. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine, as a non-nuclear-weapon State party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used;

5. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm, in the case of Ukraine, their commitment not to use nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear weapon State party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, except in the case of an attack on themselves, their territories or dependent territories, their armed forces, or their allies, by such a State in association or alliance with a nuclear-weapon State;

6. Ukraine, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America will consult in the event a situation arises that raises a question concerning these commitments. (Emphasis added)

Based on these provisions, the legal obligation on the part of the United States and Russia and the UK is, under paragraph 1, “to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine.” But what happens if one state does not do this? The only specific obligation is under paragraph 6, which provides that the parties “will consult in the event a situation arises that raises a question concerning these commitments.” So, clearly there is no obligation to use force. The requirement under paragraph 5 — to seek action by the Security Council — seem to be triggered only if Ukraine is a victim of aggression or the threat of aggression when nuclear weapons are involved. That does not seem to be the case here, and even if it were, the obligation would be to take the matter to the Security Council, where, of course, Russia has a veto.

A legal obligation to use force to protect Ukraine? The 1994 Budapest Agreement was originally published in Anthony Clark Arend on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

Over at Lawfare, Ben Wittes notes, in part:

On the merits, I agree with Judge Pauley that — at the lower court level, at least — there is just no way around the fact that Smith v. Maryland controls the metadata question under the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court may want to revisit this question, but there no way for lower courts to do it. Judge Pauley is on less firm ground, in my view, on the statutory point, where his argument tracks pretty closely the government’s relevance theory — which the FISA judges have also embraced. For reasons I have discussed before, I’m not wholly comfortable with this reading of Section 215 and would prefer that Congress step in with a more solid statutory foundation for the program. That said, I think that given the degree of congressional buy-in to the program over time, it may well be the right view for the courts to take.

My main reaction to Judge Pauley’s opinion, however, is not about its merits. It is to remind everyone that it does not matter very much. Following Judge Leon’s ruling, civil libertarians exulted. In the wake of yesterday’s ruling, by contrast, the New York Times has this anxious editorial, calling the opinion “deeply troubling” and reflecting “an alarming lack of skepticism.” But district courts on either side of this issue aren’t going to decide the two key issues here: whether 215 as currently written authorizes bulk metadata collection and whether the 4th Amendment tolerates the practice. They are mere way stations on the road to appellate — and presumably Supreme Court — review. The first key test will be how the D.C. Circuit and the Second Circuit react to these question, and specifically whether they agree or disagree on them and thus set up a circuit split. Ultimately, Judge Pauley’s decision — like Judge Leon’s before it — is just an amicus brief in that coming debate. Remember that as the conversation veers dramatically each time a district judge speaks.

Ben Wittes Offers his Initial Thoughts on Judge Pauley’s Opinion in ACLU v. Clapper was originally published in Anthony Clark Arend on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

It is with great sadness that I share with you the news that Professor Inis L. Claude, Jr., passed away on December 23, 2013. Professor Claude was my mentor, my teacher and my friend. It was my honor to have had him as my dissertation adviser.

Inis Claude was a legend in the field of international relations. His classic works, including Swords Into Plowshares and Power and International Relations, continue to have a profound impact on contemporary thinking in the discipline. Over his long professional career, he taught thousands of students and mentored innumerable thesis and dissertations. But even more than his outstanding scholarship and teaching, Inis was a good man. He was kind, generous, witty and brilliant. He always had time for students, friends, and, of course, family. He beloved wife, Marie, who die a few years ago, was his college sweetheart, and they always seemed like college kids in love. The Daily Progress published his obituary earlier today:

Inis L. Claude Jr., 91, died Monday, December 23, 2013, at Martha Jefferson Hospital. Born in Arkansas, he completed his BA at Hendrix College in 1942, then enlisted in the US Army, serving in France and Germany. In 1946, he entered Harvard University, where he earned his MA in 1947 and his PhD. in 1949, specializing in International Relations. He began teaching at Harvard, where he stayed until 1956. He moved to the University of Delaware in 1957. The University of Michigan was next, where Inis taught from 1958 to 1968. 1969 found Inis at the University of Virginia, where he remained until his retirement in 1988. He also enjoyed visiting professorships at the Institute of Social Studies in The Hague, the University College of Wales in Aberystwyth, and Hebrew University in Jerusalem. He was active in the academic profession at national and international levels, publishing and lecturing widely and receiving numerous awards. His books included “Swords into Plowshares: The Problems and Progress of International Organization.” In 1943, he married his college sweetheart, Marie Stapleton, who proceeded him in death. He is survived by two daughters, Susan Bullock of Kilmarnock, Virginia, and Cathy Dalton and her husband, Mike of Charlottesville; a son, Robert B. Claude of Oviedo, Florida; three grandchildren, Rachelle Claude, and Ryan Claude of Keedysville, Maryland, and Megan Perry Morris and her husband, Daniel of Charlottesville; great-grandson, Kenneth Jefferson of Keedysville, Maryland; and a sister, Betty Warren of Morrilton, Arkansas. Special thanks to the friends and staff on the 1st floor of Catered Living at Westminster Canterbury of the Blue Ridge. His years following Marie’s death were made happier by this wonderful group. Inis, known to many of his friends and family as I.L., enjoyed reading, gardening, making latch-hook rugs and hiking. He and Marie were for many years members of a group that hiked weekly on the Appalachian Trail and other trails in the Blue Ridge. He also volunteered as a reader at Recording for the Blind and Dyslexic. A memorial service will be held at Westminster Canterbury of the Blue Ridge 2 p.m. Friday, January 17, 2014. The family suggests that memorial gifts may be made to the Endowment Fund, Westminster Canterbury of the Blue Ridge, 250 Pantops Mt. Rd., Charlottesville, VA 22911.

Rest in Peace, Inis. It was my honor to have known you. You will be greatly missed.

(Thanks to our mutual friend, Robert F. Turner, for sharing the obituary with me.)

In Memoriam: Inis L. Claude, Jr. was originally published in Anthony Clark Arend on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.