JD
Howard University School of Law
2011
See all Profiles
Biography
Dr. Waris Husain is an assistant professor of Law at the Howard University School of Law, where he teaches lawyering skills and serves as faculty advisor for the Goler Teal Butcher International Moot Court Team. He was formerly a visiting assistant professor at the University of District of Columbia David A. Clarke School of Law teaching international law, conflict of laws, and lawyering process. He has served as an adjunct professor of international law at the Howard University School of Law and served as advisor for the international moot court team for the past twelve years.
Prior to entering academia in a full-time capacity, Dr. Husain served as Senior Legal Advisor for Asia at the American Bar Association Center for Human Rights where he helped provide assistance to at-risk human rights defenders around the world. Through this position, he advocated for human rights defenders in various fora including the United Nations as well the U.S. Congress through testimony and expert witness statements. Prior to joining the ABA, Dr. Husain was a Policy Analyst at the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom covering the South Asia region. At the Commission, Dr. Husain informed Congress and the public on challenges to the rights of religious minorities across Asia. Prior to his time in Congress, Dr. Husain was a visiting lecturer for the U.S. State Department and engaged in collaboration with the U.S. government with the legal community in Nepal as it developed its new constitution in 2015.
His writing has been featured in publications across the United States and Asia, both in periodicals and law reviews.
Education & Expertise
Education
LLM
International Human Rights and Business
Washington College of Law, American University
2013
SJD
Doctor of Juridical Science
Washington College of Law, American University
2017
Expertise
Constitutional Law
Private International Law
International Trade
International Human Rights
Public International Law
Comparative Constitutional Law
International Religious Freedom
Legal Writing, Reasoning and Research
Academics
Academics
Legal Writing II
The second part of the LRRW Program is Legal Writing II (LWII), a required two-credit, semester-long course which
must be taken either in the Fall or Spring of the student’s second year unless the student failed LRRW, in which case the
student must take LWII in the year immediately following successful completion of LRRW. LWII is designed to
reinforce and deepen the students’ knowledge of and ability to perform factual analysis, legal analysis, legal reasoning,
legal research, and writing. The primary project is writing and rewriting an appellate brief on relatively difficult legal
issues
International Moot Court
This course prepares various international moot court teams competing on behalf of Howard University School of Law around the world. The course includes lectures on developing trends in contemporary international human rights law.
The course also focuses on developing the oral, writing, and research skills needed to compete in some of the world’s toughest international moot court competitions. Howard University School of Law’s International Moot Court Team competes in some of the world’s largest and most prestigious competitions during the spring semester Competitions include The Philip C. Jessup Moot Court Competition, which is the largest moot court competition dedicated to public international law in the world as well as the Willem C. Vis International Arbitration Moot Court Competition
Publications and Presentations
Publications and Presentations
Attacks on Judicial Entrances and Exits: Judicial Independence Under Fire in the United States and Pakistan (forthcoming)
The article examines how judicial appointments and impeachments have been weaponized to endanger the independence of the judiciary in Pakistan and the United States between 2024-2026. It makes the argument that threats to judicial independence are on the rise in both countries and to coordinate a defense of the judiciary, both nations must learn from the strategies of the Lawyers’ Movement of 2008 in Pakistan. This movement was one of the first of its kind in modern history and was orchestrated by lawyers and judges to garner public support in a fight against authoritarian rule in defense of judicial independence.
Lessons for Nepal in Devolution and Amendment: A View from Pakistan’s 18th Amendment
There have been demands for amending Nepal’s newly-adopted constitution in order to devolve more power to the provinces by groups that have historically lacked political power. Some have rebuked these demands as being counterproductive for the establishment of the new constitutional order. However, there is no perfect constitution, and its long-term success depends on how it can
be adapted to meet the ever-changing demands of the public. The growth of public support for devolution is not limited to Nepal, as many nations have been altering the power balance between the federal government and provincial governments. One example is Pakistan, which recently passed the 18th Amendment through a diverse parliamentary committee, and substantially altered its formula for federalism forty years after the passage of its constitution. The example of Pakistan can demonstrate to Nepali jurists and policy-makers that devolution through constitutional amendment can be an effective way to meet the demands of politically or socially disenfranchised groups. Constitutional evolution through
amendment and jurisprudence from the Supreme Court can help tackle shortcomings in an original constitutional document that might not address these concerns. While Pakistan is certainly not a perfect case for devolution and Nepal’s socio-political context is unique, some lessons can be learned as Nepalis move
forward in their constitutional development.
Surveillance And Law Enforcement: Tools In The Fight Against Terror In A Comparative Study Of The United States And Pakistan
In the aftermath of September 11, 2001 (9/11), nations around the world began adopting emergency measures that emphasized national security but infringed on the rights guaranteed to citizens through their respective domestic constitutions and international law.