After suffering in virtual silence a scurrilous smear campaign, which characterized him as a 
sharia-loving, sovereignty-sacrificing sell-out of U.S. 
interests, Harold Koh has been heard. [Yale Law School has compiled the blog posts, articles, and letters in support of Dean Koh here.] His confirmation hearing, which was chaired by Senator John Kerry (right) with Senator Richard Lugar (left) as the ranking Republican, just concluded before the Senate Foreign Relations committee (Kerry's and Lugar's statements are here). The hearing was no cakewalk, but Dean Koh's confirmation seems assured.
sharia-loving, sovereignty-sacrificing sell-out of U.S. 
interests, Harold Koh has been heard. [Yale Law School has compiled the blog posts, articles, and letters in support of Dean Koh here.] His confirmation hearing, which was chaired by Senator John Kerry (right) with Senator Richard Lugar (left) as the ranking Republican, just concluded before the Senate Foreign Relations committee (Kerry's and Lugar's statements are here). The hearing was no cakewalk, but Dean Koh's confirmation seems assured.Throughout, Dean Koh presented a compelling defense of his “transnational” approach to international relations and his vision of the United States’ place in the world in the next administration. (His answers to Senator Lugar’s written questions were entered into the formal record; an annotation is available here. Ron Slye's discussion of Koh's theory transnationalism is available at Foreign Policy.) In his oral testimony, several key themes emerged that will no doubt guide Dean Koh’s approach to the Legal Advisor in the promising event that he is confirmed:
¶ The U.S. is indelibly and unavoidably connected to the rest of the international community by a web of security, trade, diplomatic, commercial, historic, artistic, and familial relationships.
¶ The nations of the world, including our own, should respect and adhere to the international obligations they have taken on. In his words,
“this is not only the right thing to do, it is the smart thing to do.”
¶ We limit our ability to lead internationally and to demand compliance by other states—including rogue states such as North Korea—when we are perceived as disobeying or disrespecting international law. Our hard power is augmented by the soft power we wield. Our soft power is only as strong as our moral legitimacy.
¶ It is best to work through—rather than in opposition to—international organizations and institutions. We are not powerless to act unilaterally, but there are limits to how effective we can be if we do so.
¶ U.S. sovereign interests and national security are enhanced—rather than inevitably threatened—by our active engagement in international affairs and our participation in international law regimes addressed to transnational problems. Our sovereign power and influence are magnified when we work with allies and international institutions. Such partnerships
¶ It is best to work through—rather than in opposition to—international organizations and institutions. We are not powerless to act unilaterally, but there are limits to how effective we can be if we do so.
¶ U.S. sovereign interests and national security are enhanced—rather than inevitably threatened—by our active engagement in international affairs and our participation in international law regimes addressed to transnational problems. Our sovereign power and influence are magnified when we work with allies and international institutions. Such partnerships
“protect our sovereignty and make us safer.”
¶ The U.S. should partner with allies to address common security, environmental, criminal, public health, and economic threats, such as Somali piracy, climate change, swine flu, and the global economic meltdown. We should work to convince nations with which we have more complicated relationships to join these coalitions.
¶ Our foreign affairs power is also enhanced, and the U.S. will make better international and domestic policy decisions, when the executive and legislative branches work in partnership and when members of the minority political party have a voice in designing this policy as envisioned by our constitutional system. The Constitution’s
¶ Our foreign affairs power is also enhanced, and the U.S. will make better international and domestic policy decisions, when the executive and legislative branches work in partnership and when members of the minority political party have a voice in designing this policy as envisioned by our constitutional system. The Constitution’s
“checks and balances do not stop at the water’s edge.”
¶ International law—as expressed in our treaty obligations and customary international law—has historically and traditionally been an integral part of the U.S. legal system, subject to principles of constitutional supremacy.
¶ Foreign law and foreign court decisions, while in no way binding on the U.S. or U.S. courts, may have something of value to say about how to resolve legal and procedural problems that are common to the community of nations. We limit ourselves when we categorically ignore or reject them.
¶ International law is a tool that can be used to advance U.S. interests in
¶ Foreign law and foreign court decisions, while in no way binding on the U.S. or U.S. courts, may have something of value to say about how to resolve legal and procedural problems that are common to the community of nations. We limit ourselves when we categorically ignore or reject them.
¶ International law is a tool that can be used to advance U.S. interests in
- achieving world peace and security,
- establishing the rule of law worldwide,
- greasing the global economy, and
- improving the quality of life for the world’s populace,
thus
- opening up foreign markets to our goods,
- enhancing and disseminating the human and civil rights that are at the foundation of our constitutional framework, and
- ensuring that all the world’s people have a stake in a just, productive, and secure planet.
One quote summed up his testimony:
“International Law Is Not The Problem, It Is The Solution.”‘Nuff said.
