• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Harold Koh on International Norms and “Skeptical” Nation-States

    The Administration’s nominee for Legal Adviser to the State Department, Harold Koh, has explained – in his 1998 Frankel Lecture, later published in the Houston Law Review – that one of the Adviser’s roles is to “help maintain . . . habitual compliance with internalized international norms.” He has also praised what he describes as “sympathetic people from within government,” who take it upon themselves not only to ensure compliance with previous norms, but to promote new ones. It is therefore relevant to examine Koh’s views on the origin and legal validity of those norms.

    According to Koh, who in 2002 summarized and refined his 1998 lecture, the process of norm creation has five stages. First, “understanding the nature of the global problem.” Second, the rise of networks of NGOs and civil society organizations to campaign against the problem as they have defined it. Third, these networks develop norms of behavior related to the problem. Here, both the “government norm sponsors” (those “sympathetic people” in government) and “transnational norm entrepreneurs” (famous and sympathetic people not in government) drive the process.

    The fourth step is particularly interesting. Koh calls it the “horizontal process”: it is a “legal process” that transpires at the intergovernmental level. The goal of the “horizontal process” is to “creat[e] a law-declaring forum that can operate at the global level” and “declare an international norm.” To quote Koh:

    This horizontal process can transpire either at a formal intergovernmental level or at informal state-to-state gatherings, anywhere that the governments of say, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, and China, for example, might all gather to talk about arms control or the development of international law.

    No one would argue that formal intergovernmental negotiations carry no weight: this is the process that creates treaties. But it is remarkable that Koh gives the same weight to “informal state-to-state gatherings” as he does to the negotiation of treaties. To take only the most obvious point, treaties require the advice and consent of the Senate. On the other hand, the government of the U.S. – personified, one must presume, in the President, or his representatives – can talk informally to anyone about arms control, or international law, or any other subject, at any time they chose, with no oversight at all. If “informal state-to-state gatherings” are a “legal process,” this implies that the informal, international word of the President or his representatives is law, and therefore incumbent upon the State Department’s Legal Adviser to enforce. This is a radical claim.

    And Koh makes it regularly. In 1998, for instance, he argued that “law-declaring fora thus include treaty regimes; domestic, regional, and international courts; ad hoc tribunals; domestic and regional legislatures; executive entities; commission of international publicists; and nongovernmental organizations.” Thus, for Koh, treaties do count. But the Congress of the United States, the U.S.’s domestic legislature, receives the same weight as the European Parliament, a foreign and regional one. NGOs become a “law-declaring” forum, just like the Supreme Court. And “executive entities” – any entity belonging to the Executive Branch – also have the power to create norms, which are law. If confirmed, those entities would include Harold Koh, as Legal Adviser to the State Department.

    The slipperiness here revolves around Koh’s use of the term “norm.” By giving equal weight to treaties and norms, Koh simultaneously elevates the importance of NGOs and those “sympathetic people” in government, while taking a casual attitude towards both the legal validity of “informal state-to-state gatherings” and the Constitutional role of the Senate. The purpose of this, ultimately, is to get to Koh’s fifth stage, “vertical process.”

    This is “the process by whereby rules” – notice that Koh does not write “treaties” – “negotiated among governments . . . and interpreted through the interaction of transnational actors . . . [are] internalized into domestic statutes, executive practice, and judicial systems . . . .” In other words, governments talk. That declares a norm. This norm is interpreted by sympathetic scholars and NGOs around the world, and finally used by “those seeking to create and embed certain human rights principles . . . into the domestic law of even skeptical nation-states.”

    Koh here is writing, among others, of himself; the skeptical nation-state is, of course, the United States. He is defining a process that he believes can and should be used to evade and overcome what he regards as a serious problem: the refusal of consecutive U.S. administrations, and the U.S. Senate, to give favorable consideration to the treaties he supports and the policies he favors. Under his process, the U.S. can be driven into compliance with whatever he supports without the need to procure the advice and consent of the Senate. When his confirmation hearing begins, let us hope that the Senate will not be as casual in their treatment of him.

    Posted in Legal [slideshow_deploy]

    3 Responses to Harold Koh on International Norms and “Skeptical” Nation-States

    1. Amanda,TX says:

      This is very distrubing!!! Obama is spreading what is basically considered his UnAmerican and UnConstional believes to encompass all areas of his administration. When and where is it going to stop? …A tax cheat as head of IRS, A Defense Secretary that can only use the word "terriost" when speaking about Americans, A VERY VERY PRO-Choice Health Director, and the list goes on.

    2. Israel, Illinois says:

      This guy is dangerous! I pray the senate does not confirm this radical for the sake, sanity and safety of our country. America is the greatest country this globe has seen. To even think of the radical changes this Koh person like is to accept that we are no longer a powerful and sovereign nation but a weak appeasing nation. Koh has no business whatsoever even being allowed into the White House. He is a disgrace and a 'menace' to society! Block his confirmation; please!!!

    3. Marc, NY says:

      I've made a couple of comments about the list of questions for Harold Koh you and Steven Groves authored, at the following:


      Regarding this post, I think it is unclear that Koh gives "the same weight to 'informal state-to-state gatherings' as he does to the negotiation of treaties." I am trying to find a copy of the 1998 lecture/Law Review article of Koh's referenced here to read for myself, but from what I've read here it seems that Koh is talking about norms – not legal requirements. "Norms" would be a term that includes all possible influences on the law-making process, formal, informal, binding or not, and this is the key – because something happens in practice does not mean it is (or should be) binding law.

      Commenting on procedure, in other words, it seems that Koh is entirely correct. The real issue (which goes unaddressed here) would be the substantive norms (policies, treaties, laws, etc) that Koh supports or does not support.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.