What Does Robert Zoellick Have to Say About the Role of Law?

Well, not much, but even though we don’t often utter the word “law” in the same sentence as “World Bank President,” doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t. Especially during a transition in leadership.

The World Bank affects the rule of law through its governance initiatives at the domestic level and the web of borrower agreements at the international level. Clinton-era Bank President James Wolfensohn had made “governance” a central feature of World Bank programs, which in turn put rule of law projects into the spotlight. Law is both a focus of the Bank’s work (rule of law programs) and an enabler of its work (the regulation of loan agreements with sovereign states, etc.). What do we know of Bob Zoellick’s views?

It is little surprise that there is not much written about Zoelick and the rule of law, in general, or international law, in particular. However, various bloggers have written about his foreign policy views more generally and those comments touch upon some aspects of international law. Daniel Drezner had a post when Zoellick became the Deputy Secretary of State. (And this one regarding his World Bank nomination.) Anupam Chander also weighed-in recently, quoting those of criticize Zoellick for being more of a unilateralist or mercantilist than a multilateralist or free trader.

However, Zoellick himself wrote briefly about international law in his essay A Republican Foreign Policy, from the January/February 2000 issue of Foreign Affairs. He wrote:

…Republicans judge international agreements and institutions as means to achieve ends, not as forms of political therapy. Agreements and institutions can facilitate bargaining, recognize common interests, and resolve differences cooperatively. But international law, unlike domestic law, merely codifies an already agreed-upon cooperation. Even among democracies, international law not backed by enforcement mechanisms will need negotiations in order to work, and international law not backed by power cannot cope with dangerous people and states. Every issue need not be dealt with multilaterally.

Moreover, there are of course various quotes from Zoellick that make mention of the idea of the rule of law, such as this one from the press conference concerning his nomination:

Too many lands, particularly in Africa, are denied opportunity because of disease, weak health care and child mortality, hunger and poor agricultural infrastructure, lack of good schools, discrimination against girls and women, unsound governance and corruption, the want of property rights and the rule of law, and endangered environment…

However, that really doesn’t tell us much. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that I am curious about his conception of the role of law as opposed to his acknowledging the importance of the rule of law. What does he think law should do? What is its role (if any) in fostering development? Is the rule of law primarily about the defense of property rights or is a broader program to secure human rights warranted? And so on…

Answering such questions would play a part in resolving actual budgetary issues at the Bank, such as whether funds should be focused on the reform of the securities market or of the judicial system in a particular country. Should the Bank spend more energy on changing the structure of the property regime or of the criminal justice system? To make such policy decisions and budgetary prioritizations requires a conception of how law plays a role in a society’s evolution.

I don’t think that we have ever really focused on such questions when thinking about the who should run the World Bank. But it is time that we started.