Last week, I argued that the CIA waterboarders would not necessarily be entitled to the defense of entrapment by estoppel even if they relied on the Office of Legal Counsel's insistence that waterboarding was legal. As I pointed out, the defense requires reliance to be reasonable -- and a court cannot simply infer reasonableness from the fact that the...
The Pew Research Center just published a fascinating new poll on the future of immigration in the United States. Here are a few of the key results: If current trends continue, the population of the United States will rise to 438 million in 2050, from 296 million in 2005, and 82% of the increase will be due to immigrants arriving...
As this it my final post in connection with this discussion of my book, How International Law Works, I want to thank Opinio Juris for giving me this opportunity, and the commentators for so thoughtfully sharing their opinions. Much of the discussion has been about the methodology used in the book, and as I have had my say...
Kent’s Imperative, a blog devoted to intelligence studies, has a very interesting post on how lawyers are trained and whether or not such training helps or hurts in intelligence analysis. (This is a topic they have previously discussed here.) The newest post, though, has a film studies twist: namely, what can be learned from the classic film Twelve Angry Men. The...
Eighty-eight years ago, Oliver Wendell Holmes authored one of his most famous opinions in the case of Missouri v. Holland, purporting to settle the question of whether states' rights limited the treaty power. His rejection of any such "invisible radiation" from the Tenth Amendment has engendered dedicated defenders and passionate critics ever since, from Senator Bricker, up through more...
In How International Law Works I grapple with the question of how states make the trade-off among the various features of agreements, including hard and soft law. I am not sure I agree that Kal’s empirical puzzle actually exists, but let’s assume it does and see why that might be so. A very similar question is discussed in...
Andrew’s reply makes a good point. I share his skepticism about my proffered explanation for the choice of hard law over soft law. The problem is that we have an empirical puzzle that demands explanation, and we lack a good one. If there is a better explanation than the one I put forward, I have not yet seen it. The...
Kal’s comment raises some interesting questions about the nature of international law and what it means to be a treaty rather than soft law. He juxtaposes hard law and soft law, as I did in my opening comments. Let me suggest another comparison – hard law in the international context and domestic law. The contrast here is...
The conversation thus far has been interesting, but I want to bring up some new issues that we have not yet discussed. I have long been interested in how international agreements work, in part because since the end of the Second World War (at least) international agreements have been the most significant source of international law, and in part...
I confess that I am a little surprised by the focus on methodological issues that has emerged in the discussion of my book. My intention was to adopt non-controversial rational choice assumptions widely used across both law and the social sciences. This approach to modeling behavior is dominant, for example, in both economics and political science. Equally...
I thank everybody for their comments regarding the reputational posts. I think this conversation has been excellent up to now and hope this post will add some substance as we approach, what seems to me, to be some agreement regarding the reputational element of rational choice. Before I begin, let me also be clear about my terminology. I agree...
Thank to Jeff for this thought provoking comment and his kind words about my book. I am not sure that my response addresses all his concerns, but I hope it at least speaks to some of them! Let me first state that while I agree with much of what Jeff has stated in his post, I do not agree when...
