One further side note to the discussion of Roger’s article in Virginia journal on Nobel Prize winners … I see from some random Reuter’s story on Yahoo news that that actress Naomi Watts is considering signing up to play Jody Williams in a film on her life:

LOS ANGELES (Hollywood Reporter) – Naomi Watts is in negotiations to star in “My Name Is Jody Williams,” a drama based on the life of the Nobel Prize-winning campaigner against landmines….  Brash and somewhat controversial, Williams famously calledPresident Bill Clinton a “weenie” for not signing the land mine ban.  The Universal project will be written and directed by Audrey Wells (”Under the Tuscan Sun“).

I wonder how this sort of activity fits into norm entrepreneurship?  In the politics of the international ban campaign, people were of extremely mixed views on celebrity sponsorship and activism.  One the one hand, many people favored it - not precisely star-struck, though many of them were, but quite hard-headed about the advantages of celebrity attention.

I apologize for arriving late to the party; I have only just had a chance to read Professor Ring’s fascinating article completely through.  There are many reasons why I would come to this article already predisposed to like it - I started out life as an international tax lawyer, for example, and I am also an unapologetic defender within the international law academy of robust democratic sovereignty.  Having read the actual article, I am impressed far beyond any tendencies to, um, ‘confirmation bias’.  It’s a terrific piece, well argued, and provocative.  I am going to simply put down some reactions, in no particular order and, this being the blogosphere, no particular overall argument in mind.  Just reactions.

Both Professor Brooks and Professor Christians have identified important strands and tensions in the consideration of international tax, sovereignty, global relations among states, and universal commitments to humanity.  Just reading their comments inspires me to continue researching these questions.  Their observations tap into two significant unresolved issues of international tax and international relations: (1) How should the reality of politics, power, and decision making affect our interpretation of political system design?  For example, if decisions depend on the accommodation, interaction, and power dynamics of a variety of interest groups and epistemic groups, and rely less on democratic debate – do we have a democracy?  Is it relevant?  What is the meaning of the state and its democratic structures in that world?  And (2) How do we assess and determine the nature and source of our duties and commitments to each other, whether between states, or among individuals generally?

Professor Ring frames sovereignty as responsive to the basic relationship between people and government and thereby attempts to redeem the concept from its current status as “rhetorical camouflage” in tax policy debate.   Her analysis presents a timely and important contribution and reflects the growing attention among tax scholars to the reality that, as in other regulatory areas, decision making power in taxation is no longer lodged in the sovereign state but is increasingly shifting to national and transnational legal and epistemic networks.   Prof. Ring concludes that sovereignty provides some unique and vital connection between the governors and the governed, but I am more convinced by her analysis that sovereignty serves mostly as a reflexive shield against global legal pluralism.   Before we can determine the degree to which this shield is necessary or useful, we need to enhance our understanding about how much of what we consider to be domestic tax law derives in fact from national and transnational legal and non-legal regimes.

Diane Ring’s piece is, to borrow an analogy from Al Purdy, one of Canada’s finest and most popular poets, like a good jazz combo:  it has a dominant unifying idea, tells a number of stories simultaneously, keeps a firm hand on the underlying themes, and allows each theme to echo through each story.  The dominant focus is the role of sovereignty claims in the area of international tax:  this story, particularly as it is told by Ring in this wonderfully rich, well-crafted piece, should be of interest not only to tax scholars, but also to international law scholars, international relations scholars, and scholars interested in international politics.

The international tax problems of today are typically beyond the scope of a single nation to solve. However, the prospect of multinational problem solving, often under the auspices of an international organization, unleashes objections grounded in sovereignty.  Despite widespread reliance on sovereignty arguments, little attention has been directed at what is meant by sovereignty and what place it has in international tax policy.  This article contends that a loss of tax sovereignty undermines both significant functional roles played by a nation-state (revenue and fiscal policy) and important normative governance values (accountability and democratic legitimacy).  Whether these limitations are severe enough to demand that a sovereign state recall its taxing powers from an international body (or not surrender them initially) depends on the nature of the powers in question and the necessity for a coordinated global response.

I read Roger’s article with complete fascination - what a marvelous and painstaking research task! - and just wanted to add one practical comment about lobbying and the Nobel Prize.  I’ve been close to one Nobel Prize in my life, the 1997 prize to the international campaign to ban landmines (ICBL) and Jody Williams.  The experience has led me to two conclusions - first, that the making of Nobels is, like sausages, not for the witness of the faint of heart or the naively idealistic.  Second, I have some real questions as to the effect of the Nobel Prize, or at least a badly-timed Nobel Prize, on the cause advocated by prize winner.

Professor Alford is to be congratulated on his insightful piece regarding the impact of the Nobel Peace Prize on the development of international law.  The article analyzes 20th Century global norm formation through the revelatory filter of Peace Prize history.  Professor Alford’s innovative take on that history gives the lie to any popular conception of the Peace Prize as an annual pacifist beauty contest decided according to ad hoc criteria.  Instead, it describes an almost teleological evolution of the Prize through five distinct Zeitgeist phases: a “Pacifist Period” (1901-1913) (during which Prize winners largely focused on outlawing war and establishing a global legal order relying on arbitration to settle disputes); a “Statesman Period” (1917-1938) (where more conservative honorees directed their efforts primarily toward institutionalizing the accomplishments of the first phase and began to focus on humanitarian issues); a “Humanitarian Period” (1944-1959) (whose winners concentrated more exclusively on humanitarian issues — such as developing the laws of war and helping refugees); a “Human Rights Period” (1960-1986) (where the work emphasis of the Laureates underscored the importance of international human rights law for the cause of peace); and a “Democracy Period” (1987-present) (where the predominate aim of recipients was to establish democratic institutions for the realization of peace).

Everyone knows about the Nobel Peace Prize, but virtually no one studies it. We all assume that Nobel Laureates are influential, but seldom do we try to gauge that influence. My article does both, arguing that Nobel Peace Prize Laureates have been influential norm entrepreneurs who have dramatically shaped the face of modern international law.

The foundation for the article is a theory of international relations known as constructivism. Constructivism is a theory that posits the rather obvious point that state interests are not fixed but ever changing. It further posits that norm entrepreneurs play a significant role in the emergence, cascading, and internalization of international norms. There have been numerous articles that have provided support for this proposition, but to my knowledge no scholar has attempted to systematically analyze the history of modern international law from the perspective of constructivism. This article is the first step toward such an analysis.

In order to test the hypothesis, the article does two things. First, it tags every single Nobel Lecture ever delivered by a Nobel Peace Laureate and identifies every major topic addressed in every Nobel Lecture. This was no mean feat.

Second, the article systematically analyzes every single Nobel Peace Prize Laureate with an eye toward their contribution to the development of international law. It was one of the most enjoyable and difficult experiences of my professional life. What emerges is a clear and unequivocal picture: the story of international law is the story of hundreds of individuals and organizations who have slowly, patiently, and successfully built this edifice of the law of nations that appears so familiar to us today.

Professor James Hathaway has adeptly exposed the Janus-faced agendas of the Trafficking and Smuggling Protocols, revealing a human rights deficit as the sum effect of these transnational codes.  At the core of his argument lies an assertion that stricter border controls and legal constraints on labor migrants and refugees codified in the protocols–under the guise of security concerns–lead to more slaves, overt claims of combating trafficking notwithstanding. In this brief commentary, I want to highlight how increased state restrictions on unauthorized human mobility lead to migrant and refugee smuggling, and more importantly, how this smuggling and wider migration industry, in turn, increases trafficking levels in a more subtle, indirect way than the ones describe in his article.

It is doubtful that the advent of the Trafficking Protocol deserves anything approaching the nearly unanimous support it has received from those committed to the promotion of international human rights. To the contrary, the Trafficking Protocol has enabled governments to hive off a tiny part of the global problem of slavery as the focus of international attention and resources, leaving the overwhelming majority of slaves to depend on largely irrelevant and ineffective supervisory structures. Governments invoked the Trafficking Protocol to recast the duty to end slavery as best pursued through antitrafficking efforts, allowing states to claim the moral high ground in the fight against slavery despite the irrelevance of the new commitments made to most slaves.

The Virginia Journal of International Law is delighted to continue its partnership with Opinio Juris this week in this online symposium featuring three articles recently published by VJIL in Vol. 49:1, available here.

On Tuesday, James Hathaway, Dean of the Melbourne Law School, will discuss his article, The Human Rights Quagmire of “Human Trafficking”. Dean Hathaway’s article takes a critical look at the international community’s recent efforts to fight human trafficking through the Trafficking Protocol. Hathaway argues that the international fight against human trafficking is more fundamentally in tension with core human rights goals than has generally been recognized. Hathaway then examines the underlying reasons for the absence of meaningful and effective anti-human trafficking protections, highlighting the development and influences behind the current means employed and offers a perspective on a different approach without harmful externalities. Professor David Kyle of UC Davis will be the respondent.

On Wednesday, Professor Roger Alford of Pepperdine University School of Law will discuss his article, The Nobel Effect: Nobel Peace Prize Laureates as International Norm Entrepreneurs. In his article, Professor Alford presents the history of modern international law from the perspective of the constructivist theory of international relations. His article applies the constructivist theory of international relations to argue that Nobel Peace Prize Laureates have been profoundly instrumental as norm entrepreneurs in the emergence, cascading, and internalization of international law norms. Professor Gregory Gordon of the University of North Dakota School of Law and Anne Kjelling, Head Librarian at the Norwegian Nobel Institute, will be the respondents.

On Thursday, Professor Diane Ring of Boston College Law School will discuss her article, What’s at Stake in the Sovereignty Debate?: International Tax and the Nation-State. Professor Ring examines what precisely is meant by sovereignty and what place it has in international tax policy. Her article contends that a loss of sovereignty undermines both significant functional roles played by a nation-state (revenue and fiscal policy) and important normative governance values (accountability and democratic legitimacy). Professor Kimberly Brooks of McGill University and Professor Allison Christians of the University of Wisconsin Law School will be the respondents.

We encourage you to join in the discussion online this week. When the symposium concludes, we hope that you will keep in contact with us through our website to continue the conversation.