ASIL, Presidential Candidates & International Law

Those of you who follow our linkroll may already have noted that the American Society of International Law (ASIL) has launched a great new website for the U.S. Presidential Campaign. Dubbed “International Law 2008” ASIL’s project has three components: (1) a collection of the candidates’ policy statements and speeches on topics related to international law; (2) candidate responses to an ASIL survey on their views on international law and U.S. foreign policy; and (3) a selection of ASIL Executive Committee members’ views on what the “big” international law issues are for the next administration.

Obviously, the collection of candidate statements and speeches will make for great “one-stop shopping” for those interested in international law in the upcoming election. More interesting, however, are the candidate surveys. ASIL asked each Republican and Democratic presidential candidate 14 questions:

1. What is your general view of the role of international law in U.S. foreign policy?
2. Please provide an example of how this general view might play out in a specific policy context.
3. What priorities or goals would you establish for the development of existing or new international legal regimes?
4. What priorities would you set for Senate advice and consent on treaties currently lacking U.S. Ratification?
5. What would be your administration’s international trade policy?
6. Would you seek any modification of existing trade agreements?
7. What would be your approach to the WTO and future global trade talks?
8. What should be the U.S. policy toward the ICC?
9. What would be your strategy for shoring up the Nuclear Non-Proliferation regime and regulation of other weapons of mass destruction?
10. What policies would you have toward global climate change regulation?
11. What are your views regarding the role of international law and institutions in shaping international efforts to combat terrorism?
12. In this context, do you see a need to amend or modify the laws of war, including the Geneva Conventions?
13. What views do you have regarding any legal constraints on U.S. use of force?
14. What are your views of the doctrine of pre-emptive use of force?

So far only 4 Democratic candidates have responded—Clinton, Edwards, Kucinich, and Obama. Read through their responses and you get a surprising sense of how in at least three of the campaigns there is a relatively sophisticated understanding of international law and international legal processes (one campaign—and I’ll let readers guess which one—seems to be a bit less familiar with international law rhetoric and terms of art in their response). It’s a significant sign I think of the rising profile of international law on the domestic political landscape. Nor do the candidates shy away from specific positions or proposals; in the responses you’ll see Clinton emphasizing the need for the United States to fix the Human Rights Council and join CTBT and CEDAW, or Edwards wanting the U.S. to renegotiate NAFTA and join the ICC, while Kucinich talks about signing Kyoto and Obama indicates his intention to reinvigorate the Geneva Conventions and have the U.S. join UNCLOS.

I really hope that these four won’t be the only candidates to contribute to ASIL’s project (for example, I can’t imagine the site without Senator Biden’s survey response). And, of course, given that ASIL identifies itself as a non-partisan institution, the Republican side really does need to come through with a few responses of its own.

For my part, I’d love to see the campaigns move to the next level. Perhaps we here at Opinio Juris could host as guest bloggers those international lawyers advising a campaign to blog about what makes their candidate stand out on issues of international law and international relations. So, let’s consider that an invitations to those of you—and I know there are some among our readers—who are advising a presidential campaign on international law. Until then, check out the ASIL project–it’s worth a few minutes of your time if you’re a fan (or perhaps even a critic) of international law.