Resistance to International Law
Kal Raustiala writes and teaches in the areas of international law and international relations. He holds a joint appointment between the UCLA Law School and the UCLA International Institute, where he teaches in the Program on Global Studies. He is also director of the UCLA Ronald W. Burkle Center for International Relations (click here to read about this appointment). The Burkle Center is UCLA's primary academic unit that fosters interdisciplinary research and policy-oriented teaching on the role of the United States in global cooperation and conflict, and military, political, social and economic affairs.
Professor Raustiala's research focuses on international cooperation and conflict in areas such as environment, trade, armed conflict, dispute resolution, and intellectual property. Recent publications include "The Global Struggle Over Geographic Indications," European Journal of International Law (2007), "The Piracy Paradox: Innovation and Intellectual Property in Fashion Design" (with Chris Sprigman), Virginia Law Review (2006) and "Form and Substance in International Agreements", American Journal of International Law (2005), which won the 2005 Francis Deak Prize from the American Society of International Law. His current book about the extraterritorial reach of American law, Does the Constitution Follow the Flag?, will be published by Oxford University Press in May 2009.
Professor Raustiala has been a visiting professor at Harvard Law School, Columbia Law School, Princeton University, and the University of Chicago Law School. Prior to coming to UCLA he was a research fellow in the Foreign Policy Studies Program at The Brookings Institution, a Peccei Scholar at the International Institute for Applied Systems, and an assistant professor of politics at Brandeis University. A member of the Council on Foreign Relations and editorial board of International Organization, he is a frequent media contributor whose writing has been featured in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Financial Times, the New Republic, the New Yorker, the International Herald Tribune and Le Monde.
Question: How is the choice made to follow international law?
Take trade as an example. They want to have free trade and of course they can do it on their own. They can do it unilaterally but they don’t get the full benefit if other countries aren’t doing the same. They don’t have-- They want to see reciprocity and so they often use international law as a way to entrench that kind of reciprocity, make it so that the rules are clear, everybody understands, as countries resist international law for- also for a whole set of reasons. The most common is probably the idea that there are things that are within our domestic domain. We usually talk about it in terms of sovereignty so on the political right in this country we often see resistance to certain-- I mentioned the law of the sea before as an example. This is a treaty that the navy wants to see us enter in to--there’s a Law of the Sea Convention--but the resistance in the Senate is based on this idea that it’s impinging upon our sovereignty, our right to do what we want to do, and that resistance is very powerful in certain areas. So for a long time human rights treaties were not ratified by the United States because there was a fear that that was a back-door way to get at the South and the South’s treatment of African Americans, and that would be another way for the federal government to gain power against the states and for these kind of nefarious international types to start to control the U.S. So that theme runs through a lot of the resistance to international law.
Question: Is there resistance to international law in the United States?
Kal Raustiala: Oh, definitely, definitely. It’s still there and I don’t mean to denigrate it because I think there are areas where there’s something to it. Right. So we-- So on the left you tend to see people resisting free trade agreements. Typically, NAFTA right now has been a big issue on the campaign trail and there’s a concern that as we enter in to these free trade agreements well, what we’re really doing is we’re selling out the working person and we’re helping big capital or these kind of transnational firms, these multinational firms, and that we shouldn’t give up the right to control our environment laws, our labor laws and so forth. So you see the theme on the left, you see it on the right. The right is interested in other issues, climate change, the International Criminal Court, but both sides have this concern and it’s a very legitimate one. The balance-- The real question is the balance between what ought to be at the international level, what ought to be at the national level, what ought to be at the state level.
Question: Do the Democrats really want to renegotiate NAFTA?
Kal Raustiala: I would be really surprised if we went and re-negotiated it. I don’t think-- NAFTA is neither the greatest agreement ever nor a disaster. It’s kind of actually for the U.S. a fairly trivial- in economic terms a fairly trivial agreement so I would be surprised if we really re-negotiated it and in fact there’s resistance to NAFTA in Mexico and Canada. Nobody seems to really love NAFTA but I think a lot of it is campaign driven I imagine. It’s really hard to undo one of these big treaties. It can be done but it’s not easy.
Americans are particularly threatened by the loss of national sovereignty.
It's estimated that $68 trillion will pass down from Boomers to millennials. Here's how ultra-rich families can do the most amount of good with what they inherit.
- Approximately $68 trillion will pass from boomers to millennials over the next few decades in what's known as the Great Wealth Transfer.
- 90% of family wealth is gone by the time the third generation comes around, primarily due to familial conflict.
- Social capital advisor Richard Tafel suggests 4 steps families should follow so they transfer wealth in a way that does the most amount of social good.
The five stages of psychogenic death — aka, "give-up-itis."
- Give-up-itis or psychogenic death is a real and terrible condition, finds new research.
- People can die in as few as three days after a major trauma causes them to give up on life.
- There are 5 stages of give-up-itis.
A truly diverse society exudes open-mindedness, not just reluctant acceptance of differing viewpoints.
- While pluralism is considered a condition, toleration is the response to it. To recognize and accept a diverse range of perspectives on ethical views is to exhibit tolerance.
- Singapore Management University professor Chandran Kukathas points to toleration as a cornerstone of the classical liberal tradition. In fact, liberal thought arises from the reality that people disagree substantially on any number of things.
- The principle of toleration offers guidance in understanding what makes a good society, as well as how that society upholds conditions of pluralism and diversity.