• Selected
• Entire List

Abstract:
There has recently been a striking and widespread use of governmental apologies as a way of rectifying or atoning for past historical injustices, such as past wartime atrocities, racial or religious discrimination, or the abuses of colonialism. This apology phenomenon has elicited extensive comment. Less scholarly attention has been paid, however, to the use of governmental apologies to resolve the more current international incidents and disputes with which foreign office diplomats and international lawyers are typically concerned. This article addresses the role of apology in the more usual conduct of international diplomacy and resolution of international differences, as well as its broader role in the international law of state responsibility.

Among the questions discussed in the article are: (1) What do we mean by an apology? (2) How prevalent is the use of apology in the conduct of diplomatic practice and what are some recent examples of such apologies? (3) What role does apology play as a formal remedy in the international law of state responsibility? (4) Can apologies influence the development of international law or otherwise have normative consequences? (5) Is the role of apology in international relations the same as in interpersonal or other contexts? (6) Why do governments apologize - or not apologize? (7) Does the recent proliferation of governmental apologies for historical injustices suggest that apologies are now likely to play an important part in how governments deal with current kinds of diplomatic problems and international differences as well? (8) Does apology deserve a more important part in our toolbox of international dispute resolution techniques? and (9) More broadly, what is the likely future role of apology in resolving international incidents, grievances and disputes?

apology, diplomacy, international law, international relations, U.S. foreign relations, state responsibility, international dispute resolution

Abstract:
This paper, the 2006 Wing-Tat Lee lecture at Loyola University Chicago Law School, notes the current questioning of the U.S. commitment to international law and argues for greater U.S. respect for its international obligations. The author suggests (1) why it is important that the U.S. comply with international law; (2) why it is important that the U.S. government have lawyers involved in foreign relations matters who are in a position to ensure that international law considerations are taken into account in decisions concerning foreign affairs; and (3) some of the qualities that we should look for in government international lawyers if they are adequately to perform these responsibilities. These qualities include respect for international law, an awareness of the limits of international law, legal imagination, a commitment to American principles and values, integrity and courage, and a sense of vision.

International Law, International Relations, U.S. Foreign Relations

Abstract:
This article addresses questions of U.S. international legal and space policy arising from current proposals of the U.S., Russia, China and India to establish national bases on the Moon, in part with the purpose of mining and bringing to Earth Helium-3 (He-3). He-3 is an isotope of helium that is available in quantity only on the Moon and could, as an ideal fuel for nuclear fusion reactors, furnish humanity a virtually unlimited source of safe, non-polluting energy for centuries to come. For example, it is estimated that 40 tons of liquefied He-3 brought from the Moon to the Earth – about the amount that could comfortably fit in the cargo bays of two of the existing U.S. space shuttles – would provide sufficient fuel for He-3-based fusion reactors to meet the full electrical needs of the U.S. – or a quarter of the entire world’s electrical needs – for an entire year. However, there is as yet no international consensus on whether, or how, any nation or private enterprise can exploit or acquire title to He-3 or other lunar resources. The article calls attention to what may become a “race to the Moon” to obtain He-3 and discusses: (1) the technical and economic prospects for the development of He-3-based energy; (2) the present legal situation concerning the exploitation of lunar resources such as He-3; and (3) policy options for the U.S. regarding the establishment of an international legal regime capable of avoiding conflict in the exploitation of He-3 and other lunar resources and facilitating the broad scale development of He-3-based energy.

International Law, Space Law, Moon Treaty, Outer Space Treaty, Helium-3, Lunar Resources, Lunar Exploration, Outer Space Resources, Nuclear Energy, Nuclear Fusion, U.S. Foreign Policy, U.S. Space Policy, International Organizations, International Regimes, International Cooperation, Common Heritage

Abstract:
This paper reviews and discusses the recent history of international human rights efforts, noting both its successes and failures; suggests some lessons that might be drawn from this experience, and proposes a number of steps we might take to promote wider respect for human rights.

In particular, the paper suggests an informal list of lessons which might be drawn from our international human rights experience thus far. These lessons include: (1) governments do count in making human rights effective; (2) governments do care about their human rights reputation; (3) government can be honestly inconsistent or ambivalent (4) we should do what we can even if it is only partially effective; (5) we should not get discouraged by the difficulty of achieving greater human rights observance; (6) money talks; (7) institutions and precedents tend to grow; (8) even the best motivated policies may have unintended consequences; (9)we should watch out for human rights "hijackers"; and (10) patience is a virtue. The paper discusses the challenges that remain and concludes with a "To Do" list of twenty proposals for action.

The paper is a shortened version of several of five lectures delivered as a course on "Rethinking International Humans Rights: What Have We Learned, Where Are We Going?", presented at the Tenth Anniversary Session on Human Rights of the Academy of European Law, held at the European University Institute in Florence, Italy, summer 1999. The lectures have been submitted for publication in the Oxford University Press Series of Collected Courses of the Academy of European Law.

A shortened version of another portion of the lectures dealing with the implications of the Kosovo intervention for the doctrine of humanitarian intervention, the laws of war, international criminal law, the role of the media and NGOs in humanitarian situations, and sovereignty and ethnic conflict has appeared in Richard B. Bilder, "Kosovo and the New Interventionism: Promise or Peril", Journal of Transnational Law & Policy, Vol. 9, No.1.

International Law, International Human Rights, Humanitarian Intervention, International Relations

Abstract:
This paper discusses: (1) how attitudes of trust and distrust affect nations' efforts to reach international agreement or other forms of international cooperation; (2) the factors that influence such attitudes of trust and distrust and how such attitudes can be changed; and (3) where distrust obstructs the reaching of international agreement, how such obstacles can be overcome.

The paper suggests that trust is a psychological device through which people, including diplomats and government officials, seek to manage the risks inherent in their cooperative and other interactions, including their international dealings. More specifically, the paper discusses the problem of risk in interpersonal and international relations, the concept of interpersonal and intergroup trust, the relevance of trust to the reaching of cooperation, an extensive survey of the factors which may affect trust or distrust, the interrelation of international law and trust, and hypotheses concerning the broader role of trust in international law and relations.

For the subsequent development of certain ideas in this paper, which is to be revised and updated, see RICHARD B. BILDER, MANAGING THE RISKS OF INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1981) and Richard B. Bilder, "Beyond Compliance: Helping Nations Cooperate" in D. SHELTON (ed). COMMITMENT AND COMPLIANCE: THE ROLE OF NONBINDING NORMS IN THE LEGAL SYSTEM (Oxford University Press, 2000), at p. 65.

international law, international relations, international agreement, international cooperation, risk management, trust

Abstract:
This paper presents an overview of Canada-U.S. dispute settlement experience; reviews the techniques, institutions and approaches through which the two countries have tried to deal with their differences; discusses some salient and recurrent problem areas in Canada-U.S. relations; and suggests some lessons which might be drawn from this experience.

The paper first discusses the concept of dispute-management and unique features of Canada-U.S. relations, quarrels and approaches to dispute-settlement. Focusing on specific dispute-settlement techniques, the paper examines in detail the two countries' extensive practice of arbitration, prior notification and consultation and joint commissions - in particular, the Canada-U.S. International Joint Commission. The paper then looks at how the two countries have dealt with differences arising in particular issue areas such as acid rain, trade, Great Lakes and other boundary water regulation and water quality, other boundary questions, Artic jurisdiction, extraterritorial and fisheries. The paper concludes by noting the distinct contributions of Canada-U.S. dispute-settlement experience to international law and international relations, commenting on some differences in attitude and perspective and continuing issues between the two countries, and suggesting ways for further developing the two countries' dispute-management arrangements and continued collaboration.

This paper is the integrated text of "The Claude T. Bissell Lectures on Canada-U.S. Relations" delivered at the University of Toronto, 1986-87.

international law, international relations, Canada-US relations, International Dispute Settlement

Abstract:
This paper explores the role of international law in Canada-US relations. It concludes that, while international legal considerations are only one among many types of factors that influence Canadian or US government policies and decisions, their relations must necessarily be carried out in the context of a broad network of essentially legal arrangements, institutions and procedures. Consequently, any student of Canada-US relations who seeks a comprehensive and realistic understanding of how the two countries deal with each other cannot afford to ignore the role played by international law.

More specifically the paper discusses a number of significant ways in which international law helps to shape and order the two countries' mutual relations. These include: (1) the core of basic legal principles, such as the inviolability of borders and sanctity of treaty that form the infrastructure of their relations; (2) the network of more than 200 treaties and agreements as well as many more informal arrangements and understandings which structure and facilitate the millions of transactions that occur and each year between the two countries and their citizens and businesses; (3) the important joint commissions, such as the historically innovative Canada-US International Joint Commission which play a major role in dealing with shared water, boundary, pollution and other problems; and (4) the NAFTA and other trade agreements between the two countries which structure for their trade and investment relations.

The paper also suggests that international law may have a special relevance for Canada-US relations and ways of dealing with each other due to such factors as: (1) their common legal culture and close relations between their legal communities; (2) their shared practical "common law" approach to problem-solving; and (3) the two countries' innovative development of a variety of "dispute-avoidance" mechanisms, principally through commitments to advance notification and consultation regarding emerging problems - commitments that are now pervasive in Canada-US agreements and understandings. Indeed, the paper suggests that this principle of advance notification and consultation may be on its way to becoming an expected and relied upon type of behavior - effectively a rule of local customary law - in the way the two countries deal with each other.

This paper was delivered at the Inaugural Conference of the Arthur Caplan Research Group in Canada - U.S. Studies at University College, University of Toronto.

International Law, International Relations, US-Canada Relations