Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T00:08:01.117Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Lawyering compliance with international law: Legal advisers in the ‘War on Terror’

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 May 2016

Fernando G. Nuñez-Mietz
Fernando G. Nuñez-Mietz*
Affiliation:
McGill University
*
*Correspondence to: Fernando G. Nuñez-Mietz, McGill University, 855 Sherbrooke Street West, Leacock Building 414, Montreal, QC, H3A 2T7, Canada. Author’s email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

According to rationalists and constructivists, compliance with international law occurs to the extent that states see non-compliance as unreasonable or wrong, respectively. An alternative account of compliance points to the practical difficulty of deciding to act contrary to international law. Here non-compliance is blocked rather than morally or instrumentally deterred. This article advances an organisational-process theory of this third kind. The explanatory mechanism lies in the constitutive rules of foreign policymaking, and points to the institutional function of legal advising. Under certain structural conditions (namely, lawyerised decision-making) legal advisers operate as the principal ‘agents of compliance’ within the state, bringing international law into the policymaking process and thus bridging the gap between foreign policy and legal expectations. The theory is applied to the interrogation programme implemented by the United States in the early years of the ‘War on Terror’ (2001–5). While initially violative of international legal standards, the programme eventually shifted towards compliance. Using process tracing, the case study provides fine-grained evidence that corroborates the explanatory power of organisational factors, in general, and legal advising, in particular.

Keywords

International Law ComplianceLegal AdvisersInternational Humanitarian LawWar on Terrorism
Type
Research Article
Information
European Journal of International Security , Volume 1 , Issue 2 , July 2016 , pp. 215 - 238
Copyright
© British International Studies Association 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See, for example, Oran Young, Compliance and Public Authority: A Theory with International Applications (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979); Keohane, Robert, After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984)Google Scholar; Keohane, Robert, ‘Reciprocity in International Relations’, International Organization, 40:1 (1986), pp. 1–27Google Scholar; Abbott, Kenneth, ‘Modern International Relations theory: a prospectus for international lawyers’, Yale Journal of International Law, 14 (1989), pp. 335–411Google Scholar; Guzman, Andrew, How International Law Works: A Rational Choice Theory (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 See, for example, Dai, Xinyuan, ‘Why comply? The domestic constituency mechanism’, International Organization, 59:2 (2005), pp. 363–398Google Scholar.

3 See, for example, Franck, Thomas, The Power of Legitimacy Among Nations (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990)Google Scholar; Checkel, Jeffrey, ‘Why comply: Social learning and European identity change’, International Organization, 55:3 (2001), pp. 553–588Google Scholar; Reus-Smit, Christian, ‘Politics and international legal obligation’, European Journal of International Relations, 9:4 (2003), pp. 591–625Google Scholar; Goodman, Ryan and Jinks, Derek, ‘How to influence states: Socialization and international human rights law’, Duke Law Journal, 54:3 (2004), pp. 621–703Google Scholar; Brunnée, Jutta and Toope, Stephen, Legitimacy and Legality in International Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010)Google Scholar.

4 Fisher, Roger, ‘Internal enforcement of international rules’, in Seymour Melman (ed.), Disarmament: Its Politics and Economics (Boston: The American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 1962), p. 106Google Scholar.

5 Ibid., p. 110.

6 See, for example, Burley, Anne-Marie and Mattli, Walter, ‘Europe before the court: a political theory of legal integration’, International Organization, 47:1 (1993), pp. 41–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Alter, Karen, ‘Who are the “masters of the treaty”? European governments and the European Court of Justice’, International Organization, 52:1 (1998), pp. 121–147Google Scholar.

7 See, for example, Legro, Jeffrey, ‘Which norms matter? Revisiting the “failure” of internationalism’, International Organization, 51:1 (1997), pp. 31–63Google Scholar; Cohen, Amichai, ‘Bureaucratic internalization: Domestic governmental agencies and the legitimation of international law’, Georgetown Journal of International Law, 36 (2005), pp. 1079–1144Google Scholar; Katyal, Neal, ‘Internal separation of powers: Checking today’s most dangerous branch from within’, The Yale Law Journal, 115:9 (2006), pp. 2314–2349Google Scholar; Carver, Richard, ‘A new answer to an old question: National human rights institutions and the domestication of international law’, Human Rights Law Review, 10:1 (2010), pp. 1–32Google Scholar.

8 Note that the job of a theory of compliance is to account for the gap between international law and state behaviour, not to explain the specific policy through which a state chooses to comply with its international legal obligations.

9 Goldsmith, Jack and Posner, Eric, The Limits of International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), p. 10Google Scholar; Guzman, How International Law Works, pp. 16–17.

10 For qualitative accounts of the role of legal advisers in policymaking in an extensive selection of countries, see Bilder, Richard, ‘The office of the legal adviser: the state department lawyer and foreign affairs’, The American Journal of International Law, 56 (1962), pp. 633–684Google Scholar; Merillat, H. C. L. (ed.), Legal Advisers and Foreign Affairs (Dobbs Ferry, NY: Oceana, 1964)Google Scholar; Yachi, Shotaro, ‘The role of the treaties bureau of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Japan’s foreign policy decision-making process’, The Japanese Annual of International Law, 31 (1988), pp. 82–93Google Scholar; Guillaume, Gilbert, ‘Droit international et action diplomatique: le Cas de la France’, European Journal of International Law, 2:1 (1991), pp. 136–147Google Scholar; Watts, Arthur, ‘International law and International Relations: United Kingdom practice’, European Journal of International Law, 2:1 (1991), pp. 157–164Google Scholar; Cassese, Antonio, ‘The role of legal advisers in ensuring that foreign policy conforms to international legal standards’, Michigan Journal of International Law, 14 (1992), pp. 139–170Google Scholar; Thelin, Krister, ‘Legal advisers to the Armed Forces: the Swedish Experience’, International Review of the Red Cross, 34 (1994), pp. 255–265Google Scholar; Young, Michael, ‘The role of the Attorney-Adviser in the U.S. Department of State: Institutional arrangements and structural imperatives’, Law and Contemporary Problems, 61:2 (1998), pp. 133–153Google Scholar; United Nations Office of Legal Affairs (eds), Collection of Essays by Legal Advisers of States, Legal Advisers of International Organizations and Practitioners in the Field of International Law (New York: United Nations, 1999)Google Scholar; Scharf, Michael and Williams, Paul, Shaping Foreign Policy in Times of Crisis: The Role of International Law and the State Department Legal Adviser (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010)Google Scholar; Dickinson, Laura, ‘Military lawyers on the battlefield: an empirical account of international law compliance’, The American Journal of International Law, 104:1 (2010), pp. 1–28Google Scholar; Rao, Neomi, ‘Public choice and international law compliance: the executive branch is a “they”, not an “it”’, Minnesota Law Review, 96 (2011), pp. 194–277Google Scholar; Cohen, Amichai, ‘Legal operational advice in the Israeli Defense Forces: the international law department and the changing nature of international humanitarian law’, Connecticut Journal of International Law, 26 (2011), pp. 367–413Google Scholar; Koh, Harold, ‘The State Department Legal Adviser’s Office: Eight decades in peace and war’, The Georgetown Law Journal, 100 (2012), pp. 1747–1781Google Scholar. See also the symposium on legal advisers in the Wisconsin International Law Journal, 23:1 (2005).

11 To use Eckstein’s terminology, this is a ‘crucial case study’ – see Eckstein, Harry, ‘Case study and theory in political science’, in Fred Greenstein and Nelson Polsby (eds), The Handbook of Political Science (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1975), pp. 79–138Google Scholar.

12 McDougal, Myres and Reisman, W. Michael, ‘International law in policy-oriented perspective’, in R. St J. Macdonald and Douglas M. Johnston (eds), The Structure and Process of International Law: Essays in Legal Philosophy, Doctrine and Theory (Boston: Martinus Nijhoff, 1983), pp. 103–129Google Scholar.

13 Byers, Michael, Custom, Power and the Power of Rules: International Relations and Customary International Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), pp. 207–210Google Scholar; Johnstone, Ian, ‘Treaty interpretation: the authority of interpretive communities’, Michigan Journal of International Law, 12 (1991), p. 374Google Scholar.

14 More on this in the ‘theoretical assumptions’ section later in the article.

15 More recent process-oriented approaches include the ‘managerial’ school (for example, Chayes, Abram and Chayes, Antonia Handler, The New Sovereignty: Compliance with International Regulatory Agreements (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1995)Google Scholar) and some constructivist accounts of international law (for example, Brunnée and Toope, Legitimacy and Legality in International Law).

16 Raustiala, Kal and Slaughter, Anne-Marie, ‘International law, International Relations and compliance’, in Walter Carlsnaes, Thomas Risse, and Beth A. Simmons (eds), Handbook of International Relations (SAGE, 2002), pp. 538–558Google Scholar.

17 Johnstone, ‘Treaty interpretation’, p. 418.

18 Scott, Shirley, International Law in World Politics: An Introduction (Boulder, CO: Lynne Reinner, 2004), p. 125Google Scholar.

19 Scott, Shirley, ‘Explaining compliance with international law: Broadening the agenda for enquiry’, Australian Journal of Political Science, 30 (1995), p. 296CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

20 Chayes, Abram, The Cuban Missile Crisis: International Crises and the Role of Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1974)Google Scholar.

21 Johnstone, ‘Treaty interpretation’.

22 Bilder, Richard and Vagts, Detlev, ‘Speaking law to power: Lawyers and torture’, The American Journal of International Law, 98 (2004), p. 694Google Scholar.

23 Paust, Jordan, ‘Criminal responsibility of Bush Administration officials with respect to unlawful interrogation tactics and the facilitating conduct of lawyers’, in Marjorie Cohn (ed.), The United States and Torture: Interrogation, Incarceration, and Abuse (New York: New York University Press, 2011), pp. 281–310Google Scholar.

24 Ribbentrop, for instance, was convicted at Nuremberg for having issued memoranda supporting the use of force against Norway, Denmark, and the Netherlands in 1940 (Bilder and Vagts, ‘Speaking law to power’, p. 694).

25 Goldsmith, Jack, The Terror Presidency: Law and Judgment inside the Bush Administration (New York: W. W. Norton & Co, 2009), p. 22Google Scholar.

26 Goldsmith, The Terror Presidency, pp. 96–7, 80; Harris, George, ‘The rule of law and the War on Terror: the professional responsibilities of executive branch lawyers in the wake of 9/11’, Journal of National Security Law and Policy, 1 (2005), p. 424Google Scholar.

27 The main international instruments discussed during the policymaking process were the Geneva Conventions (especially Common Article 3) and the Torture Convention. The pertinent provisions constitute also customary international law, and the main prohibitions against torture are considered peremptory norms.

28 United States Senate (Select Committee on Intelligence), Committee Study of the Central Intelligence Agency’s Detention and Interrogation Program (3 April 2014), Foreword, p. 6.

29 Memorandum from John Yoo and Robert Delahunty to William Haynes, Application of Treaties and Laws to al Qaeda and Taliban Detainees (draft) (9 January 2002), reprinted in Greenberg, Karen and Dratel, Joshua, The Torture Papers: The Road to Abu Ghraib (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), p. 49Google Scholar.

30 Memorandum from William Taft to John Yoo, Your Draft Memorandum of January 9 (11 January 2002). Unless stated otherwise, all memoranda referenced can be found on the National Security Archive of the George Washington University.

31 Memorandum from Jay Bybee to Gonzales, Alberto and Haynes, William, Application of Treaties and Laws to al Qaeda and Taliban Detainees (22 January 2002), reprinted in Greenberg and Dratel, The Torture Papers, pp. 81–117Google Scholar.

32 Memorandum from Alberto Gonzales to President Bush, Decision Re Application of the Geneva Convention on Prisoners of War to the Conflict with al Qaeda and the Taliban (draft) (25 January 2002), reprinted in Greenberg and Dratel, The Torture Papers, p. 119.

33 Bruff, Harold, Bad Advice: Bush’s Lawyers in the War on Terror (Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas, 2009), p. 125Google Scholar; Harris, ‘The rule of law’, p. 431.

34 Goldsmith, The Terror Presidency, p. 23.

35 Memorandum from Jay Bybee to John Rizzo (CIA Acting General Counsel), Interrogation of al Qaeda Operative (1 August 2002).

36 Memorandum from Jay Bybee to Alberto Gonzales, Standards of Conduct for Interrogation under 18 U.S.C. (1 August 2002) (hereinafter Interrogation I), pp. 172–217.

37 United States Senate (Committee on Armed Services), Inquiry into the Treatment of Detainees in U.S. Custody (20 November 2008), pp. xv–xvi.

38 Briefly stated for the purpose of this study, the doctrine asserts that, in times of war, the Commander-in-Chief powers vested in the President by the US Constitution cannot be curtailed by laws inferior to the Constitution – such as federal legislation or international law.

39 Interrogation I, p. 203.

40 Ibid., p. 204. This is contrary to well-established principles of criminal responsibility set forth at Nuremberg (see, for example, US v. Ohlendorf, et al., 1948) and codified in the CAT (art. 2(3)).

41 Goldsmith, The Terror Presidency, p. 144.

42 US Senate, Inquiry into the Treatment of Detainees, p. xvii.

43 Memorandum from Jerald Phifer to Michael Dunlavey, Request for Approval of Counter-Resistance Strategies (11 October 2002), reprinted in Greenberg and Dratel, The Torture Papers, pp. 227–8.

44 Memorandum from James Hill to Richard Myers, Counter-Resistance Techniques (25 October 2002), reprinted in Greenberg and Dratel, The Torture Papers, pp. 223–4.

45 Memorandum from William Haynes to Donald Rumsfeld, Counter-Resistance Techniques (27 November 2002), approved by Rumsfeld on 2 December 2002, reprinted in Greenberg and Dratel, The Torture Papers, p. 237.

46 Ibid., p. 237.

47 Mayer, Jane, The Dark Side: The Inside Story of How the War on Terror Turned into a War on American Ideals (New York: Doubleday, 2008), p. 220Google Scholar.

48 US Senate, Inquiry into the Treatment of Detainees, p. xviii.

49 Ibid., p. xix.

50 Memorandum from Alberto Mora to Albert Church, Statement for the Record: Office of General Counsel Involvement in Interrogation Issues (7 July 2004) (hereinafter Mora memo), p. 7, emphasis added.

51 Mora memo, pp. 7–8.

52 Memorandum from Donald Rumsfeld to James Hill, Counter-Resistance Techniques (15 January 2003), and Memorandum from Donald Rumsfeld to William Haynes, Detainee Interrogations (15 January 2003), both reprinted in Greenberg and Dratel, The Torture Papers, pp. 238–9. Also US Senate, Inquiry into the Treatment of Detainees, p. xxi.

53 Memorandum from John Yoo to William Haynes, Military Interrogation of Alien Unlawful Combatants Held Outside the United States (314 March 2003) (hereinafter Interrogation II).

54 Memorandum from Major General Jack Rives to Mary Walker, Final Report and Recommendations of the Working Group to Assess the Legal, Policy and Operational Issues Relating to Interrogation of Detainees Held by the U.S. Armed Forces in the Global War on Terrorism (5 February 2003) (hereinafter Air Force JAG memo I), para. 3; Memorandum from Maj. Gen. Jack Rives to Mary Walker, Comments on Draft Report and Recommendations of the Working Group to Assess the Legal, Policy and Operational Issues Relating to Interrogation of Detainees Held by the U.S. Armed Forces in the Global War on Terrorism (6 February 2003) (hereinafter Air Force JAG memo II), paras 1.a and 1.c; Memorandum from Brigadier General Kevin Sandkhuler to Mary Walker, Working Group Recommendations on Detainee Interrogations (27 February 2003) (hereinafter Marine Corps JAG memo), para. 1; Memorandum from Rear Admiral Michael Lohr to Mary Walker, Comments on the 6 March Detainee Interrogation Working Group Report (13 March 2002), paras 2, 11, 13, and 17.

55 Air Force JAG memo I, paras 2 and 3; Air Force JAG memo II, para. 1.c; Marine Corps JAG memo, para. 3.b.

56 Air Force JAG memo I, para. 4; Air Force JAG memo II, para. 2; Marine Corps JAG memo, para. 3.c. Also memorandum from Major General Thomas Romig to Mary Walker, Draft Report and Recommendations of the Working Group to Access the Legal, Policy and Operational Issues Related to Interrogation of Detainees Held by the U.S. Armed Forces in the War on Terrorism (3 March 2003), para. 4; memorandum from Rear Admiral Michael Lohr to Mary Walker, Working Group Recommendations Relating to Interrogation of Detainees (6 February 2003) (hereinafter Navy JAG memo I), para. 3.

57 Air Force JAG memo I, para. 5; Air Force JAG memo II, para. 1.b; Marine Corps JAG memo, para. 3.d; Navy JAG memo I, para. 4.

58 Mora memo, p. 20.

59 Mayer, The Dark Side, pp. 233–4.

60 Working Group Report on Detainee Interrogations in the Global War on Terrorism: Assessment of Legal, Historical, Policy, and Operational Considerations (6 March 2003) (hereinafter Working Group Report), reprinted in Greenberg and Dratel, The Torture Papers, pp. 241–359. The list of recommended techniques excluded waterboarding.

61 Mora memo, p. 21, fn. 15.

62 Working Group Report, p. 241.

63 Memorandum from Donald Rumsfeld to James Hill, Counter-Resistance Techniques in the War on Terrorism (16 April 2003), reprinted in Greenberg and Dratel, The Torture Papers, pp. 360–5.

64 Goldsmith, The Terror Presidency, p. 154.

65 Mora memo, p. 21.

66 Goldsmith, The Terror Presidency, p. 21.

67 See, for example, Bradley, Curtis and Goldsmith, Jack, ‘Customary international law as federal common law: a critique of the modern position’, Harvard Law Review, 110:4 (1997), pp. 815–876CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Goldsmith, Jack, ‘Should international human rights law trump US domestic law?’, Chicago Journal of International Law, 1:2 (2000), pp. 327–339Google Scholar; Goldsmith, Jack, ‘Liberal democracy and cosmopolitan duty’, Stanford Law Review, 55:5 (2003), pp. 1667–1696Google Scholar.

68 This is not to deny significant differences between Jack Goldsmith and John Yoo on constitutional law, for example in relation to Presidential powers vis-à-vis Congress.

69 Goldsmith The Terror Presidency, p. 167.

70 Ibid., pp. 148–9.

71 Ibid., p. 151.

72 Morrison, Trevor, ‘Stare decisis in the Office of Legal Counsel’, Columbia Law Review, 110 (2010), pp. 1448–1525Google Scholar; Bruff, Bad Advice, p. 81.

73 Goldsmith, The Terror Presidency, p. 146.

74 Ibid., pp. 157–8.

75 Ibid., p. 153.

76 Letter from Jack Goldsmith to Scott Muller (27 May 2004).

77 US Senate, Committee Study, Executive Summary, pp. 116, 134–9.

78 Goldsmith, The Terror Presidency, pp. 161–4.

79 Memorandum from Daniel Levin to James Comey, Legal Standards Applicable Under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2340–2340A (30 December 2004) (hereinafter Interrogation III).

80 Interrogation III, p. 17.

81 Goldsmith, The Terror Presidency, p. 130.

82 McNeal, Gregory, ‘Organiational culture, professional ethics and Guantanamo’, Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, 42 (2009), pp. 125–149Google Scholar.

83 Memorandum from William Taft to John Yoo, Your Draft Memorandum of January 9 (11 January 2002), and attached letter; memorandum from Colin Powell to Alberto Gonzales and Condoleezza Rice, Draft Decision Memorandum for the President on the Applicability of the Geneva Convention to the Conflict in Afghanistan (26 January 2002), reprinted in Greenberg and Dratel, The Torture Papers, p. 124; memorandum from William Taft to Alberto Gonzales, Comments on Your Paper on the Geneva Convention (2 February 2002), reprinted in Greenberg and Dratel, The Torture Papers, p. 133.

84 Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, establishing the applicability of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions to Guantánamo detainees. The initial ruling (District Court of Columbia) is from November 2004, still later than the policy reversal.

85 Mayer, The Dark Side, p. 213.

86 Goldstein, Judith, Khaler, Miles, Keohane, Robert, and Slaughter, Anne-Marie (eds), Legalization and World Politics (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2001)Google Scholar.

87 Downs, George, Rocke, David, and Barsoom, Peter, ‘Is the good news about compliance good news about cooperation?’, International Organization, 50:3 (1996), pp. 379–406Google Scholar.