Internalization through socialization

Duke Law Journal

Volumn 54, Issue 4, 2005, Pages 975-982

  Koh, Harold Hongju ^a  

^a YALE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33747871799     PISSN: 00127086     EISSN: 00127086     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. See Ryan Goodman & Derek Jinks, Toward an Institutional Theory of Sovereignty, 55 STAN. L. REV. 1749, 1750 (2003) (proposing "a sociological model of sovereignty" stemming from their "systematic reexamination" of the "questionable empirical assumptions about the nature of the state and its relation to the international order").
2. For a review of the evolution of this collaboration, see generally FOUNDATIONS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AND POLITICS (Oona A. Hathaway & Harold Hongju Koh eds., 2004).
3. For a compressed intellectual history, see Harold Hongju Koh, Transnational Legal Process, 75 NEB. L. REV. 181, 186-94 (1996) (comparing the history of domestic legal process scholarship with international legal process scholarship).
4. See generally MARTHA FINNEMORE, NATIONAL INTERESTS IN INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY (1996);
5. MARGARET E. KECK & KATHRYN SIKKINK, ACTIVISTS BEYOND BORDERS: ADVOCACY NETWORKS IN INTERNATIONAL POLITICS (1998);
6. ALEXANDER E. WENDT, SOCIAL THEORY OF INTERNATIONAL POLITICS (1999);
7. Martha Finnemore & Kathryn Sikkink, International Norm Dynamics and Political Change, 52 INT'L ORG. 887 (1998);
8. Martha Finnemore & Kathryn Sikkink, Taking Stock: The Constructivist Research Program in International Relations and Comparative Politics, 4 ANN. REV. POL. SCI. 391 (2001);
9. John Gerard Ruggie, What Makes the World Hang Together? Neo-utilitarianism and the Social Constructivist Challenge, 52 INT'L ORG. 855 (1998);
10. Alexander Wendt, Anarchy is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics, 46 INT'L ORG. 391 (1992).
11. For elaboration of the history of this debate, see Harold Hongju Koh, Why Do Nations Obey International Law?, 106 YALE L.J. 2599, 2615-34 (1997).
12. Id. at 2646.
13. Ryan Goodman & Derek Jinks, How to Influence States: Socialization and International Human Rights Law, 54 DUKE L.J. 621, 638 (2004).
14. See generally sources cited in Goodman & Jinks, id. at 626-27 n.9.
15. Goodman & Jinks, supra n. 1.
16. HEDLEY BULL, THE ANARCHICAL SOCIETY 13, 28-33 (1977):
17. f states today form an international society . . . this is because, recognising certain common interests and perhaps common values, they regard themselves as bound by certain rules in their dealings with one another . . . . [and] co-operate in the working of institutions such as the forms of procedures of international law, the machinery of diplomacy and general international organisation, and the customs and conventions of war.
18. For other writings in this vein, see generally ADAM WATSON, THE EVOLUTION OF INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY (1992);
19. MARTIN WIGHT, Collected Lectures of Martin Wight on International Theory at the London School of Economics, in INTERNATIONAL THEORY: THE THREE TRADITIONS (Gabriele Wight & Brian Porter eds., 1992);
20. Barry Buzan, From International System to International Society: Structural Realism and Regime Theory Meet the English School, 47 INT'L ORG. 327 (1993);
21. Andrew Hurrell, International Society and the Study of Regimes: A Reflective Approach, in REGIME THEORY AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 49 (Volker Rittberger ed., 1993);
22. James Mayall, International Society and International Theory, in THE REASON OF STATES: A STUDY IN INTERNATIONAL POLITICAL THEORY 122 (Michael Donelan ed., 1978).
23. Hurrell, supra note 10, at 59.
24. See generally Ryan Goodman & Derek Jinks, Measuring the Effects of Human Rights Treaties, 14 EUR. J. INT'L L. 171 (2003) (critiquing Hathaway, Do Human Rights Treaties Make a Difference?, infra);
25. Oona A. Hathaway, Do Human Rights Treaties Make a Difference?, 111 YALE L.J. 1935 (2002) (presenting the results of empirical research on the effectiveness of human rights treaties);
26. Oona A. Hathaway, Testing Conventional Wisdom, 13 EUR. J. INT'L L. 185 (2003).
27. Such scholars as Oona Hathaway, Andrew Guzman, and Kal Raustiala have begun looking into regime design questions as well.
28. José E. Alvarez, Do States Socialize?, 54 DUKE L.J. 961 (2005).
29. For a discussion of the different incentives of North Korea, Iraq, and the United States within the global human rights system, see generally Harold Hongju Koh, Jefferson Memorial Lecture: Transnational Legal Process After September 11th, 22 BERKELEY J. INT'L L. 337 (2004);
30. Harold Hongju Koh, On American Exceptionalism, 55 STAN. L. REV. 1479 (2003).
31. See generally Harold Hongju Koh, The 1998 Frankel Lecture: Bringing International Law Home, 35 HOUS. L. REV. 623 (1998) (describing the difference between legal, social, and political internalization).
32. Id. at 649-51 (discussing the concept of interpretive community).
33. See generally Goodman & Jinks, supra notes 1, 7, & 12;
34. Ryan Goodman & Derek P. Jinks, Filartiga's Firm Footing: International Human Rights and Federal Common Law, 66 FORDHAM L. REV. 463 (1997).