Inaugural Year Fellows 2009-2010

At-Large

Thematic

At-Large Fellows:

Marta Cartabia is Professor of Constitutional Law in the Faculty of Law of the University of Milano-Bicocca, where she has taught the Jean Monnet Course in European Constitutional Law since 2005. She received her Ph. D. in Law from the European University Institute in Florence, Italy, and was a clerk in the Italian Constitutional Court from 1993-1996. She is Senior Expert for Italy of the Fundamental Rights Agency Legal Experts (FRALEX). She is a member of the editorial boards of several journals including Quaderni Costituzionali, Revista Española de derecho europeo and Rivista Italiana di Diritto Pubblico Comunitario. Cartabia is the author or editor of several books - including most recently I diritti in azione (2007) – and articles including “Prospects for National Parliaments in EU Affairs,” in Genesis and destiny of the European Constitution (2007), and Europe and Rights: Taking Dialogue Seriously, in "European Constitutional Law Review" (Volume 5, Issue 01, February 2009, pp 5-31).

Research Project

“The emerging of ‘new fundamental rights’”

In recent years, national and international courts are the theater of relevant legal changes affecting the most crucial sectors of social life: many “new fundamental rights” have been created and they cover a wide range of subjects, including all the bio-ethics issues, the environmental emergency, family law, immigration law, the role of religion in the public sphere and the all the intercultural issues, indeed. In a word, the topical questions are all tackled by Courts in Europe sub specie of “new rights”. Even in the United States, where the judicial expansion of fundamental rights has a longer history through interpretations of substantive due process and equal protection, recent examples show that the trend has continued and perhaps intensified.

The research aims at discovering the conceptual, legal and procedural matrix of the new rights. From a conceptual point of view, they seem to be rooted in the intersection between the right to privacy (or right to self-determination), and the principle of equality or non discrimination. Within legal reasoning, an important role seems to be played by judicial uses of foreign and comparative law. The recognition of new rights also has significant consequences on the use of different standards of review and burdens of the proof. Procedurally, the effect of rules that facilitate the participation of so-called “special interests” in fundamental rights litigation is worth considering carefully. The method of research will focus on analysis of judicial decisions.

Meir Dan-Cohen holds the Milo Reese Robbins Chair in Legal Ethics in the School of Law, and is an Affiliate of the Department of Philosophy, at the University of California, Berkeley. He has also served on the law faculties at Columbia University and Tel-Aviv University. He received his LL.B. from the Hebrew University and clerked for the Supreme Court of Israel before coming as a Fulbright Fellow to the United States, where he received an LL.M. and J.S.D. from the Yale Law School. Dan-Cohen is the author of Harmful Thoughts: Essays on Law, Self, and Morality (2002) and Rights, Persons, and Organizations: A Legal Theory for Bureaucratic Society (1986), and has published numerous articles in the areas of criminal law and legal and moral philosophy.

Research Project

A number of influential schools of thought converge on the view that human beings are self-creating. On this constructive view, the self is the largely unintended by-product of individual actions and collective practices, including those of law and morality. The recognition that we are the products as well as the authors of our norms affects the meaning of such foundational terms as responsibility, autonomy, and dignity. What precisely we’re responsible for, how far our autonomy extends, and what merits respect, all crucially depend on what we take the self to be and where its boundaries lie. But since these terms and their corresponding practices participate in constituting the self, the boundary they track is in part their own creation. The constructive view thus complicates our normative agenda. In devising behavior-guiding norms we must glimpse their effects on who we are as well: what subjects will emerge from the practices and activities generated by a particular set of norms? And what considerations ought to guide this constructive aspect of our normative engagements? In previous studies I have pursued these themes piecemeal. The year at the Institute affords an opportunity to expand these studies and consolidate them.

Moshe Idel (Joint Fellow with The Straus Institute for the Advanced Study of Law & Justice) is Max Cooper Professor in Jewish Thought, Department of Jewish Thought at Hebrew University, Jerusalem, and Senior Researcher at the Shalom Hartman Institute. Born in 1947 in Romania, he arrived in 1963 to Israel and has lectured since 1975 at the Hebrew University. He received the Israel Prize for Jewish Thought in 1999, the Emmet Prize in 2002, and is a member of the Israeli Academy since 2006. He has served as visiting Professor at the JTS of America, UCLA, Yale, Harvard, Princeton, University of Pennsylvania, and College de France. Among his publications are Old Worlds, New Mirror, On Jewish Mysticism and Twentieth-Century Thought, (Penn UP, 2010), Kabbalah: New Perspectives (Yale UP 1988), Absorbing Perfections: Kabbalah and Interpretation (Yale UP 2002), and Ben: Sonship and Jewish Mysticism (Continuum, 2007).

Research Project

I distinguish between three major modes of thinking in Judaism: the Biblical, the Rabbinic and the Speculative. Each emerged in different millennia: the first in the first millennium BCE, the second in the first millennium CE, the third in the second millennium CE. While the first deals with two major topics: the sacred history and the commandments, which means what happened and what should be done, the second deals mainly with how it should be done, characteristic of the Rabbinic, legalistic thought. The third mode is characterized by asking other questions: why. Speculative theories emerging during the Middle Ages, address the concerns of the two earlier modes, attempting at supplying rationales for the commandments, within broader religious worldviews.

During my tenure at the Straus Institute I shall concentrate my inquiries to the dynamics of the concatenation between the three modes of Jewish thought, emphasizing the intellectual superstructures that were added upon the legalistic structures, especially by thinkers who were on the one hand legalistic figures and on the other hand Kabbalists or philosophers. I shall be concerned especially with the thought of the anonymous Sefer ha-Qanah, a Byzantine 14th century Kabbalistic commentary on the commandments, and on that of the 16th century R. Joseph Karo.

Carol M. Rose is the Ashby Lohse Professor of Water and Natural Resource Law at the University of Arizona Rogers College of Law, and the Gordon Bradford Tweedy Professor Emeritus of Law and Organization and Professorial Lecturer in Law at Yale Law School.  She joined the Yale faculty in 1989, and the Arizona faculty in 2006.  Professor Rose teaches property, land use, environmental law, natural resources law, and intellectual property law. Her publications include Perspectives on Property Law (3rd edition), with Robert Ellickson and Bruce Ackerman (2000); and Property and Persuasion: Essays on the History, Theory and Rhetoric of Ownership (1994). She is a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Professor Rose received her B.A. from Antioch in 1962, her M.A. from the University of Chicago in 1963, her Ph.D. in History from Cornell in 1969, and her J.D. from the University of Chicago in 1977.

More about Carol M. Rose

Research Project

I am hoping to complete a book manuscript (with Richard Brooks) on racially restrictive covenants - their history and what they tell us about the relationships between social and legal norms.

I am also expecting to be continuing some work at the intersection of property rights, environmental law and development.

 

Thematic Fellows:

Gráinne de Búrca is Professor of Law at Fordham Law School since 2006.  Prior to that she was Professor of EU Law at the European University Institute from 1998-2005 and lecturer in law at Oxford University from 1990-1998. Her field of expertise is broadly in EU law, with particular focus on constitutional issues of European integration, European human rights law and transnational governance. She is co-editor of the OUP book series Oxford Studies in European Law, and co-author of the textbook EU Law, which is currently in its fourth edition. 

More about Gráinne de Búrca

Research Project

Gráinne de Búrca’s research while at the Straus Institute will explore the ways in which the European project of integration-through-law has changed over time and will examine the distinctive model of transnational governance which the European Union has developed. While the growth of ‘new’ and softer forms of governance in recent years has been notable, the central place of law and the key role of the European Court of Justice has not significantly diminished. It has, however, changed in important ways. The research will examine how the external dimension of EU governance has intensified over the last two decades, as the EU’s interest in playing a more significant global role has grown. The ambiguous identity of the EU as an international actor, the place of law and the relationship between political and judicial activity in shaping different aspects of this identity will be examined.

Andrew Hurrell is Montague Burton Professor of International Relations at Oxford University and a Fellow of Balliol College. His research covers theories of international relations, with particular reference to international law and institutions; global and regional governance; and the history of thought on international relations. He also has a long-standing interest in Latin America and in the role of developing countries in international society. Publications include: On Global Order: Power, Values and the Constitution of International Society (2007);  Inequality, Globalization and World Politics (1999, co-edited with Ngaire Woods); and Order and Justice in International Relations (2003, co-edited with Rosemary Foot and John Gaddis).

Research Project

“Provincializing Westphalia and the Emergence of Global International Society”

My research focuses on emerging powers and global governance. This follows directly from my 2007 book On Global Order: If this is how global governance has evolved, what have been the roles, positions and policies of emerging powers? How far has their behavior been in line with the expectations of either institutional or systemic liberalism of the 1990s? How, if at all, is their position today different from that of rising or revisionist powers in early periods? The project focuses on two countries, Brazil and India, and three regimes (WTO, nuclear proliferation, and climate change).

The research addresses three central questions. First, to what extent have these countries looked to international institutions as potential ‘pathways to power’? Second, what have been the strategies that they have employed within institutions to achieve their preferred outcomes – inter-state bargaining coalitions; negotiating techniques; transnational coalitions with NGOs; issue framing (especially use of arguments relating to both substantive and procedural justice); and insider activism (exploiting specific procedures within institutions, especially informal norms and grouping). And third, what explains the choice of particular strategies: domestic interest group pressure; external structural constraints and incentives; or institutional adaptation (both instrumental learning and the possibility of deeper enmeshment and socialization)?

During my year at the Straus Institute I plan to take forward this agenda through a broader historical examination of the processes by which Western ideas of international order and global governance have been transposed into different national and regional contexts and of the mutual constitution of ideas and understandings that have resulted from that interaction. The research will examine and evaluate the sorts of international society norms and global governance practices that have been, or might be, pressed both by emerging powers and by other social forces -- as the balance of global power becomes more open, as the structure and stability of global capitalism become once more matters of serious political contestation, and as all states and societies are forced to confront shared global problems that will increase the demand for new forms of governance and cooperation.

Robert O. Keohane is Professor of International Affairs, Princeton University. He is the author of After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy (1984) and Power and Governance in a Partially Globalized World (2002). He is co-author (with Joseph S. Nye, Jr.) of Power and Interdependence (third edition 2001), and (with Gary King and Sidney Verba) of Designing Social Inquiry (1994). He has served as the editor of the journal International Organization and as president of the International Studies Association and the American Political Science Association. He won the Grawemeyer Award for Ideas Improving World Order in 1989 and the Johan Skytte Prize in Political Science in 2005. He is a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the National Academy of Sciences, and the American Philosophical Society, and he is a Fellow of the American Academy of Political and Social Science.

Research Project (View Current Research Paper)

My scholarly research has focused mostly on international regimes that regulate activity from world trade to accounting standards or arms control. I am interested in why they are created by states, how they operate, and under what conditions they are effective. More broadly, I am interested in how global governance operates – governance that increasingly involves NGOs and private firms, with increasing transparency. At the Straus Institute I intend to explore two different aspects of this ongoing research.

First, my work on institutions has led me to ask about institutional design. What does our knowledge, limited as it is, about how institutions operate and what makes them effective suggest about how designers of such institutions should structure them? I would like to be able to extract some meaningful precepts for institutional design from our existing knowledge. Specifically, I am interested in the design of climate change mitigation regimes after 2012, when the Kyoto Protocol regime expires, but by 2009-10 I may have extended my empirical inquiries to other issue-areas.

Second, I have a continuing and increasing normative interest, as reflected in my work on accountability, legitimacy, and democracy in global governance. I have written a paper with two colleagues on “Democracy-Enhancing Multilateralism,” and by 2009-2010 we may be turning the paper into a book. These normative and design interests clearly intersect, and also link my work to the Global Administrative Law project at NYU, directed by Benedict Kingsbury and Richard Stewart.

Benedict Kingsbury is Murry and Ida Becker Professor of Law and
Director of the Institute for International Law and Justice at New York University School of Law (iilj.org).  With Richard Stewart, he initiated and directs the IILJ's Global Administrative Law Research Project, a pioneering approach to issues of accountability, transparency, participation and review in global governance.  He also directs NYU Law School's Program in the History and Theory of International Law, with Robert Howse and Global Professor Martti Koskenniemi; and served as Chair of the Law School's Graduate Division 2007-09.  He is a New Zealand citizen.  Kingsbury previously held a permanent teaching position at Oxford University (where he earlier completed an M.Phil in International Relations and a D.Phil in Law), and has been a visiting professor at Harvard Law School, the University of Tokyo Law Faculty, the University of Padua, and the University of Paris-I (Pantheon-Sorbonne). Kingsbury's research and publications reflect a commitment to a broad, theoretically-grounded approach to international law, closely integrating work in legal theory, political theory, history, and global governance. 

Research Project

Benedict Kingsbury’s research will focus on developing, and then applying, a theoretical account of which entities in global governance should be regarded as public entities, and thus as subject to the procedural requirements of the emerging global administrative law (transparency, due process, reason-giving, etc). Such entities are subject to GAL requirements, but on the same grounds they also receive a certain deference from other actors in global governance. These other actors give legal effect to, or at least give legal weight to, their substantive administrative legal actions (for example, if an injured skater sues a skating rink, and the skating rink’s defense is that it complied with the design and safety standards of the international skating association, what weight should a national court give to those standards?)

Law – especially public law -- has in many national societies a distinct normative quality of publicness, which refers to the claim of law to stand in the name of the whole society and to speak to that whole society even when any particular rule may in fact be addressed to narrower groups. Publicness can be given more precise meaning by distilling public law values from different national and international traditions: legality, rationality, proportionality, rule of law, etc. It will be argued that adherence to these components of publicness is increasingly required for international and transnational bodies setting norms and affecting individuals in global governance. A wider theoretical idea is that international law is increasingly becoming the law not simply among states, but among such public entities: that is, international law is inter-public law. This research will apply these ideas to specific problems in global governance. Some parts on global administrative law will likely be co-authored with Richard Stewart.

A second project concerns the production, use and significance of indicators, particular quantitative ordinal rankings, as a technology of global governance. This project on Global Governance Through Indicators brings together social scientists, normative theorists, and public lawyers. Benedict Kingsbury’s work uses global administrative law ideas to consider who participates in or should influence the production and use of particular indicators, how this power should be channeled and controlled, and other strategies such as resistance, gaming and creation of counter-indicators. 

Jan Klabbers was educated in international law and political science at the University of Amsterdam, and obtained a doctorate from the same university in 1996 (with distinction). Since 1996, he has been teaching at Helsinki University, most recently as Professor of International Organizations Law. He also directs the Academy of Finland Centre of Excellence in Global Governance Research. Main publications include The Concept of Treaty in International Law (Kluwer, 1996) and An Introduction to International Institutional Law (CUP, 2002; second edition in preparation). His forthcoming monograph is titled Treaty Conflict and the European Union (CUP, 2008).

Research Project

“International Public Authority: Towards a Constitutionalist Approach”

It would seem to be undeniable that the exercise of public power in international affairs should somehow be subject to control. Proposals to give effect to this idea take several forms: one distinct approach (with variations) is to insist on the responsibility of international institutions under international law; a second is the emergence of Global Administrative Law; and a third is the insistence on there being, somehow, a set of constitutional or would-be constitutional norms to keep international institutions in check.

Yet, whatever their merits, these three approaches all encounter problems when those who exercise public power feel they have a mission to accomplish: often considerations of effectiveness and efficiency inspire those who exercise public power to have the ends justify the means (UN sanctions form a case in point). In such a case, the legal framework (be it in terms of responsibility, administrative law, or constitutionalism) is all too easily circumvented.

The aim of the current project will be to complement legal thought (deontology) with an approach based on virtue ethics and the character traits of those who exercise public power. Unorthodox as this may sound, it is not completely unprecedented: in jurisprudence, Lon Fuller’s ‘internal morality of law’ comes close enough; public administration scholars have developed notions concerning bureaucracies as conserving values beyond effectiveness and efficiency; and in moral philosophy, the work of someone like Onora O’Neill is a good example of an approach integrating principles with virtue.

Eventually, the aspiration is to develop a ‘constitutionalist’ approach to public authority in global affairs. This differs from constitutionalism pur sang in that it does not expect too much from abstract standards external to actors, and comes closer to what Koskenniemi has referred to as ‘constitutionalism as mindset’ (albeit via a different route).

David Kretzmer, LL.B, LL.M (Jerusalem), Dr. Jur. (York, Canada), Dr. Jur. h.c. (Potsdam), is Professor Emeritus of International Law at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and Professor of Law at the Transitional Justice Institute, University of Ulster and the Academic Centre for Law and Business, Ramat Gan. From 1995-2002 he was a member of the UN Human Rights Committee under the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, serving as vice-chairperson in 2001 and 2002. Kretzmer's main fields of research are constitutional law, human rights and international humanitarian law. His books include The Occupation of Justice: The Supreme Court of Israel and the Occupied Territories (SUNY Press, 2002); The Concept of Human Dignity in Human Rights Discourse (edited together with E. Klein) (Kluwer International, 2002) and The Legal Status of the Arabs in Israel (2nd edition (Arabic), 2002).

More about David Kretzmer

Research Project

“International Monitoring and Enforcement of Human Rights Standards”

The attempt to "internationalize" protection of human rights had to grapple with three fundamental issues:

1. Adoption of internationally recognized human rights standards;
2. Monitoring of state compliance with these standards;
3. Enforcement of the standards in cases of non-compliance.

There has been enormous and impressive advancement on the first issue. Alongside the two International Covenants, which were adopted in 1966 and came into force ten years later, a wide range of international human rights conventions have been adopted. On the other two issues the advancement has been far less impressive. There is still a wide deficiency gap in monitoring and enforcement, which largely reflects weaknesses in the international system. States seem fairly happy to subscribe to lofty international standards of human rights so long as they are not called to task for failing to comply with them.

International monitoring of human rights compliance is carried out on two levels: by political bodies, foremost amongst which are the defunct UN Commission on Human Rights Commission and its successor, the Human Rights Council; and by the more professional treaty bodies. The most prominent amongst the latter is the Human Rights Committee, which monitors compliance by states with their obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

David Kretzmer’s research agenda relates to both levels of international monitoring. During his stay at the Straus Institute he will be concentrating on the work of the Human Rights Committee. This research, which is part of a project to be carried out in collaboration with Professor Eckart Klein of Potsdam University, will include an historical study of the Committee, showing how its work changed radically after the Cold War ended, and a critical evaluation of the Committee’s role in international human rights monitoring and enforcement.

Daryl Levinson is the Fessenden Professor at Harvard Law School, where he teaches and writes primarily about constitutional law and theory.  He is a faculty fellow of the Harvard Project on Justice, Welfare, and Economics, and last year won the Sachs-Freund teaching award at the law school.

More about Daryl Levinson

Research Project

I anticipate working on a book project, tentatively entitled "Law for States," about the relationship between international and constitutional law. I believe this relationship is in important respects closer, and potentially more generative, than is conventionally appreciated. 

Held up to the benchmark of domestic law, international law is commonly perceived as a distinctively dubious or degraded form of law. After all, international law has no centralized legislature or hierarchical court system to create, revise, or specify the application of legal norms. It lacks a super-state enforcement authority capable of coercing the compliance of recalcitrant states. And, out of deference to state sovereignty, it is said to be limited to a system of "voluntary" obligations, contingent upon state consent.

Constitutional law is seldom subject to similar doubts. Yet
constitutional law, too, lacks a centralized legislature or judiciary
capable of authoritatively specifying and settling contestation over the meaning and application of legal norms. Also like international law, constitutional law lacks an enforcement authority capable of coercing the compliance of powerful political actors. And in much the same way as international law, constitutional law purports to impose constraints on the "sovereign" and attempts to legitimate these constraints by invoking the consent of the sovereign who is bound. In sum, all of the features of international law that lead lawyers and theorists to question its legitimacy or efficacy are shared by constitutional law.

This is hardly a coincidence. Both international and constitutional law are "law for states"--in contrast to the ordinary domestic law that is created and enforced by states. The respects in which both
international and constitutional law differ from ordinary domestic law follow from the distinctive aspiration of public law regimes to
constrain the behavior of state institutions, and the distinctive
difficulty they face of not being able to rely fully on these same state
institutions for implementation and enforcement. The ambition of the book is to explore these common difficulties and the resources both constitutional and international law have marshaled to overcome them. It is in large part an exercise in intellectual arbitrage, exploring what international law (and international relations theory) has to teach constitutional theorists and the other way around.

Gianluigi Palombella is Professor of Legal Philosophy at the University of Parma ( Italy). He received his Ph.D and J.D. from the Scuola Superiore di Pisa, where he taught in the Faculty of Law, until 1997. He has been a visiting fellow at several universities worldwide, including Yale, Northwestern, UNSW (Sydney), and Senior Professorial Fellow at the EUI (Florence). On the boards of numerous research programs in Italy and abroad, as well as the editorial boards of several specialist journals, he has authored some eight books, translated in other languages, on legal thought, democracy, fundamental rights, European and comparative constitutionalism, including more recently L'autorità dei diritti (The Authority of Rights 2002) and  Dopo la certezza (After Certainty, 2006). Among his most recent publications, The Rule of Law, Democracy and International Law (Ratio Juris, Dec. 2007); The rule of law beyond the State (I*Con, July 2009) and the volume Relocating the Rule of Law (Oxford 2009) which he co-edited (with Neil Walker).

Research Project

I come to the issues identified in the Orientation Paper from the perspective of legal theory and jurisprudence. One feature of “Global Governance” is the existence of networks and non-hierarchical interactions which often cut themselves free from formal legal ties and governmental control. They have attained a specific gravity which is having a major impact on the international system.

What role, if any, does law play in such an environment? How might one conceptualize the relationship between these new forms of international governance and law and legal institutions? What meaning does (or should) the concept of the ‘rule of law’ have when it detaches itself from State Centered discourse and migrates to the more amorphous zone of international governance. In answering these, and related, questions I will be building on my earlier work which reconstructs the notion of the rule-of-law as a relational equilibrium between law-as-justice and law-as-power.

From this perspective a second feature of global governance emerges: International Law is typically understood as having developed as a transactional instrument, a regulative fabric engendering diffuse administrative law, a super partes domain of community obligations -- the means of negotiated governmental policies or a transmission belt for internationalized regulatory layers. I will be interested in exploring the extent to which international law, considered through the prism of Global Governance, may also be understood as autonomous and non-instrumental -- irreducible to regulatory functions or political teleology.

Finally, as Global Governance mapping develops, one “thick” answer to the problem of its avoidance of the ‘rule-of-law’ has been to re-write countervailing commitments in terms of universal values and constitutional structures. My third concern would be to explore the extent to which this invites a novel understanding of the public character of the international sphere. How is the “public” in public international law to be framed? Does it, should it, embody Global Governance practices? And how would this redefinition impact our conception of the “good” for a universal community? Perhaps “thinner” concepts such as fairness may better serve the community.

Beth Simmons is Clarence Dillon Professor of International Affairs at Harvard University.  She received her PhD. from Harvard University in  the Department of Government.  She has taught international relations, international law, and international political economy at Duke University, the University of California at Berkeley, and Harvard.  Her book, Who Adjusts? Domestic Sources of Foreign Economic Policy During the Interwar Years, 1924-1939, was recognized by the American Political Science Association in 1995 as the best book published in 1994 in government, politics, or international relations.  She has worked at the International Monetary Fund with the support of a Council on Foreign Relations Fellowship (1995-1996), spent a year as a senior fellow at the United States Institute of Peace (1996-1997), and a year in residence at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences at Stanford.  She currently serves as Director of the Weatherhead Center for International Affairs at Harvard, and has recently finished a book entitled Mobilizing for Human Rights: International Law in Domestic Politics (forthcoming 2009, Cambridge University Press) which shows that ratification of human rights treaties has had an appreciable positive influence on human rights practices in many countries around the world.

Research Project

I will be working on two major research projects while at the Straus Institute. The first looks at the development of the law, processes, and institutions that have developed over the last two decades relating to the international arbitration of investment disputes between foreign multinational firms and host governments. This project will look at the patterns of citations, the sources of law, and the backgrounds of litigants, counsel, and arbitrators to develop a clearer picture than what is now currently available on the increasingly common use of international arbitration to settle investment disputes. One of my goals in this project is to assess the extent to which international arbitration is perceived as effective and legitimate by the "litigating"' parties as well as the broader communities of investors and citizens they represent.

I am also launching a new project on international cooperation to address transnational crime. This is a theoretical and empirical investigation into the actual geography of cooperation that has developed among various state agents (police, investigators, prosecutors, state ministries) to prosecute alleged international/transnational criminal actors and to suppress their activities. The working hypothesis is that international anti-crime cooperation requires a high degree of trust between cooperative agents. Trust itself may be related to legal or cultural differences between countries, but may also be facilitated by repeat but fairly low visibility transactions.

Richard B. Stewart (David Friedman Fellow) is University Professor at New York University, where he directs the Hauser Global Law School Program and the Center on Environmental and Land Use Law.  His scholarship and teaching focus on environmental law and policy and administrative law and regulation, including global administrative law and climate change regulation and finance. During 1989-1991 Stewart served as Assistant Attorney General for Environment and Natural Resources at the U.S. Department of Justice, where he led the prosecution of Exxon for the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill. He was formerly Chairman and currently serves as Advisory Trustee of Environmental Defense Fund.

Research Project

Professor Stewart will be conducting research for a book on Global Administrative Law (GAL), quite possibly in collaboration with Benedict Kingsbury. Topics include the following: (1) overview of the development of GAL in response to the rise of global regulatory governance; (2) critical examination of the key GAL mechanisms of transparency, participation, reason-giving and review; (3) analysis of the notion of “administration” in global regulatory governance and the implications for adapting domestic administrative law tools to global regulatory decision making; (4) the role of the GAL mechanisms in addressing disregard by global regulatory bodies of weak interests and values in relation to three basic governance strategies for addressing that problem, decisional participation, accountability mechanisms, and other responsiveness-promoting measures; (5) the adoption and role of GAL mechanisms and norms in various types of global administrative bodies performing different types of functions and the decisions of global and domestic courts and tribunals, including the role of GAL in relations between global regulatory bodies and with domestic administrations; (6) conceptual and normative foundations of GAL in relation to regulatory administrative efficacy, rights protection, global rule of law, global and domestic democracy, and global constitutionalism.