The Normalization of Foreign Relations Law

By Sitaraman, Ganesh; Wuerth, Ingrid | Harvard Law Review, May 2015 | Go to article overview

The Normalization of Foreign Relations Law


Sitaraman, Ganesh, Wuerth, Ingrid, Harvard Law Review


III. FOREIGN RELATIONS LAW AS ORDINARY LAW

Perhaps the biggest concern about normalization is that treating foreign relations as akin to ordinary domestic law would undermine the important justifications for exceptionalism: expertise, speed, secrecy, flexibility, error costs, and the nature of the subject matter. In this Part, we evaluate these justifications and show that the case for exceptionalism is weak. Foreign affairs issues, it turns out, raise the same competing separation of powers values that arise in the domestic context, and the purported differences between foreign and domestic affairs are often overstated.

A. Expertise

Perhaps the strongest justification for executive power, vis-a-vis Congress and the courts, is that the executive branch has greater expertise on foreign affairs issues than the other branches. (235) The argument has a number of components. First, the executive simply knows more about what is happening in other countries. (236) Second, the executive has greater institutional capacity--in terms of staff, materials, and background--to evaluate and consider international issues. (237) Third, judges are thought to be particularly bad at addressing foreign affairs issues because they are generalists with little expertise in the subject matter, (238) courts only engage in these issues "episodic[ally]," (239) and the sources used (treaties, customary international law, etc.) are unfamiliar. (240) Thus, scholars have argued that judges should defer to executive decisions because the executive "tracks relations with foreign states" more closely than other branches and is therefore "in a better position to predict whether a particular act of deference to foreign interests" will be beneficial or harmful to the United States. (241) Finally, some have argued that the courts do not have the institutional competence or resources to "track the evolution of international norms that govern the meaning of the terms" in foreign relations law. (242) On this argument, vague terms like "declare war" change over time in international law and practice, and the executive is best suited to interpret these changes.

But it is not obvious how the expertise justification is different in kind (or even in degree) from the executive's comparative expertise in domestic affairs. It is undoubtedly true that members of the executive branch know more about events in other countries than do judges or even Congress, but it is equally true that they know more about food and drug policy, environmental policy, banking regulation, and Medicare reimbursements. Nor is it satisfactory to respond that foreign affairs require "political" judgment rather than "technocratic" judgment. Although there are surely gradations, it is hardly clear that the decision to regulate smoking under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act was "technocratic," (243) while the negotiation and implementation of the Basel III accords on financial regulation was "political." (244) Similarly, the executive bureaucracy has greater institutional resources--in terms of staff, funding, and the like--to monitor and direct foreign affairs. But this is no different from the situation in domestic affairs. Indeed, one--if not the central--purpose and justification for the New Deal administrative state was that executive branch bureaucrats would be expert policymakers who would have greater competence, knowledge, and resources than members of the other branches, and would therefore be better at setting public policy. (245) And yet, in the domestic context, the legal system does not grant ill-defined constitutional power to the executive on claims of expertise. Rather, the Administrative Procedure Act provides a series of nuanced processes and participatory mechanisms that at once enable and constrain executive branch power.

The claims of judicial incompetence are equally inapposite. If the fact that judges are generalists should disqualify them from adjudicating foreign relations issues, it should also disqualify them from adjudicating most other issues in the federal courts. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA 8, MLA 7, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Note: primary sources have slightly different requirements for citation. Please see these guidelines for more information.

Cited article

The Normalization of Foreign Relations Law
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Help
Full screen
Items saved from this article
  • Highlights & Notes
  • Citations
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

matching results for page

    Questia reader help

    How to highlight and cite specific passages

    1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
    2. Click or tap the last word you want to select, and you’ll see everything in between get selected.
    3. You’ll then get a menu of options like creating a highlight or a citation from that passage of text.

    OK, got it!

    Cited passage

    Style
    Citations are available only to our active members.
    Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA 8, MLA 7, APA and Chicago citation styles.

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

    1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

    Cited passage

    Thanks for trying Questia!

    Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

    Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

    Buy instant access to save your work.

    Already a member? Log in now.

    Search by... Author
    Show... All Results Primary Sources Peer-reviewed

    Oops!

    An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.