librarycongress07 Georgetown NSL class F07

Solving the  War Puzzle: 

By Professor John Norton Moore University of Virginia School of Law Solving the War Puzzle Prepared for National Security Law Georgetown University Law Center Fall 2007

“In . . . science it is always a mistake not to doubt when facts do not compel you to affirm.” -- Louis Pasteur: 

“In . . . science it is always a mistake not to doubt when facts do not compel you to affirm.” -- Louis Pasteur

Historical Antecedents: 

Historical Antecedents Theories as to the causes of war, and means for its control, have been advanced at least since the Enlightenment. A few examples include: - Abbe St. Pierre’s project for perpetual peace (1713); - Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1782), Thomas Paine (1792) & Immanuel Kant (1795) argue that republican governments will be more peaceful than monarchies; - Richard Cobden (1843) & John Stuart Mill (1848) urge that increasing trade will reduce war; - Ivan Bloch in 1898 argues after the American Civil War that the modern technology of killing makes war so horrible it will no longer occur; and - Norman Angell writes in 1914 on the eve of WWI that war will no longer occur since it will not benefit the people of England or Germany

Traditional Theories About the Causes of War: 

Traditional Theories About the Causes of War Specific Disputes Among Nations Ideological Disputes Ethnic and Religious Differences Proliferation of Weapons and Arms Races Social / Economic Injustice Imbalance of Power Incidents, Accidents, and Miscalculations

Traditional Approachesto War Avoidance: 

Traditional Approaches to War Avoidance Diplomacy Balance of Power Third Party Dispute Settlement Collective Security Arms Control Resolving Underlying “Causes” (poverty, racism, etc.)

The Democratic Peace: 

The Democratic Peace Democracies rarely, if ever, wage war against democracies. The most important empirical finding to date about war and peace.

Russett: A Striking Fact About Democracies, “[D]emocracies have almost never fought each other....”: 

Russett: A Striking Fact About Democracies, “[D]emocracies have almost never fought each other....” “[A] striking fact about the world comes to bear on any discussion of the future of international relations: in the modern international system, democracies have almost never fought each other.” - Bruce Russett, Grasping the Democratic Peace: Principles for a Post-Cold War World, 1993.

Rummel: Government Structure and International War: 

Rummel: Government Structure and International War WARS 1816-1991* Democracies vs. Democracies 0 Non-Democracies vs. Democracies 155 Non-Democracies vs. Non-Democracies 198 TOTAL 353 DYADS WARS From: R. J. Rummel, Power Kills; Absolute Power Kills Absolutely, 1991. * Over 1000 combat deaths

The Rest of the Story:Some Remaining Puzzles Raised by the Democratic Peace: 

The Rest of the Story: Some Remaining Puzzles Raised by the Democratic Peace What are the mechanisms within democracies that account for the democratic peace? Democracies do not fight democracies but they are still involved in a large number of wars. Why? Are democracies as aggressive in the use of major or minor force as non-democracies? How can democracies avoid wars with non-democracies?

Causes of the Democratic Peace: 

Causes of the Democratic Peace Checks & Balances: Rule of Law Leaders Not Chosen by Violence High Levels of Interaction With Other Democracies Shared Beliefs Government Failure Theory: Less Ability to “Externalize” Costs in Democracies

Correlating Government Structures with Aggression: 

Correlating Government Structures with Aggression Democracies are far less aggressive in initiating major coercion than non-democracies. That is, as with the democratic peace, there is a striking correlation between levels of aggressiveness and government structures. Since the adoption of the United Nations Charter, approximately 86 percent of major wars have been initiated by non-democracies.

Post Charter-Era Wars & Aggression Defense: 

Post Charter-Era Wars & Aggression Defense Major wars in Post-Charter Era Wars with Non-Democratic Aggressor(s) 25 (86%) Wars with Democratic Aggressor(s) 1 (4%) Wars arguably with Democratic Aggressor(s) 3 (10%) Total 29

Instances of Democratic Nation Aggression or Arguable Aggression Post-Charter: 

Instances of Democratic Nation Aggression or Arguable Aggression Post-Charter Aggression Britain and France in the 1956 Suez War Arguable Aggression India in the 1971 Bangladesh War Turkey in the 1974 Cyprus War United States/United Kingdom in the 2003 Iraq War

The Path to War for Democracies(In the 20 Major Wars in Which They Have Been Involved Post-Charter): 

The Path to War for Democracies (In the 20 Major Wars in Which They Have Been Involved Post-Charter) Guerilla, Terrorist or Sporadic Attacks Against the Democracy or an Ally 7 Direct Invasion of the Democracy or a an Ally 7 Humanitarian Intervention 1 Severe Threat of Attack 1 Concern of Possible Transfer of Weapons of Mass Destruction to Terrorists and Continuation of Inhumane Gulag 1 Illegal Takeover of Suez Canal 1 Severe Humanitarian Crisis Related to a Genocide 1 Externally Supported Military Coup 1

Casualties in Democratic and Non-Democratic Initiated Post-Charter Major Wars: 

Casualties in Democratic and Non-Democratic Initiated Post-Charter Major Wars Non-Democratic Initiated Wars 3,330,304 (98%) Democratic Initiated and Arguably Initiated Wars 60,365 (2%)

Do Democracies Use Force For Value Extension?: 

Do Democracies Use Force For Value Extension? There is no post-charter example of a well-established liberal democracy seeking to use force principally for value extension.

The Role of DeterrenceAs Missing Link / The Second Element of the War Avoidance Synergy: 

The Role of Deterrence As Missing Link / The Second Element of the War Avoidance Synergy

System-Wide Deterrence: 

System-Wide Deterrence The totality of positive and negative actions including: potential military responses and security arrangements, economic relations (including trade), diplomatic relations, international organizations, international law, alliances, collective security, etc. (or lack thereof)

Absence of Deterrence is Critical in Historical Case Studies of Four Wars: 

Absence of Deterrence is Critical in Historical Case Studies of Four Wars The Peloponnesian War, 431-404 B.C. The policy of the Athenians was inconsistent with their strategic capacity. They did not have enough manpower to offer a credible deterrent. The Athenians had no way to produce a superior army. World War I, 1914-1918 The British had the capacity to keep the peace through deterrence but that required actions they were unwilling to take or even contemplate. This indecisive course made it even harder to keep the peace. Hannibal’s War: The Second Punic War, 218-201 B.C. The Romans were unwilling to commit themselves clearly and firmly to defending the peace. As a result they paid the price of a long, bloody, costly and devastating war. World War II, 1939-1945 Although it may have been impossible to deter the fanatical Hitler from war, Germany could have been prevented from launching any serious adventures had the democracies not disarmed both materially and psychologically. Donald Kagan, On the Origins of War and the Preservation of Peace (1995)

Effect of Trade in Deterrence: 

Effect of Trade in Deterrence High levels of trade between two nations correlates with a lower rate of war. *Source: Bruce Russett & John Oneal, Triangulating Peace: Democracy, Interdependence, and International Organizations (2001).

The Effort to More Objectively Measure Levels of Deterrence: A Continuing Problem: 

The Effort to More Objectively Measure Levels of Deterrence: A Continuing Problem *Source: Anthony A. Stenger, Measuring Deterrence: A Comprehensive Methodology for Rating Deterrence Levels (2000) (unpublished seminar paper, University of Virginia School of Law) (On file with the Center for National Security Law, University of Virginia School of Law).

Summary of the Evidence / Hypothesis: 

Summary of the Evidence / Hypothesis Democracies rarely, if ever, go to war against democracies. Democracies have engaged in wars against non-democracies (although the major wars were principally initiated by the non-democracies, e.g. Germany vs. Poland in World War II). An absence of deterrence is a major factor in the occurrence of war, and effective deterrence can prevent war. Major wars occur primarily as a synergy between aggressive (predominately non-democratic) regimes and system-wide absence of deterrence.

Techniques for Testing the Hypothesis: 

Techniques for Testing the Hypothesis Consistency with Major Wars Consistency with Non-War Settings Effect of System Changes Correlation between Government Structures and Other Major Goals of the International System: Human Rights Economic Development Environmental Protection Avoidance of Famine Avoidance of Terrorism Avoidance of Corruption Refugee Flows

Consistency with Major Wars: 

Consistency with Major Wars

Some Major Wars of the Twentieth and Twenty-First Centuries: 

Some Major Wars of the Twentieth and Twenty-First Centuries World War I World War II Korean War Indo-China War Iran-Iraq War Gulf War War Against Terrorism (including Afghanistan) Iraq War

World War I: 

Aggressive Regime with Concentration of Power: Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany & Foreign Minister Count Leopold von Berchtold of Austria Germany gives a blank check to its ally Austria to invade Serbia Germany invades Belgium Germany declares war against France, Russia, Luxembourg, Belgium Absence of Deterrence: Lack of deterrence signals by the British German perception of British indifference German perception of French and Russian military weakness German perception of U.S. military weakness Alternative Views: War by accident Tightening of alliance systems “The Cult of the Offensive” World War I

War Against Terrorism: 

War Against Terrorism Non-democratic aggressive actors al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden Taliban and Mullah Omar Absence of effective deterrence A quarter century of weak responses to terrorism Weak response to al Qaeda attacks against U.S. interests Bin Laden issues a "declaration of war" against the United States (1996) Embassy attacks in Nairobi and Dar-es-Salaam (1998) Attack on U.S.S. Cole (2000)

Consistency with Non-War Settings: 

Consistency with Non-War Settings

Non-War Settings:Dogs that Did Not Bark: 

Non-War Settings: Dogs that Did Not Bark NATO / Warsaw Pact U.S. / Canada France / Switzerland Inspector Gregory: “Is there any point to which you would wish to draw my attention?” Sherlock Holmes: “To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time.” Inspector Gregory: “The dog did nothing in the night-time.” Sherlock Holmes: “That was the curious incident.” From: Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, “Silver Blaze”, Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes

Effect of System Changes: 

Effect of System Changes

What Happens When One or Both of the Synergy Elements Changes Abruptly?: 

What Happens When One or Both of the Synergy Elements Changes Abruptly? Soviet break-up—Relaxation of tensions Iranian internal turmoil—Rapid decrease in deterrence Coalition force deployment in Gulf War—Rapid increase in deterrence NATO response to 9-11 attack—Rapid increase in deterrence in NATO countries

Correlation between Government Structures and Other Major Goals of the International System: 

Correlation between Government Structures and Other Major Goals of the International System

Protection / Promotion ofHuman Rights:Its Relation to Government Structures: 

Protection / Promotion of Human Rights: Its Relation to Government Structures

20th Century Democide: 

20th Century Democide Regimes Years Murdered Megamurderers U.S.S.R 1917-87 61,911,000 China (PRC) 1949-87 35,236,000 Germany 1934-45 20,946,000 China (KMT) 1928-49 10,075,000 Japan 1936-45 5,964,000 Cambodia 1975-78 2,035,000 Poland 1945-47 1,583,000 Pakistan 1971 1,503,000 Vietnam 1945-87 1,678,000 Yugoslavia 1944-87 1,072,000 Turkey 1915-18 1,883,000 Total 151,491,000 Kilomurderers Partial Subtotal 14,918,000 PARTIAL WORLD TOTAL 169,202,000 From: R. J. Rummel, Death by Government, 1994

Democide and War Killed: 

Democide and War Killed From: R. J. Rummel, Power Kills; Absolute Power Kills Absolutely, 1991

The Holocaust: 

The Holocaust Jewish children on the street in the Warsaw ghetto. 1939. Source: U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum (http://ushmm.org) Credit: State Archives of the Russian Federation Copyright: Public Domain

Economic Development:Its Relation toGovernment Structures: 

Economic Development: Its Relation to Government Structures

Economic Freedom of the World2006 Annual ReportJames Gwartney and Robert Lawson: 

Economic Freedom of the World 2006 Annual Report James Gwartney and Robert Lawson …[C]ountries with more economic freedom grow more rapidly and achieve higher levels of per-capita GDP. We believe that the incentive structure confronted by decision-makers in a market economy explains why this is the case.

Growth of Real GDP Per Capita 1985-96 James D. Gwartney and Robert A. Lawson, Economic Freedom of the World 1997 Annual Report: 

Growth of Real GDP Per Capita 1985-96 James D. Gwartney and Robert A. Lawson, Economic Freedom of the World 1997 Annual Report 1995 Economic Freedom Quintile (1st quintile represents the highest level of freedom.)

Night View of Korean peninsula: 

Night View of Korean peninsula

Slide41: 

Environmental Protection: Its Relation to Government Structures

Empirical Analysis: Relationship Between Democracy and the Environment: 

Empirical Analysis: Relationship Between Democracy and the Environment “We conclude that the arguments for a beneficial effect of democracy on the environment on the whole seem more convincing than the arguments against. We believe that environmental quality is affected by political organization.” Nils Petter Gleditsch & Bjorn Otto Sverdrup, Democracy and the Environment at 7 (1995).

Famine: Its Relation to Government Structures : 

Famine: Its Relation to Government Structures

Famine and Democracy: 

Famine and Democracy [I]n the terrible history of famines in the world, there is hardly any case in which a famine has occurred in a country that is independent and has a regular democratic system with an uncensored press. This absence of famines applies not only to rich economies, but also to poor but relatively democratic countries, such as post-India, or Botswana, or Zimbabwe. A. Sen, Famine as Alienation 21 (date) (unpublished manuscript).

Terrorism: Its Relation to Government Structures: 

Terrorism: Its Relation to Government Structures

Correlation Between Government Structures & Assistance to Terrorism:One Rough IndicatorNations currently, or formerly, on the State Department terrorism list. All are, or were, ruled by non-democratic governments:: 

Correlation Between Government Structures & Assistance to Terrorism: One Rough Indicator Nations currently, or formerly, on the State Department terrorism list. All are, or were, ruled by non-democratic governments: NATION Cuba Iran North Korea Sudan Syria Iraq (formerly on the list) Libya (formerly on the list) GOVERNMENT TYPE Totalitarian Autocratic Totalitarian Autocratic Totalitarian Totalitarian Autocratic

Corruption:Its Relation to Government Structures: 

Corruption: Its Relation to Government Structures

A Correlation of Economic Freedom and Corruption for Seventy-nine Countries: 

A Correlation of Economic Freedom and Corruption for Seventy-nine Countries Scatter Plot 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 TI Corruption Index Gwartney-Lawson Index of Economic Freedom Most Free Most Corrupt Least Free Least Corrupt

Refugee Flow:Its Relation toGovernment Structures: 

Refugee Flow: Its Relation to Government Structures

Current Number of Refugees by Regime Type: 

Current Number of Refugees by Regime Type From liberal democracies 0 0% From “electoral” or newly 2,056,000* 23% emerging democracies From non-democratic 6,696,000 77% regimes Total 8,752,000 100% This figure includes refugees in settings of war or armed conflict precipitated by non-democratic induced aggression or internal attack. Source: United States Committee for Refugees and Immigrants website <http://www.refugees.org> Note: data in chart above reflects the 1999 survey.

The Centrality of Government Structures and Deterrence: Incentive Theory: 

The Centrality of Government Structures and Deterrence: Incentive Theory

Man, the State, and the International System: Another Way of Visualizing the Basic Hypothesis: 

Man, the State, and the International System: Another Way of Visualizing the Basic Hypothesis War as an Interaction Between: The Nature of Man The Nature of Government The Nature of the International System Adapted from a tri-partite construct implied in: Kenneth Waltz, Man, the State, and War, 1959. Professor Waltz has only recently accepted the “democratic peace.” Two Critical Variables: Governmental Systems (Internal Check) and Levels of System-Wide Deterrence (External Check)

Incentive TheoryA New Paradigm in International Relations: 

Incentive Theory A New Paradigm in International Relations Focus on Incentives Affecting Decision Elites - Effect from individual perspectives Effect from government structures Effect from the international system

Incentive Theoryin War/Peace Decisions: 

Incentive Theory in War/Peace Decisions Balance of Incentives Affecting National Decision Makers Level of Analysis or Image Level I: The Individual Benefits of War and Costs of Peace Level II: The State Benefits of War and Costs of Peace Level III: The International System Benefits of War and Costs of Peace Mechanisms at Work The Balance of Incentives from Individual Perspectives Costs of War and Benefits of Peace The Balance of Incentives from National Sources Costs of War and Benefits of Peace The Balance of Incentives from the International System Costs of War and Benefits of Peace

Incentive Theory: One Next Step in Research: 

Incentive Theory: One Next Step in Research Strong correlations between war and incentives from level 2, the State, and level 3, the international system, have been shown to be critical variables in influencing elite decisions for or against war One Next Step in Theoretical Research: Study of the impact/importance of the first level: the individual - General human psychology (rational and non-rational decision- making) - Personality types - Ideology (i.e. Fascism, Communism, Bin Laden’s extreme vision of Islam, etc.) Hypothesis: level 1, the individual, will also prove to be an important factor in decisions for war

Image One: The Individual: 

Image One: The Individual Components Affecting Incentives personality type “wired” cognitive bias (prospect theory, etc.) belief system - culture - group identification - political and religious beliefs - image of history

Image One: The Individual: 

Image One: The Individual Radical Leaders Associated with War and Democide World War II & the Holocaust (1939-45) Adolf Hitler The Korean War (1950-53) Kim Il Sung Joseph Stalin Mao Tse-Tung The Vietnam War (1959-75) Ho Chi Minh The Cambodian Democide/Khmer Rouge (1975-79) Pol Pot The Yugoslav Wars (1990s) Slobodan Milošević The Iraq War (1980s-90s) Saddam Hussein

Image One: The Individual An example: MAO TSE-TUNG: 

Image One: The Individual An example: MAO TSE-TUNG Mao’s writings on ethics: “I do not agree with the view that to be moral, the motive of one’s action has to be benefiting others. Morality does not have to be defined in relation to others … People like me want to … Satisfy our hearts to the full, and in doing so we automatically have the most valuable moral codes. Of course there are people and objects in the world, but they are all there only for me.” “People like me only have a duty to ourselves; we have no duty to other people.” “All our actions … are driven by impulse, and the conscience that is wise goes along with this in every instance.” Source: Jung Chang & Jon Halliday, Mao: The Unknown Story, p. 13.

MAO TSE-TUNG: 

MAO TSE-TUNG Mao’s View on War & Peace: “Long-lasting peace … is unendurable to human beings, and tidal waves of disturbance have to be created in this state of peace … When we look at history, we adore the times of [war] when dramas happened one after another … which make reading about them great fun. When we get to the periods of peace and prosperity, we are bored … Human nature loves sudden swift changes.” Source: Jung Chang & Jon Halliday, Mao: The Unknown Story, p. 14.

MAO TSE-TUNG: 

MAO TSE-TUNG Mao’s view toward Chinese and American casualties in the Korean War: Mao outlined his “overall strategy” to Stalin in a cable on 1 March 1951, which opened with the sentence: “The enemy will not leave Korea without being eliminated in great masses …” He then told Stalin that his plan was to use his bottomless reserves of manpower to exhaust the Americans. The Chinese army, he reported (which was true), had already taken “more than 100,000 casualties … and is expecting another 300,000 this year and next.” But, he told Stalin, he was replenishing the losses with 120,000 more troops, and would send a further 300,000 to replenish future losses. “To sum up,” Mao said, he was “ready to persist in a long-term war, to spend several years consuming several hundred thousand American lives, so they will back down …” Source: Jung Chang & Jon Halliday, Mao: The Unknown Story, pp. 366-67.

MAO TSE-TUNG: 

MAO TSE-TUNG Mao’s View on Politics: “The basic problem with some Eastern European countries,” he said, “is that they didn’t eliminate all those counter-revolutionaries … Now they are eating their own bitter fruit…. Eastern Europe just didn’t kill on a grand scale…. We must kill,” Mao declared. “And we say it’s good to kill.” Source: Jung Chang & Jon Halliday, Mao: The Unknown Story, p. 416.

Image One & One-Half: Key Advisors: 

Image One & One-Half: Key Advisors

Pre-War Views of Key Advisors to President George W. Bush Concerning Removal of Saddam from Power: 

Pre-War Views of Key Advisors to President George W. Bush Concerning Removal of Saddam from Power

The Consequences for Foreign Policy:A Balanced Approach: 

The Consequences for Foreign Policy: A Balanced Approach

Fundaments of a New Foreign Policy: 

Fundaments of a New Foreign Policy “Rule of Law Engagement” or “Democracy Building” as an essential long term strategy for promoting the major U.S. foreign policy goals. Deterrence as an essential additional strategy for avoiding war and democide from non-democratic regimes. Education Against Extremism: Active engagement in the Struggle for Ideas These general fundaments, of course, do not answer all of the pervasive questions of application of limited resources or real-world feasibility of specific programmatic options or all issues, such as promoting free trade.

Rule of Law Engagement or Democracy Building: 

Rule of Law Engagement or Democracy Building Scrupulous adherence by democratic nations to human rights and the rule of law Internationalization of fundaments of democracy Implement policies that help countries with the transition to democracy and away from totalitarianism Place at forefront of U.S. foreign policy agenda and summits Emphasize within the United Nations and other international organizations The Next Step in Human Rights Engagement

Some Caveats in Democracy-Building: 

Some Caveats in Democracy-Building

Enhancing Deterrence: 

Enhancing Deterrence Enhancing general deterrence in United States security doctrine. Enhancing deterrence through education and coordination with allies. Strengthening the United Nations through strengthening its role in deterrence. Strengthening the international legal system against aggression (including strong differential treatment of aggression and defense). Exploring new options in direct deterrence of regime elites.

Education Against Extremism: 

Education Against Extremism Identification and rebuttal of radical arguments against the democracies Development of regionally tailored anti-terror teaching modules and media programs Inclusion as an agenda item for the United Nations, regional organizations & NGOs Winning the war against terror also requires winning the war of ideas: subjectivities matter!

Controlling Terror: 

Controlling Terror Terrorism as Mixed, State, and Individual Behavior - Combating state “low intensity” aggression Democracy and deterrence as in war avoidance -Combating individual or group non-state terrorism Struggle of ideas and perspectives: delegitimation of terror beliefs. Scrupulous democratic nation commitment to human dignity and the rule of law including during war fighting Deterrence at both state and international levels

What it is NOT!: 

What it is NOT! “Rule of Law Engagement” is emphatically not democracy building by aggressive use of force or a democratic “just war” or a “crusade for democracy.” “Rule of Law Engagement” is emphatically not an effort to impose American cultural values or institutions alien to other peoples beyond, of course, fundamental principles of human rights.

Reflections on the New Paradigmin U.S. Foreign Policy: 

Reflections on the New Paradigm in U.S. Foreign Policy

President Bill Clinton & Democracy Enlargement: 

President Bill Clinton & Democracy Enlargement “The addition of new democracies makes us more secure because democracies tend not to wage war on each other and they tend not to support terrorism – in fact, they don’t. They are more trustworthy in diplomacy and they do a better job of respecting the environment and the human rights of their people. **** The successor to a doctrine of containment must be a strategy of enlargement, the enlargement of the world’s free community of market democracies.” See Anthony Lake, Special Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, Address to School of Advanced International Studies, September 21, 1993

President George W. Bush & the Forward Strategy of Freedom: 

President George W. Bush & the Forward Strategy of Freedom “[T]he United States has adopted a new policy, a forward strategy of freedom in the Middle East.” “The advance of freedom is the calling of our time; it is the calling of our country.” “Liberty is both the plan of Heaven for humanity, and the best hope for progress here on Earth.” Remarks by the President at the 20th Anniversary of the National Endowment for Democracy, November 6, 2003, U.S. Chamber of Commerce

President John F. Kennedy & A Focus on Freedom“The wave of the future is not the conquest of the world by a single dogmatic creed but the liberation of the diverse energies of free nations and free men.”Address at the University of California, BerkeleyMarch 23, 1962: 

President John F. Kennedy & A Focus on Freedom “The wave of the future is not the conquest of the world by a single dogmatic creed but the liberation of the diverse energies of free nations and free men.” Address at the University of California, Berkeley March 23, 1962

Questions?: 

Questions?

Arguments For and Against Lawfulness of US/UK Actions in the Iraq War: 

Arguments For and Against Lawfulness of US/UK Actions in the Iraq War For Iraq’s failure to comply with Security Council Resolution 687 reinvigorates Resolution 678 Continuing armed attacks against US/UK aircraft Humanitarian intervention to end Saddam Hussein’s brutality Against No armed attack, no evidence of imminent attack No ongoing widespread genocide above daily totalitarian brutality Lack of authorization by the Security Council

About John Norton Moore: 

About John Norton Moore John Norton Moore is the Walter L. Brown Professor of Law at the University of Virginia. He formerly served as the first Chairman of the Board of the United States Institute of Peace, setting up the new Institute and chairing it for its first five years through two presidential appointments to the Board and the first Board elections of the chairmanship. He also served as the Counselor on International Law to the United States Department of State, as a United States Ambassador to the United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, and as a member of the United States Delegation to the United Nations General Assembly and the Athens round of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe. In 1990, he co-chaired with the Associate Attorney General of the United States the first talks between the United States and the Soviet Union on the Rule of Law. He is an Honorary Editor of the American Journal of International Law and a member of the Board of Directors of Freedom House. He prepared the first draft of the initiative for Freedom House that became the Community of Democracies.