Document Type


Publication Title

Yale Law Journal Online

Publication Date



In this Response, Professor Ku explains “how one can accept Paulsen’s constitutional arguments while continuing to believe that international law is more than an illusion for the United States. I will begin by situating Paulsen’s argument within the broader intellectual debate over the relationship between international law and the U.S. Constitution. I will then argue that although his constitutional arguments are sound, they do not necessarily lead to the conclusion that international law has no legal force. To the contrary, I will argue that where the political branches clearly (and pursuant to their constitutional powers and following the proper constitutional processes) decide to bind the United States to follow rules of international law as law, the United States is bound as deeply as it is bound to any other nonconstitutional legal norm.”


Response to Michael Stokes Paulsen, The Constitutional Power To Interpret International Law, 118 YALE L.J. 1762, 1804 (2009)