1. Dear Secretary Kerry:
As the United States government examines the achievements and challenges of
contemporary international law, we must not remain complacent on the discernible weaknesses
to which it possesses. As the US holds a significant power position in global affairs, we must
lead by example and ensure the continued strengthening of international law in areas that
necessitate improvement. As per your request, I have outlined a brief of five recommendations
for capacity building in international law.
First and foremost, I am recommending restriction on the use of reservations in all
treaties, except where certain provisions may cause severe complications for a country based on
its existing constitutional law. International treaties are rooted in the ambitions of reaching
mutually acceptable agreements and forming consensus on various concerns affecting multiple
parties in the international community. The capacity and effectiveness of these treaties rest in the
unanimity between the parties they involve. When states attach reservations to provisions
outlined in the text, they are also attaching caveats to their acceptance on vital stipulations which
embody the very purpose of the treaty. In this effect, reservations have allowed states to remain
party to treaties while pursuing self-interest. This has often created loopholes in maintaining the
legality of the doctrine and cohesion among the parties. Specifically, reservations made with
relation to Conventions dealing with breaches in humanitarian law, have no place to be accepted,
as a treaty of nature deals with the preservation of international order and not the private interests
of a State (ICJ, 22). The United States has demonstrated its use of reservations in this regard with
the Convention of the Prevention and Punishment on the Crime of Genocide, where it has
stipulated that it must grant consent to trial of its citizenry before an international court for the
crime of genocide. The option to refuse sending an individual for trial defeats the purpose of the

2. Jamros 2
Convention and undermines international law. Treaties of this nature must be ratified with the
understanding that they contain certain provisions for specific reasons and require full
compliance. In cases where a state would like to clarify its interpretation of a treaty, the use of
declarations should instead be utilized, as they will not change the State's legal obligations, but
rather they clarify or interpret what the State deems unclear in specific provisions.
As per my second recommendation, I believe it to be in the international community's
best interest to support a gradual restructuring of the United Nations, specifically the Security
Council. Inherent deadlocks in the Security Council can be avoided through a reformation of the
veto process. By employing a 3 to 5 vote/consensus instead of the traditional, unitary veto,
international law would be strengthened by creating a momentum of passing binding resolutions,
forcing action to be taken where it otherwise would have died in the Council. An additional UN
reformation that would fortify international compliance would include categorizing member
states into "good and bad standing," establishing whether or not they are fulfilling their minimum
obligations to international human rights law (Slaughter p.630). States who do not fall into good
standing may be accompanied by sanctions. Let us not forget, when Iraq failed to follow through
with its disarmament obligations under UNSC Resolution 1441, the P5 members of the Security
Council became extremely divided on a course of action. The US therefore acted outside the
Council's authorization claiming that a decision on the use of force did not manifest in a timely
manner, posing a security threat. A restructured Security Council could prevent this from
happening in the future by offering a clear cut definition to what authenticates self-defense,
while decreasing the chance that the use of collective security will be vetoed. Globalization has
augmented the relevance of the United Nations since the Cold War, reinforcing the need for
international law and the maintenance of international peace.

3. Jamros 3
This leads me to my third recommendation that international law can be strengthened
through the recognition of human security. The growing importance of human security has
enabled the drafting of documents which analyze and bring together separate areas of
international law. Such is the case with Security Council Resolution 1325 (2000) regarding
women in armed conflict, linking a gender perspective on human security to issues such as
human rights, humanitarian law, and international criminal law. Thus, the human security
approach will inevitably influence future discussions on the establishment of principles regarding
humanitarian interventions. The traditional belief surrounding global governance has been that
organizational forms which emphasize social over legal obligations are not entirely effective
because they are neither state-centered nor grounded in international law. The shift towards
accountability in humanitarian action however, has recently suggested otherwise. The ambiguity
surrounding the conditions needed for intervention, as well as the process by which authorization
for intervention is granted by the Security Council, can be answered by applying the ethics
human security. By focusing on defining military intervention under R2P, the legality behind
intervention and the responsibility to react in external countries affairs may be further clarified
under international law. Codifying ethical guidelines constituting a legitimate response under
R2P could include: right authority, just cause, right intervention, last resort, proportional means,
and reasonable prospects (ICISS Report, 2001). By using these six criteria as a template for
"intervention ROE," a protocol for intervention can be clarified based on international law.
The United States specifically, can help strengthen the legitimacy of international law by
ratifying the Rome Statute and observing universal jurisdiction. U.S. President Bill Clinton
originally signed the Rome Statute in 2000, but stated that he would not consider it for
ratification until the U.S. government had a chance to assess the functioning of the court, stating,

4. Jamros 4
"The United States should have the chance to observe and assess the functioning
of the court before choosing to become subject to its jurisdiction" (Lister p.4).
Since then, a significant amount of time has passed and the Rome Statute is awaiting a US
signature. Of particular urgency in this matter, are the frequent cases of torture which have been
brought against the US. Human rights prosecutions against US officials abroad remind us why
we must not only ratify the ICC, but also enforce the Convention against Torture. Donald
Rumsfeld's visit to Paris in 2007 attracted the Paris-based International Federation for Human
Rights to launch the initial stages of an investigation against actions Rumsfeld carried out during
war. More often, "national courts operating under the doctrine of universal jurisdiction are
prosecuting criminals in their custody for atrocities committed abroad. Impunity may still be the
norm in many domestic courts, but international justice has become an ever popular method of
condemning impunity" (Roth 1). The trial of Thomas Lubanga presents an exceptional example
of the Pinochet effect, revealing that as more individuals are brought under the jurisdiction of the
ICC, it is anticipated that they will be less inclined to commit atrocities. More importantly, as an
international powerhouse, the US is expected to lead by example and welcome the growing
importance of the International Criminal Court. The ICC's role in ending impunity and
establishing a rule of law is enlarging, so compliance by the world's political frontrunner will be
essential to its success in executing international law.
My final recommendation for strengthening international law is in the ratification of the
UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. Since the United Nation's Convention on the Law of the
Sea develops the guidelines and rules for managing the world's maritime zones, membership
through ratification is necessary if we are to engage in this crucial and relevant dialogue. By
failing to ratify, the US is undermining its own rhetoric regarding multilateral commitment and
the codification of customary international law. The Law of the Sea Treaty secures current

5. Jamros 5
bilateral and multilateral agreements between governments and creates transparency in
transportation through the ocean. Of particular importance is the treaty's ability to distribute
additional territory in Extended Continental Shelves (ECS), redress for territorial and
navigational disputes, and the issuing of mining licenses to states that one day may choose to
engage in seabed mining. UNCLOS has also been responsible for codifying environmental laws
regarding marine health, fish and wildlife management and ship pollution. Accession to the
Convention would provide a stronger legal foundation for maritime activities for the US and the
international community.
The importance of international law in the next few years will skyrocket in importance.
There will be increased exercise of universal jurisdiction and a widening of the scope of
international law to further include non-state entities such as individuals, organizations and
corporations. To enhance the effectiveness of international law on behalf of our administration
and in collaboration with international partners, I have recommended the abolition of the veto
procedure along with an increase in the number of permanent members of the Security Council,
the elimination of reservations to treaties, so as to ensure their full operational value, the
ratification of the Law of the Sea treaty and the Rome Statute, and the inclusion of human
security in international law. Several of these values have already been found throughout other
mature legal systems through empirical evidence and community standards (Koh p.56). This
United States must rise up to the challenge and join the rest of the world in supporting and
trusting international law. While there is room for improvement, these changes cannot be made
without the United States' backing, nor will the full benefits of international law be enjoyed.
Sincerely,
Caitlin Jamros