For McDougal, the use of unfamiliar language, with its references to “decision makers” and “participants” and “community expectations”, was precisely to express ideas about the international legal process that were indeed different from the ideas carried by the more traditional vocabulary.It was necessary to find a vocabulary to express his perception of international law as a dynamic process available to a variety of international actors to achieve specified social goals. If his footnoting represented traditional scholarship of the highest order, his texts were written in a unique style, with a novel vocabulary rooted in the social sciences.Many international lawyers – and especially European lawyers – admired the scholarship but deplored the vocabulary McDougal employed, complaining that it represented a barrier to the understanding of his analysis and ideas. A classical scholar as a young man, he continued to find apposite Greek aphorisms with which to underline points made in his footnotes. The footnoting of his writings was a treasure trove of scholarly reference and acerbic comment. His 90th birthday celebration at Yale was a great incoming from all the continents of those who felt indebted to him.His scholarship was widely acknowledged. No fewer than three of his former students sit upon the Bench of the International Court of Justice (the judges from the United States, Japan and the United Kingdom). He appeared before the International Court of Justice on behalf of the United States in litigation brought by Nicaragua.
But he was perhaps viewed as too much wedded to his own approach ever to be appointed to the International Law Commission or the international judiciary.His influence was above all as a teacher and he knew that his former students, who never lost touch with him (and, indeed, felt intellectually bound to each other), were now in top teaching, diplomatic and public service positions all over the world. Beyond the immediate circle of those with whom he wrote, there are today many international lawyers around the world whose approach to their discipline is broadly sympathetic to McDougal’s legal philosophy.He had an active practice in international law, often working together with Reisman. Law and Minimum World Public Order (written with Florentino Feliciano, 1961) and “Theories About International Law: prologue to a configurative jurisprudence” (written with Lasswell and Michael Reisman, in the Virginia Journal of International Law, 1968) are two outstanding, and typical, examples.In the 1980s he collaborated increasingly with Michael Reisman, who had succeeded him as Professor of International Law at Yale. He began his legal writing in the field of property law, before turning to international law, and specifically to jurisprudence, the law of the seas, treaty law, space law, human rights, legal education and the use of force. McDougal was also an intensely loyal man – those of whom he approved continued to receive his vigorous support over the years.McDougal’s output was prodigious.
He constantly battled against failing eyesight, but, with his eye visor, huge magnifying glass and carefully selected younger associates, kept the problem at bay. No international lawyer of the last 50 years has been so much written about by others. Indeed, the lucky ones might be invited to the Graduate Club to continue the discussion over dinner.He was an inspired teacher whose deeply original ideas have irrevocably altered the way we think about international law. When one had entered the room, an imposing figure wearing a green eye visor could eventually be discerned among the thousands of books which filled all available space No student ever felt rushed. He was adored by his students and respected and liked even by those who profoundly disagreed with him. Knocking on the door of his office at Yale Law School one would hear the shouted command “Come!” (never “Come in”). In the 1960s and 1970s it had only to be suggested that he would intervene at an international law meeting – whether at the Royal Institute of International Affairs in London, or the American Society of International Law in Washington – for the hall to be filled to overflowing by those who relished the battle that was bound to follow, as McDougal turned his guns on the opposition.
The opposition ranged from the “realpolitik” critics of international law (such as Hans Morgenthal and George Kennan), to those who insisted upon the traditional virtue of rules and neutrality (such as Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice), and to those who accepted the relevance of policy but rejected the need for a rigorous methodology for its application (such as Wolfgang Friedmann).McDougal’s pugnacious style on matters legal was matched by Southern courtesy on matters personal.
They were made the more so by the powerful and combative style with which McDougal advanced them, whether orally or in writing. The ideas underlying the policy science, or “Yale Law School”, approach to international law were of themselves challenging and controversial. This, in essence, is the policy science approach to international law, formulated by Myres McDougal in the 1950s and 1960s with the political scientist Harold Lasswell and elaborated and applied over the years with a variety of associates. It is a particular form of authoritative decision-making, operating where power and authority coincide, and unashamedly directed towards the achievement of very precisely defined goals which necessarily are not value-free.
INTERNATIONAL law is not about neutral rules which states apply or ignore as power politics dictate. Service was his yardstick.Alan Glyn, journalist, physician, lawyer and politician: born London 26 September 1918; called to the Bar, Middle Temple 1955; MP (Conservative) for Clapham 1959-64, for Windsor 1970-74, for Windsor and Maidenhead 1974- 92; Kt 1990; married 1962 Lady Rosula Windsor Clive (two daughters); died London 5 May 1998.. However, whatever his unfulfilled ambitions, Glyn was an assiduous Member – “a most conscientious attender,” in the words of Michael Jopling, “even when he was a far-from- well man” – who would go to enormous trouble to make sure that he voted to support his party in government whenever they needed him. But for pity’s sake, whatever you do, do not get yourself taken prisoner and cause complications for all of us.’ “In the early days of his parliamentary return it was a sadness to him that his experience could not have been put to use on the front bench of either the Foreign Office or the Ministry of Defence. First of all, you have got to give them security from attack by the Vietcong; secondly, you have got to be able to produce a better standard of living than that which is offered by the Communists; and lastly you have got to give them the feeling that they can go about their business, tend their fields, in liberty and freedom, and live a normal family life not any different from any other community in the world.When Glyn returned to the Commons his first speech was on 9 December 1970 when he gave us first-hand experience not only of Vietnam but of China, Algeria, Fidel Castro’s Cuba, Cyprus, the West Bank and many other areas to which he had been.Crucial to Glyn was the support of his feisty and charming wife of whom he used repeatedly to say, “When I went anywhere dangerous, Rosula would tell me, ‘If you really must, get killed. beating the Vietcong militarily, but at the same time you have got to produce three essential things for the people of Vietnam.
