¹ See Harold Hongju Koh, Transnational Legal Process and the “New” New Haven School of International Law, in International Legal Theory: Foundations and Frontiers 101, 101–03 (Jeffrey L. Dunoff & Mark A. Pollack eds., 2022), who further cites to Richard A. Falk, Status of Law in International Society 642–59 (1970); Richard A. Falk, Casting the Spell: The New Haven School of International Law, 104 Yale L.J. 1991, 1997 (1995) for Richard Falk’s relationship to the New Haven School; and to Rosalyn Higgins, Problems and Process: International Law and How We Use It 267 (1994) for Rosalyn Higgins’s relationship to the New Haven School.

² Even those invited to introduce The New Haven School seem to disagree about its role and influence. Compare, for instance, the preface of the series editor, Nehal Bhuta, who argues that the New Haven School “has cast a long shadow” in international law and legal theory with the account offered by Samuel Moyn in the book’s foreword, who observes that the New Haven School “has been nearly forgotten, even when people claim to remember it.” See Ríán Derrig, The New Haven School: American International Law ix, xiii (2025).

³ On scholars’ singular focus on pragmatism as inspiring policy-oriented jurisprudence, see Hengameh Saberi, Love It or Hate It, But for the Right Reasons: Pragmatism and the New Haven School’s International Law of Human Dignity, 35 B.C. Int’l & Comp. L. Rev. 59, 61 (2012), who challenges those accounts in favor of a more nuanced picture. On the New Haven School as part of the turn to empiricism and social science, see Gregory Shaffer & Tom Ginsburg, The Empirical Turn in International Legal Scholarship, 106 AJIL 1, 2 (2012); Oran R. Young, International Law and Social Science: The Contributions of Myres S. McDougal, 66 AJIL 60 (1972).

⁴ On the New Haven School as a post-war reaction to international relations realism, see Martti Koskenniemi, The Gentle Civilizer of Nations: The Rise and Fall of International Law 1870–1960, at 476 (2001); Anne-Marie Slaughter Burley, International Law and International Relations Theory: A Dual Agenda, 87 AJIL 205, 209–10 (1993).

⁵ Harold Lasswell & Myres McDougal, Legal Education and Public Policy: Professional Training in the Public Interest, 52 Yale L.J. 203 (1943).

⁶ Koh, supra note 1, who directly references W. Michael Reisman, Theory About Law: Jurisprudence for a Free Society, 108 Yale L.J. 935, 938 (1999).

⁷ Saberi, supra note 3, at 109–10.

⁸ Philip Allott, Language, Method and the Nature of International Law, 45 Brit Y.B. Int’l L. 79, 125 (1971).

⁹ Allison Dunham, Book Review: Property, Wealth, Land: Allocation, Planning and Development, 62 Harv. L. Rev. 1414 (1949).

¹⁰ Koskenniemi, supra note 4, at 494–509.

¹¹ See Jack L. Goldsmith, The New Formalism in United States Foreign Relations Law, 70 U. Colo. Rev. 1395 (1999); Harlan Grant Cohen, Formalism and Distrust: Foreign Affairs Law in the Roberts Court, 83 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 380 (2015).

¹² See, e.g., Antony Anghie, Imperialism, Sovereignty and the Making of International Law 199 (2005) (arguing that the post-colonial era reproduced the power differentials seen during formal colonialism by means of a qualified notion of nation-state sovereignty); Makau wa Mutua, Why Redraw the Map of Africa: A Moral and Legal Inquiry, 16 Mich. J. Int’l L. 1113, 1114–18 (1995) (arguing that the concepts of territorial sovereignty and statehood helped entrap African peoples into artificial nation-states).

¹³ Present at the Creation was the title of Dean Acheson’s autobiography. See Dean Acheson, Present at the Creation: My Years in the State Department (1969). Acheson’s legal realism, which he made explicit by frequently peppering his speeches with quotations from Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., was so pronounced that he was offered the deanship of inter-war Yale Law School, which he declined. See Laura Kalman, Legal Realism at Yale, 1927–1960, at 140–41 (1986).

¹⁴ See Myres S. McDougal & W. Michael Reisman, Rhodesia and the United Nations: The Lawfulness of International Concern, 62 AJIL 1 (1968). A series of Security Council resolutions were issued addressing the situation in Rhodesia, including SC Res. 2024 (XX) (Nov. 11, 1965); SC Res. 217 (Nov. 20, 1965); SC Res. 221 (Apr. 9, 1966); and SC Res. 232 (Dec. 16, 1966).

¹⁵ Dean Acheson, The Arrogance of International Lawyers, Address Before the American Bar Association, Section of International and Comparative Law, May 24, 1968, 2 Int’l L. 591, 598 (1968).

¹⁶ Id. at 597–98; see also Afroditi Giovanopoulou, American Legal Thought in the World: Sociological Jurisprudence in the History of American Foreign Policy, 1902–1967, at 198–201 (2019) (unpublished SJD dissertation, on file with the Harvard Law School Library).

¹⁷ See especially Alan Brinkley, The End of Reform: New Deal Liberalism in Recession and War 6–7 (1996).

¹⁸ For a recounting, in broad strokes, of New Deal lawyers who turned to international affairs, see Afroditi Giovanopoulou, Pragmatic Legalism: Revisiting America’s Order After World War II, 62 Harv. Int’l L.J. 325 (2021).