Sandy, thank you very much for such a generous introduction. It is especially meaningful coming from a co-conspirator. 

 

            First, thank you to the Section for the honor of receiving this wonderful Lifetime Achievement Award. I accept it with pride, the pride that I share with so many of you for what the Section and CEELI and the CEELI Institute have done. 

 

            I also thank the Section for arranging to present this award on the happy occasion of the Section’s 75^th anniversary dinner. Among other things, it allows my family to believe that everyone here dressed up in tuxedos and came to this dinner for this part of the program. 

 

            Congratulations obviously go to the Section on this night. Over my years in the ABA, the Section has grown from a small section that was seen as dealing with somewhat obscure issues to a powerhouse within the Association, a Section that deals with some of the most vital and urgent issues of interest to our profession. When I chaired the Section, it enjoyed neither the influence nor the prosperity that it has achieved today. For this, Jeff, the Section’s leadership and staff, including those who have preceded you, and who will follow you, deserve enormous credit.

 

            This occasion is also made more special for me by the presence of Sandy D’Alemberte, the co-founder of CEELI, Mark Ellis, CEELI’s first Executive Director, and many, many other friends who have supported, and sometimes humored, our various efforts through the years. For reasons that many of you appreciate, Sandy D’Alemberte has been an inspiration, as well as an effervescent source of creative and exciting new ideas, from the time we had lunch nearly 20 years ago and first shared improbable notions about what was ultimately to become CEELI. 

 

            Mark Ellis was the hero behind the curtain in the critical early years of CEELI. With what Mark has done as Executive Director of the International Bar Association, it can now be said that he has helped shape and re-direct the energies of the two most important legal professional organizations in the world today.

 

            And Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, a member of the CEELI board from day one, became, and remains, one of the most respected and effective voices for the rule of law in the world today. She brought credibility, integrity, intensity, and boundless energy to CEELI, and in so doing, she has indirectly enhanced the stature and importance of this Section, as well as the values for which the Section stands.

 

            Finally, special thanks to my family, who have been in the front rank of those who sacrificed and who supported this rule of law mission. More than anyone, my wife, Beret, has journeyed with me -- both literally and figuratively -- in helping to make this a better world for ourselves and our children. (I should perhaps add, by the way, that neither CEELI nor my career path was the cause of Beret’s decision, after 30 years of marriage, to go back to school and became a therapist.) 

 

            And I am delighted that all four of our children -- Bronwen, with her new baby, Max, a young lawyer, Eli and his wife Hollie, and our environmentalist, Kaia Joye -- are here tonight. They all have also shared in the CEELI adventure. Recognizing them is appropriate and essential because, after all, it is they who are Beret’s and my real lifetime achievements.

 

            And my colleagues from Miller & Chevalier have earned their presence here. Not all law firms and not all colleagues would have tolerated an extracurricular endeavor that must, at times, have seemed quixotic, as well as non-billable. For their patience and their support, they have earned a place among the many parents of CEELI.

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

            It is perhaps conventional on occasions such as this to say, with modesty, that this award is the result of the efforts of many people; but in this case, that is so obviously true that there is no modesty involved. Any successful charitable or public service project depends on volunteers. But CEELI and the CEELI Institute have been labors of love for lawyers and judges across this country and beyond. 

           

            Lawyers like Bill Meyer, Mary Noel Pepys, Joel Martin, and hundreds more have taken a year or more out of their lives to move across the globe to help build societies and legal systems based on the rule of law.

 

            Judges like Sandra Day O’Connor, John Walker, Pat Wald, Tom Griffith, Ab Mikva, and dozens more -- and the remarkable Max Kampelman -- have adjusted their lives and busy schedules to work with colleagues around the world in seeking to build better lives and more just societies.  Martha Barnett, the current chair of CEELI, continues that tradition.

 

            And Karen Mathis, the immediate past president of the ABA, will soon take up the reins as the new Executive Director of the CEELI Institute in Prague, an institution that exists in large measure because of the steadfast support of Mary Boies, John Walker, Tom Griffith, Hank Greenberg, Boyden Gray, and many others.

 

            These and similar efforts by you, and literally thousands of our colleagues, reflect an instinct to public service, a commitment to improving the world that permeates the American legal community. CEELI provided a vehicle for that idealism, and it changed countries, as well as the lives of lawyers involved. That idealism and that passion, commonly under-appreciated, are hallmarks of American lawyers. They are also assets of this Section that we must continue to nurture. At this point in our nation’s history and international relations, an up-tick of idealism would not be misplaced.

 

            It is appropriate on this occasion, I think, to say a word or two about the rule of law. The concept of the rule of law is by no means new, as the Magna Carta and writings of 18^th century political theorists remind us. However, the phrase itself is relatively recent. You find it nowhere in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. It is not inscribed on the entablatures of old buildings. Justice Kennedy and others have pointed out that the “rule of law” is a phrase that most of us never heard when we were in law school. Rather, this phrase -- which did appear in 1948 in the Declaration of Human Rights and was later articulated as one of the goals of the ABA -- has entered common usage only in the last decade or so. 

 

            In the short period of time since I chaired the section, since CEELI began, since the Section last had a black-tie anniversary, this phrase has become a part of popular parlance. All of us in this room -- this generation -- have seen this lofty phrase emerge; we have seen it popularized; we have already seen it misused. We are part of the generation that talks about the rule of law. Thus, in one sense, all of us in this room, and our contemporaries, might be seen as the “rule of law” generation. 

 

            If that’s not too much of a stretch, we could ask ourselves what implications, if any, that notion might carry with it. One proposition we might consider is whether this generation of international lawyers -- however we characterize ourselves -- has, or should have, a set of common professional obligations and goals that transcend borders. If so, do international lawyers of the “rule of law generation” face a special set of challenges?

 

            The first challenge of any rule of law generation might be to define the term. That modest goal has proved elusive. It seems that what we have been able to do most easily has not been to define the rule of law, but to identify what we think is the absence of the rule of law. We can fairly readily recognize injustices or inequities that could have been prevented by a functioning rule of law -- situations that prompt us to observe that there has been a failure of the rule of law. 

 

            In this sense, we have developed something of a reverse obscenity test -- we can’t describe it, but we know it when we don’t see it.

 

            As everyone in this room is aware, it is sadly the case that failures of the rule of law abound. One of many examples illustrating this point was recently captured by Akere Muna, from Cameroon, who related a conversation, possibly apocryphal, between an authoritarian African head of state and one of his closest advisers. The adviser turned to this dictatorial president and said, “Mr. President, I think the time has now come that you must say good-bye to the people.” To which the president replied, “Really? Where are the people going?” That exchange would reflect an absence of the rule of law.

 

            In truth, some of the best definitional thinking on the rule of law has occurred as a part of Bill Neukom’s World Justice Project. The four-part definition that has evolved over the last year is a very good one. It may yet be improved and refined, but that definition, and the ambitious Rule of Law Index that the WJP has developed will bring more rigor to our use of this standard. 

 

            Beyond the definitional issue, what rule of law challenges might this generation take on? Perhaps most obvious would be assuring that some of the most basic elements of the rule of law are honored everywhere in the world. If the Section of International Law were to decide to set its own goals, not unlike the ABA itself, what might those goals be? 

 

            And would it be too idealistic to suggest our Section, and this Association, should dedicate itself to principles such as these, as well as to the important goals of professional integrity, education, and public service? Cleverer minds than mine could devise common Goals for this generation of international lawyers around the world. But a fair question tonight, I believe, is whether that is a process that we as a Section should start and a set of commitments that we as a profession should expressly pursue.

            I recently had the opportunity to visit the Apartheid Museum in Johannesburg, South Africa. That remarkable museum reminds us that at the time that the fall of the Berlin Wall captured so much of the world’s attention an equally profound advancement of the rule of law was taking place in South Africa as Apartheid also began to crumble and goals of human dignity and equal justice were enshrined in a remarkable and ambitious Bill of Rights in South Africa. The Apartheid Museum is also a reminder to us that some of the gravest injustices and greatest affronts to the rule of law in the world are indeed things that we can overcome. 

 

            Finally, let me ask a question that may seem anomalous, namely, whether as international lawyers we have special responsibilities in our own countries. Those of us here tonight are a privileged group. Among the many advantages we enjoy is that we have all had the opportunity of seeing our own countries from the outside looking in. We have the perspective of having worked in countries that have struggled to build the rule of law. 

 

            When CEELI was in its infancy, those of us involved were struck over and over again by the extent to which the United States was respected and admired for being a country built on the rule of law. Everywhere we went, there was enormous interest in the American legal system, in its principles, in our values. Countries that had no interest in emulating or copying our legal system nonetheless were curious and fascinated about how our legal system worked, how we sought to protect the rights of minorities, how we achieved peaceful transitions of power, how our courts served as a check and balance on the other branches of government. The admiration for U.S. legal and constitutional principles reinforced the prestige of the ABA because it was the American Bar Association.

 

            Sadly, I fear that we do not enjoy that same measure of respect today. Our espousing the rule of law is seen by many as a tactic for advancing a national agenda, and our own conduct has been widely attacked as a betrayal of our own standards. We have sometimes failed to appreciate that our own values and our own commitment to the rule of law are among our greatest national assets, our most valuable exports, and among the most powerful elements of our foreign policy.

 

            We can, I believe, regain our standing and stature by abiding by the standards and ideals that we as a country so eloquently espouse. We can earn that respect by what we do, as well as what we say. 

 

            As international lawyers, each of us should be acutely attuned to threats to the rule of law in our own countries. We should know better than most why, for example, an independent judiciary is a cornerstone of our democracy. When a Justice O’Connor raises concerns about attacks on the independence of the judiciary in the United States, it should be a call to action for lawyers in this room because we know how precious an independent judiciary is and how corrosive a lack of public integrity can be. It is this “rule of law generation” that should be the first to stand to object when our own country spurns international obligations it has assumed or seeks to re-define international agreements to suit our own short-term needs.    

 

            Having an international perspective on rule of law issues should also be a bit humbling, humbling because it gives us an appreciation of how ambitious the simple phrase “rule of law” is. Whenever an agency takes an action beyond its statutory or regulatory authority, whenever the term “national security” is used as an indiscriminate trump card to justify denials of due process, whenever polarizing, partisan politics distorts the behavior of public servants, whenever a policeman uses excessive force, whenever any of us comprises our own professional integrity, the rule of law is disappointed.

 

            So taking up the cause of the rule of law is not a pledge that should be made lightly. The rule of law is a noble goal for our generation. Among other things, it means, to put it prosaically, that what’s good for the goose is good for the gander, regardless of whether we are the goose or the gander. 

 

            But we must also not forget that even the rule of law is not, alone, a panacea for all of society’s ills. Legal norms set the outer limits of permissible behavior of individuals, corporations, and governments. But the law does not define the best that each of us can achieve.      

 

            Let me end tonight by thanking you again for this generous award, for allowing me to be a part of this celebratory anniversary, and for letting me share a few thoughts about how high we might set our sights. The Section can take great pride in what it has accomplished and in the important leadership role it can play in the years ahead. I am proud to be your colleague. Thanks very much.