scholarly journals The Efficacy of Targeted Sanctions in Enforcing Compliance with International Law

AJIL Unbound ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 113 ◽  
pp. 163-168
Author(s):  
Alexandra Hofer

In the international legal order, sanctions are valued for their coercive and stigmatizing functions. Through the imposition of financial or other costs, these measures seek to induce compliance with international law by those who are targeted. They also aim to signal the sender's commitment to the violated norm and stigmatize an actor responsible for wrongful behavior. In light of these functions, this essay examines the factors to assess when evaluating the efficacy of unilateral targeted sanctions in enforcing international law. The issue is relevant not only for political scientists, but also for international lawyers interested in ensuring compliance with international norms.

2012 ◽  
Vol 40 (6) ◽  
pp. 688-713 ◽  
Author(s):  
Seyla Benhabib

Carl Schmitt’s critique of liberalism has gained increasing influence in the last few decades. This article focuses on Schmitt’s analysis of international law in The Nomos of the Earth, in order to uncover the reasons for his appeal as a critic not only of liberalism but of American hegemonic aspirations as well. Schmitt saw the international legal order that developed after World War I, and particularly the “criminalization of aggressive war,” as a smokescreen to hide U.S. aspirations to world dominance. By focusing on Schmitt’s critique of Kant’s concept of the “unjust enemy,” the article shows the limits of Schmitt’s views and concludes that Schmitt, as well as left critics of U.S. hegemony, misconstrue the relation between international law and democratic sovereignty as a model of top–down domination. As conflictual as the relationship between international norms and democratic sovereignty can be at times, this needs to be interpreted as one of mediation and not domination.


The question of the sources of international law inevitably raises some well-known scholarly controversies: where do the rules of international law come from? Through which processes are they made? How are they ascertained? Where does the international legal order begin and end? These traditional questions bear on at least two different levels of understanding. First, how are international norms validated as rules of international ‘law’, i.e. legally binding norms? This is the static question of the pedigree of international legal rules and the boundaries of the international legal order. Secondly, what are the processes through which these rules are made? This is the dynamic question of the making of these rules and of the exercise of public authority in international law. This book explores the various facets of the sources of international law. It provides a systematic overview of the key issues and debates around the sources of international law, including recent contestations thereof. It also offers an authoritative theoretical guide for anyone studying or working within but also outside international law wishing to understand one of its most fundamental questions.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas S. Eder

China aims to become a “leader country” in international law that “guides” the international legal order. Delivering the first comprehensive analysis of case law and Chinese academic debates from 2002 to 2018, this book shows that gradually increased engagement with international adjudication is part of a broad effort to consolidate China’s economic and political gains, and regain great power status. It covers trade, investment, territorial and law of the sea matters – including the South China Sea disputes – and delineates a decades-long process between caution and ambition. Both in debate patterns and in actual engagement, this book finds remarkable similarities in all covered fields of law, merely the timetables differ.


AJIL Unbound ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 111 ◽  
pp. 81-87 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrea Bianchi

My very first publication, admittedly written in a language that many AJIL Unbound readers might be unable or unwilling to read, was an essay on the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and its effects vis-à-vis third parties. Already back then, I found it difficult to justify how an international treaty could rubber-stamp such a highly uneven state of affairs. The overt acknowledgement of the discrimination between nuclear and nonnuclear states, the hypocrisy about “unofficial” nuclear states, and the Article VI obligation for nuclear states to negotiate effective measures of disarmament, largely ignored in the first twenty years of the treaty, were all elements that contributed to my perception of unfairness, if not blatant injustice. As a young researcher approaching international law with the enthusiasm of the neophyte, however, this looked like a little anomaly in an otherwise fair and equitable international legal order. It did not set off warning bells about the system as such. After all, international law was geared, at least in my eyes, towards enhancing the wellbeing of humanity. It must have been so. And it is not that I leaned particularly on the idealistic side; it seemed normal to me … at the time.


2014 ◽  
Vol 108 (3) ◽  
pp. 389-434 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pierre-Hugues Verdier ◽  
Erik Voeten

Customary international law (CIL) is widely recognized as a fundamental source of international law. While its continued significance in the age of treaties was once contested, it is now generally accepted that CIL remains a vital element of the international legal order. Yet CIL is also plagued with conceptual and practical difficulties, which have led critics to challenge its coherence and legitimacy. In particular, critics of CIL have argued that it does not meaningfully affect state behavior. Traditional CIL scholarship is ill equipped to answer such criticism because its objectives are doctrinal or normative—namely, to identify, interpret, and apply CIL rules, or to argue for desirable changes in CIL. For the most part, that scholarship does not propose an explanatory theory in the social scientific sense, which would articulate how CIL works, why states comply, and why and how rules change.


2017 ◽  
Vol 26 ◽  
pp. 3 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christian Tomuschat

The international legal order today constitutes a truly universal legal system. It has received guiding principles through the United Nations Charter: ever since this ‘Constitution for the world’ began operating, sovereign equality of states, self‑determination of peoples, and human rights have been key components of this architecture, which has reached a state of ‘conceptual unity’ belying the talk of ‘fragmentation’ of international law that so fascinated scholars in their debates only a short while ago. The great peace treaties of 1648, 1815, and 1919, as Euro‑centric instruments influenced by the interests of the dominant powers, could not bring about a peaceful world order. After World War II, it was, in particular, the inclusion of the newly independent states in the legislative processes that has conferred an unchallenged degree of legitimacy on international law. Regrettably, its effectiveness has not kept pace with its normative growth. Some islands of stability can be identified. On the positive side, one can note a growing trend to entrust the settlement of disputes to formal procedures. Yet the integration of human rights in international law – a step of moral advancement that proceeds from the simple recognition that, precisely in the interest of world peace, domains of domestic and international matters cannot be separated one from the other as neatly as postulated by the classic doctrine of international law – has placed enormous obstacles before international law. It must be expected that the demand for more justice on the part of developing nations will subject the international legal order to even greater strain in the near future. Currently, chances are low that the issue of migration from the poorer South to the ‘rich’ North can be resolved.


2006 ◽  
Vol 58 (3) ◽  
pp. 272-293 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dusko Dimitrijevic

In this study the author attaches a great importance to the theoretical examination of the concept of the New International Legal Order that was embodied in the last decades of the 20th century. The starting point for that reflection is the dissolution of the SFR Yugoslavia that illustrates one of the fundamental legal precedents. Reminding that the basic principle for the post-modern State behavior must be the one that includes minimal disturbance of the existing international legal relations, the author stresses that "the Yugoslav case" was customized in the way to respond to the new reality where the principle of effectiveness played an essential role in valuation of the statehood. It could also be one of the greatest catalysts for all further 'development rules' of international law.


2016 ◽  
Vol 2 (127) ◽  
pp. 115-122
Author(s):  
I. Zabara

The article deals with one of the theoretical aspects of international legal order issues – the question of its properties. The author summarizes the doctrinal views of international law and regards the basic properties of the phenomenon of international legal order as its ability to act as system complexity, dynamism, orderliness, the reality and legitimacy of actions of subjects. The author notes that there is a common position in the doctrine, according to which the international legal order is a system. However, he notes that the difference in views on the international legal order as a system consists in the components the researchers include in its composition; the author examines two theoretical approaches. The complexity of the international legal order is determined from the standpoint of the number of its elements and components, as well as the number of their connections. This opinion highlights the fact that the predominant role is played by the quantity of links between elements and components, and indicates the international legal order capacity for permanent changes under the influence of the relevant internal and external factors. The dynamism of the international legal order is characterized from the point of capacity for the development and modification. It is stated that the state of the dynamics is effected by several circumstances. The author concludes that this international legal order’s property as a dynamism is one of the qualities that characterizes its condition as a system. The orderliness of the international legal order is considered from a consistency point, the interaction of parts of the whole, due to its structure. The author notes that the ordering of the international legal order displays its internal relationships and emphasizes its status as a system. The reality of the international legal order is characterized from the point of objectively existing phenomenon. The author concludes that the allocation of the international legal order of reality as one of its properties is intended to emphasize the status of one of its most important components - the state of international relations. Separately, the author considers the question of the legality of actions of subjects of international law, which are discussed in the doctrine from the standpoint of the conditions necessary for its maintenance. The author points out that in the general context of the properties that characterize the international legal order, it can be considered as an aspect wich together with other characterizes the state of the international legal order.


2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (1) ◽  
pp. 91-104
Author(s):  
Shruti Rana

Abstract The Covid-19 pandemic and related shutdowns created seismic shifts in the boundaries between public and private life, with lasting implications for human rights and international law. Arriving just as the international legal order was wobbling in the wake of a populist backlash and other great challenges, the pandemic intensified fault lines of marginalisation and state action, amplifying the forces that had already left the liberal international order in crisis and retreat. This article examines the pandemic’s impacts on the international legal order through a gendered lens. It argues that in the short-term, the pandemic has reinforced public-private divides in international law, reinvigorating previous debates over the role of the state in protecting its people from harm. It argues that in the long-term, these developments threaten to unravel the most recent gains in international law and global governance that have supported and expanded the recognition of human rights to marginalised groups. Left unaddressed, this unraveling will further entrench such divides and contribute to the further retreat of the liberal international order. Examining these fault lines and their implications can help us re-imagine a post-pandemic international legal order that offers more protection for human rights, even as multilateral institutions and cooperation sputter or fail.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document