Interdisciplinary Perspectives on International Law and International Relations: The State of the Art by Jeffrey Dunoff and Mark Pollack [Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2013, 969pp, IBSN 978-1-107-02074-0, £75.00 (h/bk)]

2013 ◽  
Vol 62 (3) ◽  
pp. 771-773
Author(s):  
Ian Hurd
Author(s):  
David Boucher

The classic foundational status that Hobbes has been afforded by contemporary international relations theorists is largely the work of Hans Morgenthau, Martin Wight, and Hedley Bull. They were not unaware that they were to some extent creating a convenient fiction, an emblematic realist, a shorthand for all of the features encapsulated in the term. The detachment of international law from the law of nature by nineteenth-century positivists opened Hobbes up, even among international jurists, to be portrayed as almost exclusively a mechanistic theorist of absolute state sovereignty. If we are to endow him with a foundational place at all it is not because he was an uncompromising realist equating might with right, on the analogy of the state of nature, but instead to his complete identification of natural law with the law of nations. It was simply a matter of subject that distinguished them, the individual and the state.


Author(s):  
Marina Okladnaya ◽  
Vadym Ptytsia

Problem setting. Legal personality of Kyivan Rus’ is very complex issue, which contains elements such as contract law, law of war, ambassadorial law, general position of the state in the international relations sphere. The condition of Kyivan Rus’ in medieval history can be determined only after analyzing researches of well-known scientists, who had different opinions on this subject. In spite of the fact that a lot of researches were made on this topic, there is no clear and unambiguous answer to the question: “was Kyivan Rus’ independent and equal subject of international law?” In our opinion, this topic is actual even nowadays, because without an analysis of the issue it is impossible to form a modern understanding of Ukrainian statehood and its features in different periods. Analysis of recent researches and publications. Valuable contribution to the research of Kyivan Rus’ position in international relations sphere were made by lots of scientists in areas of Ukrainian history and history of international law such as O. Zadoroznyi, P. Tolochko, O. Butkevich, A. Dmitriev, Y. Dmitriev, M. Kotlyar, V. Pashuto, D. Feldman, V. Butkevich, I. Shekera, O. Pavlenko etc. Target of research is to analyze and compare opinions of different authors on the issue of determining Kyivan Rus’ as legal entity of international law. To achieve this target these tasks have to be solved: to research and analyze modern scientists’ studies about the position of Kyivan Rus’ in international law sphere in medieval period; to compare scientists’ views on legal personality of the state and come to a certain conclusion on this issue. Article’s main body. In this article author analyzes different periods of Kyivan Rus’ existence, general position of the state in international relations sphere and opinions of different scientists on this subject. Also, the article provides a comparison of scientists’ views on the topic of legal personality of international law of Kyivan Rus’. Conclusions. Kyivan state in different periods of its existence was in various international legal positions. Despite of the fact, that features of international law of Kyivan Rus’ is a topic for controversy, Ukrainian and foreign scientists came to the conclusion that Rus’ was full-fledged subject of international law and after its collapse it revived in the Principality of Galicia-Volhynia, Zaporozhian Sich and the Cossack Hetmanate, Ukrainian People’s Republic, UkSSR (as independent UN member) and modern independent Ukraine.


2012 ◽  
Vol 13 (5) ◽  
pp. 466-467
Author(s):  
Ignacio de la Rasilla Y del Moral

The papers gathered under this special issue draw on presentations from the International Legal Theory Workshop under the auspices of the 4th Conference of the European Society of International Law, which was held at Cambridge University in September 2010. The essays cover some key developments in international law since the fall of the Berlin Wall. In the pages that follow, you will find an examination of the rise of the notion of ‘harmonious society’ in China as well as an insightful analysis of how this concept can influence international law; a detailed study of the regime of responsibility of international organizations that has gained momentum in the wake of the proliferation of international organization since 1989; a proposal for a fiduciary theory of international human rights, conceived as an alternative model to post-9/11, interest-balancing approaches in the field of national security law; and a reflection on the endurance of the notion of rogue states and state-criminalizing approaches to international relations, beyond the confines of the Bush doctrine. These essays are started off by two papers that address, from different angles, the current state of theorizing of international law.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document