International law and the limits of global justice

2011 ◽  
Vol 37 (5) ◽  
pp. 2073-2088 ◽  
Author(s):  
SALADIN MECKLED-GARCIA
Keyword(s):  
Social Justice ◽  
International Law ◽  
Global Justice ◽  
Special Kind ◽  
Human Action ◽  
International Order ◽  
Alternative Form ◽  
Global Order ◽  
Global Arena

AbstractThere are two central theses to this article, the first is that a special kind of governance authority is needed for principles of distributive social justice (‘social justice’ from now on) to be applicable to any sphere of human action. The second is that international law does not and cannot represent that kind of governance authority. It is not ‘social justice-apt’, in my terminology. This is due to the limits inherent in the statist character of international law, a character that underlies the point and purpose of international law in the first place. Putting these together, one can conclude that international law cannot be used to govern the global order according to those principles of social justice that liberal theorists typically defend in the domestic context. This shows that if the cosmopolitan project of extending social justice to the global arena does not find an alternative form of governance for the international order (the problem of ‘cosmopolitan coordination’) it ceases to be a viable project.

scholarly journals The law of the global economy and the spectre of inequality

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ingo Venzke
Keyword(s):  
Social Justice ◽  
International Law ◽  
Global Economy ◽  
Economic Order ◽  
Global Order ◽  
Progressive Change ◽  
Inaugural Lecture ◽  
The Future ◽  
The Law ◽  
Do So

Abstract Drawing on my inaugural lecture, I argue that the spectre of inequality haunts international law. The presence of the spectre first of all draws attention to what is rotten in the global economic order: how the law of the global economy has contributed to high levels of inequality while, at the same time, abdicating responsibility for it. Second, like all spectres, international law’s spectre of inequality is animated by a spirit, the spirit of social justice. It points to forsaken paths, lost memories and conjures up past possibilities that were not realized. Third, the spectre endures unless we give in and break with current repetitions. It directs those in search of progressive change towards productive contradictions within global order. Those contradictions are indeed carriers of hope. They offer reason to believe that the future is open. Engaging with the spectre of inequality in international law turns out to be much less daunting than failing to do so.

Utilitarian International Order

2019 ◽  
pp. 247-266
Author(s):  
Gerald J. Postema
Keyword(s):  
Public Opinion ◽  
International Relations ◽  
International Law ◽  
Soft Power ◽  
International Politics ◽  
International Order ◽  
Mutual Benefit ◽  
Global Order ◽  
Legislative Authority ◽  
The Law

International politics was integral to Bentham’s comprehensive jurisprudential project. His perspective on international law was that of a legislator, an engineer of global order, not that of expositor or theorist of the existing law. He articulated a (quasi-) cosmopolitan principle for the governance of a state-pluralist global order: the ultimate aim of international law, he argued, is the greatest common and equal utility of all nations. This principle articulates a standard of equal, mutual benefit and builds in a proviso that permits derogation from arrangements or laws that work greatly to the disadvantage of any given nation. He envisioned the global order as a loose affiliation of equal sovereign states, each of which participates on an equal basis in a common congress accorded legislative authority through their participation and is subject to judgments of a common tribunal. Bentham’s ultimate solution to the problem of war was threefold: (i) the law was to be put on a clear, authoritative, and fully public basis in a carefully drafted and systematic code; (ii) all disputes arising in international relations were to be directed to this code and a common tribunal was empowered to resolve the disputes in an impartial way; (iii) judgments of the tribunal were to be enforced by the soft power of Public Opinion Tribunal consisting of both nations and individuals.

scholarly journals Global Justice and the New Regulatory Regime

2016 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 122-138
Author(s):  
Kevin W. Gray ◽  
Kafumu Kalyalya
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Global Justice ◽  
Regulatory Regime ◽  
Global Order ◽  
State Action ◽  
State Consent ◽  
Global Law ◽  
Realist Conception ◽  
Law Making

In this paper we challenge the role of consent in the global order by discussing current modes of international law making in the global order. We contend that the features of state consent in international law depart substantially from those assumed by theorists of the liberal order, who subscribe, in most cases, to the realist conception of state action. We argue, against those theorists, that state consents to coercive measures, and the state’s role in carrying them out, has ceased to be central to an account of global law. We conclude that international law—often thought of as law beyond the state—now has expanded its scope to reach individuals and corporations, and that this change has important ramifications for theories of global justice.

scholarly journals Selling international law enforcement: Elite justifications and public values

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 205316802095678
Author(s):  
Melissa M. Lee ◽  
Lauren Prather
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
International Law ◽  
Public Support ◽  
International Order ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Public Values ◽  
Norm Enforcement ◽  
The Usa ◽  
The Law ◽  
Order Increase

International law enforcement is an understudied but indispensable factor for maintaining the international order. We study the effectiveness of elite justifications in building coalitions supporting the enforcement of violations of the law against territorial seizures. Using survey experiments fielded in the USA and Australia, we find that the effectiveness of two common justifications for enforcement—the illegality of a country’s actions, and the consequences of those actions for international order—increase support for enforcement and do so independently of two key public values: ideology and interpersonal norm enforcement. These results imply elites can build a broad coalition of support by using multiple justifications. Our results, however, highlight the tepidness of public support, suggesting limits to elite rhetoric. This study contributes to the scholarship on international law by showing how the public, typically considered a mechanism for generating compliance within states, can impede or facilitate third-party enforcement of the law between states.

Introduction. Imprints of Colonialism in Public International Law: On the Paradoxes of Transition

2016 ◽  
Vol 18 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 239-247
Author(s):  
Jörn Axel Kämmerer
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
Birth Defect ◽  
International Workshop ◽  
International Order ◽  
Transdisciplinary Research ◽  
Research Project ◽  
Public International Law

The article is an introduction to subsequent articles touching upon the relevance of colonialism to the evolution of public international law. This was the topic of a transdisciplinary research project conducted by German scholars and of an international workshop, with this issue as a yield. Imperial colonialism may be perceived as a period of transition from a parallelism of mostly unconnected ‘trans-communitarian’ systems toward today’s universal international order. A paradox is inherent in decolonisation because the price of independence consisted in non-European systems being ultimately and definitely superseded by a public international law shaped almost exclusively by European powers. This ‘birth defect’ of universality explains many persisting tensions in international legal relations. It is worthwhile to assess whether public international law could draw some inspiration from approaches in the constitutional law of selected states with a colonial heritage in view of mitigating conflicts without, however, compromising the benefits inherent in universality.

The Justification of War and International Order

2021 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Early Modern ◽  
International Law ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
International Order ◽  
Frame Of Reference ◽  
Pertinent Literature ◽  
Modern Times ◽  
History Of ◽  
Early Modern Times

The history of war is also a history of its justification. The contributions to this book argue that the justification of war rarely happens as empty propaganda. While it is directed at mobilizing support and reducing resistance, it is not purely instrumental. Rather, the justification of force is part of an incessant struggle over what is to count as justifiable behaviour in a given historical constellation of power, interests, and norms. This way, the justification of specific wars interacts with international order as a normative frame of reference for dealing with conflict. The justification of war shapes this order and is being shaped by it. As the justification of specific wars entails a critique of war in general, the use of force in international relations has always been accompanied by political and scholarly discourses on its appropriateness. In much of the pertinent literature the dominating focus is on theoretical or conceptual debates as a mirror of how international normative orders evolve. In contrast, the focus of the present volume is on theory and political practice as sources for the re- and de-construction of the way in which the justification of war and international order interact. The book offers a unique collection of papers exploring the continuities and changes in war discourses as they respond to and shape normative orders from early modern times to the present. It comprises contributions from International Law, History and International Relations and from Western and non-Western perspectives.

scholarly journals Climate Change, Environmental Security and Global Justice

2017 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 119
Author(s):  
Solomon E. Salako
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
International Law ◽  
Global Justice ◽  
Storm Surges ◽  
Environmental Security ◽  
Small Island ◽  
Atmospheric Concentration ◽  
International Consensus ◽  
Sea Levels ◽  
Security Issues

There is an international consensus that climate change is caused by human activities which substantially increase the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases.The ill-effects of climate change are droughts which adversely affect the global poor who are engaged in agriculture; storm surges which destroy local infrastructure, housing and crops; and the rise of sea levels which adversely affect the inhabitants of small island states which could eventually be totally submerged. Military strategists and intelligence analysts are preparing for future conflicts likely to be caused by environmental security issues.The objects of this article are: (i) to evaluate the ill-effects of climate change as a matter of global justice, (ii) to consider whether future generations have the right not to suffer from the ill-effects of climate change, and if so, (iii) to evaluate the relevant conceptions of global justice, and (iv) to assess critically whether international law provides effective preventive responses to climate change and environmental security threats.Finally, a monist-naturalist conception of global justice privileging human dignity as one of its guiding principles is proffered as a solution to the problems raised by the mechanisms of dealing with the ill-effects of climate change and the attendant environmental security issues under international law.

scholarly journals The Trade Regime Complex and Megaregionals – An Exploration from the Perspective of International Domination

2017 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Clara Brandi
Keyword(s):  
Global Governance ◽  
Global Justice ◽  
Democratic Deficit ◽  
Global Order ◽  
Transatlantic Trade ◽  
Regime Complex ◽  
Heated Debate ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Trade And Investment ◽  
Institutional Fragmentation

Megaregional trade negotiations have become the subject of heated debate, above all in the context of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). In this article, I argue that the justice of the global order suffers from its institutional fragmentation into regime complexes. From a republican perspective, which aspires to non-domination as a guiding principles and idea of global justice, regime complexes raise specific and important challenges in that they open the door to specific forms of domination. I thereby challenge a more optimistic outlook in regime complexes, which paints a positive normative picture of regime complexes, arguing that they enable the enhancement of democracy beyond the state and, consequently, have the potential to reduce the democratic deficit in global governance. By drawing attention to how regime complexes reinforce domination-related injustice, this article contributes an original perspective on megaregionals and to exploring the implications of global justice as non-domination.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document