The Misery of International Law

Author(s):  
John Linarelli ◽  
Margot E Salomon ◽  
Muthucumaraswamy Sornarajah

Bringing together three international law scholars, this book addresses how international law and its regimes of trade, investment, finance, and human rights promote poverty, inequality, and dispossession. It addresses how international law is implicated in the construction of misery; how it is producing, reproducing, and embedding injustice and narrowing the alternatives that might really serve humanity. Adopting a pluralist approach, this work confronts unconscionable dimensions of the global economic order, the false premises upon which they are built, and the role of international law in constituting and sustaining them. Combining insights from radical critiques, political philosophy, history, and critical development studies, the book explores the pathologies at work in international economic law today. It challenges conventional justifications of economic globalization and eschews false choices. It is not about whether one is ‘for’ or ‘against’ international trade, foreign investment, or global finance. The issue is to resolve how, if we are to engage in trade, investment, and finance, we do so in a manner that is accountable to persons whose lives are affected by international law. The deployment of human rights for their part must be considered against the ubiquity of neoliberal globalization under law, and not merely as a discrete, benevolent response to it. Before we can understand how human rights can create more just societies, we must first expose the ways in which they reflect capitalist society and how they assist in reproducing the underlying terms of immiseration that will continue to create the need for human rights protection. This is a book of critique and not of prescription, but among its aims is to compel the reader to think beyond existing assumptions and structures to usher in the possibility of reconstituting the brutal world, if international law can be made to accommodate that undertaking.

2008 ◽  
Vol 90 (870) ◽  
pp. 359-370 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xavier Philippe

AbstractThis article seeks to explore the reasons why sanctions for international humanitarian law (IHL) violations are so difficult to put into effect. Beyond the lack of willingness of states to do so for political reasons, some more technical aspects should be emphasized. The implementation of sanctions is too often seen solely through the prism of international law, without enough attention being paid to the complexity and diversity of municipal legal systems. The author puts forward the idea that efficiency starts with a clear sharing of competencies. Three main issues are discussed: first, the influence of the sharing of competencies within the state (between the judiciary, the executive and the legislature) on the implementation of sanctions; second, the broad interpretation of their powers by regional or international bodies in charge of monitoring and reviewing human rights protection; and, third, the creation of new or specific bodies in charge of dealing with and if necessary punishing gross violations of humanitarian law.


Author(s):  
Bożena Drzewicka

Conceptions And Interpretations of Human Rights in Europe and Asia: Normative AspectsThe issue of confronting values between civilizations has become very important. It influences not only the level of international politics but also the international normative activity. It is very interesting for the modern international law and its doctrine. The most important factor of causing huge changes in the system of international law is still the international human rights protection and the international humanitarian law which is related to it. It is very difficult to create one catalogue of executive instruments and procedures but it is possible to influence the attitude toward the basic paradigms. The frictions appear from time to time and move to other planes. The West and Asia are still antagonists in the dialogue on the future of the world. The article is a contribution to the intercivilizational dialogue.


2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 175-185
Author(s):  
WOJCIECH SADURSKI

AbstractThis short comment offers two additional arguments, missing from Geir Ulfstein’s account, which may bolster the case for constitutionalisation of the ECtHR. The first is about the ‘pilot judgments’ through which the Court addresses systemic deficits in national legal systems and thus ensures a minimal synchronisation of human rights protection throughout the CoE system. The second manifestation of constitutionalisation of the ECHR system is the increasing role of the ECtHR in the implementation of its own judgments. Ultimately, the legitimacy for the constitutional ambitions of Strasbourg Court should be located primarily in the argumentative resources of the court and in its pursuit of ‘public reason’.


2009 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 219-245
Author(s):  
Ekaterina Yahyaoui Krivenko

AbstractInternational constitutionalism relates to processes of limiting traditionally unrestricted powers of states as ultimate subjects, law-makers and law-enforcers of international law. Human rights occupy a central, but very confusing and confused role in the theorisation of international constitutionalism. If feminist scholars have criticised the inadequacies, shortcomings and gaps of international law of human rights at least since 1991, the doctrine of international law theorising constitutionalisation of international law until now has remained blind to these critiques idealising human rights and often using them as the ultimate legitimating factor. Thus, legitimacy and legality become confused and the distinction between them blurred in the doctrine of international constitutionalism. This in turn creates a danger of failure of the constitutionalists project itself, as it will serve to reinforce existing inadequacies and gaps in human rights protection. To illustrate this argument, I discuss some examples related to the protection of women's and migrants' rights. In order to avoid this dangerous development, I argue that international lawyers theorising international constitutionalism shall adopt an adequate, inclusive notion of legitimacy. In order to develop this adequate understanding of legitimacy, they should first take seriously feminist and other critiques of international human rights law and international law more generally. In the final parts of this article I develop my own more detailed proposals on the future of legitimacy and international constitutionalism. In doing so, I draw on the 'self-correcting learning process' developed in the writings of Jürgen Habermas, 'democracy to come' and more general views on the nature of sovereignty and human rights expressed by Jacques Derrida, as well as Levinasian 'responsibility-to-and-for-the-Other'.


Author(s):  
Lenzerini Federico

This chapter focuses on the practice of deliberate destruction of cultural heritage, which has represented a plague accompanying humanity throughout all phases of its history and has involved many different human communities either as perpetrators or victims. In most instances of deliberate destruction of cultural heritage, the target of perpetrators is not the heritage in itself but, rather, the communities and persons for whom the heritage is of special significance. This reveals a clear discriminatory and persecutory intent against the targeted cultural groups, or even against the international community as a whole. As such, intentional destruction of cultural heritage, in addition of being qualified as a war crime, is actually to be considered as a crime against humanity. Furthermore, it also produces notable implications in terms of human rights protection. Protection of cultural heritage against destruction is today a moral and legal imperative representing one of the priorities of the international community. In this respect, two rules of customary international law exist prohibiting intentional destruction of cultural heritage in time of war and in peacetime.


2020 ◽  
Vol 89 (1) ◽  
pp. 67-93
Author(s):  
Miriam Bak McKenna

This article considers the ways in which geo-political and legal concerns materialised in debates over self-determination in the years following decolonisation, and how they impacted on its’ possibilities, objectives and conception. During this period, self-determination was not, as some scholars have argued, a declining norm, but one central to the competing visions of reinventing international law after empire. These varying articulations were largely shaped by the experience of colonialism and its ongoing effects, along with the ideological confrontation between East-West and North-South. One articulation stressed the primacy of political and economic sovereignty, prominently seen in calls for the establishment of a New International Economic Order. The other sought to integrate self-determination into the elevation of democratic governance and individual human rights protection. Examining these alternative formulations of self-determination, underlines the incompleteness of mainstream historical accounts, and may throw light upon continuing anxieties over its current legal status.


2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (3) ◽  
pp. 753-777
Author(s):  
Vera Shikhelman

Abstract In recent years, there has been an increasing amount of research about the implementation of international law. However, there has been almost no empirical research about implementing decisions of international human rights institutions. The decisions of those institutions are usually regarded as soft law, and states do not have a clear legal obligation to implement them. In this article, I bring original empirical data about how and when states implement decisions of the United Nations Human Rights Committee (HRC) in individual communications. I hypothesize that the following factors influence the readiness of states to implement the views of the HRC: (i) the level of democracy and human rights protection in the state; (ii) internal capacity; (iii) strength of civil society; (iv) type of remedy; (v) representation on the HRC; (6) subject matter of the communication. I find that the most important factor for implementing remedies granted by the Committee is the high human rights score of the state. The internal capacity of the state is also significant but to a lesser extent than found in previous studies. Also, I find a certain connection between the state being represented on the HRC and its willingness to implement the remedies.


2012 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 119-149 ◽  
Author(s):  
Júlia Mink

Abstract The principal objective of the article is to examine the EU legal framework and international law parameters of legal harmonisation processes in a specific field of human rights protection: asylum legislation. In particular, it is to provide an in-depth analysis of the compatibility of EU asylum legislation with existing international norms in relation to the principle of non-refoulement and the prohibition of torture and other forms of ill-treatment. It also aims at exploring the correspondence and controversies of relevant legal principles and norms under international law. Similarly, it attempts to provide an analysis of the incomplete and inefficient implementation of these international norms and principles by EU asylum law as well.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document