The Battle for International Law

The so-called ‘decolonization era’ witnessed a fundamental challenge to (legalized) Western hegemony through a new vision of the institutional environment and political economy of the world. It is during this era, arguably couched between classic European imperialism and a new form of US-led Western hegemony, that fundamental legal debates took place over a new international legal order for a decolonized world. These debates consist in essence of a battle that was fought by diplomats, lawyers and scholars over, in particular, the premises and principles of international law. In a moment of relative weakness of European powers, ‘newly independent states’ and international lawyers from the South fundamentally challenged traditional Western perceptions of international legal structures engaging in fundamental controversies over a new international law. This book argues that international legal structures in many areas of international relations, including international economic law, the use of force, international humanitarian, the law of the sea, and human rights have been transformed during this era. The effect of this transition, however, was enabling the change from classic European imperialism to new forms of US-led Western hegemony. It draws on Koselleck’s Sattelzeit concept—bridging two different forms of global Western dominance—in which fundamental concepts of international law were re-imagined, politicized, and transformed. All aspects of this battle are of vital importance for any future project aiming to address and alter the relationship between international law and fundamental inequalities in this world.

Author(s):  
Jochen von Bernstorff ◽  
Philipp Dann

The so-called ‘decolonization era’ witnessed a fundamental challenge to (legalized) Western hegemony through a new vision of the institutional environment and political economy of the world. Couched between classic European imperialism and a new form of US-led Western hegemony, fundamental legal debates took place over a new international legal order for a decolonized world. ‘Newly independent states’ and international lawyers from the South fundamentally challenged traditional Western perceptions and beliefs, which led to a discursive ‘battle for international law’. This chapter argues that underlying structures in many areas of international relations were transformed during this era, enabling a transition from classic European imperialism to new forms of US-led Western hegemony. The underlying aspirations, strategies and failures related to the battle for international law are of vital importance for any future project aiming to address and alter the relationship between international law and fundamental inequalities in this world.


Author(s):  
Antonello Tancredi

This chapter addresses the development, after World War II, of two different currents of thought inherited by the Italian international law doctrine from the interwar period: dogmatism and structuralism. The analysis of some fundamental writings concerning topics such as the foundation and the social structure of the international legal order tries to offer a reading lens on some of the most important scientific trends (especially ‘realism’ and ‘neo-normativism’) of the post-World War II period and on the scholars that animated such approaches. Thanks to the identification of some structuring ideas, it will then be possible to briefly examine other issues concerning, for instance, the relationship between international and domestic law after the 1948 Republican Constitution, sovereignty, etc. The evolution of the methodology of international law will have a relevant part in the analysis of theoretical approaches developed by Italian scholars in this period.


Author(s):  
Ingo Venzke

This chapter investigates the role of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) during the battle for international law circa the years of 1955–1975. It first draws attention to newly independent states that saw the Court in its role of reinforcing international law’s colonial imprints. The chapter then focuses on the Court’s captivating highpoint during the battle for international law: its 1962 and 1966 Judgments in South West Africa, and the jarring 1966 decision which, in the eyes of many states, presented the ICJ as a ‘white man’s court’ in a white man’s world. The chapter then shows the effects of the 1966 decision in judicial elections and the quest to change the composition of the bench. Finally, the chapter argues that the present inquiry serves as a vivid reminder that international law and its institutions are the product of a veritable struggle, then as now.


2019 ◽  
pp. 78-102
Author(s):  
Gleider Hernández

This chapter assesses the relationship between international law and municipal law. Though international law deals primarily with inter-State relations, and municipal law addresses relationships between individuals or between individuals and the State, there are many overlapping issues on which both international and national regulation are necessary, such as the environment, trade, and human rights. Though the international legal order asserts its primacy over municipal legislation, it leaves to domestic constitutions the question of how international legal rules should be applied or enforced in municipal orders. Two conflicting doctrines define the relationship between international and municipal legal orders: dualism and monism. Dualism is usually understood as emphasizing the autonomy and distinct nature of municipal legal orders, in which the State is sovereign and supreme. Meanwhile, theories of monism conceive the relationship between international and municipal legal orders as more coherent and in fact unified, their validity deriving from one common source.


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.


Refuge ◽  
2006 ◽  
pp. 55-67
Author(s):  
Hilary Pilkington ◽  
Moya Flynn

The term “Russian diaspora” is used to refer to the twenty-five million ethnic Russians who in 1991 found themselves politically displaced beyond the borders of the Russian Federation and resident within newly independent states. This paper firstly reviews the problematic “classification” of these communities as a “diaspora.” More specifically, by drawing on narratives of “home” and “homeland” among those Russians “forced” to return to the Russian Federation since 1991, it focuses on a central pillar of diasporic identity: the relationship to “homeland.” By exploring the everyday interactions with and articulated narratives of Russia on “return,” the paper argues that it is upon confrontation with “the homeland” that Russian returnees develop a sense of “otherness” from local Russian residents and a connection with other “returning Russians.” The question is raised as to whether, rather than “coming home,” Russians returning from the other former Soviet republics become a “diaspora in diaspora"?


Author(s):  
Pocar Fausto

This chapter explores how the proliferation of newly independent states and state dissolution has resulted in greater complexity on the issue of state succession of treaty obligations. In particular, between the theories of tabula rasa succession and automatic state succession. The Human Rights Committee, the Convention on Succession of States in respect of Treaties, and the development of customary international law all bolster the imposition of automatic state succession with respect to international human rights and humanitarian law treaties. Automatic state succession is required by the special nature of human rights and humanitarian law. Thus, once a population is granted the protection of such rights, these rights devolve with the territory and a state cannot deny them. Furthermore, other international institutions have enforced these obligations resulting in the continuity of international human rights and humanitarian law treaties.


Author(s):  
Astrid Kjeldgaard-Pedersen

Chapter 2 identifies and explains the four theoretical conceptions of international legal personality, which will be tested against historical and existing norms of positive international law in Chapters 3–8. With particular focus on the role attributed to the individual as the ultimate subject of international law, the examination will concentrate on selected scholars’ conclusions on the criteria for, and the consequences of acquiring, international legal personality. Moreover, it will address the way in which proponents of the various conceptions perceive the relationship between the international legal order and national legal order(s) and the role of the concept of international legal personality in that regard. Given that a primary aim of the book is to ascertain the position of the individual as a matter of international lex lata, particular attention is given to the two main conceptions of international legal personality, which both claim to be positivist.


Author(s):  
Emmanuelle Tourme Jouannet

This contribution explores the works and biography of Charles Chaumont, who influenced an important group of third-world scholars, among them Mohammed Bedjaoui. These scholars were shaped by the neo-Marxist analysis of international legal structures developed by the Reims school in international law headed by Chaumont himself. Chaumont published on decolonization issues and methodologically sought to replace Scelle’s interwar idealism with a highly realistic analysis of the relationship between the interests of Western economic elites and prevailing international legal structures. While using neo-Marxist insights in his analysis Chaumont did not succumb to a determinist perspective on law. Rather, this chapter portrays him as the father of a radical critique of the function of law in exploitative North-South relations both before and after decolonization.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document