The Conceptual World of the Yale School of International Law

1968 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 108-132 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gidon Gottlieb
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Agreements ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
Power Relationships ◽  
International Studies ◽  
International Affairs ◽  
Demarcation Line ◽  
Actual Experience ◽  
Principal Tool ◽  
Political Decisions

International agreements perform functions worthy of the closest attention of the student of international affairs. They are a principal tool of diplomacy and the aim of most negotiations. Many such agreements are not intended to create legal relationships, and the demarcation line between legally binding agreements and other consensual relationships is correspondingly hazy and uncertain. International agreements have not, however, received in recent times nearly the degree of attention devoted in international studies to “force” and “power.” This is so despite the fact that they generally reflect the participants' power calculations and shared expectations. They are an essential mode of guidance and regulation in international relations, helping to shape decisions and claims sometimes even in the course of armed conflicts. International agreements loom large in the actual experience of statesmen, jurists, and military men—their conclusion, their application, and their breach represent complex political decisions with frequently serious outcomes leading to shifts in power relationships.

Just War Thinking as a Social Practice

2013 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 67-86 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Kelsay
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Social Practice ◽  
Just War ◽  
Special Section ◽  
Just War Theory ◽  
Military Force ◽  
International Studies ◽  
International Affairs ◽  
Jus Ad Bellum ◽  
War Discourse

The abstract for the International Studies Association panel that gave rise to this special section of Ethics & International Affairs referred to the “triumph” of just war theory. However, I think we ought rather to speak of just war discourse as occupying a particular niche. This is especially so with respect to discussions about policy: when and where governments should make use of military force, what type, and so on. In that context, appeals to the criteria of jus ad bellum and jus in bello complement (or sometimes compete with) thinking that draws on international law, various strategic doctrines (for example, counterinsurgency warfare, or COIN), notions of reciprocity between states, and a host of other considerations. The notion of “triumph” claims too much. At the same time, for advocates of the just war framework, the kind of recognition indicated by presidential and other official mentions of the idea is worthy of note. Some of these are due to constituency politics—that is, to the idea that “institutional” advocates of just war (say, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops) may influence blocs of voters. Other invocations are better interpreted as a recognition that the vocabulary of just war can serve (along with other ways of speaking) in the attempt to craft wise policy.

Middle-Ground Ethics: Can One Be Politically Realistic Without Being a Political Realist?

2011 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 7-16 ◽  
Author(s):  
Terry Nardin
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Moral Principle ◽  
Middle Ground ◽  
International Affairs ◽  
Political Realism ◽  
Political Decision ◽  
Normative Force ◽  
Modern Period ◽  
Political Decisions ◽  
Political Decision Making

Thinking about international affairs has oscillated between idealism and realism throughout the modern period. Moralists continue to search for a way to combine what is reasonable in each in an ethically defensible middle between those extremes. Such efforts often yield a soft version of political realism: an ethics of compromise between moral ideals and real-world interests. But this resolution fails to escape an awkward dichotomy between “morality” and “reality,” as if moral considerations were not real and interests never illusory. It also rests on a simplistic conception of politics. Politics is distinguished from other activities in being concerned with obligations prescribed and enforced within a legal order, and those who make political decisions cannot ignore these obligations. Political decision-making must therefore take account of law, which is distinct from both morality and interest. Law may have its ultimate justification in moral principle, but it provides reasons for acting that are distinct from moral reasons. This is true of law at any level, including international law. Law also has material as well as normative force as part of the world in which decisions are made. A more nuanced middle-ground ethics, then, would take account of law as making demands of its own. If we bring law into the picture, we discover limits to action that are grounded on neither morality nor interest.

scholarly journals Peace Agreements as International Legal Acts Protecting National Minorities: The Scope Ratione Personae

2021 ◽  
Vol 26 (5) ◽  
pp. 75-89
Author(s):  
Vita Czepek ◽  
Elżbieta Karska
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Agreements ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
Vienna Convention ◽  
National Minorities ◽  
Peace Agreements ◽  
State Actors ◽  
The Law ◽  
Rules Set ◽  
Peace Treaties

Abstract The issue of the protection of national minorities is regulated by acts of international law, frequently arising from international agreements that have been concluded to end armed conflicts or to regulate directly their consequences. Peace treaties concluded between states are governed by the rules set out in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. More and more peace agreements are, however, concluded by non-state actors. As indicated in Article 3 of the Convention, it cannot be excluded that these too would be international agreements, having effects in the sphere of international law. Such acts are concluded, inter alia, by insurgents or belligerents. In some cases, agreements ending non-international armed conflicts are concluded by domestic entities that are not subjects of international law. Such acts may reflect solutions that have been adopted as standards in international practice and in the provisions of international law. These do not necessarily have to be legally binding standards. They can also be framework solutions, including measures relating to the protection of national minorities, which are formulated and offered as proposals for specific regulations.

BERLAKU DAN KEABSAHAN PERJANJIAN INTERNASIONAL DALAM PANDANGAN HUKUM INTERNASIONAL

2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 95-103
Author(s):  
Komang Sukaniasa
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Agreements ◽  
The State ◽  
International Agreement ◽  
International Treaties ◽  
International Treaty ◽  
Binding Force ◽  
International Rights ◽  
Legal Consequences ◽  
Made In

International agreements are agreements between international subjects that give rise to binding obligations in international rights, which can be bilateral or multilateral. Based on these opinions, an understanding can be taken that international treaties are agreements or agreements entered into by two or more countries as subjects of international law that aim to cause certain legal consequences. International agreements, whether ratified or through approval or acceptance or accession, or other methods that are permitted, have the same binding force as ratified international treaties established in the Ratification Law of International Treaties. Once again, it is equally valid and binding on the state. Therefore, the authors consider that the position of international treaties are not made in the form of the Ratification Act of the International Agreement but are binding and apply to Indonesia. Then Damos Dumoli Agusman argues that ratification originates from the conception of international treaty law which is interpreted as an act of confirmation from a country of the legal acts of its envoys or representatives who have signed an agreement as a sign of agreement to be bound by the agreement.

US Foreign Policy After the Bush Administration

2008 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 15-21
Author(s):  
Francis Fukuyama
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Bush Administration ◽  
Us Foreign Policy ◽  
International Studies ◽  
International Affairs ◽  
Cornell University

Professor Fukuyama, B.A. Classics, Cornell University 1974, spoke at Cornell on April 21, 2008, at the invitation of the Einaudi Center for International Studies. The Board of the Cornell International Affairs Review had the privilege of meeting with him during his visit. The following article, produced here with his permission, is an edited transcript of this talk. The board of the Cornell International Affairs Review thanks Professor Fukuyama for his support to our mission.

Complex Battlespaces

2018 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
New Technologies ◽  
Urban Environments ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
Unmanned Aerial Systems ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Military Operations ◽  
Modern Warfare ◽  
Aerial Systems

The conduct of warfare is constantly shaped by forces beyond the battlefield. These forces create complexities in the battlespace for military operations. The ever-changing nature of how and where wars are fought creates challenges for the application of the unchanging body of international law that regulates armed conflicts. The term “complex” is often used to describe modern warfare, but what makes modern warfare complex? Is it the increasingly urbanized battlefield where wars are fought, which is cluttered with civilians and civilian objects? Is it the rise of State-like organized armed groups that leverage the governance vacuum created by failed or failing States? Is it the introduction of new technologies to military operations like autonomous weapons, cyber capabilities, and unmanned aerial systems? Or is it the application of multiple legal regimes to a single conflict? Collectively, these questions formed the basis for the Complex Battlespaces Workshop in which legal scholars and experts from the field of practice came together to discuss these complexities. During the workshop, there was a general consensus that the existing law was sufficient to regulate modern warfare. The challenge, however, arises in application of the law to new technologies, military operations in urban environments, and other issues related to applying international human rights law and international humanitarian law to non-international armed conflicts. This inaugural volume of the Lieber Book Series seeks to address many of the complexities that arise during the application of international law to modern warfare.

Historical Development

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kubo Mačák
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Historical Development ◽  
General Trend ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
Fundamental Transformation ◽  
State Actors ◽  
The Law ◽  
State Relations ◽  
Inter State ◽  
State Territory

This chapter traces the development of the law of belligerent occupation in order to identify trends relevant to the regulation of internationalized armed conflicts. It observes that despite the general grounding of this body of law in a state-centric paradigm, several isolated developments have contemplated the possibility of non-state actors becoming belligerent occupants of a portion of state territory. Moreover, the chapter highlights that the law of belligerent occupation has undergone a fundamental transformation as part of a general trend of individualization and humanization of international law. Therefore, it is no longer simply a brake on inter-state relations and a protector of states’ interests and institutions. Instead, the law has gradually brought individuals’ interests to the fore, putting persons before institutions and individuals before states. Overall, the chapter uncovers the historical reasons that support an extensive view of the applicability of the law of occupation to modern internationalized armed conflicts.

Introduction

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kubo Mačák
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Research Methodology ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
Normative Framework ◽  
Comprehensive Examination

This chapter introduces the central aim of this book: to provide a comprehensive examination of the notion, process, and effects of internationalization of armed conflicts in international law. It presents a brief research overview, outlining the scope of the enquiry, the research methodology, and the structure of the book. It then lays out the conceptual and normative framework for the rest of the book. To that end, it first justifies the need for the present study by confirming the continuing distinction between international and non-international armed conflicts in international law. Then, it puts forward a conception of internationalization that expresses the legal transformation from a non-international to an international armed conflict.

Of Rebels, Insurgents, and Belligerents

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tilman Rodenhäuser
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
Laws Of War ◽  
Armed Group ◽  
State Practice

The first chapter opens the substantive analysis of the organization requirement for non-state parties to armed conflicts. First, it briefly examines why the laws of war have originally been state-focused, and shows how this state focus coined international law requirements of main characteristics of a party to an armed conflict. Second, it analyses how philosophers broadened the legal notion of ‘war’ as to include conflicts involving certain non-state entities. Subsequently, this chapter examines state practice to identify which qualities a non-state armed group needed to possess to obtain the ‘belligerent’ status. It also examines the question of which kind of entities could qualify as ‘insurgents’ or ‘rebels’.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document