International Law

The end of the Cold War has brought a new form of world disorder. The systems and strategies imposed by the global balance of power of the Cold War have evaporated. The international system is seeking a new equilibrium between global integration and global disintegration. Natural forces of economic and cultural integration are opposed by equal and opposite forces of national and cultural particularism, and by the conflicts flowing from gross inequalities and injustices of social and economic order.

The vocabulary of “reasonableness” invokes a wide margin of discretion that is often needed to temper the excessive rigour of legal rules and to deal with the inevitable problems of over- and under-inclusion associated with application of formal law to individual cases. The acceptability of the use of discretion by a law-applying institution such as the Israeli High Court of Justice is based on the assumption that its preferences and moral sensibilities are broadly reflective of the preferences and sensibilities of the community in which it exercises its jurisdiction.

The essay examines some of the changes in the author’s thinking about the politics of engaging in international law since the original publication of the article that opened the first issue of EJIL in 1990. The essay points to the change of focus from indeterminacy (to which the author is as committed as ever) of legal arguments to the structural biases of international institutions. It then discusses the politics of definition, that is to say, the strategic practice of defining international situations and problems in new expert languages so as to gain control over them.

Instead of appearing as a stable set of normative demands opposed to international politics, international law is better understood as an aspect of hegemonic contestation, a technique of articulating political claims in terms of legal rights and duties. The controversies in the law concerning the use of force, the law of peace, human rights, trade and globalization reflect strategies through which political actors seek to make their preferences appear to be universal ones.

This book argues that the colonial confrontation was central to the formation of international law and, in particular, its founding concept, sovereignty. Traditional histories of the discipline present colonialism and non-European peoples as peripheral concerns. By contrast, Anghie argues that international law has always been animated by the ‘civilizing mission’—the project of governing non-European peoples, and that the economic exploitation and cultural subordination that resulted were constitutively significant for the discipline.

The universal promise of contemporary international law has long inspired countries of the Global South to use it as an important field of contestation over global inequality. Taking three central examples, Sundhya Pahuja argues that this promise has been subsumed within a universal claim for a particular way of life by the idea of ‘development.’ As the horizon of the promised transformation and concomitant equality has receded ever further, international law has legitimized an ever-increasing sphere of intervention in the Third World.

As international criminal courts and tribunals have proliferated and international criminal law is increasingly seen as a key tool for bringing the world’s worst perpetrators to account, the controversies surrounding the international trials of war criminals have grown. War crimes tribunals have to deal with accusations of victor’s justice, bad prosecutorial policy and case management, and of jeopardizing fragile peace in post-conflict situations.

This article looks critically at the human rights project as a damning three-dimensional metaphor that exposes multiple complexes. It argues that the grand narrative of human rights contains a subtext which depicts an epochal contest pitting savages, on the one hand, against victims and saviors, on the other. The savages-victims-saviors construction lays bare some of the hypocrisies of the human rights project and asks human rights thinkers and advocates to become more self-reflective. The piece questions the universality and cultural neutrality of the human rights project.

In International Law and World Order, B. S. Chimni articulates an integrated Marxist approach to international law (IMAIL), combining the insights of Marxism, socialist feminism, and postcolonial theory. The book uses IMAIL to systematically and critically examine the most influential contemporary theories of international law, including new, feminist, realist, and policy-oriented approaches. In doing so, it discusses a range of themes relating to the history, structure, and process of international law.