Ordering Anarchy International Law In International Society

The end of the Cold War has released some hitherto suppressed trends in international society that are reshaping international order, such as globalization and its nemesis - fragmentation. This volume analyzes the current transformation of the character of the state as the principal actor of international society and related changes in the structure of international society. International law, especially its fundamental principles, such as sovereign equality of states, non-use of force, non-interference, respect for human rights, and self-determination of peoples, reflect some basic characteristics of the state and the structure of international society. Because of significant changes going on in the latter, many crucial principles of international law have ceased to reflect the reality. Moreover, fundamental principles often come into conflict with each other since they reflect main characteristics of different international societies -- Westphalian and post-Westphalian.

This book elaborates and defends law without the state. It explains why the state is illegitimate, dangerous and unnecessary.

This is a study of the political parameters of international law and, conversely, the law's relevance and reach in international politics. At the theoretical level, it bridges the competing dominant paradigms - neorealism and neoliberalism - in the contemporary IR literature.

The relationship between international order and justice has long been central to the study and practice of international relations. For most of the twentieth century, states and international society gave priority to a view of order that focused on the minimum conditions for coexistence in a pluralist, conflictual world. Justice was seen either as secondary or sometimes even as a challenge to order. Recent developments have forced a reassessment of this position. Firstly, many trends inthe 1990s increased expectations of greater justice within a liberal and liberalizing international order - for example, in relation to human rights, humanitarian intervention, collective security, and self-determination. Second, globalization deepened the sense of ideational and material interdependence, prompting acknowledgement that we co-exist in a single world and that effective solutions to shared problems cannot be achieved without a concern for justice - especially as the negative aspects of globalization have become more evident. Third, claims to justice and critiques of the existing order have been forcefully pressed by an increasing range of non-governmental and other groups within transnational civil society. These three developments suggest movement towards a greater solidarist consciousness and ambition, based primarily on a liberal vision of the relationship between order and justice. This book sets current concerns within a broad historical and theoretical context; explores the depth and scope of this presumed solidarism amidst the difficulties of acting on the basis of a more strongly articulated liberal position; and underscores the complexity and abiding tensions inherent in the relationship between order and justice. Chapters examine a wide range of state and transnational perspectives on order and justice, including those from China, India, Russia, the United States, and the Islamic world. Other chapters investigate how the order-justice relationship is mediated within major international institutions, including the United Nations, the World Trade Organization and the global financial institutions.

1. The realist tradition

Order within Anarchy focuses on how the laws of war create strategic expectations about how states and their soldiers will act during war, which can help produce restraint. The success of the laws of war depends on three related factors: compliance between warring states and between soldiers on the battlefield, and control of soldiers by their militaries. A statistical study of compliance of the laws of war during the twentieth century shows that joint ratification strengthens both compliance and reciprocity, compliance varies across issues with the scope for individual violations, and violations occur early in war. Close study of the treatment of prisoners of war during World Wars I and II demonstrates the difficulties posed by states' varied willingness to limit violence, a lack of clarity about what restraint means, and the practical problems of restraint on the battlefield.