Talking International Law

"In a decentralized global system that lacks the formal trappings of domestic governance systems, most disputes between and among states and non- state actors never reach either a domestic or an international courtroom for some kind of authoritative resolution. This state of affairs continues, even with the creation of new international tribunals in recent decades. Despite, indeed because of, the relative scarcity of judicial settlement of disputes, international legal argumentation remains pervasive, but notably in a range of nonjudicial settings. States, corporations, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and even guerrilla groups make claims in international legal terms in political bodies like the United Nations' organs or domestic parliaments, private diplomatic discussions, and public statements in formal and informal settings. What purpose does such argumentation serve? What are its effects, intended and unintended? Who is engaging in the argumentation? Who is the audience? What, for that matter, counts as a legal argument and how is it different from other kinds of argument? These questions are not all new, but they have never been addressed systematically in one volume. Answering them is critical to a central goal for scholars and practitioners of international law and relations- to understand how international law actually operates in international affairs. This book probes these and other questions related to the place of international legal arguments from a multi- perspectival lens. It brings together a group of scholars and practitioners from around the world who have either written about or engaged in international legal argumentation outside of courtrooms. We draw on various theoretical traditions that address the phenomenon of argumentation in international affairs, either as an element of legal theory or of international relations theory. Yet our approach is largely inductive, looking at the actual practice of legal argumentation in a variety of settings and issue areas. From the cases, we seek to identify patterns and common themes in why, where, how, and to what effect the language of law is used outside of courts. This fills a significant gap in scholarship on international law and international relations by exploring the micro- process of communication using international law"--

Examining legal argumentation by states and other actors in the settings where it mostly transpires - outside of courts, Talking International Law challenges the realist assumption that legal argumentation is largely inconsequential. Addressing a gap in scholarship within international law and international relations theory, this book provides a comprehensive analysis of why it occurs, how, where, and to what effect by exploring the phenomenon in a range of issue areas, from security and human rights, to the environment, trade, and intellectual property. Diplomats and other governmental actors are the principal participants in international legal discourse, but intergovernmental officials, non-governmental organizations, academics, corporations, and even non-state armed groups also engage in "law talk." Through close examination of legal arguments in political and other settings, the authors uncover various motives these actors have for making legal claims - including persuasion, strategic calculations, assertions of identity, and the felt need to legitimate one's actions - or to delegitimate those of an adversary. Legal argumentation can have short-term and long-term effects, both intended and unintended, on immediate participants or a wider net of actors. By bringing together distinguished scholars with diverse perspectives and senior practitioners from around the world who engage in such argumentation themselves, the book offers a unique exposure to the multi-faceted practice of legal argumentation and thereby deepens our understanding of how international law actually operates in international affairs.

This book takes the reader on a sweeping tour of the international legal field to reveal some of the patterns of difference, dominance, and disruption that belie international law's claim to universality. Pulling back the curtain on the "divisible college of international lawyers," Anthea Roberts shows how international lawyers in different states, regions, and geopolitical groupings are often subject to distinct incoming influences and outgoing spheres of influence in ways that reflect and reinforce differences in how they understand and approach international law. These divisions manifest themselves in contemporary controversies, such as debates about Crimea and the South China Sea. Not all approaches to international law are created equal, however. Using case studies and visual representations, the author demonstrates how actors and materials from some states and groups have come to dominate certain transnational flows and forums in ways that make them disproportionately influential in constructing the "international." This point holds true for Western actors, materials, and approaches in general, and for Anglo-American (and sometimes French) ones in particular. However, these patterns are set for disruption. As the world moves past an era of Western dominance and toward greater multipolarity, it is imperative for international lawyers to understand the perspectives and approaches of those coming from diverse backgrounds. By taking readers on a comparative tour of different international law academies and textbooks, the author encourages them to see the world through the eyes of others -- an essential skill in this fast changing world of shifting power dynamics and rising nationalism.

An exploration of human choice in international legal and political decision making that investigates the neurobiology of choice and the history of how it has affected international peace and security.

A runner-up for the 2018 Chadwick Alger Prize, International Studies Association's International Organization Section, this provocative reassessment of the rule of law in world politics examines how and why governments use and manipulate international law in foreign policy.

"In a decentralized global system that lacks the formal trappings of domestic governance systems, most disputes between and among states and non- state actors never reach either a domestic or an international courtroom for some kind of authoritative resolution. This state of affairs continues, even with the creation of new international tribunals in recent decades. Despite, indeed because of, the relative scarcity of judicial settlement of disputes, international legal argumentation remains pervasive, but notably in a range of nonjudicial settings. States, corporations, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and even guerrilla groups make claims in international legal terms in political bodies like the United Nations' organs or domestic parliaments, private diplomatic discussions, and public statements in formal and informal settings. What purpose does such argumentation serve? What are its effects, intended and unintended? Who is engaging in the argumentation? Who is the audience? What, for that matter, counts as a legal argument and how is it different from other kinds of argument? These questions are not all new, but they have never been addressed systematically in one volume. Answering them is critical to a central goal for scholars and practitioners of international law and relations- to understand how international law actually operates in international affairs. This book probes these and other questions related to the place of international legal arguments from a multi- perspectival lens. It brings together a group of scholars and practitioners from around the world who have either written about or engaged in international legal argumentation outside of courtrooms. We draw on various theoretical traditions that address the phenomenon of argumentation in international affairs, either as an element of legal theory or of international relations theory. Yet our approach is largely inductive, looking at the actual practice of legal argumentation in a variety of settings and issue areas. From the cases, we seek to identify patterns and common themes in why, where, how, and to what effect the language of law is used outside of courts. This fills a significant gap in scholarship on international law and international relations by exploring the micro- process of communication using international law"--

“A brilliant and bracing analysis of the Palestine question and settler colonialism . . . a vital lens into movement lawyering on the international plane.” —Vasuki Nesiah, New York University, founding member of Third World Approaches to International Law (TWAIL) Justice in the Question of Palestine is often framed as a question of law. Yet none of the Israel-Palestinian conflict’s most vexing challenges have been resolved by judicial intervention. Occupation law has failed to stem Israel’s settlement enterprise. Laws of war have permitted killing and destruction during Israel’s military offensives in the Gaza Strip. The Oslo Accord’s two-state solution is now dead letter. Justice for Some offers a new approach to understanding the Palestinian struggle for freedom, told through the power and control of international law. Focusing on key junctures—from the Balfour Declaration in 1917 to present-day wars in Gaza—Noura Erakat shows how the strategic deployment of law has shaped current conditions. Over the past century, the law has done more to advance Israel’s interests than the Palestinians’. But, Erakat argues, this outcome was never inevitable. Law is politics, and its meaning and application depend on the political intervention of states and people alike. Within the law, change is possible. International law can serve the cause of freedom when it is mobilized in support of a political movement. Presenting the promise and risk of international law, Justice for Some calls for renewed action and attention to the Question of Palestine. “Careful and captivating . . . This book asks that the Palestinian liberation struggle and Jewish-Israeli society each reckon with the impossibility of a two-state future, reimagining what their interests are—and what they could become.” —Amanda McCaffrey, Jewish Currents

Offers an accessible discussion of conceptual and moral questions on international law and advances the debate on many of these topics.