THE CONTEMPORARY VALUE(S) OF INTERNATIONAL LAW | Quizlet

How does International Relations (IR) see International Law(yers) (IL)? How does an understanding of IR help IL practitioners? 

It focuses on the two-way interplay between the disciplines:

1) How IR views IL as an 'internatioanl institution'

2) How IL embodies IR theories (e.g. article 31 + 32 VCLT)

What does it mean that different IR theories are dominant in various IL sub-disciplines?

Different IR theories are dominant in various IL sub-disciplines. It means that no single International Relations (IR) theory explains all areas of International Law (IL) equally well, so different subfields tend to be analyzed using different theoretical lenses depending on what best explains the dynamics in that area. For example

A) Realism might explain why Security Council law is so hard to change.

B) Liberalism or Constructivism might better explain the growth of Human Rights law or Climate Change agreements.

How does an understanding of IR help IL practitioners? 

An "understanding of IR help[s] IL practitioners" enables a lawyer to understand the why (the IR theory) behind a rule.

Thus they can:

- Make more persuasive legal arguments in court.

- Better advise governments on the likely success of a new treaty.

- Understand the limits of law during "re-alignments" like the current war in Ukraine

Purpose of theories

Purpose of theories

1) Attempt to explain (and consequently predict) or criticize reality

a) Predict: If a theory successfully explains past behavior, we can use it to anticipate future actions → If we believe states only care about power (Realism), we can predict how they might react to a new military alliance.

b) Critize: Theories provide a baseline for "what should be." → They allow scholars to point out where reality is failing to meet a standard, such as human rights protections or climate goals.

2) ‘Sunglasses’: term "Sunglasses" to describe how IR theories function. 

- Different Lenses for Different Views:  applying different IR theories changes how you interpret a legal or political event.

-No Single "Right" Theory: The metaphor implies that one pair of sunglasses isn't necessarily "better" than the others; rather, they reveal different things.

Snyder Article: The war in Ukraine is a colonial war. Core Thesis:

Snyder argues that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is fundamentally a colonial war, not just a geopolitical conflict.

1. Russia denies Ukraine’s existence as a nation, which is a classic imperial strategy used to justify domination and destruction.

2. The war reflects centuries of imperial thinking, where Ukraine is treated as an object to be controlled rather than a subject with agency.

Malksoo, M ‘The Postcolonial Moment in Russia’s War Against Ukraine’

Core argument?

Malksoo, M ‘The Postcolonial Moment in Russia’s War Against Ukraine’

Mälksoo argues that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine represents a “postcolonial moment (a turning point that exposes:

1. The imperial nature of Russia’s war

2. The failure of international relations (IR) theory to understand Eastern Europe

3. The need to decolonize how we think about war, sovereignty, and global politics

At its core, the war is a clash between: Ukraine’s sovereignty (nation-state logic) + Russia’s imperialism (empire logic)

A, Hatheway ‘The Great Unreveling Has Begun’  Core takeaway?

A, Hatheway ‘The Great Unreveling Has Begun’ 

Hathaway argues that the world is entering a dangerous breakdown of the post-1945 international legal order, where:

1) War is becoming more common again

2) Legal limits on the use of force are eroding

The global system risks returning to a “might makes right” era

3) The “great unraveling” refers to the collapse of decades of relative peace enforced by international law.

The New York Times, Alain Berset, ‘I am the Secretary General of the Council of Europe. This is Something I thought I’d Never Have to Write’ core take away?

The New York Times, Alain Berset, ‘I am the Secretary General of the Council of Europe. This is Something I thought I’d Never Have to Write’

1. Threats to Sovereignty and International Law

2. The Strategic Shift and National Security --> While the U.S. cites national security as the primary reason for acquisition, Berset points out that the U.S. already operates Pituffik Space Base ( base located on the northwest coast of Greenland) and could expand cooperation under existing agreements without transferring territory. + "Cold War Mind-set" + Fear of Rival Influence: 

3. The Role and Response of Europe:

a. Protecting Multilateralism

b. Accountability Mechanisms demonstrate how law can structure international action

4. Implications for the Trans-Atlantic Bond

1)  Erosion of Trust: it undermines the predictability and trust required for all alliances.

2) Dangerous Precedent:  threatens to unravel the trans-Atlantic bond and weaken the foundations that support both Europe and America.

3) Universal Validity: The essay concludes that international law must be universal to remain meaningful,

Stubb, A ‘The West’s Last Chance: How to Build a New Global Order Before It’s too Late’, key takeaway?

In the article "The West's Last Chance" published in Foreign Affairs, Alexander Stubb, the President of Finland, argues that the post-Cold War era has ended, giving way to a "new world of disorder" where the liberal, rules-based order is dying. He asserts that the next five to ten years will determine the global order for decades to come

1. The Shift from Multilateralism to Multipolarity

2. The Demise of the Post-Cold War Era: three competing spheres:

a. The Global West: seeking to uphold or reform the rules-based order.

b. The Global East:  revise or supplant Western-led rules.

c. The Global South:  hold the "swing vote"

4. "Values-Based Realism"

Stubb proposes a new foreign policy approach for the West called values-based realism

5. Urgent Reforms for International Institutions

What are the future scenarios envisaged by Stubb?

Stubb outlines three possible paths for the coming decade:

1) Persistent Disorder: International rules are followed "à la carte" based purely on interest.

2) Global Collapse: The order fails entirely, leading to a "dog-eat-dog world" dominated by strongmen and warlords.

3) Rebalanced Order: A new symmetry of power leads to cooperation among the three spheres to solve global challenges

In conclusion, Stubb contrasts the "Yalta" model 

(spheres of influence and big-power deals) 

vs                                                               with the "Helsinki" model (multilateralism and rules for  all), urging the West to choose the latter before it is too late.

What are the 4 MAIN IR THEORIES (&THEIR LINK(S) TO PERCEPTION OF IR)?

THERE ARE 4 MAIN IR THEORIES (&THEIR LINK(S) TO PERCEPTION OF IR)

1) Realism 

2) Liberal internationalism

3) Historical materialism/Marxism

4) Social constructivism

(Self study: feminism & post-colonialism)

What is REALISM?

REALISM → the world is an unsafe world, competitive, often conflict-driven system of states. Realism’s ‘three Ss: survival, statism, and anarchy (which promotes self-help)

Main elements:

1) States are the main actors:Countries (not individuals or organizations) dominate global politics.

2) Anarchy (self-help): There’s no world government above states. This doesn’t mean chaos, but rather a lack of a central authority to enforce rules.

3) National interest and survival: States primarily act to protect their own security and power. Power gives you the means to survival.

What are the realism's 'three Ss?

Realism's 'three Ss': statism, survival, and self-help, which are consistent across all variants of realist thought.

What are the newer views?

ASSUMPTIONS:

Newer views:

- It is not human nature but the anarchical system itself fostering fear and insecurity

- The distribution of power is the key variable when trying to understand matters of war and peace, alliance politics, etc.

- Anarchy promotes or provokes self-help, meaning that states will try to maximize their security and relative power positions.

- Offensive realism refers to states’ maximisation of power. It identifies a situation in which a global hegemon dominates the international system as the ideal.

What is the CRITICISM OF KEY REALIST TENETS (IMPORTANT FOR THE EXAM)

CRITICISM OF KEY REALIST TENETS (IMPORTANT FOR THE EXAM)

1) Statism: flawed on empirical grounds (the state faces challenges) and normative grounds (the state cannot respond to collective global problems)

2) Survival: question of whether there are limits to the actions a state can take in the name of necessity

3) Self-help: not an inevitable consequence of anarchy, but rather a logic that states have selected. Other options are possible, such as collective security systems

What is realism in a nutshell?

REALISM IN A NUTSHELL (Main key points to mention when defining it)

- 3Ss: statism, survival, self-help

- Starts from group interest and anarchy

- Focus on (balance of) power

- Centres on sovereignty

What is Liberal Internationalism?

LIBERAL INTERNATIONALISM → international relations can be shaped by cooperation, international law, and institutions (like the United Nations), with states promoting peace, democracy, and mutual benefits rather than just power and competition.

What are the FOUNDING IDEAS OF LIBERAL INTERNATIONALISM?

FOUNDING IDEAS OF LIBERAL INTERNATIONALISM

- The natural order has been corrupted by outdated policies such as the balance of power

- The problem of war can be solved through the development of a body of international rules and laws constraining the self-interest of states

- Trade and other cross-border flows will facilitate more peaceful international relations

MODERN EXTENSIONS OF FOUNDING IDEAS

- Revival of claim that liberal states are pacific in their international relations with other liberal states (democratic peace)

- Empirical evidence seems to support the democratic peace thesis (but it has important limitations)

- In ‘The End of History’ (1989), Fukuyama celebrated the triumph of liberalism over all other ideologies

- Others recognise that liberal states are just as aggressive as any other kind of state in their relations with authoritarian regimes and stateless people

WHAT ARE THE CHALLENGES CONFRONTING LI?

Current challenges include:

1) The diminishing relative power of the United States, which reduces its capacity to deal with global risks (see readings!)

2) Rising powers’ [i.e. China, LA, African states’] demands for a greater share of authority → many fear in the US that China is influencing all places where the US had a significant power and had ‘built’ their influence.For instance, China already has a much larger marine vessel capacity than US’s. 

3) Europe’s inability to serve as a second superpower that could promote internationalist rules and values. The second biggest world economy is unable to bring together its own power and defend those values it proudly defends on paper.  

4) A return to a form of state sovereignty that rejects intervention on internationalist grounds. 

What are the CRITICAL VIEWS?

CRITICAL VIEWS

1) Argue that structural patterns of hierarchy persist → These patterns are actively reproduced by security and development doctrines and policies. In other words, current IL and international organisations are part of the problem. 

3) Therefore, the liberal international order remains conveniently favourable to the most powerful states in the system. 

What is Historical materialism and Marxism?

HISTORICAL MATERIALISM / MARXISM → global politics and legal systems are shaped primarily by economic structures (capitalism) and class interests, rather than neutral rules or state cooperation.

KEY ELEMENTS: HM AND WORLD POLITICS

KEY ELEMENTS

- Holistic analysis: the social world should be analyzed as a whole (in its totality), where politics, law, and society are interconnected, not studied in isolation. 

- Historical Materialism: Processes of historical change are a reflection of the economic development of society—specifically of tensions between the means of production and relations of production. 

- Implication for world politics: International events and legal systems are structured by global capitalism, reflecting and reinforcing economic inequalities.

- Class conflict is a key determinant in historical developments → Social and historical development is primarily driven by conflict between social classes, especially between those who control the means of production and those who do not.

- Normative commitment: Analysts should not be detached and neutral, but have a moral obligation to try to make things better. 

- The concept of emancipation is key to any theorising of the social → A central goal of Marxist theory is emancipation, meaning the liberation of people from exploitation, inequality, and oppressive social structures.

What is the Historical materialism in a nutshell?

HISTORICAL MATERIALISM IN A NUTSHELL (Main key points to mention in exam definition)

- Focus on reproduction of and reparation of historical injustice(s). 

- Class conflict and emancipation 

- Unfairness in distribution and differences in power

What is Social constructivism?

SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIVISM→ international politics –and international law— are shaped by material forces (like military power or economics), but mainly by ideas, norms, identities, and shared understandings.

What points mekes constructivism of global changes?

CONSTRUCTIVISM AND GLOBAL CHANGE:

1) Diffusion: how particular models, practices, norms, strategies, or beliefs spread within a population?

Diffusion shows that global change is not just about power (realism) or incentives (liberalism)

but aboutsocial learning, imitation, legitimacy, and shared beliefs.

2) Socialisation:  states learn and internalise the norms, rules, values, and identities of an international community or “group,” so that their behaviour becomes aligned with what is considered appropriate within that group

3) The life cycle of norms: how a new global rule or standard becomes widely accepted and eventually “normal.”

1. norm emergence: pushed by norm entrepreneurs, who frame issues in ways that promote their ideas

2. norm cascade: norm diffuses, often because of pressure for conformity, desire for international legitimacy, or leaders’ quests for enhanced self-esteem

3. norm internationalisation

How does legislation int he interational domain occur?

Legislation in the international domain (i.e. production if international law) occurs both 

a) Informally → for example, it is possible evolution of new norms like R2P) 

b) Formally →  for example, via multilateralism

What is the multilateral legislation

MULTILATERAL LEGISLATION → the process of creating international legal rules through treaties or agreements involving multiple states, where those states collectively agree on reciprocally binding rules of conduct

What is the core problem argued by Monica Hakimi’s “Why Should We Care About International Law?” (2020)

Core Problem: Why international law is questioned

A major intellectual challenge comes from “realist” theory:

- States act based on power and interests, not law.

- International law is seen as “cheap talk” with little real effect.

Because there’s no central enforcement, powerful states can ignore it.

- Much scholarship tries to defend international law by proving:

- It changes behavior.

- It helps achieve specific policy outcomes (e.g., less war, more cooperation).

 Hakimi argues this debate is too narrow.

Hakimi’s critique: This justification is incomplete and unconvincing for three reasons:

1) Outcomes are not universally “good”

2) Obedience is not inherently valuable

3) U.S. leadership argument is weak

What is Harmini main takeaway?

Final takeaway. Hakimi’s main conclusion:

1) The traditional debate (“does international law work?”) is too limited.

International law matters because:

2) It structures how we argue about power and legitimacy.

3) It enables global dialogue grounded in norms, not just force.

Therefore, we should care about international law because it:

Shapes political discourse

Constrains how power is justified

Maintains a shared normative framework for global governance

—not just because it produces specific outcomes.

What is the central thesis of Hakimi & Cogan, ‘The End of the U.S.-Backed International Order and the Future of International Law’?

Hakimi & Cogan, ‘The End of the U.S.-Backed International Order and the Future of International Law’

Central Thesis

- The post–World War II international order was deeply shaped and sustained by U.S. power.

International law and U.S. power became mutually dependent (“co-constituted”).

- As U.S. dominance declines, international law itself—its structure, content, and function—will inevitably change.

Still learning (7)

You've begun learning these terms. Keep up the good work!