International Law and International Organizations

International Law and Institutions

  • International Law
    • Definition: A set of rules, norms, and principles governing relationships and interactions between sovereign states, international organizations, and sometimes individuals in the global community.
    • Encompasses legal frameworks, treaties, conventions, and customary practices.
    • Covers subjects like human rights, armed conflict, trade, environmental protection, and diplomatic relations.
    • Aims to establish peaceful coexistence, dispute resolution, justice, and human development.
    • Lacks a centralized enforcement mechanism; relies on legal recognition by states and diplomatic means for compliance.
  • Order and Institutions
    • States create international institutions to avoid war and achieve international order.
    • International institutions are complexes of norms, rules, and practices that prescribe behavioral roles, constrain activity, and shape expectations.
    • International institutions are not the same as international organizations.
    • Institutions do not require staff or head offices but may have organizational dimensions (e.g., HR treaties and the UNHRC, trade agreements, and WTO).
    • Institutions can exist without an organizational dimension (e.g., 2017 Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons), but international organizations cannot exist without an institutional framework (e.g., UN and UN Charter).
  • Three Levels of International Institutions
    1. Constitutional Institutions
      • Primary rules and norms of international society (e.g., sovereignty as constitutive of the society of independent states).
    2. Fundamental Institutions
      • Basic norms and practices to facilitate coexistence and cooperation between sovereign states (e.g., international law and multilateralism).
    3. Issue-Specific Institutions or Regimes
      • Rules, norms, and decision-making procedures that define legitimate action in a given domain of international life (e.g., 1968 NPT, UN Framework Convention on Climate Change).
  • The Modern Institution of International Law: Historical Roots
    • The present international legal system is a historical (European) artifact.
    • Key constitutive legal treaties:
      • The Treaties of Westphalia (1648): established sovereignty as the right of monarchs to maintain standing armies and levy taxes.
      • The Treaties of Utrecht (1713): established territorial domain to sovereignty.
      • The Treaty of Paris (1814): concert of Europe, limiting war among great powers.
      • The Peace Treaty of Versailles (1919): League of Nations.
      • The Charter of the United Nations (1945): limiting the use of force to self-defense and collective peace enforcement.
      • The Declaration on Granting Independence to Colonized Countries and Peoples (1960): delegitimized European colonialism and affirmed the right to self-determination.
  • Case Study I: Is International Law an Expression of Western Dominance?
    • Argument: International law is a Western, even imperial, institution.
      • Roots in European intellectual movements of the 16th and 17th centuries.
      • Drew on natural law and a distinction between Christians and non-Christians.
      • In the 19th century, international law codified the ‘standard of civilization’.
      • States adhering to European norms were ‘civilized’ and treated as equals; others were excluded.
      • Western bias is still pervasive with Anglo-European dominance of peak legal institutions and international human rights law.
      • Examples include double standards in applying international law.
    • Counterarguments:
      • The modern international legal system rests on customary norms that uphold the legal equality of all sovereign states and their rights to self-determination and non-intervention.
      • Non-Western states have been vigorous proponents of these cardinal legal norms.
      • Non-Western peoples were centrally involved in developing the international human rights regime.
      • The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966).
      • The International Covenant on Economic, social and cultural rights (1966).
  • The Modern Institution of International Law: Historical Roots
    • Earlier conceptions of international law (e.g., Hugo Grotius, Vattel) were based on natural law, which implied that law existed independently of human agreement.
      • European monarchs were subject to this because of fealty to God.
    • By the 19th century, legal positivism emphasized that law exists only as a system of rules created by states through mutual agreement.
      • Reciprocity as the Basis of Law instead of universal moral order.
      • States consent to abide by legal principles because they expect others to do the same.
    • Conditioned by these historical forces, international law has developed four distinctive characteristics:
      • Multilateralism
      • Consent-based
      • Peculiar language and reasoning
      • Institutional autonomy

Four Distinctive Characteristics of International Law

  • Multilateral Legislation
    • Legislation of international law (formulation and enactment of legally binding norms/rules) occurs both:
      • Informally through persistent normative debate, social learning, and reinterpretation of existing norms (i.e., R2P).
        • Process in which customary laws evolve (customary laws are considered binding on all states, irrespective of consent, i.e., diplomatic immunity, freedom of the seas…).
      • Formally via multilateralism (i.e., NPT, GATT, Paris Climate Change Agreements 2015…).
    • Since the nineteenth century (after Napoleonic wars), multilateral legislation has been the preferred mode of international legislation (rather than aggregations of bilateral agreements – Westphalia & Utrecht).
    • Legal arrangements between two or more states that are based on reciprocally binding rules of conduct (mark of true multilateralism, not reciprocally binding before).
  • Consent and Legal Obligation
    • Consent is today treated as the primary source of international legal obligation (states are obliged to observe norms because they have consented to these – a state that has not consented is not bound by those rules).
    • But consent is tricky to establish in practice, especially customary norms where tacit consent is assumed.
    • To establish the existence of consent, scholars / jurists need to prove general observance of the norm and opinio juris (recognition they are observing the norm because it constitutes law) - used as indicators of tacit consent.
    • Signatories to UN Convention against Torture that still carry out these practices – Government argues not explicitly consented to certain interpretation of Convention vs. HR activists emphasizing a shared understanding (opinio juris) torture is impermissible under any circumstances.
    • Tacit consent is not the same as actual consent (fraught with difficulties –– no active consent from states).
    • The idea that consent is the principal source of international legal obligation is thus highly problematic.
  • Language and Practice of Justification
    • Modern International Law is characterized by a distinctive form of argument, justification, or reasoning.
    • International legal arguments are rhetorical in character (rather than strictly logical) and subject to interpretation.
    • They are also analogical. International actors reason with analogies (establish similarities among different cases) in three different ways:
      1. They use them to interpret a given rule (South Africa genocide complaint against Israel to ICJ).
      2. They draw similarities between one class of action and another (applying R2P drawing from historical cases e.g., Libya with Rwanda).
      3. They establish the status of one rule with reference to other rules (use of force in self-defense – e.g., Israel attack on Palestine).
  • The Discourse of Institutional Autonomy
    • The modern institution of international law is characterized by its strong discourse of institutional autonomy (from separation of powers in the modern era, bringing certain discipline and predictability to international relations).
    • This is a perceived distinction between a legal realm and a political realm, which adhere to different logics (political realm self-interest and coercive action considered legitimate / but in the legal realm could be considered illegal, i.e., US invasion of Iraq 2003; Russia Invasion of Ukraine 2022, Israel attack on Palestine).
    • Distinguishing between these two realms is a modern phenomenon (emergence of liberalism thought – politics belong in executive and legislative realms / legal interpretations and application > judicial realm).
    • Such a distinction contributes to international order and is thus politically functional for states.
  • From International to Supranational Law?
    • International Law was originally designed to facilitate international order (states as principal subjects and agents, concerned with the regulation of inter-state relations, scope confined to questions of order).
    • States remain central, but individuals, groups, and organizations are increasingly becoming recognized subjects of international law (rights and responsibilities).
    • Non-state actors are becoming important agents in international legal processes (corporations, NGOs).
    • International law is increasingly concerned with global, not merely international, regulation (erosion of sovereignty and non-interference principles).
    • International law is no longer confined to maintaining international order, narrowly defined (environment, HR, trade – dictate how state is to behave internally too) > Beyond order, issues of global justice (racial discrimination, inequality, climate change…) are permeating the international legal order – is international Law transforming into a form of supranational law?
  • The Laws of War
    • Traditionally, laws of war have been divided into two types: jus ad bellum and jus in bello.
    • These laws have evolved over the last five centuries to take into account social and technological changes.
    • Jus ad bellum (when can states use force): since 1945, the view has been that war is justified only in self-defense (UN Charter - Ch 7, art 51), or as part of a UN-mandated international peace enforcement action (UN Charter - Ch 7, art 42).
    • Jus in bello (laws governing the conduct of war) can be divided into three categories:
      • Governing weaponry (what weapons are legal to use: Hague Conferences 1899, 1907).
      • Combatants (Geneva Conventions 1864, 1906, 1929, 1949+ protocols 1977 & 2005).
      • Non-combatants (targeting of).
  • Jus in & ad Bellum
    • Gradual expansion of the scope of international legal constraints on jus in bellum.
      • Campaigns underway to place limits on lethal autonomous weapon systems (killer robots), usage of AI.
      • Treatment of non-combatants – deliberate targeting forbidden, recent attempts to tighten this further + codify rape as an international war crime.
    • Evolution of laws of war + Creation of International Criminal Tribunals 1990s (Yugoslavia & Rwanda) and the International Criminal Court (2002) to rule on war crimes > clear example of a shift from international law to supranational law.
      • ICC to prosecute the crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and crimes of aggression.
      • The most ambitious international judicial experiment since WWII.
      • Examples: 2023 ICC arrest warrant against V. Putin for forcible removal of Ukrainian children.
      • March 2025 – arrest of former Philippine president Duterte for crimes against humanity (war on drugs campaign).
  • Case study I: Individual criminal accountability & the non-Western world (I)
    • It was traditionally assumed that individual leaders of states were protected by the doctrine of sovereign immunity.
    • The creation of institutions such as the International Criminal Court (ICC, 2002) has bolstered international mechanisms for ensuring individual criminal accountability (Bosnia, Rwanda, DRC, Uganda…).
    • Domestic courts have also prosecuted their own former leaders and attempted to prosecute the leaders of other states (Iraq - Saddam Hussein, Cambodia – Khmer rouge…).
  • Case study I: Individual criminal accountability & the non-Western world (II)
    • Critics argue that attempts to prosecute sitting heads of state undermine efforts to end civil conflicts and bolster democracy.
    • International tribunals have sometimes been presented as tools of the West—to be used only in non-Western contexts (most trialed are African leaders).
    • However, African states were enthusiastic supporters in the negotiation of the Rome Statute of the ICC.
    • Many have threatened to withdraw in 2010s.
      • Today greatest threat coming from the US (sanctions on ICC judges because of arrest warrants on Israeli leaders), with Global South stepping up to uphold ICC rulings (South Africa and the formation of the Hague Group in Jan 2025 to protect and enforce rulings of ICC and ICJ concerning the Palestine issue).
  • The Laws of War
    • Fears have grown that the established framework of international law is crumbling because of the ‘revisionist’ practices of the US.
      • Since 2001, US conduct in the ‘war on terror’ has pushed the limits of both jus ad bellum and jus in bello.
      • Under Obama, the US went to great lengths to make many of its military practices legally compliant.
      • Practices such as drone attacks and the extrajudicial killing of suspected terrorists challenge the capacity of international law to constrain contemporary warfare.
    • Illegality seems rampant in jus ad & in bellum…
    • Other challenges to the laws of war have come from Russia (invasion of Ukraine – but also interventions in Sahel-Africa and ME), and the so-called Islamic State.
      • Widespread abuses in jus in bello (weapons used, targeting of civilians).
    • A growing perception is that this period of crisis is intensifying…
  • Opposing Opinions: International law has no real effect on the nature and conduct of international relations
    • Against:
      • International law is what defines sovereign states and their legitimate actions.
      • Legitimacy is crucially important to states, and international law is one of its principal sources.
      • Levels of compliance are high.
      • Even when international law is broken, its legitimacy is affirmed.
    • For:
      • International law is not real law as it is not created/enforced by a centralized authority.
      • It exists only because it serves the interests of powerful states.
      • The complexity of international law means almost any action can be justified.
      • It lags behind rapid changes in world politics (e.g., the conduct of war).
  • Theoretical Approaches to International Law
    • Realists (means to an end) are skeptical about international law; they believe it is only important when it serves the interests of powerful states.
    • Neo-liberal institutionalists (means to an end) explain how self-interested states can construct international legal regimes that benefit international society through greater stability.
    • Constructivists (process) consider international law to be part of the normative structures of international relations that evolve and change in tandem with new ideas that become dominant.
    • Critical legal studies focus on how the inherent liberalism of international law creates inequalities that curtail its radical potential (process that is inherently bad).

International Organizations

  • What are International Organizations?
    • IOs is often a catch-all term: includes any organization operating at the international level, comprised of actors from at least three states.
    • IOs refer to intergovernmental organizations.
    • Established by:
      • An international agreement or treaty (i.e., UN Charter 1945; Constitutive Act of the AU 2000).
      • Emanation (creation of a ‘spin-off’ IO by existing IO, i.e., UNDP, UNESCO, ICAO).
    • Hybrid international organizations are marked by a complexity of public–private multi-actor governance at the global level (e.g., Global Fund to fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria – governments fund + pharmaceutical industry contribution and expertise + civil society – implementation + collaboration with other international organizations – WHO).
  • What are International Organizations?
    • Modern IOs emerged in the mid-19th century.
      • Many were ‘apolitical’ Public International Unions (i.e., Universal Postal Union by Treaty of Bern 1874; Navigation of the Rhine, etc. – secretariats with permanent staff & governing body).
    • The emergence of political IOs was propelled by international instability (Napoleonic wars > congress of Vienna>concert of Europe; World Wars).
    • Multilateralism is key to modern IOs (coordinating national policies in groups of three or more states).
  • Why are International Organizations Important?
    1. They are very enduring once established.
    2. They affect how states respond to complex issues affecting regional and international stability.
      • Technical expertise (WTO, IMF…)
      • Moral authority (HR, refugees)
      • Security (NATO)
    3. Their activities increasingly affect countless aspects of individuals’ lives, reaching down into domestic political processes in ways they never have before (globalization).
    • Yet many organizations fail to effectively address the issues they were created to solve (UN and Permanent & non-Permanent members, WB/UNDP and poverty alleviation, …) & the foundational basis of IOs, multilateralism, appears increasingly challenged by deepening ideological divisions (East-West / North-South) …
  • Opposing Opinions: Multilateralism is in crisis
    • Against:
      • Once established, IOs continue to work for the greater good.
      • IOs cannot force states to agree, but they can provide prompts that enable states to cooperate.
      • Despite being political, IOs continue to advance new ideas.
    • For:
      • Changes in the international balance of power mean increasing conflict in inter-state negotiations.
      • States are retreating to nationalist and populist politics rather than using IOs to solve global problems.
      • IOs reflect decades of division between North and South.
  • Why do states create IOs? Theoretical perspectives
    1. Liberalism: it is in the interests of people within states to have IOs to advance their common interests internationally (collective goods> absolute gains).
    2. Realism: states use IOs as one of the tools in their diplomatic tool-box; states create IOs in order to determine the rules that others must then follow (self-interest > relative gains).
    3. Social constructivism: asks how and why IOs emerge and behave; identifies when and how IOs take up international norms and spread them throughout the international system.
    4. Critical studies (Marxism/Gramscianism): demonstrate how powerful states and elites use IOs to maintain their privileged position in the international order.
  • How can we analyze IO behavior?
    • Marxists: privileged, materially powerful actors can shape IO policies in ways that suit their own interests, not just through establishing the rules of IOs.
    • Critical scholars pay attention to how economic ideas are formulated within IOs and how this shapes the internal IO policy-making process.
  • How can we analyze IO behavior? (II)
    • Rationalists: Principal (member state)–Agent (IO) Model
      • Principals provide IOs with a mandate, resources, location, and staffing.
      • The IO is given autonomy to undertake tasks on states’ behalf.
    • Social constructivists: criticize Principal–Agent model
      • Look at how organizational culture shapes whether new ideas are promoted, accepted, or rejected by IOs.
  • Case Study I: Challenging or upholding the international order? The AIIB
    • 2015: Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) established by China.
    • Multilateral development bank modeled on the World Bank.
    • Focused on infrastructure in the Asia-Pacific.
    • Yet, different praxis (no political nor macro-economic conditionalities).
    • The US sees it as a threat to its hegemony and a rival to the Asian Development Bank (Japan).
    • The US has not joined, but many of its allies (including the UK) have.
  • Case Study II: The limits to IO action– UNCTAD and the G77
    • UNCTAD was created in 1964 by UNGA Resolution XIX to promote international trade.
    • Seen as a challenge by developing countries to the dominance of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) (WTO precursor); G77 was born.
    • UNCTAD became increasingly divisive: developing states confronted developed states and demanded the provision of resources and concessions to address a highly unequal international trade system (NIEO).
    • By 1970s: UNCTAD was not operating as the G77 had hoped, and its efforts for a NIEO were dashed.

The United Nations

  • A Brief History of the UN
    • The UN was established in October 1945, aiming to rectify the problems of its predecessor, the League of Nations.
    • 193 member states.
  • Purposes of the UN
    • Maintain International Peace and Security
    • Develop friendly relations among nations
    • Cooperate in solving international problems and promote common development and respect for Human Rights
    • Be a center for harmonizing the actions of nations
  • The UN and the UN system
    • The UN system includes the UN principal organs:
      • General Assembly
      • Security Council
      • Economic and Social Council
      • International Court of Justice
      • Secretariat
      • Trusteeship Council
  • The Security Council
    • Unlike its predecessor, the new organization recognized great power prerogatives in the UN Security Council (UNSC), and so the decisions of the UNSC are binding.
    • The Security Council includes:
      • Five permanent and veto-wielding member states: (US, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, and China).
      • Ten non-permanent members.
    • When the Security Council considers a threat to international peace, it begins by exploring ways to settle the dispute peacefully.
      • It can take measures to enforce its decisions, from economic sanctions all the way to authorization of collective military action (Chapter 7, UN charter).
      • Any decisions must be passed by:
        • A majority of nine of the 15 members, including each of the five permanent members.
  • The Security Council Reform
    • UN Charter, art 108: amendments to the charter must be approved by 2/3 UNGA and ratified by 2/3 of member states, including the five permanent members.
    • 1993 UNGA created open-ended Working Group to discuss UNSC reform; 2009 Inter-Government Negotiations (IGN) started.
    • Key issues: Veto question, categories of membership, regional representation (Size of council, working methods, Relationship with UNGA).
    • Three blocks hold irreconcilable positions:
      • The G4 (Brazil, Germany, India, and Japan, 2004) – seek the same status as the five permanent members and the enlargement of Permanent and non-Permanent seats. Support + 2 African Permanent seats.
      • The United for Consensus (UfC), led by G4 regional rivals (Mexico, Turkey, Italy, Pakistan, South Korea…): expand elected members to 20 rather than reinforcing great power hierarchy.
      • The AU (Ezulwini Consensus): 2 Permanent seats with full veto rights + 3 non-Permanent seats.
    • The Permanent 5 have stymied progress (no interest in adding other permanent members with veto, in rhetoric favorable to expansion but in practice undermine any breakthrough).
  • The General Assembly
    • All UN member states are represented in the General Assembly.
    • Each member state has one vote.
    • For a resolution to pass:
      • A two-thirds majority is required for decisions on key issues such as international peace and security, admission of new member states, and the UN budget.
    • With a few exceptions, decisions are not binding—merely recommendations, representing prevailing world opinion.
  • The Secretariat
    • The Secretariat is the main administrative ‘engine’ of the United Nations and employs approximately 40,000 people around the world.
    • The secretary-general leads the entire organization.
    • The secretary-general is empowered to bring situations that are likely to lead to a breakdown of international peace and security to the Security Council.
  • The Economic and Social Council
    • 54 members (3-year mandates, elected by UNGA).
    • The Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) coordinates the economic and social work of the United Nations and the UN system.
    • It also maintains a vital link between the United Nations and civil society (NGOs).
    • The 1990s reform allowed ECOSOC to become more assertive and sharpen its capacity to shape broad agreements into cross-sectoral programs with well-defined objectives.
  • The Trusteeship Council
    • The Trusteeship Council was initially established to provide international supervision for 11 special territories that were preparing for self-government or independence.
    • The independence of Palau in 1994 completed the Trusteeship Council’s work.
    • Now for all intents and purposes a dormant part of the United Nations.
    • New roles under discussion: a forum to discuss global governance issues and Treaty compliance (climate change, disarmament)? Play a role in advocating the rights of non-self-governing territories (e.g., Palestine).
  • The International Court of Justice
    • The International Court of Justice is the main judicial organ of the UN (based in the Hague).
    • It consists of 15 judges elected jointly by the General Assembly and the Security Council.
    • The Court decides disputes between countries, but participation by states in a proceeding is voluntary.
    • Once a state has agreed to participate, it is obliged to comply with the Court’s decision.
    • The South Africa genocide case against Israel in ICJ.
  • Maintaining International Peace and Security
    • The Cold War hampered the functioning of the UN because the veto-wielding powers were engaged in a high-stakes conflict among themselves.
    • It also prevented the establishment of a multilateral force under the command of a Military Staff Committee (allowable under the UN Charter).
    • Instead, the UN has on occasion agreed to a mandate for an agent to act on its behalf (e.g., the Korean conflict, Libya 2011).
  • Peacekeeping and Peace Enforcement
    • Classical peacekeeping
      • The establishment of a UN force, under UN command, to be placed between the parties to a dispute after a ceasefire.
      • Uses weapons only in self-defense, established with the consent of the host state, and does not include forces from the major powers.
    • Peace enforcement
      • A new kind of peacekeeping that emerged after the end of the Cold War, designed to bring hostile parties to agreement.
      • Does not require the consent of the parties.
      • In late 2018, the total number of UN uniformed peacekeepers was approximately 90,000.
  • Shifts in Approach to International Peace and Security
    • By the 1990s, many people believed the UN should address political and civil rights, as well as the right to basic provisions.
    • Increased attention to threats to global peace from civil conflict, humanitarian emergencies, human rights violations, poverty, and inequality (human security).
    • Increased attention to peacebuilding and gendered dimensions of peace and security.
  • Intervention Within States
    • Some worry that increased attention to conditions within states violates the doctrine of non-intervention.
    • When the UN was founded, state sovereignty was regarded as a central system trait.
    • In many ways, this was an historic aberration, given that great powers had often considered such intervention to be righteous.
    • The notion of unconditional state sovereignty has relatively recently been somewhat relaxed (R2P).
  • Case Study I: UN Peacekeeping in the Congo (I)
    • Soon after Congo became independent in 1960, the region of Katanga attempted to secede.
    • Congo’s prime minister asked the UN for help to prevent secession  ONUC (1960–4).
    • ONUC oversaw the withdrawal of Belgian and other foreign troops.
    • Supported Congolese government attempts to restore law and order.
    • Succeeded in maintaining Congo’s territorial integrity but at enormous political, human, and financial cost.
  • Case Study I: UN Peacekeeping in the Congo (II)
    • MONUC (1999–2010)
      • Established after the Lusaka Ceasefire Agreement between the DRC and five regional countries to observe the ceasefire.
    • MONUC renamed MONUSCO (2010–present)
      • Authorized to use all necessary means to protect civilians and support the DRC government in its stabilization and peace efforts.
    • Despite some accomplishments, MONUC/MONUSCO have faced significant criticisms, demonstrating the difficulties of achieving state-building objectives via peace operations.
    • To withdraw by the end of 2024.
  • The UN and Economic and Social Questions
    • The preamble to the UN Charter talks about promoting ‘social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom.’
    • The number of institutions in the UN system that address these issues has significantly increased since the founding of the organization—but interest in funding them has not.
    • Several Programs and Funds have been created.
    • Adoption of sustainable development goals (SDGs).
  • Case study 2: The 2003 intervention in Iraq
    • In March 2003, a US-led coalition launched a controversial war in Iraq, which removed Saddam Hussein from power.
    • While military intervention had not been formally approved by the UN Security Council, there were different views about whether the UN had in fact condoned military action in the country.
    • The credibility of the UN was severely damaged by the failure to agree on a resolution that would unequivocally authorize the assault.
  • Opposing Opinions: The UN is the best-placed actor to maintain international peace and security
    • Against:
      • UNSC membership fails to represent the global balance of power.
      • The UN is unable to act effectively in areas of interest to the permanent members of the UNSC because of their veto power.
      • The UN is ill-equipped to deal with new security threats (non-state actors).
    • For:
      • There has not been a Third World War since the creation of the UN.
      • The UN is the only organization premised on universal membership.
      • The UN has demonstrated success in resolving conflict and improving development in many parts of the world.