2- IL and IR Flashcards
realists think IL is epiphonomenal. what does this mean?
its a product of state self-interest that doesn’t have an autonomous force. therefore, compliance with IL doesn’t prove its effectivity.
what did classical realists think about IL? (3)
- they were critical and dismissive, but still acknowledged its existence and importance in shaping state behaviour.
- they thought IL it is too simplistic and outdated to address the complex challenges of today.
- IL tries to apply domestic law to the international law (esp the ango saxon concept) but they’re fundamentally different
what did structural realists think about IL?
- they don’t bother to talk about IL they think of its as existing under structural anarchy.
difference btw how structural realists, and classical realists view IL
Structural realists view IL as secondary to the balance of power, while classical realists view it as a tool used by states to achieve their interests.
what assumption does liberal institutionalism share with realism?
everything comes down to the nature of the international space.
what does liberal institutionalism think about IL?
- liberal institutionalism views IL as an important tool for facilitating collaboration among states
- by preventing cheating
- promoting information sharing
- reducing transaction costs.
- However, it does not see international law as having creative or generative power in shaping the behavior of states. -> IL is just a tool that states can use to further their interests.
(….) regards IL as a tool for advancing state interests, rather than as a force capable of shaping state behavior on its own.
liberal institutionalism
what do constructivists think about IL? (in comparison to others)
LAW IS NOT:
- a by -product (realism)
- purely an instrument for enabling the advancement of interests (constitutionalism)
LAW IS
- an institution of the international system with its own agency, and potential.
why is it problematic to group iL wit norms
-> Treating IL as just one norm among many others may diminish its distinctiveness as law.
how is IL distinct from norms? (5)
- generality- law applies to all parties
- promugulation- law is publicly communicated
- non-retroactivity- law applies only to future conduct and not past action
- clarity- law is easily understandable
- not asking the impossible, consistency
what do critical approaches (aka TWAIL) share?
a desire to expose what they see as the fundamental failings of IL and destabilize its core assumptions
post-colonial approach to IL
Looks at the role of IL in the development and expansion of imperialism (formal and informal)
-> states use IL to legitimize transfers of power in colonial settings.
-> IL is closely entangled with imperialism
examples of post-colonial view (3)
1) Radical indeterminacy
2) Koskenniemi’s Argument
3) IL and capitalism
radical indeterminacy
IL is inherently ambigious and open to interactions that favor the powerful party.
dominant parties marginalize the perspectives of the GS
This is inherent in the liberal conception of law which focuses on AUTONOMY.
Koskeneimi’s Argument
Laws are ambiguous on purpose because they benefit powerful actors.
a specific critique of the liberal foundations of international law that prioritize individual autonomy over collective responsibility.
IL and capitalism
Investment law has colonial origins and promotes capitalist modernity by emphasizing private ownership, competition etc.
this contributes to economic inequality and exploitation
who says this * States’ interests are exogenous to the argument, and IL has no autonomy of its own.*
liberal institutionalism
what does this mean * States’ interests are exogenous to the argument, and IL has no autonomy of its own.
states have their own interests and international law is only useful in helping them achieve those interests.
Legal idealism
international law can be used to promote peace, justice, and cooperation among states.
what did rationalism explain that realism couldn’t?
rationalism explained why the world had become so extensively organized into cooperative structures, especially since WW2
What’s the similarity btw Realism & Rationalism?
Rationalism accepts many of the starting points of structural realism – such as the state as the primary unit of analysis, and the realities of international anarchy.
what’s the difference between how classical realism, and structural realism view IL?
classical realism thinks states are motivated by power and security
structural realism thinks states are motivated by the distribution of power
Morgenthau’s argument on IL classical realist
challenges the idea that international law is neutral and objective, and emphasizes the role of power relations and self-interest in shaping it.
what’s the difference btw liberal institutionalism and rationalism ?
liberal institutionalists view IL as a tool for promoting cooperation and reducing conflict among states, while rationalists view IL as a strategic tool that states use to advance their interests.
