Lecture 2: Flashcards
What are the possible functions of law in international politics?
Law can function as a constraint, legitimizing force, enabler, fig leaf, or be mutually constitutive with politics—its role often depends on the context.
What is the realist view of international law’s ability to constrain state behavior?
Realists argue IL can’t effectively constrain states because states follow it only when it aligns with their self-interest. Without enforcement or hierarchy, IL lacks true power.
How do realists see the function of international law?
IL can be useful—for diplomacy, cooperation, or managing weaker states—but it lacks autonomous explanatory power. It’s a tool of power, not a true constraint.
Why do realists believe state compliance doesn’t prove IL’s effectiveness?
Compliance often reflects self-interest, not legal obligation. For IL to be effective, states must obey it even when it goes against their interests—which realists believe they don’t.
How does liberal institutionalism view international law?
As a tool that helps states cooperate by reducing transaction costs, sharing information, and preventing cheating—but not as a source of moral obligation.
What are the limits of law in liberal institutionalism?
Law has no autonomous power; it reflects existing state interests, explains outcomes within regimes, but can’t account for broader questions or generate change on its own.
What critiques exist of liberal institutionalism’s take on IL?
It struggles to explain customary international law, ignores legitimacy, and treats law as just another institution—focusing more on outcomes than the law-making process itself.
How do constructivists view international law (IL)?
IL is not just a by-product or tool—it has agency and can shape, create, and transform state interests. Law and politics are mutually constitutive.
What makes international law distinct from other social norms according to constructivists?
IL follows “criteria of legality” (e.g. clarity, generality, non-retroactivity), which give it legitimacy and a stronger sense of obligation than ordinary norms.
What do critical approaches to international law aim to do?
They expose and challenge IL’s core assumptions, often showing how it enables imperialism, power imbalances, and capitalist domination. They are heavily normative and often rooted in post-colonial, Marxist, or feminist thought.
What is radical indeterminacy in critical IL theory?
The idea that legal language is so vague that IL can justify any action—used by the powerful to serve their interests while constraining the weak.
How do major IR theories view international law (IL)?
Realism: IL reflects state self-interest; it lacks independent power and legitimacy.
Liberal Institutionalism: IL helps states cooperate but has no creative power; it serves state interests.
Constructivism: IL and state interests shape each other; law can have independent influence.
Critical Approaches: IL reinforces power and inequality; it’s indeterminate and can serve imperialist or capitalist agendas.
