International Law and International Relations: Bridging Theory and Practice (Contemporary Security Studies)
Format: PDF / Kindle (mobi) / ePub
This unique volume examines the opportunities for, and initiates work in, interdisciplinary research between the fields of international law and international relations; disciplines that have engaged little with one another since the Second World War.
Written by leading experts in the fields of international law and international relations, it argues that such interdisciplinary research is central to the creation of a knowledge base among IR scholars and lawyers for the effective analysis and governance of macro and micro phenomena.
International law is at the heart of international relations, but due to challenges of codification and enforceability, its apparent impact has been predominantly limited to commercial and civil arrangements. International lawyers have been saying for years that 'law matters' in international affairs and now current events are proving them right.
International Law and International Relations makes a powerful contribution to the theory and practice of global security by initiating a research agenda, building an empirical base and offering a multidisciplinary approach that provides concrete answers to real-world problems of governance.
This book will be of great interest to all students of international law, international relations and governance.
have gone too far, implying that the ICC might be allowed to reject immunity claims even by ofﬁcials of nonstate parties. She argues that the ICC has jurisdiction precisely because a territorial state has delegated its jurisdiction to the Court, and thus if the state must recognize immunity, then so too does the ICC. These concerns are consistent with Morris’s suggestions elsewhere that ICC jurisdiction over citizens of nonstate parties is undemocratic.32 Orentlicher challenges Morris’s
territory, engage in intense hostilities of some duration. Despite the common sense of the international law understanding, the Bush administration’s alternative understanding of war has not been dismissed out-ofhand. This may be due to a couple of factors. First, it took some time for the international legal community to really understand that the administration was not using mere rhetoric of the “war on drugs” type. In addition, international law literature does not reﬂect much discussion on
Doctrine views it as an exercise in international lawmaking. The United States is seeking agreement to a fundamentally different interpretation of the meaning of imminent threat that would permit a general right of anticipatory action against rogue states and terrorist groups developing or seeking WMD. To achieve such a far-reaching modiﬁcation of the existing legal framework would require the support, or at least acquiescence, of the vast majority of states. As the World Court put it in its
time for meta-theoretical musings about how the two can be better integrated in the abstract. International law, international relations, policy practitioners, and the state Each of the three different communities (international law scholars, international relations scholars, and policy practitioners) engaged in conversations in the four sections that compose this volume (small arms and light weapons, terrorism, internally displaced people, and international criminal accountability) has a
particular through a series of consultative meetings that not only brought in the substantive input of the various parties, but also encouraged their commitment to the success and acceptance of the eventual product.116 Of particular importance was reaching out to, and addressing the concerns of, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), which had warned about the possibility that new guidelines might weaken the standing and application of existing humanitarian 152 THE GUIDING