International law is a peculiar form of global ordering, one marked by the “imperative of trying to turn a capacity for crude coercion into legitimate authority.”1 The international law-making system is therefore discursively structured around an aspiration to “publicness,”2 around a commitment to secure “some responsiveness to the claims and interests developed within the relevant publics.”3 As it is evident to any observer, this commitment is oftentimes not honored and the process is frequently detached from the ideas, interests, and priorities of those whose lives are ultimately governed by international law.4 The typical analysis of this detachment tends to focus on the role played by the enabling norms—specifically, the norms governing representation, participation, and deliberation in the international law-making system.5 In this Essay, I argue, however, that the actual publicness of the system is also shaped—sometimes in combination with the law, sometimes in competition with it—by the infrastructure of international law-making.6 For all the grand statements about transparency and public engagement, for all the sincere attempts at inclusion and all the ostentatious legal principles, my claim is that the built environment—the chambers, the fences, the checkpoints, the hallways—generally ensures, both materially and symbolically, that the sites of decision making, where law is ultimately created, are distanced from multiple sites of contestation, where the various publics and counterpublics make their voices heard.7
{"title":"The Infrastructure of International Law-Making: How Buildings Shape the Publicness of the Global Law-Making System","authors":"Nahuel Maisley","doi":"10.1017/aju.2022.71","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/aju.2022.71","url":null,"abstract":"International law is a peculiar form of global ordering, one marked by the “imperative of trying to turn a capacity for crude coercion into legitimate authority.”1 The international law-making system is therefore discursively structured around an aspiration to “publicness,”2 around a commitment to secure “some responsiveness to the claims and interests developed within the relevant publics.”3 As it is evident to any observer, this commitment is oftentimes not honored and the process is frequently detached from the ideas, interests, and priorities of those whose lives are ultimately governed by international law.4 The typical analysis of this detachment tends to focus on the role played by the enabling norms—specifically, the norms governing representation, participation, and deliberation in the international law-making system.5 In this Essay, I argue, however, that the actual publicness of the system is also shaped—sometimes in combination with the law, sometimes in competition with it—by the infrastructure of international law-making.6 For all the grand statements about transparency and public engagement, for all the sincere attempts at inclusion and all the ostentatious legal principles, my claim is that the built environment—the chambers, the fences, the checkpoints, the hallways—generally ensures, both materially and symbolically, that the sites of decision making, where law is ultimately created, are distanced from multiple sites of contestation, where the various publics and counterpublics make their voices heard.7","PeriodicalId":36818,"journal":{"name":"AJIL Unbound","volume":"117 1","pages":"21 - 25"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44986925","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In nearly all regions, politico-legal projects for regional organization and integration often prioritize infrastructure construction and maintenance. In West Africa, the development of a regional organization by the post-colonial independent states, in particular the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) formed in 1975, has enabled states to allocate certain powers to formal and informal regional political institutions with the aim of building state effectiveness and capacity and hence increasing public support and popular legitimacy. In this Essay, I argue that regional organizations serve as governance structures whose infrastructural and institutional mechanisms contextually address the needs of states and their citizens. This account particularly applies to West African electricity arrangements overseen through an unusual ECOWAS-linked regional infrastructural organization, the West African Power Pool (WAPP). The case of WAPP demonstrates how the energy infrastructure shapes and modifies regional institutional rules and practices.
{"title":"International Law and Regional Electricity Infrastructure: The West African Power Pool","authors":"Edefe Ojomo","doi":"10.1017/aju.2022.72","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/aju.2022.72","url":null,"abstract":"In nearly all regions, politico-legal projects for regional organization and integration often prioritize infrastructure construction and maintenance. In West Africa, the development of a regional organization by the post-colonial independent states, in particular the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) formed in 1975, has enabled states to allocate certain powers to formal and informal regional political institutions with the aim of building state effectiveness and capacity and hence increasing public support and popular legitimacy. In this Essay, I argue that regional organizations serve as governance structures whose infrastructural and institutional mechanisms contextually address the needs of states and their citizens. This account particularly applies to West African electricity arrangements overseen through an unusual ECOWAS-linked regional infrastructural organization, the West African Power Pool (WAPP). The case of WAPP demonstrates how the energy infrastructure shapes and modifies regional institutional rules and practices.","PeriodicalId":36818,"journal":{"name":"AJIL Unbound","volume":"117 1","pages":"16 - 20"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41644044","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Heraclitus's words remind us that law and infrastructure have lived in intimate relation, in practice and thought, for millennia. This intimacy is palpable in the context of settler worldmaking where colonial jurisdiction is enacted by constraining, with an eye to replacing, Indigenous jurisdiction. Here, the authority to have authority is often asserted in practice through violent attempts to control connectivity and movement. To this day, imperial powers assert jurisdiction over space through infrastructures that enhance or inhibit the motion of goods and people, like railroads, pipelines, border walls, and police.2 This Essay investigates the co-production of colonial law and infrastructure on Turtle Island—an Indigenous name for the continent of North America, which already highlights a different conception of jurisdiction and law through its anchor in creation stories. The brief sketches that follow emphasize the co-constitution of law and infrastructure, yet they also propose a relationship that exceeds proximity or metaphor. Law operates through the ordering of extension, and in this sense, can productively be thought of infrastructurally, as “the movement or patterning of social form.”3 This Essay argues that approaching law infrastructurally foregrounds the contingency of seemingly solid structures, including centrally that of settler jurisdiction.
{"title":"Law as Infrastructure of Colonial Space: Sketches from Turtle Island","authors":"Deborah E. Cowen","doi":"10.1017/aju.2022.70","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/aju.2022.70","url":null,"abstract":"Heraclitus's words remind us that law and infrastructure have lived in intimate relation, in practice and thought, for millennia. This intimacy is palpable in the context of settler worldmaking where colonial jurisdiction is enacted by constraining, with an eye to replacing, Indigenous jurisdiction. Here, the authority to have authority is often asserted in practice through violent attempts to control connectivity and movement. To this day, imperial powers assert jurisdiction over space through infrastructures that enhance or inhibit the motion of goods and people, like railroads, pipelines, border walls, and police.2 This Essay investigates the co-production of colonial law and infrastructure on Turtle Island—an Indigenous name for the continent of North America, which already highlights a different conception of jurisdiction and law through its anchor in creation stories. The brief sketches that follow emphasize the co-constitution of law and infrastructure, yet they also propose a relationship that exceeds proximity or metaphor. Law operates through the ordering of extension, and in this sense, can productively be thought of infrastructurally, as “the movement or patterning of social form.”3 This Essay argues that approaching law infrastructurally foregrounds the contingency of seemingly solid structures, including centrally that of settler jurisdiction.","PeriodicalId":36818,"journal":{"name":"AJIL Unbound","volume":"117 1","pages":"5 - 10"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48851037","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Since 2015 when migration across the Mediterranean was declared a “crisis” in Europe, the language of crisis and invasion has persisted, structuring conversations and political imaginations. This has led many to argue for the strict closure of borders and the deportation of migrants or “people on the move,”1 and to a deepening set of racisms within borders. But this “crisis” has also led to a less publicized, opposing struggle against borders, in the service of a more egalitarian world. I argue that in order to really understand how borders are being regulated or unregulated, we need to look not only at the international legal realm, but also at infrastructural politics.2 In this Essay, I will discuss two different terrains of infrastructural struggle over migration and borders: the first is about border walls, which are built to close off resources and partition the world into haves and have nots; the second is an infrastructure of collective living, where people-on-the-move are occupying abandoned spaces and working against borders and private property. I suggest that it is important to attend to the infrastructural dimensions of migration and border regimes, as they can produce and regularize exclusion and conceal it from the conventional field of political discussion and legal contestation. At the same time, new infrastructures can prefigure better, more equitable worlds.
{"title":"Building Borders and “No Borders”: Infrastructural Politics as Imagination","authors":"M. Ticktin","doi":"10.1017/aju.2022.73","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/aju.2022.73","url":null,"abstract":"Since 2015 when migration across the Mediterranean was declared a “crisis” in Europe, the language of crisis and invasion has persisted, structuring conversations and political imaginations. This has led many to argue for the strict closure of borders and the deportation of migrants or “people on the move,”1 and to a deepening set of racisms within borders. But this “crisis” has also led to a less publicized, opposing struggle against borders, in the service of a more egalitarian world. I argue that in order to really understand how borders are being regulated or unregulated, we need to look not only at the international legal realm, but also at infrastructural politics.2 In this Essay, I will discuss two different terrains of infrastructural struggle over migration and borders: the first is about border walls, which are built to close off resources and partition the world into haves and have nots; the second is an infrastructure of collective living, where people-on-the-move are occupying abandoned spaces and working against borders and private property. I suggest that it is important to attend to the infrastructural dimensions of migration and border regimes, as they can produce and regularize exclusion and conceal it from the conventional field of political discussion and legal contestation. At the same time, new infrastructures can prefigure better, more equitable worlds.","PeriodicalId":36818,"journal":{"name":"AJIL Unbound","volume":"117 1","pages":"11 - 15"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44662731","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Infrastructures encompass dynamic networks and assemblages that enable and control flows of goods, people, and information over space. These can be physical, informational, or digital; most now are combinations of these, for example, the Internet, or Global Positioning and Navigation Systems (such as GPS and Beidou). Many other things run or depend on an infrastructure—andmost infrastructures depend on or link with other infrastructures. Some infrastructures lie underneath, barely noticed for long periods until things go wrong, while others attract much public and political attention and are joyously celebrated, fiercely resisted, or resignedly accepted. Infrastructures are important, but not much systematic work has been done on the significance of their relationship with international (or transversal) law. Consideration of how infrastructures affect or shape international law entails consideration of how relations, processes, and imaginations of particular infrastructures interact with law, and vice versa. This symposium contributes to the investigation of how infrastructures may work as fundamental components of regulatory ordering—or may work against or orthogonal to some such ordering projects and in support of competing or resistance projects.1 Even if it is not (yet) studied as a field, international infrastructure law is a large practice area and many of its components have long been prominent in specialized scholarship.2 International law—its praxis, doctrines, and structures—is routinely deployed in the enabling and controlling of certain kinds of transnational infrastructures, or the flows these infrastructures channel or block. Some notable infrastructures could barely exist or function without particular international law arrangements (specific infrastructures of this sort include the Suez Canal, the France-UKChannel Tunnel, the Schengen Information System, the World Health Organization’s pandemic monitoring system, and the Nordstream 2 pipeline built but suspended from becoming operational following Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine). International law figures in sprawling initiatives of “infrastructural developmentalism” such as the Belt and Road Initiative or the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals.3 International law enables or regulates financing and investment protection for large physical infrastructures, requirements to obtain
{"title":"Introduction to the Symposium on Infrastructuring International Law","authors":"B. Kingsbury","doi":"10.1017/aju.2022.74","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/aju.2022.74","url":null,"abstract":"Infrastructures encompass dynamic networks and assemblages that enable and control flows of goods, people, and information over space. These can be physical, informational, or digital; most now are combinations of these, for example, the Internet, or Global Positioning and Navigation Systems (such as GPS and Beidou). Many other things run or depend on an infrastructure—andmost infrastructures depend on or link with other infrastructures. Some infrastructures lie underneath, barely noticed for long periods until things go wrong, while others attract much public and political attention and are joyously celebrated, fiercely resisted, or resignedly accepted. Infrastructures are important, but not much systematic work has been done on the significance of their relationship with international (or transversal) law. Consideration of how infrastructures affect or shape international law entails consideration of how relations, processes, and imaginations of particular infrastructures interact with law, and vice versa. This symposium contributes to the investigation of how infrastructures may work as fundamental components of regulatory ordering—or may work against or orthogonal to some such ordering projects and in support of competing or resistance projects.1 Even if it is not (yet) studied as a field, international infrastructure law is a large practice area and many of its components have long been prominent in specialized scholarship.2 International law—its praxis, doctrines, and structures—is routinely deployed in the enabling and controlling of certain kinds of transnational infrastructures, or the flows these infrastructures channel or block. Some notable infrastructures could barely exist or function without particular international law arrangements (specific infrastructures of this sort include the Suez Canal, the France-UKChannel Tunnel, the Schengen Information System, the World Health Organization’s pandemic monitoring system, and the Nordstream 2 pipeline built but suspended from becoming operational following Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine). International law figures in sprawling initiatives of “infrastructural developmentalism” such as the Belt and Road Initiative or the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals.3 International law enables or regulates financing and investment protection for large physical infrastructures, requirements to obtain","PeriodicalId":36818,"journal":{"name":"AJIL Unbound","volume":"117 1","pages":"1 - 4"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43310282","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
For the past 150 years, the Institut de Droit International (IDI) has held a prominent position in the field of international law, garnering recognition as one of the world's distinguished professional organizations for international lawyers. Yet, a closer look at its structures reveals that in fact, the IDI has been and remains an elitist club, comprised of renowned international legal jurists, practitioners, and scholars. Its goal was and is to formulate “principles from which rules [of international law] could be deduced.”1 While there may be doubts regarding the contemporary authority of the IDI in shaping today's international law, it possessed significant influence during its first century of existence. Therefore, on the occasion of its 150th anniversary, this essay offers an alternative perspective on the IDI's contribution to the field, focusing on the implications of its claimed status of the “legal conscience of the civilized world” and exploring whether this status had somehow impacted international legal norms and principles. While further empirical investigation is required to establish a definitive correlation between the IDI's affiliations with the “civilized world” and a skewed focus of international law on Western legal traditions, a few examples can serve as a starting point. The illustrations from the IDI's engagement with the laws of war—specifically, the nineteenth-century regulation of occupation and the post-World War II determination of military targets—exemplify how the inherent elitism rooted in the notion of “civilization” can be discerned in pivotal advancements of international law.
{"title":"Unveiling the “Legal Conscience of the Civilized World:” a Critical Look at the Institut de Droit International","authors":"Julia Emtseva","doi":"10.1017/aju.2023.36","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/aju.2023.36","url":null,"abstract":"For the past 150 years, the Institut de Droit International (IDI) has held a prominent position in the field of international law, garnering recognition as one of the world's distinguished professional organizations for international lawyers. Yet, a closer look at its structures reveals that in fact, the IDI has been and remains an elitist club, comprised of renowned international legal jurists, practitioners, and scholars. Its goal was and is to formulate “principles from which rules [of international law] could be deduced.”1 While there may be doubts regarding the contemporary authority of the IDI in shaping today's international law, it possessed significant influence during its first century of existence. Therefore, on the occasion of its 150th anniversary, this essay offers an alternative perspective on the IDI's contribution to the field, focusing on the implications of its claimed status of the “legal conscience of the civilized world” and exploring whether this status had somehow impacted international legal norms and principles. While further empirical investigation is required to establish a definitive correlation between the IDI's affiliations with the “civilized world” and a skewed focus of international law on Western legal traditions, a few examples can serve as a starting point. The illustrations from the IDI's engagement with the laws of war—specifically, the nineteenth-century regulation of occupation and the post-World War II determination of military targets—exemplify how the inherent elitism rooted in the notion of “civilization” can be discerned in pivotal advancements of international law.","PeriodicalId":36818,"journal":{"name":"AJIL Unbound","volume":"15 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135358597","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The 150th anniversary of the Institut de Droit International (IDI) and the International Law Association (ILA) provides an opportunity to assess the role of legal scholarship in the codification and institutionalization of international law. This essay argues that academic expertise is a form of social and political capital that is at once individual, institutional, and structural. Empirically focused on international dispute settlement mechanisms (interstate adjudication and arbitration), this essay underscores that academic expertise shapes the professional status of international lawyers, and influences the clout of international institutions as codifiers of international law.
{"title":"Legal Knowledge as Social and Political Capital","authors":"Sara Dezalay","doi":"10.1017/aju.2023.34","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/aju.2023.34","url":null,"abstract":"The 150th anniversary of the Institut de Droit International (IDI) and the International Law Association (ILA) provides an opportunity to assess the role of legal scholarship in the codification and institutionalization of international law. This essay argues that academic expertise is a form of social and political capital that is at once individual, institutional, and structural. Empirically focused on international dispute settlement mechanisms (interstate adjudication and arbitration), this essay underscores that academic expertise shapes the professional status of international lawyers, and influences the clout of international institutions as codifiers of international law.","PeriodicalId":36818,"journal":{"name":"AJIL Unbound","volume":"81 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136257201","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In “Constitution-Making as a Technique of International Law: Reconsidering the Post-war Inheritance,” Anna Saunders highlights that the study and practice of constitutionalism exhibit a reluctance to consider the relationship between national constitutions and international economic relations. She argues that the prevailing epistemic boundaries of constitutionalism—understood as a self-contained project, separate from projects of global economic ordering—have largely insulated it from critiques raised by scholars concerned with the material and distributive implications of reshaping the global legal order through the making and revising of constitutions. This essay takes up Saunders's call to de-insulate constitution-making as a technique of international law from such critique by pointing to the family as an institution that is central both to constitutional ordering and to economic ordering, and thus can help overcome the epistemic boundary between the two. To this end, the essay brings together various strands of critical thought that identify one particular family structure—the nuclear family—as an exploitative institution that has (re)produced structural inequality both within and between states. Described as the “original sin” of modern constitutionalism and as an essential “instrument of colonization,” the nuclear family model represents an apt entry point to reconceiving constitution-making as Saunders suggests—in a way “that both acknowledges the discipline's past collaboration with forms of dispossession and exploitation, and that actively reconsiders its future boundaries.”
{"title":"International Constitution-making as a Technique of Gender Ordering: Considering the Role of the Family in Global Economic Relations","authors":"Michele Krech","doi":"10.1017/aju.2023.41","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/aju.2023.41","url":null,"abstract":"In “Constitution-Making as a Technique of International Law: Reconsidering the Post-war Inheritance,” Anna Saunders highlights that the study and practice of constitutionalism exhibit a reluctance to consider the relationship between national constitutions and international economic relations. She argues that the prevailing epistemic boundaries of constitutionalism—understood as a self-contained project, separate from projects of global economic ordering—have largely insulated it from critiques raised by scholars concerned with the material and distributive implications of reshaping the global legal order through the making and revising of constitutions. This essay takes up Saunders's call to de-insulate constitution-making as a technique of international law from such critique by pointing to the family as an institution that is central both to constitutional ordering and to economic ordering, and thus can help overcome the epistemic boundary between the two. To this end, the essay brings together various strands of critical thought that identify one particular family structure—the nuclear family—as an exploitative institution that has (re)produced structural inequality both within and between states. Described as the “original sin” of modern constitutionalism and as an essential “instrument of colonization,” the nuclear family model represents an apt entry point to reconceiving constitution-making as Saunders suggests—in a way “that both acknowledges the discipline's past collaboration with forms of dispossession and exploitation, and that actively reconsiders its future boundaries.”","PeriodicalId":36818,"journal":{"name":"AJIL Unbound","volume":"26 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135106272","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
An abstract is not available for this content. As you have access to this content, full HTML content is provided on this page. A PDF of this content is also available in through the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
{"title":"Introduction to the Symposium on 150 Years of the Institut de Droit International and the International Law Association: Cause for Celebration or Concern?","authors":"Jeffrey L. Dunoff","doi":"10.1017/aju.2023.32","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/aju.2023.32","url":null,"abstract":"An abstract is not available for this content. As you have access to this content, full HTML content is provided on this page. A PDF of this content is also available in through the ‘Save PDF’ action button.","PeriodicalId":36818,"journal":{"name":"AJIL Unbound","volume":"123 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135358588","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The International Law Association (ILA) and the Institut de Droit International (IDI) were both founded in 1873 at a critical juncture in the history of pacifism and internationalism, in the immediate aftermath of the 1870–1871 Franco-Prussian War and the 1872 British-American Alabama arbitration. Frustrated by the blatant violations of international rules during the war and then emboldened by the arbitral resolution of the protracted Alabama dispute between Britain and the United States, pacifists and international jurists joined forces to promote an ordered system of international law and advocate for legalized international dispute settlement. The aim was to marshal the scattered reformist forces of international law in furtherance of international legal reform—“international law needed to be institutionalized,” as Gerald Fitzmaurice put it. 1 This resulted in the almost simultaneous establishment of the pacifism-originated ILA and the legal-scientism-oriented IDI, and helped to explain the similarity in institutional telos and the high degree of overlap in membership between the two institutions in their early years. 2 Nevertheless, the ILA and the IDI differed in their working agendas and strategies. In terms of agendas, while the ILA tended to adopt an idealist view of international law hardly succumbing to compromises, the IDI mainly adhered to a scientifically pragmatic approach. With respect to strategies, the ILA sought social influence based on expansive membership, while the IDI's membership consisted of a limited number of international jurists. Despite changes over time, these organizational structures and distinctions between the two institutions at their founding moment are still visible.
{"title":"The Institutionalization of International Law at a Crossroads: Pacifists, Jurists, and the Creation of the ILA and the IDI","authors":"Xiaohang Chen","doi":"10.1017/aju.2023.33","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/aju.2023.33","url":null,"abstract":"The International Law Association (ILA) and the Institut de Droit International (IDI) were both founded in 1873 at a critical juncture in the history of pacifism and internationalism, in the immediate aftermath of the 1870–1871 Franco-Prussian War and the 1872 British-American Alabama arbitration. Frustrated by the blatant violations of international rules during the war and then emboldened by the arbitral resolution of the protracted Alabama dispute between Britain and the United States, pacifists and international jurists joined forces to promote an ordered system of international law and advocate for legalized international dispute settlement. The aim was to marshal the scattered reformist forces of international law in furtherance of international legal reform—“international law needed to be institutionalized,” as Gerald Fitzmaurice put it. 1 This resulted in the almost simultaneous establishment of the pacifism-originated ILA and the legal-scientism-oriented IDI, and helped to explain the similarity in institutional telos and the high degree of overlap in membership between the two institutions in their early years. 2 Nevertheless, the ILA and the IDI differed in their working agendas and strategies. In terms of agendas, while the ILA tended to adopt an idealist view of international law hardly succumbing to compromises, the IDI mainly adhered to a scientifically pragmatic approach. With respect to strategies, the ILA sought social influence based on expansive membership, while the IDI's membership consisted of a limited number of international jurists. Despite changes over time, these organizational structures and distinctions between the two institutions at their founding moment are still visible.","PeriodicalId":36818,"journal":{"name":"AJIL Unbound","volume":"23 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135357295","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：