Pub Date : 2021-08-25DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199796953-0222
The “international rule of law” is an elusive concept. Under this heading, mainly two variations are being discussed: The international rule of law “proper” and an “internationalized” or even “globalized” rule of law. The first usage relates to the rule of law as applied to the international legal system, that is the application of the rule of law to those legal relations and contexts that are governed by international law. In this context, the term international rule of law is often mentioned as a catchphrase which merely embellishes a discussion of international law tout court. The international rule of law is here mainly or exclusively used as shorthand for compliance with international law, a synonym for a “rule based international order,” or a signifier for the question whether international law is “real” law. This extremely loose usage of the term testifies its normative and symbolic appeal although it does not convey any additional analytic value. The second usage of the rule of law in international contexts covers all other aspects of the rule of law in a globalizing world, notably rule of law promotion in its widest sense. The increasing interaction between national and international law and between the diverse domestic legal orders (through law diffusion and reception, often again mediated by international law) is a manifestation of the second form of the rule of law. The structure of this bibliography roughly follows this bifurcation of the Rule of Law Applied to the International Legal System and the Rule of Law in a Globalizing World. Next to these two main parts, three further, separate sections discuss questions that arise at the intersection of the two variants or are of crosscutting importance to the rule of law as a whole. This includes sections on the Rule of Law as a UN Project: A Selection of UN Documents on the Rule of Law, the Interaction between the International and Domestic Rule(s) of Law, and the (International) Rule of Law: A Tool of Hegemony?.
{"title":"An International Rule of Law","authors":"","doi":"10.1093/obo/9780199796953-0222","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780199796953-0222","url":null,"abstract":"The “international rule of law” is an elusive concept. Under this heading, mainly two variations are being discussed: The international rule of law “proper” and an “internationalized” or even “globalized” rule of law. The first usage relates to the rule of law as applied to the international legal system, that is the application of the rule of law to those legal relations and contexts that are governed by international law. In this context, the term international rule of law is often mentioned as a catchphrase which merely embellishes a discussion of international law tout court. The international rule of law is here mainly or exclusively used as shorthand for compliance with international law, a synonym for a “rule based international order,” or a signifier for the question whether international law is “real” law. This extremely loose usage of the term testifies its normative and symbolic appeal although it does not convey any additional analytic value. The second usage of the rule of law in international contexts covers all other aspects of the rule of law in a globalizing world, notably rule of law promotion in its widest sense. The increasing interaction between national and international law and between the diverse domestic legal orders (through law diffusion and reception, often again mediated by international law) is a manifestation of the second form of the rule of law. The structure of this bibliography roughly follows this bifurcation of the Rule of Law Applied to the International Legal System and the Rule of Law in a Globalizing World. Next to these two main parts, three further, separate sections discuss questions that arise at the intersection of the two variants or are of crosscutting importance to the rule of law as a whole. This includes sections on the Rule of Law as a UN Project: A Selection of UN Documents on the Rule of Law, the Interaction between the International and Domestic Rule(s) of Law, and the (International) Rule of Law: A Tool of Hegemony?.","PeriodicalId":42994,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge International Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2021-08-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85413142","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}
Pub Date : 2021-08-25DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199796953-0226
International law’s indeterminacy and its capacity to be shaped by what Duncan Kennedy describes as “legal work,” or the intervention of the legal worker to shape many available parts, (i.e., evidence, primary documents, testimony) into an argument makes certain that there is no singular account of a conflict in international law. Despite the myriad legal arguments presented in jurisprudence, scholarship, and advocacy, not a single one of them is the “truth” to the exclusion of all others as the law itself represents a terrain of battle rather than a science to be discovered or verified. This could not be truer in the case of the 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict. The conflict itself refers to the establishment of Israel, self-defined as a Jewish state, in Mandate Palestine, where a native, and numerical majority, Arab population sought to be self-determined. Perhaps the worst way to pursue this scholarly inquiry is to begin in the 1948 War between Israel and six Arab armies. Doing so effectively erases the three decades of British colonial oversight in its capacity as the Mandatory power that facilitated the settler-colonization of Palestine, the supplanting of nascent Palestinian sovereignty with Jewish-Zionist settler-sovereignty, and, ultimately, the country’s transformation into the modern state of Israel. While I begin this inquiry roughly during the First World War, which ended with the defeat of the Ottoman Empire and its dominion over Palestine since 1299, there is room to begin much earlier especially in regard to the development of legal regimes regulating nationality and citizenship as well as land to understand their mutations over the course of the Palestine Mandate between 1922 and 1948. Similarly, it would be a mistake to end this inquiry upon Israel’s establishment, and then begin again during the 1967 War and the subsequent occupation of Arab lands, as do most legal accounts. The intervening decades between the two wars serve as an analytical bridge to understand the continuities in law between Britain’s colonial oversight of Palestine, Israel’s racialized governance of Palestinian natives who remained, and Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, which together provide a more holistic picture of an ongoing settler-colonial regime of land usurpation, native removal, and settler replacement. This bibliography aims to provide historical context as well as reflect some of the debates within the historiography and legal literature. It includes a mix of primary sources, legal analysis, and historical accounts that together should help shape a robust research project.
{"title":"The 1948 Arab-Israeli Conflict and International Law","authors":"","doi":"10.1093/obo/9780199796953-0226","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780199796953-0226","url":null,"abstract":"International law’s indeterminacy and its capacity to be shaped by what Duncan Kennedy describes as “legal work,” or the intervention of the legal worker to shape many available parts, (i.e., evidence, primary documents, testimony) into an argument makes certain that there is no singular account of a conflict in international law. Despite the myriad legal arguments presented in jurisprudence, scholarship, and advocacy, not a single one of them is the “truth” to the exclusion of all others as the law itself represents a terrain of battle rather than a science to be discovered or verified. This could not be truer in the case of the 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict. The conflict itself refers to the establishment of Israel, self-defined as a Jewish state, in Mandate Palestine, where a native, and numerical majority, Arab population sought to be self-determined. Perhaps the worst way to pursue this scholarly inquiry is to begin in the 1948 War between Israel and six Arab armies. Doing so effectively erases the three decades of British colonial oversight in its capacity as the Mandatory power that facilitated the settler-colonization of Palestine, the supplanting of nascent Palestinian sovereignty with Jewish-Zionist settler-sovereignty, and, ultimately, the country’s transformation into the modern state of Israel. While I begin this inquiry roughly during the First World War, which ended with the defeat of the Ottoman Empire and its dominion over Palestine since 1299, there is room to begin much earlier especially in regard to the development of legal regimes regulating nationality and citizenship as well as land to understand their mutations over the course of the Palestine Mandate between 1922 and 1948. Similarly, it would be a mistake to end this inquiry upon Israel’s establishment, and then begin again during the 1967 War and the subsequent occupation of Arab lands, as do most legal accounts. The intervening decades between the two wars serve as an analytical bridge to understand the continuities in law between Britain’s colonial oversight of Palestine, Israel’s racialized governance of Palestinian natives who remained, and Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, which together provide a more holistic picture of an ongoing settler-colonial regime of land usurpation, native removal, and settler replacement. This bibliography aims to provide historical context as well as reflect some of the debates within the historiography and legal literature. It includes a mix of primary sources, legal analysis, and historical accounts that together should help shape a robust research project.","PeriodicalId":42994,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge International Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2021-08-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84850897","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}
Pub Date : 2021-08-25DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199796953-0223
The topic of reservations and derogations is a complex issue in treaty law. Reservations define the content and extent of a legal obligation for a party to a treaty. They thereby allow states to accommodate their specific interests in the framework of multilateral treaties. The starting point for any examination of reservations is the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT). According to the definition contained in Article 2(1)(d) VCLT, a reservation means “a unilateral statement, however phrased or named, made by a State, when signing, ratifying, accepting, approving or acceding to a treaty, whereby it purports to exclude or to modify the legal effect of certain provisions of the treaty in their application to that State.” Some unresolved and controversial issues in treaty law include the legal effects of objections to reservations, the legal effect of impermissible reservations, and the legal status of interpretative declarations. The VCLT does not address the notion of derogations. Typically, in time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation and the existence of which is officially proclaimed, states may take measures derogating from their obligations under certain treaties to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation. This is provided that such measures are not inconsistent with their other obligations under international law. Specific clauses which lay down specific procedures on derogations are usually incorporated in human rights treaties. However, it is unclear under what precise circumstances a state may derogate from its treaty obligations, or what procedure is to be followed in this regard. The concepts of reservations and derogations have been of interest for many years, not least in the context of human rights treaties. In this article, the main focus is on reservations to and derogations from multilateral treaties. Historical Background of Reservations to Treaties Prior to the 1969 VCLT gives a historical overview of the development of the regime of reservations to treaties prior to the adoption of the 1969 VCLT. Reservations Under the Regime of the 1969 VCLT addresses reservations under the 1969 VCLT regime. Legal Effects of and Procedure Regarding Reservations deals with the legal effects of permissible reservations. Legal Effects of Impermissible Reservations addresses the legal effects of invalid reservations, and Reservations to Human Rights Treaties addresses reservations to human rights treaties. Practice of Human Rights Bodies on Reservations to Human Rights Treaties looks at some approaches of human rights bodies with respect to reservations to human rights treaties. Interpretative Declarations addresses the issue of interpretative declarations, and 2011 ILC Guide to Practice on Reservations discusses the 2011 Guide to Practice on Reservations to Treaties. Lastly, Derogations deals with the notion of derogations, with a particular emphasis on derogations from norms ius cog
{"title":"Derogations and Reservations in International Law","authors":"","doi":"10.1093/obo/9780199796953-0223","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780199796953-0223","url":null,"abstract":"The topic of reservations and derogations is a complex issue in treaty law. Reservations define the content and extent of a legal obligation for a party to a treaty. They thereby allow states to accommodate their specific interests in the framework of multilateral treaties. The starting point for any examination of reservations is the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT). According to the definition contained in Article 2(1)(d) VCLT, a reservation means “a unilateral statement, however phrased or named, made by a State, when signing, ratifying, accepting, approving or acceding to a treaty, whereby it purports to exclude or to modify the legal effect of certain provisions of the treaty in their application to that State.” Some unresolved and controversial issues in treaty law include the legal effects of objections to reservations, the legal effect of impermissible reservations, and the legal status of interpretative declarations. The VCLT does not address the notion of derogations. Typically, in time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation and the existence of which is officially proclaimed, states may take measures derogating from their obligations under certain treaties to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation. This is provided that such measures are not inconsistent with their other obligations under international law. Specific clauses which lay down specific procedures on derogations are usually incorporated in human rights treaties. However, it is unclear under what precise circumstances a state may derogate from its treaty obligations, or what procedure is to be followed in this regard. The concepts of reservations and derogations have been of interest for many years, not least in the context of human rights treaties. In this article, the main focus is on reservations to and derogations from multilateral treaties. Historical Background of Reservations to Treaties Prior to the 1969 VCLT gives a historical overview of the development of the regime of reservations to treaties prior to the adoption of the 1969 VCLT. Reservations Under the Regime of the 1969 VCLT addresses reservations under the 1969 VCLT regime. Legal Effects of and Procedure Regarding Reservations deals with the legal effects of permissible reservations. Legal Effects of Impermissible Reservations addresses the legal effects of invalid reservations, and Reservations to Human Rights Treaties addresses reservations to human rights treaties. Practice of Human Rights Bodies on Reservations to Human Rights Treaties looks at some approaches of human rights bodies with respect to reservations to human rights treaties. Interpretative Declarations addresses the issue of interpretative declarations, and 2011 ILC Guide to Practice on Reservations discusses the 2011 Guide to Practice on Reservations to Treaties. Lastly, Derogations deals with the notion of derogations, with a particular emphasis on derogations from norms ius cog","PeriodicalId":42994,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge International Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2021-08-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88741286","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}
Pub Date : 2021-08-25DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199796953-0225
African approaches to international law encompass a variety of theoretical and processual elements that shape the way African countries, and Africa as a continent, continue to interact with the principles of international law. Over the years, certain rubrics have been employed to explain the existence of such approach. This includes the historical dimension (an exploration of the nature of precolonial Africa’s internationality), thematic focus (human rights, peace and security, environment, good governance, etc.), and the ideological discourse (Third World approaches to international law, feminist approaches to international law, postcolonial theory, critical race theory, neo-liberal approaches, Afrocentric approaches, etc.). While these elemental purviews point to the diversity of thoughts and opinions on what constitutes distinct African approaches to international law, it nevertheless highlights the need to rethink the Eurocentric foundations of international law. In other words, African approaches to international law reflect Africa’s peripheral position in global realpolitik, especially how historical and contemporary conditions continue to ensure such marginality, and thus seeks to advance alternatives for redressing this problem. In this respect, it is both emancipatory and instrumentalist. This article aims to distill the underlying issues that shape the content and substance of African approaches to international law from established and emerging scholarship. Firstly, it introduces the theories that underline African approaches to international law. Secondly, it highlights the texts that explore the trends and patterns of the practice of international law in Africa. Thirdly, it focuses on writings that show some of Africa’s contributions to international law. The article concludes with the scholarship that engages with African perspectives on a new vision of international law.
{"title":"African Approaches to International Law","authors":"","doi":"10.1093/obo/9780199796953-0225","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780199796953-0225","url":null,"abstract":"African approaches to international law encompass a variety of theoretical and processual elements that shape the way African countries, and Africa as a continent, continue to interact with the principles of international law. Over the years, certain rubrics have been employed to explain the existence of such approach. This includes the historical dimension (an exploration of the nature of precolonial Africa’s internationality), thematic focus (human rights, peace and security, environment, good governance, etc.), and the ideological discourse (Third World approaches to international law, feminist approaches to international law, postcolonial theory, critical race theory, neo-liberal approaches, Afrocentric approaches, etc.). While these elemental purviews point to the diversity of thoughts and opinions on what constitutes distinct African approaches to international law, it nevertheless highlights the need to rethink the Eurocentric foundations of international law. In other words, African approaches to international law reflect Africa’s peripheral position in global realpolitik, especially how historical and contemporary conditions continue to ensure such marginality, and thus seeks to advance alternatives for redressing this problem. In this respect, it is both emancipatory and instrumentalist. This article aims to distill the underlying issues that shape the content and substance of African approaches to international law from established and emerging scholarship. Firstly, it introduces the theories that underline African approaches to international law. Secondly, it highlights the texts that explore the trends and patterns of the practice of international law in Africa. Thirdly, it focuses on writings that show some of Africa’s contributions to international law. The article concludes with the scholarship that engages with African perspectives on a new vision of international law.","PeriodicalId":42994,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge International Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2021-08-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79716318","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}
Pub Date : 2021-08-25DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199796953-0228
It is difficult to speak of a distinctly “Turkish” approach to international law. First, by and large, Turkish academics do not pretend to represent a systematic worldview that challenges the established norms and practices of international law. Second, they mostly have no claims about presenting views, ideas, and concepts that enrich existing international law. Finally, there is no evidence to suggest that Turkish scholars of international law share the official view of Turkey, roughly over the last two decades, as a “central state” and a “rising power.” Another peculiarity of the international legal discipline in Turkey is its lack of interest in Turkey’s historical past, in particular the Ottoman Empire. This is possibly one of the reasons behind the overall aridity of the international legal literature in Turkey. Even today, most of the Turkish jurists appear Eurocentric/Western-centric in the way they conceive international law. Accordingly, they are likely to show scant interest in legal disputes, developments, or ideas originating in Asia, Africa, and Latin America unless they are taken up by Western scholars. This one-way dependence on the Western literature may also partly account for the positivist bias prevailing in Turkey. The rarity of interdisciplinary analysis of international legal issues is another distinguishing feature of the literature in Turkish. Nonetheless, increasing publications by the new generations of jurists in Turkey have undoubtedly broadened the thematic scope of international legal analysis. Currently, in addition to the classical topics of international law, Turkish monographic studies, which mostly originate in doctoral theses, and academic articles delve into issues such as the right of self-determination, human rights and humanitarian law, and, less frequently, the history of international law, jus cogens norms in international law, globalization and international law, Third World approaches to international law, and some problematical aspects of the UN system from the perspective of international law. This bibliographical study does not include studies that fall under the umbrella of the European Union law or human rights, simply because these branches of international law have become separate disciplines or subdisciplines on their own in Turkey. Besides, Turkish academic publications in these two areas are so numerous that it doesn’t seem sensible to list them as a subheading of international legal analysis in this bibliographical study. Granting that Turkish scholars of international law have shown scant interest in the area of “Islam and international law,” this topic is not incorporated in this entry either. Currently, in Turkey, there is no academic journal specializing solely in public international law. However, Milletlerarası Hukuk ve Milletlerarası Özel Hukuk Bülteni (Public and Private International Law Bulletin), published since 1981 by the Law Faculty of Istanbul University, incorporates articles,
{"title":"International Law in Turkish","authors":"","doi":"10.1093/obo/9780199796953-0228","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780199796953-0228","url":null,"abstract":"It is difficult to speak of a distinctly “Turkish” approach to international law. First, by and large, Turkish academics do not pretend to represent a systematic worldview that challenges the established norms and practices of international law. Second, they mostly have no claims about presenting views, ideas, and concepts that enrich existing international law. Finally, there is no evidence to suggest that Turkish scholars of international law share the official view of Turkey, roughly over the last two decades, as a “central state” and a “rising power.” Another peculiarity of the international legal discipline in Turkey is its lack of interest in Turkey’s historical past, in particular the Ottoman Empire. This is possibly one of the reasons behind the overall aridity of the international legal literature in Turkey. Even today, most of the Turkish jurists appear Eurocentric/Western-centric in the way they conceive international law. Accordingly, they are likely to show scant interest in legal disputes, developments, or ideas originating in Asia, Africa, and Latin America unless they are taken up by Western scholars. This one-way dependence on the Western literature may also partly account for the positivist bias prevailing in Turkey. The rarity of interdisciplinary analysis of international legal issues is another distinguishing feature of the literature in Turkish. Nonetheless, increasing publications by the new generations of jurists in Turkey have undoubtedly broadened the thematic scope of international legal analysis. Currently, in addition to the classical topics of international law, Turkish monographic studies, which mostly originate in doctoral theses, and academic articles delve into issues such as the right of self-determination, human rights and humanitarian law, and, less frequently, the history of international law, jus cogens norms in international law, globalization and international law, Third World approaches to international law, and some problematical aspects of the UN system from the perspective of international law. This bibliographical study does not include studies that fall under the umbrella of the European Union law or human rights, simply because these branches of international law have become separate disciplines or subdisciplines on their own in Turkey. Besides, Turkish academic publications in these two areas are so numerous that it doesn’t seem sensible to list them as a subheading of international legal analysis in this bibliographical study. Granting that Turkish scholars of international law have shown scant interest in the area of “Islam and international law,” this topic is not incorporated in this entry either. Currently, in Turkey, there is no academic journal specializing solely in public international law. However, Milletlerarası Hukuk ve Milletlerarası Özel Hukuk Bülteni (Public and Private International Law Bulletin), published since 1981 by the Law Faculty of Istanbul University, incorporates articles,","PeriodicalId":42994,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge International Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2021-08-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84057798","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}
Pub Date : 2021-08-25DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199796953-0227
The Ottoman Empire has long been a marginal subject in both the history and theory of international law. With the imperial turn in historiography and the postcolonial turn to history in legal studies, researchers challenge the stereotype of “the Sick Man of Europe,” paying due attention to the Ottomans’ own understanding of international law and society. Most importantly, throughout its centuries-long existence, the Ottoman Empire did not find itself vis-à-vis a monolithic, stable, and ready-made set of rules and ideas we today refer to as international law. On the contrary, interactions with the Ottomans—the Other par excellence for Christian Europe—helped transform droit public européen into modern international law. Neither the Islamic nor the Christian precepts predetermined this course of events. “Islamic” explanation was of little help in understanding the Ottomans’ relationship with the European powers. Notwithstanding the Islamic ideal of Holy War, the Ottoman Empire was among the key actors in the European balance of power. In the 19th century, however, Europeans increasingly established discrimination against Muslim Ottomans as a rule in international law, rarely perceiving their desire to be a full member of international society. Overall, the Ottoman Empire offers a fresh perspective for a truly universal history of international law.
{"title":"The Ottoman Empire and International Law","authors":"","doi":"10.1093/obo/9780199796953-0227","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780199796953-0227","url":null,"abstract":"The Ottoman Empire has long been a marginal subject in both the history and theory of international law. With the imperial turn in historiography and the postcolonial turn to history in legal studies, researchers challenge the stereotype of “the Sick Man of Europe,” paying due attention to the Ottomans’ own understanding of international law and society. Most importantly, throughout its centuries-long existence, the Ottoman Empire did not find itself vis-à-vis a monolithic, stable, and ready-made set of rules and ideas we today refer to as international law. On the contrary, interactions with the Ottomans—the Other par excellence for Christian Europe—helped transform droit public européen into modern international law. Neither the Islamic nor the Christian precepts predetermined this course of events. “Islamic” explanation was of little help in understanding the Ottomans’ relationship with the European powers. Notwithstanding the Islamic ideal of Holy War, the Ottoman Empire was among the key actors in the European balance of power. In the 19th century, however, Europeans increasingly established discrimination against Muslim Ottomans as a rule in international law, rarely perceiving their desire to be a full member of international society. Overall, the Ottoman Empire offers a fresh perspective for a truly universal history of international law.","PeriodicalId":42994,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge International Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2021-08-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"73167547","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}
Pub Date : 2021-07-22DOI: 10.1017/9781108774802.003
{"title":"Table of Treaties and Selected Other International Instruments","authors":"","doi":"10.1017/9781108774802.003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108774802.003","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":42994,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge International Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2021-07-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80665050","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}
Pub Date : 2021-07-22DOI: 10.1017/cbo9781139051903.014
M. Shaw
{"title":"Immunities from Jurisdiction","authors":"M. Shaw","doi":"10.1017/cbo9781139051903.014","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139051903.014","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":42994,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge International Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2021-07-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80475987","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}
Pub Date : 2021-07-22DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-408-01541-7.50004-0
M. G. Scroggie
{"title":"Preface to the Ninth Edition","authors":"M. G. Scroggie","doi":"10.1016/B978-0-408-01541-7.50004-0","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-408-01541-7.50004-0","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":42994,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge International Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2021-07-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89979617","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}
Pub Date : 2021-07-22DOI: 10.1017/9781108774802.018
David Pataraia
{"title":"The Law of Treaties","authors":"David Pataraia","doi":"10.1017/9781108774802.018","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108774802.018","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":42994,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge International Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2021-07-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88960405","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：