Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-kw2vx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-12T15:31:32.443Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

12 - Constituting order

from Part IV - Projects of international law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 July 2015

By
Anne Orford
Edited by
James Crawford  and
Martti Koskenniemi
Anne Orford
Affiliation:
Melbourne Law School
James Crawford
Affiliation:
University of Cambridge
Martti Koskenniemi
Affiliation:
University of Helsinki
Get access

Summary

Introduction

The proper relation between law and order has long been a contested one. Attempting to determine the proper relation between international law and international order is an even more difficult task. Does international law exist to create and maintain international order? Should this be one of the functions of international law? If so, what kind of order is international law designed to secure and maintain? Does constituting order always take priority over all other goals, values or interests? Who decides? These are particularly difficult questions for international lawyers, because international law has predominantly been understood as a means of governing relations between sovereign states. In this view, states are the authors of law and the bearers of pluralism. International law only exists to the extent that sovereign states consent to be bound by specific obligations. International law, like private law, is thus portrayed as a system for governing relations between equals. In the case of international law, the equality of subjects plays an even more fundamental role than in domestic legal systems, where the idea that agreements must be honoured finds a guarantor in the state. Because international law is a system in which there is no higher guarantor, international jurisprudence is strongly shaped by the notion of consent and by the idea that law only exists to bind states to their commitments. According to this view, international lawyers fulfil their function when they find ways for these alienated entities to express their national interests or their instrumental objectives in the law they bring into being.

Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Companion to International Law , pp. 271 - 289
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alexander, V I, 1917. ‘The Bull Inter Caetera (1493)’, reprinted in Davenport, F. G. (ed.), European Treaties bearing on the History of the United States and its Dependencies to 1648, Washington, DC: Carnegie Institute of Washington, 71–78Google Scholar
Alexandrowicz, C. H., 1958. ‘The Theory of Recognition in Fieri ’, British Year Book of International Law, 34, 176–198Google Scholar
Alexandrowicz, C. H., 1961. ‘Doctrinal Aspects of the Universality of the Law of Nations’, British Year Book of International Law, 37, 506–515Google Scholar
Anand, R. P., 1972. New States and International Law, Delhi: Vikas Publishing HouseGoogle Scholar
Anghie, A., 2005. Imperialism, Sovereignty and the Making of International Law, Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Armitage, D., 2000. The Ideological Origins of the British Empire, Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borschberg, P., 1999. ‘Hugo Grotius, East India Trade and the King of Johor’, Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, 30, 225–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butterfield, H., 1966. ‘The Balance of Power’, in Butterfield, H. and Wight, M. (eds.), Diplomatic Investigations: Essays in the Theory of International Politics, London: Allen & Unwin, 132–148Google Scholar
Cohen, F., 1935. ‘Transcendental Nonsense and the Functional Approach’, Columbia Law Review, 35, 809–849CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crawford, J., 2006. The Creation of States in International Law, 2nd edn., Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
Fasolt, C., 2004. The Limits of History, University of Chicago PressGoogle Scholar
Goffman, D., 2007. ‘Negotiating with the Renaissance State: The Ottoman Empire and the New Diplomacy’, in Aksan, V. H. and Goffman, D. (eds.), The Early Modern Ottomans: Remapping the Empire, Cambridge University Press, 61–74Google Scholar
Goldie, M., 1987. ‘The Civil Religion of James Harrington’, in Pagden, A. (ed.), The Languages of Political Theory in Early-Modern Europe, Cambridge University Press, 197–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grotius, H., 2006. Commentary on the Law of Prize and Booty, Ittersum, M. J. (ed.), Indianapolis: Liberty FundGoogle Scholar
Hammarskjöld, D., 1962a. ‘Asia, Africa and the West: Address before the Academic Association of the University of Lund, Lund, Sweden, 4 May 1959’, in Foote, W. (ed.), The Servant of Peace: A Selection of the Speeches and Statements of Dag Hammarskjöld, London: The Bodley Head, 212–219Google Scholar
Hammarskjöld, D., 1962b. ‘The International Civil Servant in Law and in Fact: Lecture delivered to Congregation at Oxford University, 30 May 1961’, in Foote, W. (ed.), The Servant of Peace: A Selection of the Speeches and Statements of Dag Hammarskjöld, London: The Bodley Head, 329–353Google Scholar
Hill, C., 1997. Puritanism and Revolution: Studies in Interpretation of the English Revolution of the 17th Century, New York: St. Martin’s PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hobbes, T., 1996. Leviathan, Gaskin, J. C. A. (ed.), Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
Hont, I., 2005. Jealousy of Trade: International Competition and the Nation-state in Historical Perspective, Cambridge, MA: Belknap PressGoogle Scholar
Howse, R., 2002. ‘From Politics to Technocracy – and Back Again: The Fate of the Multilateral Trading Regime’, American Journal of International Law 96, 94–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, 2001. The Responsibility to Protect, Ottawa: International Development Research CentreGoogle Scholar
James, H., 1996. International Monetary Cooperation since Bretton Woods, Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund and Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
Keene, E., 2002. Beyond the Anarchical Society: Grotius, Colonialism and Order in World Politics, Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kingsbury, B., 2002. ‘Legal Positivism as Normative Politics: International Society, Balance of Power and Lassa Oppenheim’s Positive International Law’, European Journal of International Law 13, 401–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koselleck, R., 1988. Critique and Crisis: Enlightenment and the Pathogenesis of Modern Society, Cambridge, MA: MIT PressGoogle Scholar
Koskenniemi, M., 2001. The Gentle Civilizer of Nations: The Rise and Fall of International Law 1870–1960, Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koskenniemi, M., 2007. ‘The Fate of Public International Law: Between Technique and Politics’, Modern Law Review, 70, 1–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Locke, J., 1993. Two Treatises of Government, Goldie, M. (ed.), London: Everyman
MacMillan, K., 2006. Sovereignty and Possession in the English New World: The Legal Foundations of Empire, 1576–1640, Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
Mattingly, G., 1955. Renaissance Diplomacy, Boston: Houghton MifflinGoogle Scholar
Morris, M., 1992. Ecstasy and Economics, Sydney: EMPressGoogle Scholar
Orford, A., 1997. ‘Locating the International: Military and Monetary Interventions after the Cold War’, Harvard International Law Journal, 38, 443–485Google Scholar
Orford, A., 2003. Reading Humanitarian Intervention: Human Rights and the Use of Force in International Law, Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orford, A., 2009. ‘Jurisdiction without Territory: From the Holy Roman Empire to the Responsibility to Protect’, Michigan Journal of International Law, 30, 981–1015Google Scholar
Orford, A., 2011. International Authority and the Responsibility to Protect, Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pitts, J., 2007. ‘Boundaries of Victorian International Law’, in Bell, D. (ed.), Victorian Visions of Global Order: Empire and International Relations in Nineteenth-century Political Thought, Cambridge University Press, 67–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piven, F. F., 1995. ‘Is it Global Economics or Neo-Laissez-Faire?’, New Left Review, I(213) September–October, 107–114Google Scholar
Schachter, O., 1962. ‘Dag Hammarskjöld and the Relation of Law to Politics’, American Journal of International Law, 56, 1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmitt, C., 1999. ‘Ethic of State and Pluralistic State’, Dyzenhaus, D. (trans.), in Mouffe, C. (ed.), The Challenge of Carl Schmitt, London: Verso, 196–208Google Scholar
Sharp, A. (ed.), 1998. The English Levellers, Cambridge University PressCrossRef
Stahn, C., 2008. The Law and Practice of International Territorial Administration: Versailles to Iraq and Beyond, Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tuck, R., 1987. ‘The “Modern” Theory of Natural Law’, in Pagden, A. (ed.), The Languages of Political Theory in Early-Modern Europe, Cambridge University Press, 99–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
UN Secretary-General, 1961. Introduction to the Annual Report of the Secretary-General on the Work of the Organisation, UN GAOR, 16th Sess., Su No. 1A, UN Doc. A/4800/Add.1
Vitoria, F., 1991. ‘De potestate ecclesiae Prior’, in Political Writings, Pagden, A. and Lawrance, J. (eds.), Cambridge University Press, 45–108Google Scholar
Wight, M., 1966. ‘The Balance of Power’, in Butterfield, H. and Wight, M. (eds.), Diplomatic Investigations: Essays in the Theory of International Politics, London: Allen & Unwin, 149–175Google Scholar
Woods, N., 2006. The Globalizers: The IMF, the World Bank, and Their Borrowers, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University PressGoogle Scholar
Woolsey, L. H., 1942. ‘A Pattern of World Order’, American Journal of International Law, 36, 621–628CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×