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-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T04:35:21.206Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

9 - The Contested Authority and Legitimacy of International Law

The State Strikes Back

from Part III - Resisting Rule

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 June 2023

By
Karen J. Alter
Edited by
Christopher Daase ,
Nicole Deitelhoff  and
Antonia Witt
Christopher Daase
Affiliation:
Peace Research Institute Frankfurt and Goethe University Frankfurt
Nicole Deitelhoff
Affiliation:
Peace Research Institute Frankfurt and Goethe University Frankfurt
Antonia Witt
Affiliation:
Peace Research Institute Frankfurt
Get access

Summary

International law (IL) draws its legitimacy and authority from public affirmations and diffuse support for the rule of law, yet contestation about IL is to be expected. States collectively rule and contest international politics through the crafting, invocation, and interpretation of IL. The chapter explores both ordinary and extraordinary contestations of IL authority. Ordinary contestation takes place within a legal field, when lawyers, stakeholders, judges, and government officials debate, contest, and disagree about the meaning of IL. Political tactics are also part of ordinary contestation, but because the curators of IL authority are transnational, a state may be unable to impose its preferred IL interpretation. Instead, states can use three extra-ordinary contestation strategies to escape IL authority: they can 1) seek to replace international law’s authority with domestic law’s authority; 2) pit different international laws against each other by maneuvering within and around international regime complexes; and (3) attack the legitimacy and authority of international law altogether. Extraordinary contestation can make IL more accountable, but it can also undermine the permissive conditions that make IL both constraining and effective.

Keywords

International lawauthoritylegtimacycontestationChinaRussia
Type
Chapter
Information
Rule in International Politics , pp. 214 - 241
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2023

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

Alter, Karen J. 2006. “Delegation to International Courts and the Limits of Recontracting Power,” in Hawkins, Darren, David A. Lake, , Daniel Nielson, , and Tierney, Michael J. (eds.), Delegation and Agency in International Organizations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 312–338.Google Scholar
Alter, Karen J. 2008. “Agent or Trustee: International Courts in Their Political Context.” European Journal of International Relations 14(1): 33–63.Google Scholar
Alter, Karen J. 2014. The New Terrain of International Law: Courts, Politics, Rights. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Alter, Karen J. 2018a. “Critical Junctures and the Future of International Courts.” iCourts Working Paper Series 140: 31.Google Scholar
Alter, Karen J. 2018b. “The Future of International Law,” in Ayton-Shenker, Diana (ed.), The New Global Agenda. Lahnham: Rowman & Littlefield, pp. 25–42.Google Scholar
Alter, Karen J. 2018c. “National Perspectives on International Constitutional Review: Diverging Optics,” in: Delaney, Erin and Dixon, Rosalind, Comparative Judicial Review. United Kingdom: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 244–272.Google Scholar
Alter, Karen J. 2021. “When and How to Legally Challenge Economic Globalization: A Comment on the German Constitutional Court’s False Promise.” International Journal of Constitutional Law 19(1): 269–284.Google Scholar
Alter, Karen J., and Helfer, Laurence R. 2017. Transplanting International Courts: The Law and Politics of the Andean Tribunal of Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Alter, Karen J, Helfer, Laurence R. and Madsen, Mikael Rask. (eds.) 2018. International Court Authority. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Alter, Karen J., and Li, Ji. 2022. “Chinese and Western Perspectives on the Rule of Law and Their International Implications,” forthcoming in de la Rasilla, Ignacio and Congyan, Cai (eds.), Cambridge Handbook on China and International Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Alter, Karen J., and Raustiala, Kal. 2018. “The Rise of International Regime Complexity.” The Annual Review of Law and Social Science 14: 329–349.Google Scholar
Alter, Karen J., and Zürn, Michael. 2020a. “Conceptualizing Backlash Politics: Introduction to a Special Issue on Backlash Politics in Comparison.” British Journal of Politics and International Relations 22(4): 563–584.Google Scholar
Alter, Karen J., and Zürn, Michael. 2020b. “Theorising Backlash Politics: Conclusion to a Special Issue on Backlash Politics in Comparison.” British Journal of Politics and International Relations 22(4): 739–752.Google Scholar
Anghie, Antony. 2005. Imperialism, Sovereignty, and the Making of International Law. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Auld, Graeme, and Green, Jessica F.. 2012. “Unbundling the Regime Complex: The Effects of Private Authority.” Osgoode Hall Law School Research Paper Series 15.Google Scholar
Becker Lorca, Arnulf. 2014. Mestizo International Law: A Global Intellectual History 1842–1933. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Benvenisti, Eyal. 2008. “Reclaiming Democracy: The Strategic Uses of Foreign and International Law by National Courts.” American Journal of International Law 102(2): 241–276.Google Scholar
Benvenisti, Eyal, and Harel, Alon. 2017. “Embracing the Tension between National and International Human Rights Law: The Case for Discordant Parity.” International Journal of Constitutional Law 15(1): 36–59.Google Scholar
Bork, Robert. 1989/90. “The Limits of ‘International Law’.” The National Interest 18: 3–10.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1987. “Force of Law: Toward a Sociology of the Juridical Field.” Hastings Law Journal 38(July): 805–853.Google Scholar
Brunnée, Jutta, and Toope, Stephen. 2011. “Interactional International Law: An Introduction.” International Theory 3(2): 307–318.Google Scholar
Brunee, Jutta, and Toope, Stephen J.. 2017. “Interactional Legal Theory, the International Rule of Law and Global Constitutionalism,” in Lane, Antony F. and Wieder, Antje (eds.), Handbook on Global Constitutionalism. Cheltanham: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 170–182.Google Scholar
Capps, Patrick, and Palmer Olsen, Henrik. 2018. Legal Authority beyond the State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Carothers, Thomas. 1998. “The Rule of Law Revival.” Foreign Affairs 77(2): 95–106.Google Scholar
Chayes, Abram. 1974. The Cuban Missile Crisis: International Crises and the Role of Law. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chimni, Bhupinder, S. 2018. “Customary International Law: A Third World Perspective,” American Journal of International Law 112(1): 1–46.Google Scholar
Cottier, Thomas, Sieber-Gasser, Charlotte, and Wermelinger, Gabriela. 2015. “The Dialectical Relationship of Preferential and Multilateral Trade Agreements” in Dür, Andreas and Elsig, Manfred, Trade Cooperation: The Purpose, Design and Effects of Preferential Trade Agreement World Trade Forum. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 465–496.Google Scholar
Cottee, Simon. 2017. “What Isis Really Wants” Revisited: Religion Matters in Jihadist Violence, but How? Studies in Conflict and Terrorism 40(6): 439–454.Google Scholar
De Búrca, Gráinne, Keohane, Robert O., and Sabel, Charles. 2014. “Global Experimentalist Governance.” British Journal of Political Science 44(3): 477–486.Google Scholar
Delisle, Jacques. 2000. China’s Approach to International Law: A Historical Perspective. Washington: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dezalay, Yves, and Garth, Bryant G.. 1996. Dealing in Virtue: International Commercial Arbitration and the Construction of a Transnational Legal Order, Language and Legal Discourse. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Dezalay, Yves, and Garth, Bryant G.. 2006. “From the Cold War to Kosovo: The Renewal of the Field of International Human Rights.” Annual Review of Law and Social Science 2:231–255.Google Scholar
Dezalay, Yves, and Rask Madsen, Mikael. 2012. “The Force of Law and Lawyers: Pierre Bourdieu and the Reflexive Sociology of Law.” Annual Review of Law and Social Science 8(1): 433–452.Google Scholar
Dodge, William S. 2015. “International Comity in American Law.” Columbia Law Review 115(8): 2071–2141.Google Scholar
Finnemore, Martha. 1999. “Are Legal Norms Distinct?” Journal of International Law and Politics 32: 699–706.Google Scholar
Gehring, Thomas, and Faude, Benjamin. 2013. “The Dynamics of Regime Complexes: Microfoundations and Systemic Effects.” Global Governance 19(1): 119–130.Google Scholar
Ginsburg, Tom. 2020. “Authoritarian International Law?” American Journal of International Law 114(2): 221–260.Google Scholar
Ginsburg, Tom, and Moustafa, Tamir. 2008. Rule by Law: The Politics of Courts in Authoritarian Regimes. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, Jack L., and Posner, Eric A.. 2005. The Limits of International Law. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Green, James A. 2016. The Persistent Objector Rule in International Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Haggard, Stephan, Macintyre, Andrew, and Tiede, Lydia. 2008. “The Rule of Law and Economic Development.” Annual Review of Political Science 11(1): 205–234.Google Scholar
Hakimi, Monica. 2017. “Constructing an International Community.” American Journal of International Law 111(2): 317–356.Google Scholar
Hathaway, Oona, and Shapiro, Scott J.. 2011. “Outcasting: Enforcement in Domestic and International Law.” Yale Law Journal 121(2): 252–469.Google Scholar
Helfer, Laurence. 2004. “Regime Shifting: The TRIPS Agreement and the New Dynamics of International Intellectual Property Making.” Yale Journal of International Law 29: 1–81.Google Scholar
Helfer, Laurence. 2005. “Exiting Treaties.” Virginia Law Review 91: 1579–1648.Google Scholar
Hestermeyer, Holger. 2007. Human Rights and the WTO: The Case of Patents and Access to Medicines. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hull, Isabel V. 2014. A Scrap of Paper: Breaking and Making International Law during the Great War. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Ikenberry, G. John. 2001. After Victory: Institutions, Strategic Restraint, and the Rebuilding of Order after Major Wars. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Kalb, Marvin L. 2015. Imperial Gamble: Putin, Ukraine, and the New Cold War. Washington, D.C: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Kelley, Judith. 2007. “Who Keeps International Commitments and Why? The International Criminal Court and Bilateral Nonsurrender Agreements.” American Political Science Review 101(3): 573–589.Google Scholar
Keohane, Robert O., and Victor, David G.. 2011. “The Regime Complex for Climate Change.” Perspectives on Politics 9(1): 7–23.Google Scholar
Kittrie, Orde F. 2016. Lawfare: Law as a Weapon of War. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Koinova, Maria, Deloffre, Maryam Zarnegar, Frank Gadinger, , Mencutek, Zeynep Sahin, Scholte, Jan Aart, and Steffek, Jens. 2021. “It’s Ordered Chaos: What Really Makes Polycentrism Work.” International Studies Review 23(4): 1988–2018.Google Scholar
Krisch, Nico. 2017. “Liquid Authority in Global Governance.” International Theory 9(2): 237–260.Google Scholar
Lake, David A. 2009. Hierarchy in International Relations. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Madsen, Michael Rask. 2009. “Legal Diplomacy: Law Politics and the Genesis of Postwar European Human Rights,” in Hoffmann, Stefan-Ludwig (ed.), Human Rights in the Twentieth Century: A Critical History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 62–84.Google Scholar
Madsen, Mikael Rask. 2013. “Unpacking Legal Network Power: The Structural Construction of Transnational Legal Expert Networks,” in Fenwick, Mark, Van Uytsel, Stephen, and Wrbka, Stephen (eds.), Networked Governance, Transnational Business and the Law. Berlin: Springer Verlag, pp. 39–56.Google Scholar
Mälksoo, Lauri. 2015. Russian Approaches to International Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Marchuk, Iryna. 2017. “Flexing Its Muscles (Once Again): The Russian Constitutional Court’s Defiance of the Authority of the ECtHR in the Yukos Case.” EJIL: Talk! 02/13/17, www.ejiltalk.org/flexing-muscles-yet-again-the-russian-constitutional-courts-defiance-of-the-authority-of-the-ecthr-in-the-yukos-case/ [last access 05/12/19].Google Scholar
Merryman, John Henry, and Pérez-Perdomo, Rogelio. 2007. The Civil Law Tradition. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Morse, Julia, and Keohane, Robert. 2014. “Contested Multilateralism.” The Review of International Organizations 9(4): 385–412.Google Scholar
Natarajan, Usha, Reynolds, John, Bhatia, Amar, and Xavier, Sujith. 2016. “Introduction: TWAIL – on Praxis and the Intellectual.” Third World Quarterly 37(11): 1946–1956.Google Scholar
Ohlin, Jens David. 2015. The Assault on International Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ohnesorge, John K. M. 2007. “The Rule of Law.” Annual Review of Law and Social Science (3): 99–114.Google Scholar
Peters, Anne. 2017. “The Refinement of International Law: From Fragmentation to Regime Interaction and Politicization.” I•CON 15(3): 671–704.Google Scholar
Posner, Eric, and Sykes, Alan. 2011. “Efficient Breach of International Law: Optimal Remedies, ‘Legalized Noncompliance,’ and Related Issues.” Michigan Law Review 110: 243–294.Google Scholar
Pratt, Tyler. 2018. “Deference and Hierarchy in International Regime Complexes.” International Organization 72(3): 561–590.Google Scholar
Reus-Smit, Christian. 2011. “Obligation through Practice.” International Theory 3(2): 339–347.Google Scholar
Risse, Thomas. 2000. “‘Lets Argue’: Communicative Action in World Politics.” International Organization 34(1): 1–39.Google Scholar
Roberts, Anthea. 2017. Is International Law International? New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sanahuja, José Antonio. 2012. “Post-Liberal Regionalism in South America: The Case of Unasur.” EUI Working Papers 2012/05.Google Scholar
Scheppele, Kim Lane. 2018. “Autocratic Legalism.” University of Chicago Law Review 85(2): 545–583.Google Scholar
Sirleaf, Matiangai. 2017. “The African Justice Cascade and the Malabo Protocol.” International Journal of Transitional Justice 11(1): 71–91.Google Scholar
Sloss, David. 2016. The Death of Treaty Supremacy: An Invisible Constitutional Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Specia, Megan, Takkunen, Mikko 2018. “South China Seas Photos Suggest a Military Building Spree from China.” The New York Times 02/08/18, www.nytimes.com/2018/02/08/world/asia/south-china-seas-photos.html [last access 05/12/19].Google Scholar
Stone Sweet, Alec, and Brunell, Thomas. 2013. “Trustee Courts and the Judicialization of International Regimes: The Politics of Majoritarian Activism in the ECHR, the EU and the WTO.” Journal of Law and Courts 1(1): 61–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Streeck, Wolfgang, and Thelen, Kathleen Ann. 2005. Beyond Continuity: Institutional Change in Advanced Political Economies. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sutherland, Peter, Bhagwati, Jagdish, Botchwey, Kwesi, Fitzgerald, Niall, Hamada, Koichi, Jackson, John H., Lafer, Celso, and de Montbrial, Theirry. 2004. The Future of the WTO: Addressing Institutional Challenges in the New Millennium. Lausanne: The World Trade Organization.Google Scholar
Tamanaha, Brian Z. 2004. On the Rule of Law: History, Politics, Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Teles, Stephen M. 2009. The Rise of the Conservative Legal Movement: The Battle for Control of the Law. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation. 2016. The Declaration of the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China on the Promotion of International Law, www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/position_word_order/-/asset_publisher/6S4RuXfeYlKr/content/id/2331698 [last access 05/28/19].Google Scholar
UN Office of Legal Affairs. 2019. International Law Commission, http://legal.un.org/ilc/ [last access 05/12/19].Google Scholar
Venzke, Ingo. 2018. “Semantic Authority, Legal Change and the Dynamics of International Law,” in Capps, Patrick, and Palmer Olsen, Henrik (eds.), Legal Authority beyond the State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 102–126.Google Scholar
Winters, Alan I. 2015. “The WTO and Regional Trade Agreements: Is It All Over for Multilateralism?” in Elsig, Manfred, Hoekman, Bernard, and Pauwelyn, Joost (eds.), Assessing the World Trade Organization: Fit for Purpose. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 344–375.Google Scholar
WTO 2001. Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health, www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/minist_e/min01_e/mindecl_trips_e.htm, [last access 05/12/19].Google Scholar
Zürn, Michael. 2018. A Theory of Global Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google 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
×