Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T12:37:28.016Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rules, Lawyering, and the Politics of Legality: Critical Sociology and International Law's Rule

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 April 2014

NIKOLAS M. RAJKOVIC
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

After decades of rule-of-law promotion in world affairs, international law and legality have regained scholarly imperative. Yet this has not dissolved disciplinarity between international law (IL) and relations (IR), but furthered a priori theorizing and the unilateral extension of disciplinary research agendas. A prime example is the influential ‘legalization agenda’ of IR scholarship, where an institutionalist doctrine has renarrated the ‘L word’ through a fetishizing of rules and a managerial focus on rule compliance. However, this approach confronts a problem of relevance as international struggles increasingly involve contests over how to legally characterize issues, actions, and events, and this engages juridical and normative dimensions of rule application which are beyond the managerialism of compliance. This article argues for greater sociological and critical engagement with the way in which the concept of law operates through juridico-political practices of legality, and the aim is to provide a theoretical and empirical discussion that revives the significance of the juridico-political world for scholarships which have habitually underplayed the constitutive significance of lawyering for rule application. To do so, this article, first, addresses the profundity of Kant's work and concern over law's application by a rule-applier and, second, claims this has long invited a more critical sociology. To initiate that social exploration, the paper draws on both Pierre Bourdieu's concept of the ‘juridical effect’ and the Foucauldian notion of ‘normative law’ to theorize the significance of juridical and normative practices in the making of international law's rule. In the final section, I introduce the empirical benefit of these critical sociologies by turning to the law of armed conflict (LOAC), and the ways juridical and normative power have enabled sophisticated militaries of the developed world to constrain the application of the LOAC in contemporary wars of asymmetric combat.

Keywords

juridicalKantlegalitypracticewarfare
Type
INTERNATIONAL LEGAL THEORY
Information
Leiden Journal of International Law , Volume 27 , Issue 2 , June 2014 , pp. 331 - 352
Copyright
Copyright © Foundation of the Leiden Journal of International Law 2014 

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

1 Kratochwil, F., ‘International Law and International Sociology’, (2010) 4 International Political Sociology 311CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 See D. Kennedy, The Rise and Fall of Classical Legal Thought (2006); M. Koskenniemi, From Apology to Utopia: The Structure of International Legal Argument (1989).

3 E. H. Carr, The Twenty Years’ Crisis, 1919–1939: An Introduction to the Study of International Relations (1939).

4 H. J. Morgenthau, Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace (1948).

5 Koskenniemi, M., ‘The Politics of International Law – 20 Years Later’, (2009) 20 European Journal of International Law 7CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kennedy, D., ‘Three Globalizations of Law and Legal Thought’, in Kennedy, D. (ed.) The New Law and Economic Development (2006)Google Scholar; Kennedy, D., ‘The Mystery of Global Governance’, in Dunoff, J. L. and Trachtman, J. P. (eds.) Ruling the World? Constitutionalism, International Law, and Global Governance (2009)Google Scholar; R. D. Kelemen, Eurolegalism: The Transformation of Law and Regulation in the European Union (2011); Kleinfeld, R. and Nicolaidis, K., ‘Can a Post-Colonial Power Export the Rule of Law?’, in Palombella, G. and Walker, N.Relocating the Rule of Law (2009)Google Scholar.

6 Kessler, O., ‘So Close Yet So Far Away? International Law in International Political Sociology’, (2010) 4 International Political Sociology 303CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 Klabbers, J., ‘Counter-Disciplinarity’, (2010) 4 International Political Sociology 308CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8 Slaughter, A.-M., ‘International law in a World of Liberal States’, (1995) 6 EJIL 503CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Slaughter, A.-M., Tulumello, A. S., and Wood, S., ‘International Law and International Relations Theory: A New Generation of Interdisciplinary Scholarship’, (1998) 92 AJIL 367CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 370.

9 Koskenniemi, M., ‘Law, Teleology, and International Relations: An Essay in Counterdisciplinarity’, (2012) 26 International Relations 3CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

10 Werner, W., ‘The Use of Law in International Political Sociology’, (2010) 4 International Political Sociology 304CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Klabbers, J., ‘The Bridge Crack’d: A Critical Look at Interdisciplinary Relations’, (2009) 23 International Relations 119CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11 See I. Venzke, How Interpretation Makes International Law: On Semantic Change and Normative Twists (2012).

12 Goldstein, J.et al., ‘Introduction: Legalization and World Politics’, (2000) 54 International Organization 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Abbott, K. W.et al., ‘The Concept of Legalization’, (2000) 54 International Organization 17CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13 Koskenniemi, M., ‘Miserable Comforters: International Relations as New Natural Law’, (2009) 15 European Journal of International Relations 395CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 405–11.

14 Slaughter et al., ‘International Law and International Relations Theory’, supra note 8, at 367.

15 Ibid., at 371.

16 Ibid., at 370.

17 Keohane, R. O., ‘Twenty Years of Institutional Liberalism’, (2012) 26 International Relations 125CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

18 See Guillaume, G., ‘The Future of International Judicial Institutions’, (1995) 44 ICLQ 848CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Slaughter, A.-M., ‘A Global Community of Courts’, (2003) 44 Harvard International Law Journal 191Google Scholar; Higgins, R., ‘A Babel of Judicial Voices? Ruminations from the Bench’, (2006) 55 ICLQ 791CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

19 See Koskenniemi, supra note 9, at 21; Rajkovic, N. M., ‘On Fragments and Geometry: The International Legal Order as Metaphor and How its Matters’, (2013) 6 Erasmus Law Review 6Google Scholar; Young, M. (ed.), Regime Interaction in International Law: Facing Fragmentation (2012)Google Scholar; G. Teubner, Constitutional Fragments (2012).

20 See Koskenniemi, supra note 5, at 7–19.

21 Rajkovic, N. M., ‘“Global Law” and Governmentality: Reconceptualizing the “Rule of Law” as Rule “Through” Law’, (2012) 18 European Journal of International Relations 29CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

22 Hurrell, A., ‘Kant and the Kantian Paradigm in International Relations’, (1990) 16Review of International Studies 183Google Scholar; Ikenberry, J. G. and Slaughter, A.-M. (eds.), Forging a World of Liberty under Law: US National Security in the 21st Century, Final Report of the Princeton Project on National Security (2006)Google Scholar.

23 R. G. Teitel, Humanity's Law (2011); Rawls, J., ‘The Law of the Peoples’, in Freeman, S. (ed.), John Rawls: Collected Papers (1999)Google Scholar; J. Habermas, The Divided West (2006); Capps, P., ‘The Kantian Project in Modern International Legal Theory’, (2001) 12 EJIL 1003CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

24 See Koskenniemi, supra note 13, at 411–16.

25 Collins, R., ‘Constitutionalism as Liberal-Juridical Consciousness: Echoes from International Law's Past’, (2009) 22 LJIL 253CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Korhonen, O., ‘Liberalism and International Law: A Centre Projecting a Periphery’, (1996) 65 Nordic Journal of International Law 481CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

26 Kennedy, D., ‘International Law and the Nineteenth Century: History of an Illusion’, (1997) 17 Quinnipac Law Review 101Google Scholar; M. Koskenniemi, The Gentle Civilizer of Nations: The Rise and Fall of International Law (2002), at 11–97.

27 Kratochwil, F., ‘Has the Rule of Law Become a Rule of Lawyers?’. in Palombello, G. and Walker, N. (eds.), Relocating the Rule of Law (2009), 171Google Scholar.

28 Vigneswaran, D. and Quirk, J., ‘Past Masters and Modern Inventions: Intellectual History as Critical Theory’, (2010) 24 International Relations 115CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 118.

29 Aristotle, Politics (1972), at 1287a.

30 Frank, J., ‘Aristotle on Constitutionalism and the Rule of Law’, (2007) 8 Theoretical Inquiries in Law 38Google Scholar.

31 See Wight, M., ‘An Anatomy of International Thought’, (1987) 13 Review of International Studies 224CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bull, H., ‘Society and Anarchy in International Relations’, in Butterfield, H. and Wight, M. (eds.), Diplomatic Investigations: Essays in the Theory of International Politics (1966)Google Scholar.

32 Keene, E., ‘Human Nature, Civilization, and Culture’, in Keene, E., International Political Thought (2005), at 135Google Scholar.

33 Kant, I., ‘Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch’, in Kleingold, P. (ed.), Toward Perpetual Peace and other Writings on Politics, Peace, and History (2006), at 67–109Google Scholar.

34 I. Kant, ‘The Idea of Universal History with a Cosmopolitan Purpose’, in Kleingold, supra note 33, at 3–16.

35 I. Kant, Critique of the Power of Judgment (2000), at 302–3.

36 Kant, I., ‘Metaphysics of Morals’ in Gregor, M. J. (ed.) Kant: Practical Philosophy (1997)Google Scholar.

37 Miller, R. A. and Bratspies, R. M., ‘Progress in International Law: An Explanation of the Project’, in Miller, R. A. and Bratspies, R. M. (eds.) Progress in International Law (2008), 21–2CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

38 Kant, I., ‘Of the Transcendental Faculty of Judgement in General’, in Kant, I., Kant's Critiques (2008)Google Scholar.

39 I. Kant, ibid., at 95.

40 C. Schmitt, Politische Theologie: Vier Capital zur Lehre von der Souveranitat (1979), at 41.

41 Koskenniemi, M., ‘Constitutionalism as Mindset: Reflections on Kantian Themes about International Law and Globalization’, (2007) 8 Theoretical Inquiries in Law 9Google Scholar.

42 I. Kant, Critique of the Power of Judgment (2000), at 302–3.

43 I. Kant, ‘Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch’, in Kleingold, supra note 33, at 67–109

44 I. Kant, ‘Metaphysics of Morals’, in M. J. Gregor (ed.) Kant: Practical Philosophy (1997), at 24.

45 See Koskenniemi, supra note 41, at 11.

46 H. Putnam, The Many Faces of Realism (1987), at 227–8.

47 Bourdieu, P., ‘The Field of Cultural Production, or the Economic World Reversed’, (1983) 12 Poetics 311CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

48 P. Bourdieu and L. Wacquant, An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology (1992), at 97; D. Swartz, Culture and Power: The Sociology of Pierre Bourdieu (1997), at 117.

49 Terdiman, R.. ‘Translator's Introduction: The Force of Law; Toward a Sociology of the Juridical Field’, (1987) 38 Hastings Law Journal 805Google Scholar, at 806.

50 Bourdieu, P., ‘The Force of Law: Toward a Sociology of the Juridical Field’, (1987) 38 Hastings Law Journal 805Google Scholar, 806.

51 Ibid., at 817

52 Ibid., at 819–20.

53 Ibid., at 821–2.

54 Ibid., 805, at 847–9.

55 Ibid., at 850.

56 Ibid., at 827.

57 Ibid., at 839–41.

58 Ibid., at 827.

59 B. Golder and P. Fitzpatrick, Foucault's Law (2009), at 35–7.

60 Ibid., at 36.

61 Tadros, V., ‘Between Governance and Discipline: The Law and Michel Foucault’, (1998) 18 Oxford J. Legal Stud. 75CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 78.

62 Ewald, F., ‘Norms, Discipline, and the Law’, (1990) 30 Representations 138CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 139–41.

63 M. Foucault, The Order of Things (1973), at 43.

64 Foucault, M., ‘Nietzsche, Genealogy, and History’, in Rabinow, P. (ed.) The Foucault Reader (1971)Google Scholar, at 78–83.

65 C. G. Prado, Searle and Foucault on Truth (2006), at 81.

66 Foucault, M., Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, (ed.) Gordon, C. (1980)Google Scholar, at 125–31.

67 See Prado, supra note 65, at 86.

68 Foucault, M., The Will to Knowledge: The History of Sexuality, Vol. 1 (1979)Google Scholar, at 87.

69 See Ewald, supra note 62, at 138.

70 Ibid., at 138–41.

71 Ewald, F., ‘A Concept of Social Law’, in Teubner, G. (ed.) Dilemmas of Law in the Welfare State (1988)Google Scholar, at 68.

72 Boyle, J., ‘Ideals and Things: International Legal Scholarship and the Prison-House of Language’, (1985) 26 Harvard International Law Journal 327Google Scholar, at 331–2.

73 Kennedy, D. and Fisher, W. W. III, ‘Introduction’, in Kennedy, D. and Fisher, W. W. III (eds.), The Canon of American Legal Thought (2006)Google Scholar, at 8–9; See Kennedy, supra note 5, at 27.

74 Kennedy, D., ‘Reassessing International Humanitarianism”, in Orford, A. (ed.), International Law and its Others (2006)Google Scholar, at 132.

75 F. Megret, ‘From Savages to Unlawful Combatants: A Postcolonial Look at International Humanitarian Law's Other’, in Orford, ibid., 273.

76 Belloni, R., ‘The Trouble with Humanitarianism’, (2007) 33 Review of International Studies 451CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 452.

77 Y. Beigbeder, Judging War Criminals (1999), 1.

78 H. Lauterpacht, ‘The Problem of the Revision of the Law of War’, (1953) 1952 British Yearbook of International Law, at 363–4.

79 Ruskola, T., ‘Legal Orientalism’, (2002) 101 Michigan Law Review 179CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 192–9.

80 Koskenniemi, M., ‘Empire and International Law: The Real Spanish Contribution’, (2011) 61 University of Toronto Law Journal 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 5–13.

81 A. Anghie, Imperialism, Sovereignty, and the Making of International Law (2005), at 3–4.

82 See Phillips, C. P., ‘Air Warfare and Law: An Analysis of the Legal Discourses, Practices and Policies’, (1952–53) 21 George Washington Law Review 311Google Scholar.

83 See Megret, supra note 75, at 286–94.

84 Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977, Art. 52(1).

85 Ibid., Art. 52(2).

86 See Jochnik, C. and Normand, R., ‘The Legitimation of Violence: A Critical History of the Laws of War’, (1994) 35 Harvard International Law Journal 48Google Scholar.

87 See supra, note 84, Art. 48.

88 Ibid., Art. 51.

89 See M. Halbertal, ‘The Goldstone Illusion’, The New Republic, 6 November 2009.

90 See supra, note 84, Art. 52.

91 Krebs, R. R. and Jackson, P. T., ‘Twisting Tongues and Twisting Arms: The Power of Political Rhetoric’, (2007) 13 European Journal of International Relations 35CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 35–6.

92 See Vennesson, P. and Rajkovic, N. M., ‘The Transnational Politics of Warfare Accountability: Human Rights Watch Versus the Israel Defense Forces’, (2012) 26 International Relations 409CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

93 Stein, J. G., ‘The Shard in a Fragmenting Legal Order’, in Adler, E. (ed.) Israel in the World (2013)Google Scholar.

94 See, e.g., ‘Syria Chemical Weapons – Sarin Gas Attack near Damascus?’ <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2GPTqxf8rE&bpctr=1383147835> (Accessed 30 October 2013).

95 See Bousquet, A., ‘Chaoplexic Warfare or the Future of Military Organization’, (2008) 84 International Affairs 915CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

96 See Winter, Y., ‘Asymmetric Discourse and its Moral Economies: A Critique’, (2011) 3 International Theory 488CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

97 See Werner, W. G., ‘The Curious Career of Lawfare’, (2011) 43 Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law 61Google Scholar; Kennedy, D., ‘Lawfare and Warfare’, in Crawford, J. and Koskenniemi, M. (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to International Law (2012), 158–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar; D. Kennedy, Of War and Law (2006); Eckhardt, G., ‘Lawyering for Uncle Sam When He Draws his Sword’, (2003) 4 Chicago Journal of International Law 431Google Scholar.

98 Keeva, S., ‘Lawyers in the War Room’, (1991) 77 American Bar Association Journal 52Google Scholar, at 59.

99 Smith, T., ‘The New Law of War: Legitimizing Hi-Tech and Infrastructural Violence’, (2002) 46 International Studies Quarterly 355CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 368.

100 See Kinsella, H. M., ‘Discourse of Difference: Civilians, Combatants, and Compliance with the Laws of War’, (2005) 31 Review of InternationalStudies, at 163–85Google Scholar.

101 See Keeva, supra note 98, at 59.

102 See Dickinson, L. A., ‘Military Lawyers on the Battlefield: An Empirical Account of International Law Compliance’, (2010) 104 AJIL 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

103 Dunlap, C., ‘Lawfare: A Decisive Element in 21st Century Conflicts?’, (2009) 54 Joint Forces Quarterly 34Google Scholar, at 35.

104 See Bousquet, supra note 95, at 925–7.

105 McChrystal, S. A., ‘It Takes a Network: The New Front Line of Modern Warfare”, (2011) (March/April) Foreign Policy 1Google Scholar.

106 Denes, N., ‘From Tanks to Wheelchairs: Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, Zionist Battlefield Experiments, and the Transparence of the Civilian”, in Zureik, E., Lyon, D. and Abu-Laban, Y. (eds.), Surveillance and Control in Israel/Palestine: Population, Territory and Power (2010)Google Scholar.

107 K. De Young and G. Jaffe, ‘US “Secret War” Expands Globally as Special Operations Forces Take Larger Role’, Washington Post, 4 June 2010.

108 See P. Singer, Wired for War: The Robotics Revolution and Conflict in the Twenty-First Century (2009), at 191–5.

109 N. Turse, The Changing Face of Empire: Special Ops, Drones, Spies, Proxy Fighters, Secret Bases, and Cyberwarfare (2012), at 21–7.

110 Ibid., at 12–19.

111 J. Scahill, Dirty Wars: The World is a Battlefield (2013) at 180–3.

112 See D. Sanger, Confront and Conceal: Obama's Secret Wars and Surprising Use of American Power (2012).

113 Niva, S., ‘Disappearing Violence: JSOC and the Pentagon's New Cartography of Networked Warfare’, (2013) 44 Security Dialogue 185CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 186.

114 Noll, G., ‘Sacrificial Violence and Targeting in International Humanitarian Law’, in Engdahl, O. and Wrange, P. (eds.), Law at War: The Law as it Was and the Law as it Should Be (2008)Google Scholar.

115 See Foucault, supra note 64, at 85.