Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T01:12:42.624Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

International law and its discontents: Exploring the dark sides of international law in International Relations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 March 2017

Ryder McKeown
Ryder McKeown*
Affiliation:
PhD Candidate, Political Science, University of Toronto
*
*Correspondence to: Ryder McKeown, Department of Political Science, University of Toronto, Sidney Smith Hall, Room 3018, 100 St George Street, Toronto, ON M5S 3G3. Author’s email: rydermckeown@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

International law is generally considered to be a good thing. With important exceptions, such as Critical Legal Studies, scholarship in both International Relations (IR) and International Law (IL) reinforces this ‘nice law’ assumption and therefore overlooks or underestimates the law’s negative aspects. In contrast, this article assumes the power of international law to examine how international law can have effects that are unintended, unhelpful, or even perverse. In particular, I argue that international law distorts policy- and decision-making processes in liberal democracies by eroding personal responsibility and decreasing accountability; legal expertise and legal virtues crowd out important virtues of statecraft and prudence while shrinking our capacity for sophisticated moral and political thought; and an excessive focus on law can lead to suboptimal foreign policy outcomes. Rather than law being a bad thing per se, I examine the significant strategic and moral limits of international law. This raises the need to lower our expectations of international law, carefully examine the relationship between power and international law, and political responsibility and legal ethics, and more fully embrace our own personal responsibility. The article closes by suggesting a research programme on the dark sides of international law from various theoretical perspectives.

Keywords

Dark SidesInternational LawInternational RelationsLegitimacyLegal EthicsMoral Limits
Type
Articles
Information
Review of International Studies , Volume 43 , Issue 3 , July 2017 , pp. 430 - 452
Copyright
© British International Studies Association 2017 

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 See, respectively, Reus-Smit, Christian (ed.), The Politics of International Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Guzman, Andrew T., How International Law Works: A Rational Choice Theory (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Mearsheimer, John, ‘The false promise of international institutions’, International Security, 19:3 (1994/5), pp. 5–49 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Hathaway, Oona and Lavinbuk, Ariel N., ‘Rationalism and revisionism in international law’, Harvard Law Review, 119 (2006), pp. 1404–1443 Google Scholar. On pp. 1412–13, the authors note that the IR/IL research tradition stems from the common belief in the importance of international law as a positive force.

2 See, for example, Posner, Eric E., The Perils of Global Legalism (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2009)Google Scholar.

3 Hurd, Ian, ‘Enchanted and disenchanted international law’, Global Policy, 7:1 (2016), pp. 96–101 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. An earlier take on one type of ‘enchantment’ is Scott, Shirley V., ‘International law as ideology: Theorizing the relationship between international law and international politics’, European Journal of International Law, 5:3 (1994), pp. 313–325 Google Scholar.

4 Koskenniemi, Martti, ‘Law, teleology and international relations: an essay in counterdisciplinarity’, International Relations, 26:3 (2011), pp. 3–34 CrossRefGoogle Scholar (p. 4).

5 Mieville, China, Between Equal Rights: A Marxist Theory of International Law (Lieden; Boston: Brill, 2005)Google Scholar. While Mieville notes that such a position is rare (p. 25), he argues that ‘it is possible to hold that law has an effect, but that it cannot maintain order’ (p. 18). See also Dill, Janina, Legitimate Targets? Social Construction and US Bombing (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015)Google Scholar who holds that international law is at once ‘behaviourally relevant’ and ‘normatively unsuccessful’. Finally, see McKeown, Ryder, ‘Legal asymmetries in asymmetric war’, Review of International Studies, 4:1 (2015), pp. 117–138 Google Scholar, for a similar discussion on how international law can play a negative role in war.

6 Kennedy, David, The Dark Sides of Virtue: Reassessing International Humanitarianism (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004)Google Scholar.

7 Also known as International Humanitarian Law (IHL).

8 Buchanan, Allen and Powell, Russell, ‘Survey article: Constitutional democracy and the rule of international law: Are they compatible?’, The Journal of Political Philosophy, 16:3 (2008), pp. 326–349 Google Scholar.

9 See, respectively, Kennedy, David, ‘The international human rights movement: Part of the problem?’, European Human Rights Law Review, 3 (2001)Google Scholar; Mieville, Between Equal Rights; Chimni, B. S., ‘Third World approaches to international law: a manifesto’, International Community Law Review, 8 (2006), pp. 3–27 Google Scholar.

10 The notion of international law ‘crowding out’ other values is taken from Kennedy’s exploration of how human rights ‘crowds out’ other emancipatory possibilities. See Kennedy, Dark Sides, p. 9.

11 See, for example, Brunnee, Jutta and Toope, Stephen J., Legitimacy and Legality in International Law: An Interactional Account (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010)Google Scholar.

12 See Bower, Adam, ‘Arguing with law: Strategic legal argumentation, US diplomacy, and debates over the International Criminal Court’, Review of International Studies, 41:2 (2015), pp. 337–360 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13 Adler, Emanuel and Pouliot, Vincent (eds), International Practices (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011)Google Scholar.

14 Gaskarth, Jamie, ‘The virtues in international society’, European Journal of International Relations, 18:3 (2012), pp. 431–453 (p. 445)Google Scholar.

15 See , Koskenniemi, ‘Law, teleology and international relations’Google Scholar.

16 Hart, H. L. A., The Concept of Law, 2nd edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961)Google Scholar.

17 See Koh, Harold H., ‘Why do nations obey international law?’, Yale Faculty Scholarship Series Google Scholar, Paper 2101 (1997).

18 Nardin, Terry, ‘International ethics and international law’, Review of International Studies, 18:1 (1992), pp. 19–30 Google Scholar.

19 On international law as craft, see , Koskenniemi, ‘Law, teleology and international relations’, p. 19 Google Scholar.

20 Johnson, Jeh Charles, ‘National security law, lawyer, and lawyering in the Obama administration’, Yale Law & Policy Review, 31 (2012), pp. 141–150 Google Scholar.

21 Koskenniemi, Martti, The Politics of International Law (Portland, OR: Hart Publishing, 2011)Google Scholar, p. 4.

22 See Kyl, Jon, Feith, Douglas J., and Fonte, John, ‘The war of law’, Foreign Affairs, 92:4 (2013), pp. 115–125 Google Scholar.

23 See the ‘TWAIL’ literature (that is, ‘Third World approaches to international law’), such as Okafor, Obiora Chinedu, ‘Critical Third World approaches to international law (TWAIL): Theory, methodology, or both?’, International Community Law Review, 10 (2008), pp. 371–378 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

24 Sinclair, Adriana, International Relations Theory and International Law: A Critical Approach (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010)Google Scholar; Simpson, Gerry, Great Powers and Outlaw States (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004)Google Scholar.

25 Schick, Kate, ‘Beyond rules: a critique of the liberal human rights regime’, International Relations, 20:3 (2006), pp. 321–327 Google Scholar. Relatedly, Anderson notes that international criminal law ‘reduc(es) atrocities of global scale to the bland and deliberately affectless scope of a courtroom’. Anderson, Kenneth, ‘The rise of international criminal law: Intended and unintended consequences’, The European Journal of International Law, 20:2 (2009), pp. 331–358 (p. 337)Google Scholar.

26 Modirzadeh, Naz K., ‘Folk international law: 9/11 lawyering and the transformation of the law of armed conflict to human rights and human rights to global governance’, Harvard National Security Journal, 5:1 (2014), pp. 225–304 Google Scholar.

27 Shany, Yuval, ‘No longer a weak department of power? Reflections on the emergence of a new international judiciary’, The European Journal of International Law, 20:1 (2009), pp. 73–91 Google Scholar; See also Bogdandy, Armin and Venzke, Ingo, ‘Beyond dispute: International judicial institutions as lawmakers’, German Law Journal, 12:5 (2011), pp. 979–1004 Google Scholar.

28 Kennedy, Dark Sides, esp. pp. 300–304 Google Scholar, p. 350.

29 Ibid., esp. 300–4.

30 Barnett, Michael N. and Finnemore, Martha, ‘The politics, power, and pathologies of international organizations’, International Organization, 54:4 (1999), pp. 699–732 (pp. 701, 719)Google Scholar.

31 Hatfield, ‘Professionalizing moral deference’, Northwestern University Law Review Colloquy, 104:1 (2009), pp. 1–11 Google Scholar.

32 Fried, Charles, ‘The lawyer as friend: the moral foundations of the lawyer-client relationship’, Yale Law Journal, 85 (1976), pp. 1060–1089 (p. 1066)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

33 Pepper, Stephen, ‘The lawyer’s amoral ethical role: a defense, a problem, and some possibilities’, American Bar Foundation Research Journal, 4 (1986), pp. 613–635 (p. 624)Google Scholar.

34 On international law as technique, see Koskenniemi, Martti, ‘The fate of international law: Between technique and politics’, Modern Law Review, 70:1 (2007), pp. 1–30 Google Scholar.

35 , Hatfield, ‘Professionalizing moral deference’, p. 4 Google Scholar.

36 Ibid., p. 11.

37 Thanks to an anonymous reviewer for stressing this important point.

38 See, for example, Hatfield, ‘Professionalizing moral deference’; Pepper, ‘Lawyer’s amoral ethical role’.

39 Kennedy, Dark Sides, p. 348 Google Scholar.

40 See Nuñez-Mietz, Fernando, ‘Lawyering Compliance with International Law: Legal Advisors and the Legalization of International Politics’ (Phd thesis, Ohio State University, 2013)Google Scholar. See also Nuñez-Mietz, Fernando, ‘Lawyering compliance with international law: Legal advisors in the “War on Terror”’, European Journal of International Security, 1:2 (2016), pp. 215–238 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

41 Kahn, Paul, ‘Freedom, autonomy, and the cultural study of law’, Yale Faculty Scholarship Series, Paper 327 (2001), pp. 141–171 (p. 152)Google Scholar.

42 See Stephens, Dale, ‘Lawfare or “Law Fair”? The Role of Law in Military Decision Making’ (S. J. D. Dissertation, Harvard University, 2014)Google Scholar, ch. 1.

43 Conversation with Wing Commander (Retired) Duncan Blake, Adelaide, Australia, 12 December 2016.

44 Nuñez-Mietz, ‘Lawyering Compliance’ (2013)Google Scholar.

45 Ibid., p. 73.

46 Pepper, ‘Lawyer’s amoral ethical role’, p. 624 Google Scholar.

47 Kennedy, Dark Sides, p. 313 Google Scholar.

48 Hart, , Concept of Law Google Scholar.

49 This section reflects the author’s own feelings on receiving legal advice before undertaking studies in international law. While experiences may differ, the general point is that, from the perspective of the non-lawyer, legal expertise is presented simultaneously as essential and inscrutable. On legal expertise, see Werner, Wouter G., ‘The politics of expertise: Applying paradoxes of scientific expertise to international law’, in Monika Ambrus et al. (eds), The Role of ‘Experts’ in International and European Decision-Making Processes (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014), pp. 44–62 Google Scholar.

50 Jan Klabbers, ‘The meaning of rules’, International Relations, 20:3 (2006), pp. 295–301 (p. 295)Google Scholar.

51 Koskenniemi, Politics of Law Google Scholar.

52 See Stephens, Dale, ‘The age of lawfare’, Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, 43 (2011), pp. 327–358 Google Scholar.

53 Koskenniemi, Politics of Law, p. 23 Google Scholar.

54 Ibid.

55 As well as Koskenniemi’s influential formulation, see Stephens, ‘The age of lawfare’, p. 337.

56 Floyd, Timothy W., ‘Realism, responsibility, and the good lawyer: Niebuhrian perspectives on legal ethics’, Notre Dame Law Review, 67:3 (1999), pp. 587–613 Google Scholar.

57 Wendel, Bradley W., ‘Deference to clients and obedience to law: the ethics of the torture lawyer’ (a response to Professor Hatfield)’, Northwestern University Law Review Colloquy, 104:1 (2009), pp. 58–70 Google Scholar.

58 Ibid., p. 62.

59 Sinclair, International Theory and International Law, p. 44 Google Scholar.

60 Luban, David, Legal Ethics and Human Dignity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007)Google Scholar, p. 28.

61 My thanks to an anonymous reviewer for this point.

62 Koskenniemi, , ‘The fate of public international law: Between technique and politics’, Modern Law Review, 70 (2007), pp. 1–30 Google Scholar.

63 Werner, ‘Politics of expertise’Google Scholar.

64 Kennedy, , Dark Sides, pp. 22 Google Scholar, 300.

65 Jan Klabbers, ‘The virtue of expertise’, in Monika Ambrus et al. (eds), The Role of ‘Experts’, pp. 82–102 (pp. 85–8)Google Scholar.

66 Seymour Hersh, ‘King’s ransom: How vulnerable are the Saudi royals?’, The New Yorker (2001), available at: {http://www.wanttoknow.info/011022newyorker.saudi.qaeda.htm}.

67 McKeown, Ryder, ‘Norm regress: US revisionism and the slow death of the torture norm’, International Relations, 23:1 (2009), pp. 5–25 Google Scholar.

68 Wendel, ‘Deference to clients’, p. 62.

69 Ignatieff, Michael, Virtual War: Kosovo and Beyond (Toronto: Penguin, 2000), p. 199 Google Scholar.

70 Dill, , Legitimate Targets?, p. 204 Google Scholar, fn. 24.

71 Ibid., p. 206

72 Ibid., parentheses added.

73 Klabbers, ‘The virtue of expertise’, in Ambrus et al. (eds), The Role of ‘Experts’.

74 Ibid., p. 87.

75 Dill, Legitimate Targets?, p. 206.

76 Gaskarth, ‘Virtues’, p. 442.

77 Boldizar, Alexander and Korhonen, Outi, ‘Ethics, morals and international law’, European Journal of International Law, 1:2 (1999), pp. 279–311 (p. 311)Google Scholar.

78 Sandel, Michael, What Money Can’t Buy: The Moral Limits of the Markets (New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 2012)Google Scholar.

79 Gaskarth, ‘Virtues’, p. 397.

80 See Kennedy, Dark Sides.

81 Gaskarth, ‘Virtues’, p. 442.

82 Piiparinen, Touko, ‘Law vs bureaucratic culture’, in Jan Klabbers and Touko Piiparinen (eds), Normative Pluralism: An Exploration (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013), pp. 251–258 (p. 260)Google Scholar.

83 Mieville, Between Equal Rights, p. 297.

84 In my time in government, I witnessed all of these outcomes.

85 Illustratively, I found that my ability and willingness to push back on what I deemed to be excessively risk-averse legal advice – and therefore effectively discharge my responsibility to balance various costs and benefits – increased along with my knowledge of international law.

86 Kennedy, Dark Sides, p. 348.

87 Ibid., p. 311.

88 Rosen, Richard D., ‘Goldstone reconsidered’, Journal of Transnational Law and Policy, 21:1 (2011/12), pp. 35–103 Google Scholar.

89 Barnett, and Finnemore, , ‘Politics, power and pathologies’, p. 719 Google Scholar.

90 Schmitt, Michael N., ‘“Below the threshold” cyber operations: the countermeasures response option and international law’, Virginia Journal of International Law, 54:3 (2014), pp. 697–732 Google Scholar.

91 Bianchi, Andrea, ‘The international regulation of the use of force: the politics of interpretive method’, Leiden Journal of International Law, 22:4 (2009), pp. 651–676 (p. 670)Google Scholar.

92 See Goldsmith, Jack L. and Posner, Eric A., The Limits of International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005)Google Scholar.

93 Bower, Adam, Norms without the Great Powers: International Law and Changing Social Standards in World Politics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017)Google Scholar.

94 Krisch, Nico, Beyond Constitutionalism: The Pluralist Structure of Postnational Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), p. 283 Google Scholar.

95 Williams, Michael C., ‘Talking to Hezbollah’, International Affairs, 91:1 (2015), pp. 167–170 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

96 , Kennedy, Dark Sides, p. 9 Google Scholar.

97 Koskenniemi, , Politics of International Law, p. 22 Google Scholar.

98 Stephens, , ‘Lawfare or “Law Fair”?’, p. 7 Google Scholar.

99 Ibid., p. 15.

100 For a discussion, see Anderson, Kenneth, Reisner, Daniel, and Waxman, Matthew C., ‘Adapting the law of armed conflict to autonomous weapon systems’, International Law Studies, 90 (2014), pp. 386–411 Google Scholar.

101 On lawfare, see Kittrie, Ordre F., Lawfare: Law as a Weapon of War (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016)Google Scholar; McKeown, ‘Legal asymmetries’.

102 Dill, , Legitimate Targets?, pp. 278–298 Google Scholar.

103 Ibid., p. 10.

104 Blum, Gabriella and Heymann, Philip, ‘Law and policy of targeted killing’, Harvard National Security Journal, 1 (2010), pp. 145–170 (p. 154)Google Scholar. See also Hurd, Ian, ‘The international rule of law: Law and the limits of politics’, Ethics and International Affairs, 28:1 (2014), pp. 39–51 Google Scholar.

105 Ignatieff, Virtual War, p. 199 Google Scholar.

106 Boldizar and Korhonen, ‘Ethics, morals and international law’, p. 199 Google Scholar.

107 Ratner, Steven, ‘Law promotion beyond law talk: the Red Cross, persuasion, and the laws of war’, The European Journal of International Law, 22:2 (2011), pp. 459–506 (p. 503)Google Scholar.

108 Akhavan, Payam, Reducing Genocide to Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012)Google Scholar.

109 Koskenniemi, , Politics of International Law, p. 203 Google Scholar.

110 Akhavan, , Reducing Genocide to Law, pp. 174 Google Scholar, 180.

111 Koskenniemi, , Politics of International Law Google Scholar, p. 211.

112 Klabbers, and Piiparinen, , Normative Pluralism Google Scholar.

113 Mieville, , Between Equal Rights, p. 297 Google Scholar.

114 Kahn, , ‘Freedom, autonomy, and the cultural study of law’Google Scholar.

115 Kennedy, , Dark Sides, p. 348 Google Scholar.

116 On tragedy in international relations, see Brown, Chris, ‘Tragic choices and contemporary international political theory’, International Relations, 21:1 (2007), pp. 5–13 Google Scholar.

117 See McKeown, ‘Legal asymmetries’.

118 Floyd, ‘Realism, responsibility and the good lawyer’, p. 606.

119 See Schaffer, Gregory, ‘International law and global public goods in a legal pluralist world’, The European Journal of International Law, 23:3 (2012), pp. 669–693 Google Scholar.

120 Price, Richard (ed.), Moral Limit and Possibility in World Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008)Google Scholar; Hurd, ‘Enchanted and disenchanted international law’; Dill’s Legitimate Targets? makes an impressive start in this direction.

121 See Adler and Pouliot (eds), International Practices.

122 See Price (ed.), Moral Limits.

123 Hurd, ‘Enchanted and disenchanted international law’.

124 See McKeown, , ‘Norm regress’; Rebecca Sanders, ‘(Im)plausible legality: the rationalisation of human rights abuses in the American “War on Terror”’, The International Journal of Human Rights Journal, 15:4 (2011), pp. 605–626 Google Scholar.