No abstract

This introduction explores interdisciplinarity by first considering law as a discipline to account for how international criminal law has emerged as a field of practice and scholarship within the broader epistemic context of law. It then considers the nature of international criminal law scholarship before turning to questions of interdisciplinarity.

This study employs a select ethnography of Palestinian workers in the field of international law and human rights to explore how an epistemic community gives content and meaning to international law in its professional and personal life. Through a series of interviews conducted in the West Bank in the wake of the Palestinian attempt to gain full United Nations membership in September 2011, the article constructs a meta-narrative about the nature of international legal discourse as spoken on the Palestinian periphery. It shows how speakers of international law are required to restate or overstate the distinction between law and politics so as to sustain their hope and desire for Palestinian statehood in the face of despair about its protracted denial. The article then is an exploration about the politics of meaning making through international law and a call for methodological hybridity within the discipline of international law.

Scholars of International Criminal Law (ICL) and Third World Approaches to International Law (TWAIL) rarely speak to each other and part of the reason for this is often divergent approaches to methodology. Thus this article begins with an exploration of the ways in which international lawyers (mis)conceive methodology in their work so as to account for patterns of scholarly dialogue as well as silence. I argue in this article that ICL scholars can learn from TWAIL experiences with methodology, especially as the ICL field leaves the 'honeymoon' phase and enters a more 'mature' period that calls for greater reflexivity by practitioners and scholars alike. Understanding methodology with and against TWAIL is one way of contributing to ICL's scholarly evolution.

States are the primary actors in the international system, and as Shaw reminds us, “statehood is inconceivable in the absence of a reasonably defined geographical base” (Shaw 1982, p. 61, cited in Some Seminal Public International Law Works on Statehood, Territoriality and Title to Territory). Boundaries will not always be clear, but “some piece of land is essential before one can accept the establishment and continuation of a state” (p. 73). Territorial exclusivity allows for the exercise of state power, or sovereignty (especially see the Island of Palmas Case (or Miangas), United States v Netherlands (1928) II RIAA 829). The ability to identify and ensure a state’s territorial dominion—including its boundaries—lies at the heart of international order. Through the interplay between fact and law, a body of doctrine relating specifically to title to territory emerged, much of which was consolidated and developed further through adjudication and arbitration. The first section of this review surveys some key general works in this field of scholarship, particularly in relation to the question of the delimitation of international boundaries. While international law is concerned with determining sovereign control over territory and its limits through boundaries, asking broader questions about state formation tends to arise from other disciplines, particularly sociology, but also history, political science, international relations, anthropology, and geography. Hence, in seeking to survey scholarship on boundaries and state formation, a multidisciplinary appraisal is required and this is particularly the case once we ground our discussion in the regional specificities of the Middle East. Events across the region remind us about the particularly problematic nature of many boundaries that do not equate with historical affiliations (see the section The Arab States System Reconsidered in the Light of the Arab Uprisings). The imposition of colonial rule and respective boundaries then is central to any consideration of sovereignty and territory for Middle East states. All matters brought for arbitration and adjudication rest largely on questions of the continuing framework that colonial rule brought in dividing many parts of a region ill-suited to territorial partition. This is particularly so for the Arabian or Persian Gulf (hereinafter, the Gulf), with its harsh terrain and tribal patterns of settlement. In addition, the Middle East has nurtured particularly powerful transnational movements that have challenged the nation-state, including political Islam and pan-Arabism. Although rarely do these forces dismantle extant boundaries, they do illustrate the tenuous and ongoing nature of state formation and deformation across the Middle East. For the purposes of this article, the ‘Middle East’ is understood here as spanning North Africa and West Asia from Morocco to the Gulf. Although at times ‘Arab world’ is used instead, this is to capture the particular dynamics of pan-Arabism, notwithstanding the important role played by Turkey, Iran, and Israel in the region.