Critical Reception of Raz’s Theory of Authority

Ehrenberg, Kenneth M.

doi:10.1111/j.1747-9991.2011.00444.x

Cited by 39 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…To our knowledge, no one who accepts the service conception of legitimate authority contests its application specifically to international law. However, a fair number of legal philosophers argue that the service conception fails to offer a compelling account of any law's legitimacy (for a helpful survey of critical responses, see Ehrenberg, ). One common objection, which may seem particularly pertinent to international law, concedes that the service conception may explain why state officials and other actors sometimes have good reason to comply with international law.…”

Section: The Legitimacy Of International Lawmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Instrumental Justificationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Skeptical challenges to international law

Pavel

Lefkowitz

2018

Philosophy Compass

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

International and domestic law offer a study in contrasts: States' legal obligations often depend on their consent to specific international legal norms, whereas domestic law applies to individuals with or without their consent; enforcement in international law is weak and, for many international treaties, non‐existent, whereas states spend considerable resources to create centralized coercive enforcement mechanisms; and international law is characterized by much less institutional differentiation and specialization of functions than domestic legal systems are. These differences have invited a number of skeptical challenges to international law, 3 of which we explore in this essay. The first points to 1 or more of the deviations of international law's institutional structure from that of a modern state's legal system as a basis for denying that international law is really “law.” Central to the debates over international law's status as law are concerns about whether and why the concepts of law inherited from domestic legal systems should serve as the blueprint for theorizing law in general and international law in particular. The second skeptical challenge targets international law's legitimacy. It claims that we lack reasons to treat international legal norms or the exercise of political power by international institutions, as anything other than an attempt by states to advance their national interests. If this challenge succeeds, states and other subjects of international law have merely prudential reasons to comply with it rather than a moral duty to obey it. Following a brief description of recent debates over how we ought to understand the concept of legitimacy when used to assess international political practices or global governance, we survey several possible bases for a moral duty to obey or respect international law. These include state consent, instrumental accounts of legitimate authority, and global democracy. The third set of challenges focuses on the relationship between state sovereignty and international law. International rules and institutions often make demands for reform affecting the domestic law of a state in order to elicit compliance with international law. Skeptics argue that the rule of international law is incompatible with states' political self‐determination. Regardless of whether their defense of this claim ultimately succeeds, thoughtful engagement with it may well require us to rethink some of the fundamental concepts and normative ideals in political philosophy, including state sovereignty, democracy, individual rights, political authority, and political obligation.

show abstract

Section: The Legitimacy Of International Lawmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Instrumental Justificationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Skeptical challenges to international law

Pavel

Lefkowitz

2018

Philosophy Compass

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…13 For similar attempts regarding the authority of international law as a whole, see Besson 2009;Tasioulas 2010; for the WTO, Suttle 2020; for human rights, Tasioulas 2013. On this limitation of Raz's account, see Collins 2018, p. 219;Tucker 2012; and for further criticisms of Raz's approach, see Ehrenberg 2011. normative legitimacy of ICs and descriptive legitimacy, and actors' beliefs therein. Section III shows how a wide range of legitimacy challenges concern ways ICs fail to carry out their tasks.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Survey Article: The Legitimacy of International Courts*

Føllesdal

2020

J Political Philosophy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

S TATES are free, yet everywhere live under international courts. Sovereign states are no longer in a state of nature without arbitrators among them on matters ranging from territorial disputes and human rights to international crimes, cross-border trade, and investment. The core task of these international courts and tribunals (ICs) is to adjudicate disputes through interpretation and application of international law by legal methods. Their judicial adjudication may also contribute indirectly to a range of tasks-to prevent war, protect human rights and foreign direct investments, harmonize international law, but also to usurp law-making power or perpetuate global injustice and domination. As ICs proliferate and gain power across ever more domains, they become targets of a bewildering range of resistance. 1 Criticisms often invoke 'legitimacy'. Some question ICs' origins-querying, for instance, why developing states are forced to accept investment tribunals that privilege foreign investors. 2 Their processes are criticized-for example, when UK Brexiteers challenge the legality of treaty interpretations by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). 3 The interpretations by the Appellate Body of the World Trade Organization (WTO AB) face criticism both for being too expansive 4 and for not protecting the environment even more. 5 ICs' legitimacy may also suffer from their outputs, be it the backlog of cases of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) 6 or the 1 Two Scandinavian research centres focus on ICs: jura.ku.dk/icour ts/ and www.pluri courts.no.

show abstract

“…3 3 See Raz (2006; 2010); Darwall (2009; 2010); Sherman (2010); Hershovitz (2011); Viehoff (2011); Ehrenberg (2011a; 2011b); and the papers collected in the symposium in Jurisprudence 2(1) (2011). …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Authority and Reason‐Giving¹

Enoch

2012

Philos Phenomenol Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Critical Reception of Raz’s Theory of Authority

Cited by 39 publications

References 44 publications

Skeptical challenges to international law

Skeptical challenges to international law

Survey Article: The Legitimacy of International Courts*

Authority and Reason‐Giving¹

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Critical Reception of Raz’s Theory of Authority

Cited by 39 publications

References 44 publications

Skeptical challenges to international law

Skeptical challenges to international law

Survey Article: The Legitimacy of International Courts*

Authority and Reason‐Giving1

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Authority and Reason‐Giving¹