Law, Teleology and International Relations: An Essay in Counterdisciplinarity

Abstract

Interdisciplinary approaches often bemoan international law's lack of theoretical sophistication and naïve utopianism. Instead of offering effective tools of governance, it seems committed to outdated ideas about an international public realm and a dubious teleology of progress. This essay -given as the E. H. Carr lecture at the University of Aberystwyth in 2011 -reviews efforts to reform international law into a science and a more efficient instrument of international rule. Such efforts have been a part of international law's internal development but their lack of success depends on a mistaken view of the field as a 'discipline' − a set of theoretical or technical propositions. This essay defends a view of international law as an argumentative practice in which political claims are defended and attacked, rather than as a governance tool or institutional blueprint. At its worst, law may buttress bureaucratic privilege. At its best it may offer, for a cynical world, a vocabulary for imagining better futures. It may also sharpen political thought and strategic awareness, but it cannot replace them.

Understanding the synchronisms and anachronisms of the Columbia River Treaty in relation to the principles of international water law

“…Although Román argues that systems of rules may contribute to stronger cooperation and that states would be safer inside an institutionalized framework rather than under competitive conditions, anarchy, or uncertainties, it is necessary to highlight that international law “cannot be understood independently of the political foundation on which it rests and of the political interests which it serves” (Carr apud Koskenniemi, , p. 11). Therefore, the interpretation of international law may be different according to the values and interests of those actors in the international system.…”

“…If it was independent of social factuality, it would collapse into utopia − a bag of dreams inextricable from the preferences of the dreamer. (Koskenniemi, , p. 12)…”

“…(Shurts & Paisley, 2013, p. 147) Paradoxically, the CRT has turned to the more contemporary UN Convention on international water law, while the IWI brought an alternative to make the Treaty synchronistic to the older Helsinki Rules. (UN, 1997) First, it is important to note that, when talking about the interests of co-riparian States, the principles of hermeneutics must be considered; not only the formal interests written in an international law, but also the political interests of the signatory countries (Koskenniemi, 2012).…”

International Law and International Relations: a Problematic and/or a Harmonious Relationship

“…We understand international law as: a series of rules that govern the behaviour of state and non-state actors; an international legal process of rulemaking, its interpretation and implementation by the elites; a way of thinking that predominantly focuses on the governments, rules and legal risks; an adequate language of deliberation, justification and allegation (Bower, 2015); an elite of legal practitioners that are recognized as 'competent' in the international legal 'practice' (Adler and Pouliot, 2011), who incorporate legal 'virtues' such as legal responsibility, integrity and humanity, thus developing the sense of legal obligation through their interactions (Gaskarth, 2012). Consequently, international law involves a sense for moral goal and teleology (Koskenniemi, 2011), which by default interlinks all aspects of international law with legitimacy and which makes the respect of the international law very important (i.е., "we care for our actions to be perceived as legal because international law is considered to be good/positive").…”

Toward Dystopian Futures? Legal History, Postcoloniality and Critique at the Dawn of the Anthropocene

“…Even as these appear in renewed institutional designs, such as the movements toward the enforcement of the rule of law in international legal order 10 , the gravitational pull around 9 Okafor's main argument connects recent pulls in international law -use of force, humanitarianism, practice of torture -with the deeply political rationale beneath the "newness claim" that serves as justification for such reforms. (FALK, 2008), it becomes relevant to sustain the inextricable connection between normativity and teleology for the understanding of the role of law in guiding social transformation as well as the aspirations of global society (KOSKENNIEMI, 2012).…”