No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
International Law, Democratic Governance and September the 11th
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 06 March 2019
Extract
Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
It seems to be beyond any reasonable doubt that the events of 11th September 2001, and the subsequent responses thereto, will have profound and far-reaching effects on the discipline of public international law. What seems equally certain is that international lawyers in general, and particularly those schooled in the “European” approach to the discipline, will view these developments with varying degrees of gloom. In this article, however, I want to suggest that, in one small but fundamentally important area, the terrorist attacks may arguably have a positive effect on the progressive development of international legal norms.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- German Law Journal , Volume 3 , Issue 9: Special issue - The War on Terror - One Year On , September 2002 , E3
- Copyright
- Copyright © 2002 by German Law Journal GbR
References
The author wishes to thank D. Lecarpentier and A. MacDonald for helpful comments and criticisms on aspects of this work.Google Scholar
See e.g. Cassese, “Terrorism is Also Disrupting Some Crucial Legal Categories of International Law” 12 EJIL (2001), 993; Charney, “The Use of Force Against Terrorism and International Law” 95 AJIL (2001) 835-839.Google Scholar
I am following loosely here the classification made by Susan Marks. See Marks, The Riddle of All Constitutions (2000).Google Scholar
Ibid at 51-52.Google Scholar
See generally: Franck, , “Democracy as a Human Right”, in Henkin and Hargrove (eds.) Human Rights: An Agenda for the Next Century (1994) 73; Fox, “The Right to Political Participation in International Law” 17 YJIntL (1992) 539; Fox “Remarks” in “Implementing Democratization: What Role For International Organizations?” 91 ProcASIL (1997) 356; and, a recent adaptation of an earlier work, Franck, “Legitimacy and the Democratic Entitlement” in Fox and Roth (eds.) Democratic Governance and International Law (2000) 25.Google Scholar
See e.g. Fox, , “The Right to Political Participation in International Law”, in Fox and Roth (eds.) Democratic Governance and International Law (2000) 48, at 49.Google Scholar
See e.g. Franck, , supra n.3 at 65-69; Fox, supra n.6, at 59-69.Google Scholar
Franck, , “Legitimacy and the Democratic Entitlement” in Fox and Roth (eds.) supra n.5, at 31.Google Scholar
Fox, , supra n.6, at 83-84.Google Scholar
Ibid
Google Scholar
Koskenniemi seems to make a similar point to this when he notes that such an approach leaves no theoretical space for the concept of validity, something that is vital to legal analysis if the object of study is to retain its distinctive “image” as law. See Koskenniemi, “Carl Schmitt, Hans Morgenthau, and the Image of Law in International Relations” in Byers (ed.) The Role of Law in International Politics (2000) 17, at 33.Google Scholar
Fox, and Roth, , “Introduction: The Spread of Liberal Democracy and its Implications for International Law” in Fox and Roth (eds.) Democratic Governance and International Law (2000) 1, at 13.Google Scholar
See e.g. G.A.Res 45/150 (1990) (129-8-9), para.3.; G.A. Res. 45/151 (1990) (111-29-11),Google Scholar
See Fox, and Roth, , supra n. 13, at 3. The separate vote drew 12 “nays” and 13 abstentions.Google Scholar
See generally Crawford, , “Democracy in International Law – A Reprise” in Fox and Roth (eds.) Democratic Governance and International Law (2000) 114, at 116-117.Google Scholar
Ibid., at 342. The resolution in question is G.A.Res. 49/180 (1994) (97-57-14)Google Scholar
Crawford, , “Democracy and the Body of International Law” in Fox and Roth (eds.) Democratic Governance and International Law (2000), 91, at 102.Google Scholar
See generally: Slaughter, , “International Law and International Relations Theory: A Dual Agenda” 92 AJIL (1992) 205; Slaughter, “International Law in a World of Liberal States” 6 EJIL (1995) 503.Google Scholar
Slaughter, , “International Law in a World of Liberal States” 6 EJIL (1995) 503, at 509.Google Scholar
Slaughter, , “The Real New World Order”, 76 Foreign Affairs (Sept./Oct. 1997) 183, at 197.Google Scholar
See Reus-Smit, “The Strange Death of Liberal International Theory” 12 EJIL (2001) 573.Google Scholar
Slaughter, , supra n.22, at 515. For a cautionary note on the interaction of these disaggregated institutions, and on other aspects of Slaughter empirical premises, see Alvarez, “Do Liberal States Behave Better? A Critique of Slaughter's Liberal Theory”, EJIL (2001) Vol. 12 No. 2, 183.Google Scholar
Slaughter, , supra n.22, at 516.Google Scholar
See e.g. Tesón, , A Philosophy of International Law (1998). For a critique see Patrick Capps, “The Kantian Project in Modern International Legal Theory” 12 EJIL (2001), 1003.Google Scholar
See Doyle, , “Kant, Liberal Legacies, and Foreign Affairs” in Brown et al. (eds.) Debating the Democratic Peace (1996), 3.Google Scholar
Ibid. at 21.Google Scholar
Slaughter, , supra n.22, at 509.Google Scholar
Doyle, , supra n.27, at 10.Google Scholar
See e.g. Layne, , “Kant or Cant: The Myth of the Democratic Peace” in Brown et al (eds.) supra n.27, at 191.Google Scholar
Ibid. at 193.Google Scholar
Doyle, , supra n.27, at 13.Google Scholar
Layne, , supra n.31, at 194-195.Google Scholar
Marks, , “The ‘Emerging Norm': Conceptualizing ‘Democratic Governance'” 91 ProcASIL (1997) 372, at 374.Google Scholar
Kennedy, , “The Disciplines of International Law and Policy” 12 Leiden JIntL (1999), 9; Kennedy, “When Renewal Repeats: Thinking Against the Box” 32 NYU J IntL &Pol (2000), 335.Google Scholar
Kennedy, , “The Disciplines of International Law and Policy” 12 Leiden JIntL (1999), 9 at 25-34.Google Scholar
Ibid. at 32.Google Scholar
Ibid. at 33.Google Scholar
See generally Koskenniemi, From Apology to Utopia (1989); Koskenniemi, “The Politics of International Law” 1 EJIL (1990), 4.Google Scholar
Vagts, , “Hegemonic International Law” 95 American Journal of International Law (2001) 843, at 845.Google Scholar
See e.g. Richard Falk's review of Marks, The Riddle of All Constitutions in 96 AJIL (2002) 264, at 266.Google Scholar
Franck, , supra n.5, at 75.Google Scholar
Roth, , supra n.18, at 368.Google Scholar
Slaughter, , supra n.22, at 538.Google Scholar
Ibid. at 514.Google Scholar
Koskenniemi, , supra n.11, at 33.Google Scholar
See generally Marks, , supra n.2; Roth, supra n.12; and Koskenniemi, supra n.11.Google Scholar
Marks, , supra n. 35, at 375.Google Scholar
Kennedy, , supra n.36, at 33.Google Scholar
See Franck, , “Terrorism and the Right of Self-Defense” 95 AJIL (2001), 839; Slaughter and Burke-White, “An International Constitutional Moment” 43 HarvILJ (2002), 1.Google Scholar
Albright, quoted in Koh, supra n.53, at 50.Google Scholar
Eubank, and Weinberg, , “Terrorism and Democracy: Perpetrators and Victims” 13 Terrorism and Political Violence (2001) 155.Google Scholar
Ibid. at 161.Google Scholar
Marks, supra n.35, at 373.Google Scholar
Ibid.Google Scholar
See generally Marks, , supra n.2.Google Scholar
Ibid. at 102ff.Google Scholar
Koskenniemi, , “Whose Intolerance, Which Democracy?” in Fox and Roth (eds.) Democratic Governance and International Law (2000) 436, at 440. For similar arguments, see Roth, “Democratic Intolerance: Observations on Fox and Nolte”; and Roth, “Evaluating Democratic Progress” in the same volume.Google Scholar
Marks, , supra n.35, at 373.Google Scholar
You have
Access