Vital Interests, Virtual Threats: Reconciling International Law with Information Warfare and United States Security

1999 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karl J. Shawhan
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
Information Warfare

The End of Empire and the Search for Justice

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Linarelli ◽  
Margot E Salomon ◽  
Muthucumaraswamy Sornarajah
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Economic ◽  
International Law ◽  
International Economic Order ◽  
The United States ◽  
Economic Order ◽  
Global Context ◽  
Neoliberal Ideology ◽  
First Time

This chapter is a study of the themes of the New International Economic Order (NIEO). It begins with the notion of justice that had been constructed in imperial law to justify empire and colonialism. The NIEO was the first time a prescription was made for justice in a global context not based on domination of one people over another. In its consideration of the emergence of a new notion of justice in international law, the chapter discusses the reasons for the origins of the NIEO, and goes on to describe the principles of the NIEO and the extent to which they came into conflict with dominant international law as accepted by the United States and European states. Next the chapter deals with the rise of the neoliberal ideology that led to the displacement of the NIEO and examines the issue of whether the NIEO and its ideals have passed or whether they continue to be or should be influential in international law. Finally, the chapter turns to the ideas of the NIEO alongside new efforts at promoting a fuller account of justice by which to justify and evaluate international law.

Foreign Relations Law

2019 ◽  
pp. 43-61
Author(s):  
Karen Knop
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
Foreign Relations ◽  
Comparative Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Legal Systems ◽  
The U.S

The two starting points for this chapter are that fields of law are inventions, and that fields matter as analytical frames. All legal systems deal with foreign relations issues, but few have a field of “foreign relations law.” As the best-stocked cabinet of issues and ideas, U.S. foreign relations law would be likely to generate the field elsewhere in the process of comparison. But some scholars, particularly outside the United States, see the nationalist or sovereigntist strains of the U.S. field, and perhaps even just its use as a template, as demoting international law. The chapter begins by asking whether this apprehension can be alleviated by using international law or an existing comparative law field to inventory the foreign relations issues to be compared. Finding neither sufficient, it turns to the U.S. field as an initial frame and sketches three types of anxieties that the U.S. experience has raised or might raise for international law. The chapter concludes by suggesting how Campbell McLachlan’s allocative conception of foreign relations law might be adapted so as to turn such anxieties about international law into opportunities.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document