权力转移、模式之争与基于规则的国际秩序 -- 国际关系与国际法视角下的中美关系 (Power Transition, Battle of Models, and Rule-based International Order: Sino-U.S. Relations from the Perspectives of International Relations and International Law)

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
JiangYu Wang
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
International Law ◽  
International Order ◽  
Power Transition ◽  
Rule Based

The Justification of War and International Order

2021 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Early Modern ◽  
International Law ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
International Order ◽  
Frame Of Reference ◽  
Pertinent Literature ◽  
Modern Times ◽  
History Of ◽  
Early Modern Times

The history of war is also a history of its justification. The contributions to this book argue that the justification of war rarely happens as empty propaganda. While it is directed at mobilizing support and reducing resistance, it is not purely instrumental. Rather, the justification of force is part of an incessant struggle over what is to count as justifiable behaviour in a given historical constellation of power, interests, and norms. This way, the justification of specific wars interacts with international order as a normative frame of reference for dealing with conflict. The justification of war shapes this order and is being shaped by it. As the justification of specific wars entails a critique of war in general, the use of force in international relations has always been accompanied by political and scholarly discourses on its appropriateness. In much of the pertinent literature the dominating focus is on theoretical or conceptual debates as a mirror of how international normative orders evolve. In contrast, the focus of the present volume is on theory and political practice as sources for the re- and de-construction of the way in which the justification of war and international order interact. The book offers a unique collection of papers exploring the continuities and changes in war discourses as they respond to and shape normative orders from early modern times to the present. It comprises contributions from International Law, History and International Relations and from Western and non-Western perspectives.

The Justification and Critique of Coercion as World Order Politics

2021 ◽  
pp. 489-500
Author(s):  
Christopher Daase ◽  
Nicole Deitelhoff
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
International Law ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
World Order ◽  
International Order ◽  
Physical Force ◽  
Coercive Measures ◽  
Economic Coercion ◽  
Normative Expectations

The present chapter turns from the justification of war (the use of force) to the justification of coercion. It proceeds on the assumption that to stabilize the current international order requires less ‘legitimate force’ and more ‘legitimate coercion’ since in most institutions the enforcement of norms—as the very basis of order—does not only or even primarily rely on physical force but on various forms of political and economic coercion. The chapter distinguishes various forms of coercion and reconstructs debates in International Law and International Relations with regard to their legality, legitimacy, and effectiveness. Doing so, Christopher Daase and Nicole Deitelhoff intend to broaden the debate on world order by redirecting the focus from the use of force to the use of less violent coercive measures. Specifically, the chapter introduces a concept of sanction as a means of communicating normative expectations to the normative community rather than executing punishments.

scholarly journals Pacifismo jurídico = Legal pacifism

2019 ◽  
pp. 220
Author(s):  
José Antonio García Sáez
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
International Law ◽  
International Institutions ◽  
International Order ◽  
War And Peace ◽  
Central Division ◽  
Sustainable Peace ◽  
Palabras Clave ◽  
History Of ◽  
Outlawry Of War

Resumen: Guerra y paz pueden ser pensadas como dos momentos que están destinados a sucederse alternativamente dentro la historia de las relaciones internacionales. Pero también cabe la esperanza de que a través del desarrollo de un orden internacional fuerte pueda conseguirse una paz perpetua o, cuanto menos, duradera. A ese fin han destinado sus esfuerzos numerosos juristas cuyas obras pueden ser enmarcadas dentro del pacifismo jurídico. En este texto se tratará de ordenar los rasgos característicos de esta posición, tomando como división central aquella que separa los autores que han apostado por la prohibición de la guerra de aquellos que han apostado por su progresiva superación. Ambas posiciones compartirán su preferencia por el fortalecimiento de las instituciones internacionales, además de una cierta vocación cosmopolita. Palabras clave: Pacifismo jurídico, guerra, paz, filosofía del derecho internacional. Abstract: War and peace could be thought as two moments bound to succeed each other within the history of international relations. But there is also room for the hope in a perpetual or, at least, sustainable peace thorough the development of a strong international order. Several legal scholars, whose works can be labelled inside the legal pacifism, have devoted their efforts to that end. This paper tries to put some order about the main features of legal pacifism. It takes as a central division their position towards war: some legal pacifists have defended the total outlawry of war, while others have considered preferable a progressive overcoming of war. Both positions will share the preference for strength the international institutions, together with a certain degree of cosmopolitan commitment. Keywords: legal pacifism, war, peace, philosophy of international law.

scholarly journals Cyberspace and International Order

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Madeline Carr
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Technological Change ◽  
International Law ◽  
Cyber Security ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Information Age ◽  
International Order ◽  
Cyber Attacks ◽  
Industrial Age ◽  
The World

When The Anarchical Society was published in 1977, the world was on the doorstep of seismic technological change. Forty years later, the information age has placed cyber security at the centre of many global political concerns including armed conflict and international law. The ongoing difficulties associated with accurately attributing cyber attacks introduce a new dimension of anarchy in international relations. This essay draws on Bull’s ideas about social interplay to explore the problem of attribution in cyberspace. It finds that the difficulties of identifying (even) state actors undermine some of the processes and institutions upon which Bull based his ideas. However, it also finds that Bull’s work is useful in unpicking exactly why attribution is so problematic for international relations. Ultimately, Bull’s expectation that actors will look for social solutions to maintain order appears to be holding up in the information age much as it did in the industrial age.

Anarchy over Law? Towards a Genealogy of Modern War Justifications (1789–1918)

2021 ◽  
pp. 147-166
Author(s):  
Hendrik Simon
Keyword(s):  
Nineteenth Century ◽  
Twentieth Century ◽  
International Relations ◽  
International Law ◽  
International Order ◽  
Mirror Image ◽  
History Of ◽  
History Of International Law ◽  
Modern War

Hendrik Simon follows up on Anuschka Tischer’s analysis of European justifications of war. He turns to transformation of this discourse’s vocabulary in the context of the nineteenth century: to this day, most textbooks on the history of international law and international relations contain the proposition that European states held a sovereign right to go to war (liberum ius ad bellum) in the nineteenth-century international order. The latter is still understood as an anarchic mirror image of the modern international order, which (supposedly) emerged in the first half of the twentieth century. This assumption is challenged in this chapter: by outlining a genealogy of modern war justifications, starting with the French Revolutionary Wars, Hendrik Simon seeks to deconstruct liberum ius ad bellum as a myth which emanated from the realist and liberal narratives of the emergence of the modern international order. The fundamental argument is that the ‘long’ nineteenth century is not the anarchic converse of the modern discourse on war and international order—but its epoch of birth.

Utilitarian International Order

2019 ◽  
pp. 247-266
Author(s):  
Gerald J. Postema
Keyword(s):  
Public Opinion ◽  
International Relations ◽  
International Law ◽  
Soft Power ◽  
International Politics ◽  
International Order ◽  
Mutual Benefit ◽  
Global Order ◽  
Legislative Authority ◽  
The Law

International politics was integral to Bentham’s comprehensive jurisprudential project. His perspective on international law was that of a legislator, an engineer of global order, not that of expositor or theorist of the existing law. He articulated a (quasi-) cosmopolitan principle for the governance of a state-pluralist global order: the ultimate aim of international law, he argued, is the greatest common and equal utility of all nations. This principle articulates a standard of equal, mutual benefit and builds in a proviso that permits derogation from arrangements or laws that work greatly to the disadvantage of any given nation. He envisioned the global order as a loose affiliation of equal sovereign states, each of which participates on an equal basis in a common congress accorded legislative authority through their participation and is subject to judgments of a common tribunal. Bentham’s ultimate solution to the problem of war was threefold: (i) the law was to be put on a clear, authoritative, and fully public basis in a carefully drafted and systematic code; (ii) all disputes arising in international relations were to be directed to this code and a common tribunal was empowered to resolve the disputes in an impartial way; (iii) judgments of the tribunal were to be enforced by the soft power of Public Opinion Tribunal consisting of both nations and individuals.

International Legal Order as an Idea

1979 ◽  
Vol 73 (2) ◽  
pp. 244-266 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicholas Greenwood Onuf
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
International Law ◽  
Political Theory ◽  
International Politics ◽  
International Order ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
Vanishing Point ◽  
Theoretical Interest ◽  
International Legal Order

International law, its masters tell us, is “the vanishing point of jurisprudence.” So must be international politics, and all of international relations, for political theory. The recurrent and directing theme in political theory is the problem of order—how it is provided, maintained, altered, and so on. Order resides in orderly relations, that is, patterned and predictable relations, among people, but is abstracted from those relations as any arrangement of norms and institutions that distributes values among people. Among peoples, political theorists favor the alternative premise that anarchy, not order, reigns. By not existing, international order needs no explaining. Evidence to the contrary can be explained away as anomalous or ephemeral, and therefore not of theoretical interest. From this follows the dominance of concern for conflict and disorder and the paucity of theory in the study of international politics.

Jawaharlal Nehru: Panchsheel and India's Constitutional Vision of International Order

1989 ◽  
Vol 45 (4) ◽  
pp. 301-323
Author(s):  
D.P. Verma
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
International Law ◽  
Prime Minister ◽  
World Order ◽  
International Order ◽  
The Third ◽  
Constituent Assembly ◽  
Moral Conduct ◽  
Law Of Nations ◽  
Jawaharlal Nehru

The law of nations was not concocted by ‘bookworms’, ‘jurists’ or ‘professors’, but was created and elaborated by the deeds of statesmen, diplomats, generals, and admirals.1 This statement of the celebrated English jurist, Professor Holland, appears very much true, when attention is given to the achievements of the first Prime Minister of India, Jawaharlal Nehru. Being a world statesman, he projected India's constitutional vision of international order, which reflects in the doctrine of Panchsheel, as five principles of peace. The aim of this paper is to study, in general, Nehru's contribution to the maintenance of peace, good neighbourliness and the idea of moral conduct in international relations. To keep this paper within limits, it is addressed to two objectives: First, a survey of the Constituent Assembly debates in order to provide an account of the thoughts of the framers of the Indian Constitution and to find out how far Nehru's ideas influenced the drafting of articles relating to India's international relations; and Second, an evaluation of the concept of Panchsheel that characterizes the development of International Law in Asia. It is also felt useful to take this opportunity to note Nehru's idea of peace and the Asian phase of his political thought. It will be concluded that Nehru's Panchsheel message reflected India's constitutional vision of world order, and it will be further submitted in respect of the doctrine that the contribution has, at least, at the normative level, strengthened the regime of the principles of International Law and peace. The paper is divided into four parts. The first part deals with Nehru's constitutional vision; the second discusses his idea of peace and the third analyses the doctrine. Finally, the fourth part is the conclusion.

Liberal World Orders, Reciprocal and Hierarchic

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marjo Koivisto
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
International Law ◽  
International Society ◽  
International Order ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
English School ◽  
Continuity And Change ◽  
Practice Analysis ◽  
Recent Scholarship ◽  
Historical Practices

This chapter deals with the question of hierarchy in liberal orders. English School theorizing has, since Hedley Bull's seminal work, regarded reciprocal international society institutions such as international law as the foundations of international order. Yet recent scholarship has indicated that the way reciprocal institutions have historically been practised has portrayed international society institutions as being just as hierarchic as they are reciprocal. Drawing together English School theory and practice analysis in International Relations, the chapter illustrates how both reciprocity and hierarchies in liberal order emerge out of the historical practices of international politics. Examples look at the conventions of diplomacy and international law to understand continuity and change in liberal orders' hierarchies and reciprocal practices.

scholarly journals The Term “Rules-based International Order” in International Legal Discourses

2021 ◽  
pp. 35-60
Author(s):  
A. N. Vylegzhanin ◽  
B. I. Nefedov ◽  
E. R. Voronin ◽  
O. S. Magomedova ◽  
P. K. Zotova
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
International Law ◽  
Negative Impact ◽  
World Order ◽  
International Order ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
Historical Method ◽  
The World ◽  
International Legal Order ◽  
The Right

INTRODUCTION. The term “rules-based order” is increasingly referred to in speeches within many international forums as well as declared from national political tribunes. The initial question is whether this notion is of purely political nature (since it is not used in the UN Charter or in other universal international conventions and this term is not relied upon by the International Court of Justice or by the UN International Law Commission). On the other hand, with the popularization of such a political discourse, the frequent usage of this term by representatives of some states (not only of Western States, but also of China, for example) can affect international law. The very application of this term definitely provokes a splash of other questions. How does the term “rules-based order” correlate with the universally recognized term “international legal order”? Does the idea to use the term “rules-based order” have substantive legal grounds? Which rules in concreto1 are meant by the term? Who and how creates these rules? What is the nature of these rules – are they rules of national law and if so – national rules of what State? If these are rules of international law – why is it not reflected in the term? Due to the attractive wording the concept gets widespread, but lacking a common understanding of its content, everyone might put a different meaning into the concept. Does it result in the fact that some officials, representing states, become politically entitled with the right to abuse the international legal order as it is established by modern international law? This research examines these theoretic aspects of the concept “rules-based order”, taking into account that in the context of international relations it may be referred to also as “rules-based international order”. An additional question to answer is whether the concept might be regarded as one of the numerous attempts to adapt the current international law to new challenges.MATERIALS AND METHODS. The research paper is based on the analysis of numerous statements of representatives of states, in which their attitude to the “rules-based order” concept is manifested, positive and critical remarks relating to the concept made by international lawyers, as well as other research papers of Russian and foreign international scholars. The methodological instruments include general scientific and special methods, among them the historical method, methods of formal logic, analysis, synthesis, as well as systemic, comparative legal methods.RESEARCH RESULTS. Although the above-noted questions about the legal meaning of the term “rulesbased order” have arisen only in recent years mainly in the context of the anti-Russian rhetoric of Western politicians, the term has been used much earlier at different levels in a wide variety of topics. The question of inconsistent perceptions of this term is another reflection of a more general problem of weakening or strengthening the universal legally binding international order. One of the appropriate interpretive versions of this concept might be that “rules-based order” means first and foremost the world order which is based on norms of international law (which are mandatory as well known), and on applicable non-binding international rules containing a normative element, such as international rules provided in the documents of intergovernmental organizations and conferences, interstate political arrangements, and other mutually accepted rules, formed in the contemporary practice of international relations. This interpretation allows to bring the concept in line with modern international law. Nevertheless, even within such interpretation, it is necessary to respect the distinction between the norms of international law, which are binding, and other rules, which do not create State’s obligations under international law. Thus, unilateral or “blocking” imposition of values of one State on other States under the guise of rules on which, according to the first State, the world order is based, will not be allowed.DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. If another interpretation prevails, the “rules-based order” concept may have a negative impact on the existing international legal order insofar as it “washes out” the established legitimate procedures of international law-making, thus rejecting traditional international values of legal stability and diminishing the role of international law in international relations. Such scenario would not only multiply legal uncertainly and even unreasonable expectations among the participants of the international processes, but also might lead to undermining the very fundamentals of modern international law based on the UN Charter. The latter in its turn will inevitably lead to the global legal instability and will dramatically increase the risks of World War III. At the moment, the frequent abuse of the term “rules-based order” by the representatives of the NATO countries in support of their politically motivated statements, agreed upon only among them, impedes achievement of accepted understanding of the concept at the universal level, that might be consistent with international law.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document