What kinds of theoretical tools, case studies and methodology will you use? I ask: To what extent is this formal picture accurate? And how can we build a coherent framework for understanding international legal change as a political process? And I want to contrast the findings on the political and social factors behind informal change with the formal criteria international lawyers use – mostly to do with a convergent practice of states, or, in the case of a treaty, the practice of all treaty parties. I will focus on change processes over the last decades in six selected issue areas: general international law, the laws of war, economic, environmental, and human rights law as well as the law of international organisations. I’m interested in which actors and institutions play a role, which role power differentials play in the process, and how important the context of evolving social norms is. Law is an institution that is linked to the political process, but not identical with it: politics are filtered in and through law, and not every political change is also registered as legal change. The idea is to get a better picture at when change in international law actually happens, and especially at when political change translates into legal change. Your project aims to trace attempts at informal change in international law in several issue areas, identify relevant factors behind the developments in those cases, and understand how they relate to the formal categories of international legal change. So I thought that here is a gap in our understanding that is waiting to be closed. Yet in my experience, much of the change in international law takes place in informal ways, through reinterpretation of treaties or gradual shifts in customary law, and it tends to be more rapid and also less structured than the formal picture of international lawyers would make us believe. But little scholarship directly tackles the question of how change in international law happens – beyond the formal rules that exist – and the pieces that do mostly look at formal change through treatymaking. I have long been interested in the politics around international law – I am teaching on the topic, and I’ve written various articles related to it over the years. What intellectual motivation has led you to study the dynamic character of international law? Entitled “The Paths of International Law: Stability and Change in the International Legal Order (PATHS)”, it has been awarded a five-year advanced grant of the European Research Council (ERC). Understanding this contradiction is at the heart of a new project led by Nico Krisch, Professor of International Law at the Graduate Institute. However, in different fields such as international criminal law or the law of international organisations, international law has developed rapidly, going beyond its traditional image, and often informally. Is international law an overly rigid instrument that handicaps change in international politics and global public policy? International lawmaking tends to be cumbersome, and many critics have emphasised the negative effects on justice, public goods or the democratic revision of political choices that this entails. Coronavirus: Information for our community and visitors.Centre for Trade and Economic Integration.Centre for International Environmental Studies.Centre on Conflict, Development & Peacebuilding.Sustainability, Environment, the Anthropocene and SDGs.Human Rights, Humanitarian, Justice an Inclusion.Gender, Diversity, Race and Intersectionality.Democracy, Civil Society and Sovereignty.Cities, Space, Mobilities and Migrations.International Relations & Political Science.Master in International and Development Studies.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |