This is the introductory chapter of my forthcoming book with the same title. International relations have long been considered outside of the domain of law. Most people presume that law is only meaningful when backed by a central enforcer. By this logic, absent a world state international law cannot meaningfully exist. International law is rising in political relevance because since the end of the Cold War, international politics has become increasingly judicialized. Domestic actors increasingly see the rule of law as requiring respect for international law; domestic and international actors are increasingly invoking international law as they advocate for and justify policy prescriptions; and international courts, ad hoc international legal mechanisms, and domestic judges are increasingly adjudicating state respect for international law. The New Terrain of International Law charts the changes and trends in judicializing international relations by focusing on the creation and use of international courts (ICs). Today there are more than two-dozen international courts that have collectively issued over 37,000 binding legal rulings in individual contentious cases. The contribution of the courts, international or otherwise, is to say what the law requires, and to perhaps specify remedies for law violations. The New Terrain of International Law explains how this very limited power — the power to speak the law — translates into political influence, and it explains when and how delegating authority to international courts influences international and domestic politics. This working paper includes an extended table of contents and a case study index.
Thursday, April 4, 2013
Alter: The New Terrain of International Law: Courts, Politics, Rights
Karen J. Alter (Northwestern Univ. - Political Science) has posted The New Terrain of International Law: Courts, Politics, Rights (in Karen J. Alter, The New Terrain of International Law: Courts, Politics, Rights, forthcoming). Here's the abstract: