This book chapter expands upon the themes in "The Identity Crisis of International Criminal Law", furnishing additional illustrations and methods of reasoning that engender internal contridictions.
The focus of this chapter is not any particular doctrinal controversy; rather, it is an inquiry into the methods of reasoning commonly employed in international criminal law (ICL) discourse. Many of our familiar methods of analysis and argumentation are riddled with contradictions. These contradictions reflect the heritage of ICL – a fusion of important liberal projects that prove on closer inspection to have incompatible aspects. These contradictions manifest, for example, in ICL discourse declaring important liberal principles but then reasoning in ways that lead to contraventions of the stated principles. These incongruities can be found in our methods of interpretation, our embrace of transplanted norms, and ideological assumptions that inform our reasoning. The chapter aims to contribute to ICL discourse by drawing attention to these incongruities, instilling awareness of the need for more sophisticated discourse, and encouraging reflection on how best to resolve such contradictions.
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Robinson: The Two Liberalisms of International Criminal Law
Darryl Robinson (Queen's Univ. - Law) has posted The Two Liberalisms of International Criminal Law (in Future Perspectivces on International Criminal Justice, C. Stahn & L. van den Herik eds., 2010). Here's the abstract: