1. Comment
30 April 2021 at 14:34:36
Bentham’s rule of law: treat
subjects equally, unrelated to
status (Lustitia’s blindfold)
2. Comment
2 April 2021 at 17:06:23
Not just the capacity to punish
3. Comment
8 April 2021 at 18:32:01
Vs closed system (no one has
access)
4. Comment Part 1 - International Law in a Political Science Degree
8 April 2021 at 18:33:19
Assumption: large societies need
Law: recognized, mostly codified, legitimate standard of behavior that binds communities
formal/enforceable rules
together
• Properties:
5. Comment
8 April 2021 at 18:33:38 1 • Universal: applies to everyone equally
Planning for the future 2 • Coercive: transgressions routinely punished
3 • Open: infinite number of individuals can establish relationships with/shape law
Especially important in modern 4 • Functions:
industrial societies (vs agriculture 5 • Enables long-term decisions
(predictable)) 6 • Maintains order (predictability of outcome)
• Trade across distance (trust)
6. Comment • Enforces resolutions (laws before dispute ensures trust in system after)
8 April 2021 at 18:35:40 7 8 • Domestic law ≠ international law
E.g. murder has an (almost)
guaranteed punishment 9 Law in IR:
• Primary medium of interaction across borders
E.g. protesting should not be • Informs foreign policy decisions
punished • Means of solving global problems
• Significant expansion in past century
7. Comment
8 April 2021 at 18:49:10 Distinction:
Used and enforced by sovereign • Public international law: set of rules that states create to regulate/order own behavior
• Intended to bind states in their relationships with each other
8. Comment • Default in this course (what IR scholars refer to)
8 April 2021 at 18:49:34 10 11 • Private internal law: areas of conflict between national laws and international actors
No sovereign → no legitimate • Main question: which jurisdiction is applicable to transnational issue?
enforcer • Legal disagreements between private parties
- Force plays a very limited role in • Dispute settlement (arbitration) outside of domestic legal framework
enforcement (more soft power) 12 • Traces to Roman law
9. Comment Theoretical approaches:
8 April 2021 at 18:40:01 13 • Realism: IL reflects power/interests of states
Coolidge (US president 1920): 14 • Inconsequential (merely epiphenomenal of power)
key aim of public policy is to • Compliance = expression of national interest
reduce “domestic and foreign 15 16 • Functionalism/liberalism/rationalism: states enjoy order + benefits of cooperation
relations to a system of laws” • Agree with realism (rational egoism), but more focus on long-term gains
(utilitarian) 17 • IL is relevant
• Constructivism: IL reflects/informs social purpose (struggles over international legitimacy)
Obama: “We should strengthen 18 • More focus on sociological/contextual views
enforcement of international laws
and our commitment to engage Reason for entering treaties:
and modernize international • Cost of commitment < benefits of commitment
institutions and frameworks”
• Realism: little expectation of compliance
- Task for both US and like-
• Functionalism: pursue joint gains
minded states
• Constructivism: persuaded + pursue legitimacy
10. Comment
8 April 2021 at 18:43:13
Aka conflict of laws
11. Comment
8 April 2021 at 18:43:36
Examples:
- Business with contractual
obligations in multiple countries
- When people of different
nationalities get married that
must get their marriage
recognized in their respective
states
,12. Comment
30 April 2021 at 14:57:54
First form of law that allowed for
disputes crossing specific
jurisdictions to be adjudicated
- Rules for transnational trade
13. Comment
30 April 2021 at 15:01:06
Morgenthau, Posner, Goldsmith
14. Comment
30 April 2021 at 15:02:48
E.g. no need to explain
proliferation of IL
15. Comment
30 April 2021 at 15:03:29
Krasner, Keohane, Waltz
16. Comment
8 April 2021 at 18:52:50
Non-anarchical, predictability
17. Comment
30 April 2021 at 15:13:06
E.g. states spend resources to
justify actions, oblige when they
don’t need to
18. Comment
8 April 2021 at 18:55:47
Vs materialistic/strategic
approaches
E.g. sociological development of
international regimes
,19. Comment
8 April 2021 at 19:01:22
How domestic law absorbs
international law
20. Comment
8 April 2021 at 19:03:35
Heinrich Tripel
Extreme variations don’t believe
IL exists at all
21. Comment
8 April 2021 at 19:02:59
E.g. US, UK, India
19 Theories of implementation:
22. Comment 20 • Dualism: national law > international law
8 April 2021 at 19:06:28 • IL must be translated into national law (otherwise nonexistent/secondary)
Hans Kelsen 21 • Prevalent in common law jurisdictions
• Grants more rights vs intervenes with domestic rights
Extreme variant: national law is 22 • Monism: national law < international law
null/void if it contradicts IL • IL has direct domestic effect (takes priority)
• Extreme: if contradict, NL is null
23. Comment 23 • Prevalent in civil law jurisdictions
8 April 2021 at 19:07:09
E.g. Netherlands, Germany, Vienna Conventions on the Law of Treaties (1980, 35 ratifiers)
France, Italy • Article 46: national law cannot be invoked to justify non-compliance with IL
• Examples:
24. Comment 24 • LaGrand Case (Germany vs USA) (2001)
8 April 2021 at 19:10:25 25 • Avena Case (Mexico vs USA) (2004)
Two German-Americans 26 • Germany vs Poland (1926)
sentenced to death by US court 27 • Exchange of Greek/Turkish populations (1925)
(robbery/shooting)
Compliance:
Germany brings case to US • Types:
Supreme Court • First-order: compliance with substantive provisions
- Claim US violated consular • Second-order: compliance with dispute settlement ruling
rights under Vienna Treaty 28 • Formal international enforcement mechanisms are notoriously weak
(should have been informed) • Measures of effectiveness of IL:
- Supreme Court claims Germany 29 • Actual observance
has no right to bring cases to • Louis Henkin: “Almost all nations observe almost all principles of IL and almost of of their
them obligations almost all of the time”
30 31 • Typically favors more powerful states, but weaker states becoming more important
Germany brings case to ICJ 32 • Validity
- Practically irrelevant (already
• Benefits of broader effects
executed)
- Symbolically relevant (ICJ
Readings:
confirms jurisdiction)
• Optional: Beth Simmons. 2008. “International Law and International Relations.” Oxford
Handbook of Law and Politics, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 187-208
25. Comment
8 April 2021 at 19:14:03
Mexican-Americans sentenced to
death
US defends itself by invoking
domestic laws
ICJ refutes with article 46
26. Comment
30 April 2021 at 15:53:30
German companies lose land/
factories due to changing borders
after WWI
- PCIJ: court only interprets
whether states follow IL, not NL
27. Comment
8 April 2021 at 19:16:11
PCIJ rules that it is self-evident
that states must modify national
law to comply with international
duties
28. Comment
8 April 2021 at 19:19:22
(Outside of EU)
, E.g. WTO can fine violators, but
cannot enforce fine
29. Comment
8 April 2021 at 19:21:09
Compliance by states
30. Comment
30 April 2021 at 16:00:39
E.g. can dictate trade terms
31. Comment
30 April 2021 at 16:02:33
Especially postcolonial countries
“Revolt against the West”
32. Comment
8 April 2021 at 19:21:30
Binding force of law
30 April 2021 at 14:34:36
Bentham’s rule of law: treat
subjects equally, unrelated to
status (Lustitia’s blindfold)
2. Comment
2 April 2021 at 17:06:23
Not just the capacity to punish
3. Comment
8 April 2021 at 18:32:01
Vs closed system (no one has
access)
4. Comment Part 1 - International Law in a Political Science Degree
8 April 2021 at 18:33:19
Assumption: large societies need
Law: recognized, mostly codified, legitimate standard of behavior that binds communities
formal/enforceable rules
together
• Properties:
5. Comment
8 April 2021 at 18:33:38 1 • Universal: applies to everyone equally
Planning for the future 2 • Coercive: transgressions routinely punished
3 • Open: infinite number of individuals can establish relationships with/shape law
Especially important in modern 4 • Functions:
industrial societies (vs agriculture 5 • Enables long-term decisions
(predictable)) 6 • Maintains order (predictability of outcome)
• Trade across distance (trust)
6. Comment • Enforces resolutions (laws before dispute ensures trust in system after)
8 April 2021 at 18:35:40 7 8 • Domestic law ≠ international law
E.g. murder has an (almost)
guaranteed punishment 9 Law in IR:
• Primary medium of interaction across borders
E.g. protesting should not be • Informs foreign policy decisions
punished • Means of solving global problems
• Significant expansion in past century
7. Comment
8 April 2021 at 18:49:10 Distinction:
Used and enforced by sovereign • Public international law: set of rules that states create to regulate/order own behavior
• Intended to bind states in their relationships with each other
8. Comment • Default in this course (what IR scholars refer to)
8 April 2021 at 18:49:34 10 11 • Private internal law: areas of conflict between national laws and international actors
No sovereign → no legitimate • Main question: which jurisdiction is applicable to transnational issue?
enforcer • Legal disagreements between private parties
- Force plays a very limited role in • Dispute settlement (arbitration) outside of domestic legal framework
enforcement (more soft power) 12 • Traces to Roman law
9. Comment Theoretical approaches:
8 April 2021 at 18:40:01 13 • Realism: IL reflects power/interests of states
Coolidge (US president 1920): 14 • Inconsequential (merely epiphenomenal of power)
key aim of public policy is to • Compliance = expression of national interest
reduce “domestic and foreign 15 16 • Functionalism/liberalism/rationalism: states enjoy order + benefits of cooperation
relations to a system of laws” • Agree with realism (rational egoism), but more focus on long-term gains
(utilitarian) 17 • IL is relevant
• Constructivism: IL reflects/informs social purpose (struggles over international legitimacy)
Obama: “We should strengthen 18 • More focus on sociological/contextual views
enforcement of international laws
and our commitment to engage Reason for entering treaties:
and modernize international • Cost of commitment < benefits of commitment
institutions and frameworks”
• Realism: little expectation of compliance
- Task for both US and like-
• Functionalism: pursue joint gains
minded states
• Constructivism: persuaded + pursue legitimacy
10. Comment
8 April 2021 at 18:43:13
Aka conflict of laws
11. Comment
8 April 2021 at 18:43:36
Examples:
- Business with contractual
obligations in multiple countries
- When people of different
nationalities get married that
must get their marriage
recognized in their respective
states
,12. Comment
30 April 2021 at 14:57:54
First form of law that allowed for
disputes crossing specific
jurisdictions to be adjudicated
- Rules for transnational trade
13. Comment
30 April 2021 at 15:01:06
Morgenthau, Posner, Goldsmith
14. Comment
30 April 2021 at 15:02:48
E.g. no need to explain
proliferation of IL
15. Comment
30 April 2021 at 15:03:29
Krasner, Keohane, Waltz
16. Comment
8 April 2021 at 18:52:50
Non-anarchical, predictability
17. Comment
30 April 2021 at 15:13:06
E.g. states spend resources to
justify actions, oblige when they
don’t need to
18. Comment
8 April 2021 at 18:55:47
Vs materialistic/strategic
approaches
E.g. sociological development of
international regimes
,19. Comment
8 April 2021 at 19:01:22
How domestic law absorbs
international law
20. Comment
8 April 2021 at 19:03:35
Heinrich Tripel
Extreme variations don’t believe
IL exists at all
21. Comment
8 April 2021 at 19:02:59
E.g. US, UK, India
19 Theories of implementation:
22. Comment 20 • Dualism: national law > international law
8 April 2021 at 19:06:28 • IL must be translated into national law (otherwise nonexistent/secondary)
Hans Kelsen 21 • Prevalent in common law jurisdictions
• Grants more rights vs intervenes with domestic rights
Extreme variant: national law is 22 • Monism: national law < international law
null/void if it contradicts IL • IL has direct domestic effect (takes priority)
• Extreme: if contradict, NL is null
23. Comment 23 • Prevalent in civil law jurisdictions
8 April 2021 at 19:07:09
E.g. Netherlands, Germany, Vienna Conventions on the Law of Treaties (1980, 35 ratifiers)
France, Italy • Article 46: national law cannot be invoked to justify non-compliance with IL
• Examples:
24. Comment 24 • LaGrand Case (Germany vs USA) (2001)
8 April 2021 at 19:10:25 25 • Avena Case (Mexico vs USA) (2004)
Two German-Americans 26 • Germany vs Poland (1926)
sentenced to death by US court 27 • Exchange of Greek/Turkish populations (1925)
(robbery/shooting)
Compliance:
Germany brings case to US • Types:
Supreme Court • First-order: compliance with substantive provisions
- Claim US violated consular • Second-order: compliance with dispute settlement ruling
rights under Vienna Treaty 28 • Formal international enforcement mechanisms are notoriously weak
(should have been informed) • Measures of effectiveness of IL:
- Supreme Court claims Germany 29 • Actual observance
has no right to bring cases to • Louis Henkin: “Almost all nations observe almost all principles of IL and almost of of their
them obligations almost all of the time”
30 31 • Typically favors more powerful states, but weaker states becoming more important
Germany brings case to ICJ 32 • Validity
- Practically irrelevant (already
• Benefits of broader effects
executed)
- Symbolically relevant (ICJ
Readings:
confirms jurisdiction)
• Optional: Beth Simmons. 2008. “International Law and International Relations.” Oxford
Handbook of Law and Politics, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 187-208
25. Comment
8 April 2021 at 19:14:03
Mexican-Americans sentenced to
death
US defends itself by invoking
domestic laws
ICJ refutes with article 46
26. Comment
30 April 2021 at 15:53:30
German companies lose land/
factories due to changing borders
after WWI
- PCIJ: court only interprets
whether states follow IL, not NL
27. Comment
8 April 2021 at 19:16:11
PCIJ rules that it is self-evident
that states must modify national
law to comply with international
duties
28. Comment
8 April 2021 at 19:19:22
(Outside of EU)
, E.g. WTO can fine violators, but
cannot enforce fine
29. Comment
8 April 2021 at 19:21:09
Compliance by states
30. Comment
30 April 2021 at 16:00:39
E.g. can dictate trade terms
31. Comment
30 April 2021 at 16:02:33
Especially postcolonial countries
“Revolt against the West”
32. Comment
8 April 2021 at 19:21:30
Binding force of law
