Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 November 2024
Time is a Pandora's box that international lawyers have long been reluctant to fully open. Perhaps unwilling to tackle the complexities this elusive concept presents, or loath to confront past wrongs and future threats that might arise from the fabled box, international jurists have left core questions of time and international law largely underexplored. In so doing, however, they have overlooked time and temporality as useful analytical lenses through which to gain new and deeper understandings of international law as a discipline and governance system. After all, international law is entangled with time in various and multifaceted ways. International law does not simply exist in time, having its own past, present, and future. Rather, like law generally, international law is constantly being shaped, organized, and reconstructed by time, while also creating, embedding, and perpetuating temporal standards and understandings. Yet, whereas domestic law scholars have in recent decades devoted considerable attention to the complex time-law relationship, international lawyers have so far investigated this relationship in only a limited manner, focusing primarily on doctrinal and procedural questions, while leaving many theoretical issues unaddressed.
Equal contribution should be assumed.
Equal contribution should be assumed.
1 See e.g., Time, Law, and Change: An Interdisciplinary Study (Sofia Ranchordás & Yaniv Roznai eds., 2020); Law and Time (Sian Beynon-Jones & Emily Grabham eds., 1st ed. 2019); French, Rebecca R., Time in the Law, 72 U. Colo. L. Rev. 663 (2001)Google Scholar.
2 See, e.g., Wheatly, Steven, Revisiting the Doctrine of Intertemporal Law, 41 Oxford J. Legal Stud. 484 (2021)Google Scholar; Nick Gallus, The Temporal Jurisdiction of International Tribunals (2017); Linderfalk, Ulf, The Application of International Legal Norms Over Time: The Second Branch of Intertemporal Law, 58 Neth. Int'l L. Rev. 147 (2011)Google Scholar; Higgins, Rosalyn, Time and the Law: International Perspectives on an Old Problem, 46 Int'l & Comp. L. Q. 501 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
3 For notable exceptions, see McNeilly, Kathryn, Are Rights Out of Time? International Human Rights Law, Temporality, and Radical Social Change, 28 soc. & legal stud. 817 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Whitehall, Deborah, A Time-Map for International Law, 7 Camb. Int'l L.J. 4 (2018)Google Scholar; Gordon, Geoff, Imperial Standard Time, 29 eur. j. int'l l. 1197 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Dehm, Julia, International Law, Temporalities and Narratives of the Climate Crisis, 4 London Rev. Int'l L. 167 (2016)Google Scholar; Johns, Fleur, The Temporal Rivalries of Human Rights, 23 Ind. J. Glob. Legal Stud. 39 (2016)Google Scholar.
4 International Law and Time: Narratives and Techniques (Klara Polackova Van der Ploeg, Luca Pasquet & León Castellanos-Jankiewicz eds., 2022) [hereinafter Narratives].
5 Klara Polackova Van der Ploeg & Luca Pasquet, The Multifaceted Notion of Time in International Law, in Narratives, supra note 4, at 1, 7.
6 Id. at 17.
7 Id. at 17–18.
8 Id. at 18–22.
9 Id. at 21.
10 The Times and Temporalities of International Human Rights Law (Kathryn McNeilly & Ben Warwick eds., 2022) [hereinafter Temporalities].
11 Kathryn McNeilly & Ben Warwick, Introduction, in Temporalities, supra note 10, at 1.
12 Mary H. Hansel, From Crisis to Quotidian: Countering the Temporal Myopia of Jus Cogens, in Temporalities, supra note 10, at 195, 196, 210.
13 McNeilly & Warwick, supra note 11, at 8.
14 Id. at 10.
15 William MacAskill, What We Owe the Future: A Million Year Review 26–28 (2022). On social acceleration, see Hartmut Rosa, Social Acceleration: A New Theory of Modernity (2013).
16 MacAskill, supra note 15, at 26–28.
17 Francois Retief et al., Global Megatrends and Their Implications for Environmental Assessment Practice, 61 Envtl. Impact Assessment Rev. 52, 54 (2016).
18 Martin Rees, Navigating the Next Century's Challenges, in The Long View 29, 41 (Natalie Cargill & Tyler M. John eds., 2021).
19 Id. at 30–31; MacAskill, supra note 15, at 27.
20 Jaye Ellis, Change and Adaptation in International Environmental Law: The Challenge of Resilience, in Narratives, supra note 4, at 357, 361.
21 Id.
22 MacAskill, supra note 15, at 41.
23 Christopher Winter et al., Legal Priorities Research: A Research Agenda 15 (2021), at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3931256.
24 Id. at 15–16.
25 MacAskill, supra note 15, at 27–28.
26 Id. at 6–7.
27 Interview with Bill McKibben, cited in id. at 43.
28 Id. at 40–43.
29 Peter G. Danchin, Jeremy Farrall, Shruti Rana & Imogen Saunders, The Pandemic Paradox in International Law, 114 AJIL 598, 599 (2020); see also Is the International Legal Order Unraveling? (David L. Sloss ed., 2022).
30 For a concise presentation of this sentiment, see Daniel Bethlehem, Project 2100—Is the International Legal Order Fit for Purpose?, EJIL:Talk! (Nov. 29, 2022), at https://www.ejiltalk.org/project-2100-is-the-international-legal-order-fit-for-purpose.
31 Danchin, Farrall, Rana & Saunders, supra note 29; Sivan Shlomo-Agon, Farewell to the F-word? Fragmentation of International Law in Times of the COVID-19 Pandemic, 72 U. Toronto L.J. 1 (2021).
32 Krieger, Heike, Populist Governments and International Law, 30 Eur. J. Int'l L. 971 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Posner, Eric A., Liberal Internationalism and the Populist Backlash, 49 Ariz. St. L.J. 795 (2017)Google Scholar.
33 See, e.g., Erik Voeten, Populism and Backlashes Against International Courts, 18 persp. pol. 407 (2020); Janne E. Nijman & Wouter G. Werner, Populism and International Law: What Backlash and Which Rubicon?, 49 Neth. Y.B. Int'l L. 3 (2018); Philip Alston, The Populist Challenge to Human Rights, 9 J. Hum. Rts. Practice 1 (2017).
34 Peter G. Danchin et al., Navigating the Backlash Against Global Law and Institutions, 38 Australian Y.B. Int'l L. 33, 36 (2020).
35 Anne Orford, The Crisis of Liberal Internationalism and the Future of International Law, 38 Australian Y.B. Int'l L. 3, 12 (2020).
36 Thorsten Wojczewski, The Inter- and Transnational Politics of Populism: Foreign Policy, Identity, and Popular Sovereignty 143–203 (2023).
37 Iza Ding, Dan Slater & Huseyin Zengin, Populism and the Past: Restoring, Retaining, and Redeeming the Nation, 56 Stud. Comp. Int'l Dev. 148, 149 (2021).
38 Danchin et al., supra note 34, at 36.
39 See, e.g., Antony Anghie, Rethinking International Law: A TWAIL Retrospective, 34 Eur. J. Int'l L. 7 (2023); Queering International Law: Possibilities, Alliances, Complicities, Risks (Dianne Otto ed., 2018); Sundhya Pahuja, Decolonising International Law: Development, Economic Growth and the Politics of Universality (2011).
40 See, e.g., Ratna Kapur, Gender, Alterity and Human Rights: Freedom in a Fishbowl 153 (2018); Stephen Hopgood, The Endtimes of Human Rights (2013).
41 Luis Eslava, Michael Fakhri & Vasuki Nesiah, The Spirit of Bandung, in Bandung, Global History, and International Law: Critical Pasts and Pending Futures 3 (Luis Eslava, Michael Fakhri & Vasuki Nesiah eds., 2017).
42 See, e.g., Antonius R. Hippolyte, ICSID's Neoliberal Approach to Environmental Regulation in Developing Countries: Lessons from Latin America, 19 Int'l Cmty. L. Rev. 401, 437–40 (2017).
43 Orford, supra note 35, at 7.
44 David L. Sloss, Introduction: Preserving a Rules-Based International Order, in Is the International Legal Order Unraveling? 1 (David L. Sloss ed., 2022).
45 Van der Ploeg & Pasquet, supra note 5, at 4–6.
46 Id. at 19.
47 León Castellanos-Jankiewicz, Overlooking Continuity: National Minorities and “Timeless” Human Rights, in Narratives, supra note 4, at 421, 424–27.
48 Bérénice K. Schramm, Interstellar Justice Now: Back to the Future of International Law, in Narratives, supra note 4, at 71, 80–81.
49 Rob Grace, Incrementalism in International Lawmaking: The Development of Normative Frameworks of Protection for Forcibly Displaced Persons, in Narratives, supra note 4, at 135.
50 Id. at 137.
51 Tommaso Soave, The Politics of Time in Domestic and International Lawmaking, in Narratives, supra note 4, at 153, 166.
52 Id. at 165.
53 Anthony J. Langlois, Queer Temporalities and Human Rights, in Temporalities, supra note 10, at 159, 164.
54 Paul O'Connell, Human Rights Futures, in Temporalities, supra note 10, at 211, 215–16.
55 Julia Dehm, The Temporalities of Environmental Human Rights, in Temporalities, supra note 10, at 33, 36, 44, 52.
56 Soave, supra note 51, at 153, 166.
57 Van der Ploeg & Pasquet, supra note 5, at 19.
58 Grace, supra note 49, at 136.
59 Ellis, supra note 20, at 364.
60 Klara Polackova Van der Ploeg, International Law Through Time: On Change and Facticity of International Law, in Narratives, supra note 4, at 313, 328.
61 Kay Lalor, Gender, Temporality, and International Human Rights Law: From Hidden Histories to Feminist Futures, in Temporalities, supra note 10, at 103, 114–15; Philipp Kastner, Peace Agreements Between Rupture and Continuity: Mediating Time in International Law, in Narratives, supra note 4, at 405, 418–19.
62 Lalor, supra note 61, at 104.
63 Kastner, supra note 61, at 418.
64 Langlois, supra note 53, at 165, 175,
65 Dehm, supra note 55, at 44–45.
66 Krieger, supra note 32, at 976–78.
67 Stefanie Walter, The Backlash Against Globalization, 24 Ann. Rev. Pol. Sci. 421, 428–29 (2021).
68 Id. at 429–30.
69 Dehm, supra note 55, at 65.
70 Hilary Charlesworth, International Law: A Discipline of Crisis, 65 Mod. L. Rev. 377 (2002).
71 Id.
72 Schramm, supra note 48, at 71, 90; Hansel, supra note 12, at 196–97.
73 Schramm, supra note 48, at 90.
74 Michal Saliternik & Sivan Shlomo-Agon, Proactive International Law, 75 UC L.J. 661 (2024).
75 Schramm, supra note 48, at 90.
76 Van der Ploeg, supra note 60, at 313, 320, 323.
77 Id. at 323–24.
78 Soave, supra note 51, at 161.
79 Charlesworth, supra note 70, at 377, 391.
80 Id.
81 Hansel, supra note 12, at 200.
82 Id.
83 Id. at 196–97.
84 Id. at 200.
85 Id. at 197.
86 Id. at 197–98.
87 Schramm, supra note 48, at 90.
88 Id.
89 Hansel, supra note 12, at 197.
90 Ellis, supra note 20, at 357.
91 Charlesworth, supra note 70, at 377, 391.
92 Hansel, supra note 12, at 197.
93 Id. at 203.
94 Id. at 201.
95 Schramm, supra note 48, at 90.
96 Charlesworth, supra note 70, at 391.
97 Soave, supra note 51.
98 Id. at 157.
99 Though Soave seems to suggest that certain features of international law may make it more long-term oriented as compared to domestic legal systems heavily influenced by short election cycles. Id. at 165–67.
100 Van der Ploeg, supra note 60, at 320–22 (emphasis added).
101 Dehm, supra note 55, at 35 (citing Benjamin Richardson).
102 Id.
103 Alan M. Jacobs, Policy Making for the Long Term in Advanced Democracies, 19 Ann. Rev. Pol. Sci. 433 (2016); Halina Ward, Beyond the Short Term: Legal and Institutional Space for Future Generations in Global Governance, 22 Y.B Int'l Envt'l L. 3 (2011).
104 Soave, supra note 51, at 163.
105 Id. at 166.
106 Krieger, supra note 32, at 996.
107 Hansel, supra note 12, at 197, 200.
108 Id. at 197, 200.
109 Kastner, supra note 61, at 418.
110 Id. at 418–19.
111 UN Secretary-General's Briefing to the General Assembly on Priorities for 2023 (Feb. 6, 2023), at https://www.un.org/sg/en/content/sg/speeches/2023-02-06/secretary-generals-briefing-the-general-assembly-priorities-for-2023.
112 Id.
113 Id.
114 Soave, supra note 51, at 158.
115 Id.
116 Id. at 170.
117 Stephen Young, The Temporal Trap of Human Rights, in Temporalities, supra note 10, at 67, 75.
118 Christos Marneros, Against the Eternal Law(s) of Human Rights: Towards a Becoming-Chaotic of Time, in Temporalities, supra note 10, at 179, 180–84.
119 Samuel Moyn, Afterword: Between the Times, in Temporalities, supra note 10, at 229, 231.
120 Johns, supra note 3, at 54.
121 McNeilly, supra note 3, at 818.
122 Moyn, supra note 119, at 231.
123 Juhana Mikael Salojärvi, Human Rights in Time: Temporalization of Human Rights in Historical Representation, in Narratives, supra note 4, at 51, 53.
124 Moyn, supra note 119, at 231.
125 Marneros, supra note 118, at 180 (emphasis original).
126 Moyn, supra note 119, at 231.
127 Id.
128 Castellanos-Jankiewicz, supra note 47.
129 Id.
130 Id. at 421–22, 435.
131 Marneros, supra note 118, at 183.
132 Id. at 184.
133 O'Connell, supra note 54, at 227.
134 Michele Tedeschini, Human Rights After Fukuyama, in Temporalities, supra note 10, at 142, 145–46; O'Connell, supra note 54, at 220–26.
135 McNeilly, supra note 3, at 818, 822.
136 O'Connell, supra note 54, at 212.
137 McNeilly, supra note 3, at 817.
138 Id. at 818.
139 Moyn, supra note 119, at 232.
140 Dehm, supra note 55, at 65.
141 Ellis, supra note 20, at 357–58.
142 Frances Stewart, Overcoming Short-Termism: Incorporating Future Generations into Current Decision-Making, 31 Irish Stud. Int'l Aff. 171, 185 (2020).
143 Cf. Tyler M. John & William MacAskill, Longtermist Institutional Reform, in The Long View: Essays on Policy, Philanthropy, and the Long-Term Future 45, 50–51 (Natalie Cargill & Tyler M. John eds., 2021).
144 UN, Our Common Agenda: Report of the Secretary-General 45 (2021), at https://www.un.org/en/content/common-agenda-report/assets/pdf/Common_Agenda_Report_English.pdf [hereinafter Our Common Agenda].
145 Ellis, supra note 20, at 361.
146 Our Common Agenda, supra note 144, at 44.
147 Dehm, supra note 55.
148 Id. at 63–64.
149 Hansel, supra note 12, at 206.
150 Tedeschini, supra note 134, at 150, 152.
151 Id. at 153.
152 Hansel, supra note 12, at 207–08.
153 Id. at 208.
154 Marneros, supra note 118, at 193.
