Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa

Making paradoxes invisible: international law as an autopoietic system

  • Kenneth Kang (a1)
Abstract
Abstract

When a state claims its practices are lawful but at the same time another claims this unlawful, a paradox emerges. Legal indeterminacy becomes the ordinary rule, while the resolution of disputes is designated the exception. To illustrate how international law deals with paradoxes, this paper will employ the dichotomy of upstream–downstream trans-boundary interstate relations. Here the paradox arises, since upstream states traditionally advocate for the free utilisation of water within their territory, while downstream states instead advocate for the waters full continued flow. Although, from a logical perspective, such a paradox would typically be viewed as something negative, from a social perspective, paradoxes also draw attention to the frames of common sense. Indeed, by employing a Luhmannian-inspired theoretical framework, this paper proposes that, through a sociological understanding of paradoxes, one can more adequately rediscover and reconceptualise the manner in which international law institutionalises conflicting expectations into a more harmless, bounded and permitted contradiction.

Copyright
Corresponding author
kenneth-kang@hotmail.com
Footnotes
Hide All

I would like to thank Andreas Philippopoulos-Mihalopoulos, Tom Webb, Bald de Vries, Patricia Wouters, Sergei Vinogradov, Huiping Chen, Huaqun Zeng and the China International Water Law research group for their support and encouragement during the course of this research. I would also like to make a very special thank you to Cedric Gilson, Owen Mcintyre, David Devlaeminck and the anonymous reviewers for their detailed and invaluable comments made on earlier versions of this manuscript.

Footnotes
Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

Anthony D'Amato (2009) ‘Softness in International Law: A Self-Serving Quest for New Legal Materials: A Reply to Jean d'Aspremont’, European Journal of International Law 20(3): 10571093.

Andreas Fischer-Lescano (2007) ‘Global Constitutional Struggles: Human Rights between colère publique and colère politique’ in Wolfgang Kaleck , Michael Ratner , Tobias Singelnstein and Peter Weiss (eds) International Prosecution of Human Rights Crimes. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 1327.

Roman Guski (2013) ‘Autonomy as Sovereignty: On Teubner's Constitutionalization of Transnational Function Regimes’, International Journal of Constitutional Law 11(2): 523536.

Michael King and Chris Thornhill (2003) Niklas Luhmann's Theory of Politics and Law. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Martti Koskenniemi (2009) ‘Miserable Comforters: International Relations as New Natural Law’, European Journal of International Relations 15(3): 395422.

Jing Lee (2013) ‘The Preservation of Freshwater Ecosystems of International Watercourses and the Integration of Rules: An Interpretative Mechanism’, Water International 38(2): 156165.

Niklas Luhmann (1992) ‘The Concept of Society’, Thesis Eleven 31(1): 6780.

Niklas Luhmann (1995b) ‘Legal Argumentation: An Analysis of Its Form’, Modern Law Review 58(3): 285298.

Niklas Luhmann (2000a) Organisation und Entscheidung [Organisation and Decision]. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.

Niklas Luhmann (2008) ‘Are There Still Indispensable Norms in Our Society?’, Soziale Systeme 14(1): 1837.

Kathleen McAfee (1999) ‘Selling Nature to Save It? Biodiversity and Green Developmentalism’, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 17(2): 133154.

Owen Mcintyre (2010) ‘The Proceduralisation and Growing Maturity of International Water Law Case Concerning Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v Uruguay), International Court of Justice, 20 April 2010’, Journal of Environmental Law 22(3): 475497.

Anne Orford (2006) International Law and Its Others. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Andreas Paulus (2011) ‘Reciprocity Revisited’ in Ulrich Fastenrath , Rudolf Geiger , Daniel-Erasmus Khan , Andreas Paulus , Sabine von Schorlemer and Christoph Vedder (eds) From Bilateralism to Community Interest: Essays in Honour of Bruno Simma. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 113137.

Alejandro M. Peña (2015) ‘Governing Differentiation: On Standardisation as Political Steering’, European Journal of International Relations 21(1): 5275.

Andreas Philippopoulos-Mihalopoulos (2013a) ‘Critical Autopoiesis and the Materiality of Law’, International Journal for the Semiotics of Law 27(2): 389418.

Andreas Philippopoulos-Mihalopoulos (2013b) ‘The Autopoietic Fold: Critical Autopoiesis between Luhmann and Deleuze’ in Anders La Cour and Andreas Philippopoulos-Mihalopoulos (eds) Luhmann Observed: Radical Theoretical Encounters. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 6084.

Gunther Teubner (2001b) ‘Economics of Gift – Positivity of Justice: The Mutual Paranoia of Jacques Derrida and Niklas Luhmann’, Theory, Culture & Society 18(1): 2947.

Gunther Teubner (2006) ‘Rights of Non-Humans? Electronic Agents and Animals as New Actors in Politics and Law’, Journal of Law and Society 33(4): 497521.

Gert Verschraegen (2002) ‘Human Rights and Modern Society: A Sociological Analysis from the Perspective of Systems Theory’, Journal of Law and Society 29(2): 258281.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

International Journal of Law in Context
  • ISSN: 1744-5523
  • EISSN: 1744-5531
  • URL: /core/journals/international-journal-of-law-in-context
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 6
Total number of PDF views: 30 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 282 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 21st June 2017 - 28th July 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.