Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-9pm4c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T05:45:51.327Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Peremptory law, global order, and the normative boundaries of a pluralistic world

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 May 2016

Dennis R. Schmidt
Dennis R. Schmidt*
Affiliation:
School of Government and International Affairs, Durham University, UK
*
E-mail: d.r.schmidt@durham.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article develops a socio-legal approach to theorizing the construction of peremptory norms in international relations. It argues that due to its focus on formalism and abstract notions of rights, traditional legal treatments have failed to acknowledge the socially constructed nature of higher order norms. To address this shortcoming, the article transfers the concept of jus cogens into the realm of International Relations. Drawing on insights from constructivism and English School theory, it situates law in the context of society and conceptualizes jus cogens as part of international society’s constitutional structure. Proceeding from the assumption that the content and identity of jus cogens depends on the normative character of international society, the article then assesses two possible ‘normative logics’ through which the peremptory status of a norm may be generated. It rejects a solidarist logic, which sees universal norms as the manifestation of cosmopolitan ideas about inalienable rights. Instead, it argues for a pluralist approach to ethics and order that depicts jus cogens as key to the development of international society towards a social site marked by diversity and respect for difference.

Keywords

constructivismEnglish School theoryethicsinternational lawinternational societyjus cogens
Type
Original Papers
Information
International Theory , Volume 8 , Issue 2 , July 2016 , pp. 262 - 296
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abbott, Kenneth W., Keohane, Robert O., Moravcsik, Andrew, Slaughter, Anne-Marie, and Snidal, Duncan. 2000. “The Concept of Legalization.” International Organization 54(3):401–419.Google Scholar
Allen, Michael H. 2004. “Globalization and Peremptory Norms in International Law: From Westphalian to Global Constitutionalism?” International Politics 41(3):341–353.Google Scholar
Allott, Philip. 1999. “The Concept of International Law.” European Journal of International Law 10(1):31–50.Google Scholar
Bassiouni, M. Cherif. 1996. “International Crimes: ‘Jus Cogens’ and ‘Obligation Erga Omnes’.” Law and Contemporary Problems 59(4):63–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bianchi, Andrea. 2008. “Human Rights and the Magic of Jus Cogens.” European Journal of International Law 19(3):491–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blunt, Gwilym David. 2015. “Is Global Poverty a Crime Against Humanity?” International Theory 7(3):539–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyle, Alan E., and Chinkin, Christine M.. 2007. The Making of International Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Brown, Chris. 1995. “International Political Theory and the Idea of World Community.” In International Relations Theory Today, edited by Ken Booth and Steve Smith, 90–110. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Brown, Chris 2000. “Cultural Diversity and International Political Theory: From the ‘Requirement’ to ‘Mutual Respect’.” Review of International Studies 26(2):199–213.Google Scholar
Brown, Chris 2002. Sovereignty, Rights and Justice: International Political Theory Today. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Brunne, Jutta, and Toope, Stephen. 2000. “International Law and Constructivism: Elements of an Interactional Theory of Law.” Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 39(1):19–74.Google Scholar
Buchanan, Allen. 2013. The Heart of Human Rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bull, Hedley. 1966. “The Grotian Conception of International Society.” In Hedley Bull on International Society, edited by Kai Alderson and Andrew Hurrell, 95–125. London: McMillian.Google Scholar
Bull, Hedley 1977. The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics. London: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bull, Hedley 1984. “Justice in International Relations: The 1983 Hagey Lectures.” In Hedley Bull on International Society, edited by Kai Alderson and Andrew Hurrell, 206–246. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Bull, Hedley, and Watson, Adam, eds. 1984. The Expansion of International Society. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Buzan, Barry. 2001. “The English School: An Underexploited Resource in IR.” Review of International Studies 27(3):471–488.Google Scholar
Buzan, Barry 2004. From International to World Society? English School Theory and the Social Structure of Globalisation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Byers, Michael. 1997. “Conceptualising the Relationship Between Jus Cogens and Erga Omnes Rules.” Nordic Journal of International Law 66(2–3):211–239.Google Scholar
Christenson, Gordon A. 1987–1988. “Jus Cogens: Guarding Interests Fundamental to International Society.” Virginia Journal of International Law 28(3):585–648.Google Scholar
Clark, Ian. 2005. Legitimacy in International Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Conklin, William E. 2012. “The Peremptory Norms of the International Community.” European Journal of International Law 23(3):837–861.Google Scholar
Connolly, William E. 1991. Identity/Difference: Democratic Negotiations of Political Paradox. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Connolly, William E 2008. “Confessing Identity/Belonging to Difference.” In William E. Connolly: Democracy, Pluralism and Political Theory, edited by Samuel A. Chambers and Terrell Carver, 131–147. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Cranston, Maurice. 1973. What are Human Rights? London: Bodley Head.Google Scholar
D’Amato, Anthony. 1990. “It’s a Bird, It’s a Plane, It’s Jus Cogens!.” Connecticut Journal of International Law 6(1):1–6.Google Scholar
De Wet, Erika. 2013. “Jus Cogens and Obligations Erga Omnes.” In The Oxford Handbook of International Human Rights Law, edited by Dina Shelton, 541–562. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dillon, Robin S. 2015. “Respect.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Fall 2015 ed., edited by E.N. Zalta. Stanford: Stanford University. Accessed April 27, 2016. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2015/entries/respect/.Google Scholar
Donnelly, Jack. 2007. “The Relative Universality of Human Rights.” Human Rights Quarterly 29(2):281–306.Google Scholar
Dubois, Dan. 2009. “The Authority of Peremptory Norms in International Law: State Consent or Natural Law.” Nordic Journal of International Law 78(2):133–175.Google Scholar
Dunne, Tim. 2003. “Society and Hierarchy in International Relations.” International Relations 17(3):303–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, David C. 2009. “On the Possibility of ‘International Community’.” International Studies Review 11(1):1–26.Google Scholar
Finnemore, Martha, and Toope, Stephen J.. 2001. “Alternatives to ‘Legalizations’: Richer Views on Politics and Law.” International Organization 55(3):743–758.Google Scholar
Foot, Rosemary. 2006. “Torture: The Struggle Over a Peremptory Norm in a Counter-Terrorist Era.” International Relations 20(2):131–151.Google Scholar
Fraser, Nancy. 1990. “Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of Actually Existing Democracy.” Social Text, No. 25/26, 56–80.Google Scholar
Gormley, Paul. 1985. “The Right to Life and the Rule of Non-Derogability: Peremptory Norms of Jus Cogens.” In The Right to Life International Law, edited by Ramcharan Bertrand, 120–159. Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hart, Herbert L.A. 2012. The Concept of Law, 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Henkin, Lois. 1981. The International Bill of Rights: The Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Hobson, John M. 2012. The Eurocentric Conception of World Politics: Western International Theory, 1760-2010. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoof van, Godefridus J.H. 1983. Rethinking the Sources of International Law. Deventer: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Huber, Max. 1928. Die Soziologischen Grundlagen des Völkerrechtes. Berlin: Rothschild.Google Scholar
Hurrell, Andrew. 2007. On Global Order: Power Values and the Constitution of International Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jackson, Robert. 2000. The Global Covenant: Human Conduct in a World of States. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
James, Alan. 1973. “Law and Order in International Society.” In The Bases of International Order; Essays in Honour of C.A.W. Manning, edited by Alan James, 60–85. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kadelbach, Stefan. 2006. “Jus Cogens, Obligations Erga Omnes, and Other Rules: The Identification of Fundamental Rules.” In The Fundamental Rules of the International Legal Order, edited by Christian Tomuschat and Jean-Marc Thouvenin, 21–41. Leiden: Martunis Nijhoff.Google Scholar
Kaplan, Morton, and Katzenbach, Nicholas. 1961. The Political Foundations of International Law. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Keating, Tom. 2013. “Pluralism and International Society.” In System, Society and the World: Exploring the English School of International Relations, edited by Robert W. Murray, 58–62. Bristol: e-international relations.Google Scholar
Kolb, Robert. 2015. Peremptory International Law – Jus Cogens: An Inventory. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
Koskenniemi, Martti. 2004. “Legal Universalism. Between Morality and Power in a World of States.” In Law, Justice, and Power: Between Reason and Will, edited by Sinkwan Cheng, 46–70. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Koskenniemi, Martti 2005. “International Law in Europe: Between Tradition and Renewal.” European Journal of International Law 16(1):113–124.Google Scholar
Kratochwil, Friedrich. 1989. Rules, Norms and Decisions: On the Condition of Practical and Legal Reasoning in International Relations and Domestic Affairs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kratochwil, Friedrich 2014. The Status of Law in World Society: Mediations on the Role and Rule of Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lauterpacht, Hersch. 1970. Collected Articles: 1. General Works. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Linklater, Andrew. 1998. The Transformation of Political Community. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Linklater, Andrew 2002. “The Problem of Harm in World Politics: Implications for the Sociology of State-Systems.” International Affairs 78(2):319–338.Google Scholar
Linklater, Andrew 2007. Critical Theory and World Politics: Citizenship, Sovereignty and Humanity. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mahner, Martin, and Bunge, Mario. 2001. “Function and Functionalism: A Synthetic Perspective.” Philosophy of Science 68(1):75–94.Google Scholar
Mayall, James. 2000. World Politics: Progress and Limits. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
McNair, Arnold D. 1961. The Law of Treaties. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Merton, Robert. 1957. Social Theory and Social Structure. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Messer, Ellen. 1997. “Pluralist Approaches to Human Rights.” Journal of Anthropological Research 53(3):293–317.Google Scholar
Nardin, Terry. 1998. “Legal Positivism as a Theory of International Society.” In International Society: Diverse Ethical Perspectives, edited by David Mapel and Terry Nardin, 17–36. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Navari, Cornelia. 2011. “The Concept of Practice in the English School.” European Journal of International Relations 17(4):611–630.Google Scholar
O’Connell, Mary E. 2012. “Jus Cogens: International Law’s Higher Ethical Norms.” In The Role of Ethics in International Law, edited by Donald Earl Childress III, 78–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Onuf, Nicholas. 1994. “The Constitution of International Society.” European Journal of International Law 5(1):1–19.Google Scholar
Orakhelashvili, Alexander. 2006. Peremptory Norms in International Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Parsons, Talcott. 1951. The Social System. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Petsche, Markus A. 2010. “Jus Cogens as a Vision of the International Legal Order.” Penn State International Law Review 29(2):233–273.Google Scholar
Pogge, Thomas. 2010. Politics as Usual: What Lies Behind the Pro-Poor Rhetoric. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Ralph, Jason. 2007. Defending the Society of States: Why America Opposes the International Criminal Court. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Retter, Marc. 2011. “Jus Cogens: Towards and International Common Good.” Transnational Legal Theory 2(4):537–571.Google Scholar
Reus-Smit, Christian. 1997. “The Constitutional Structure of International Society and the Nature of Fundamental Institutions.” International Organization 51(4):555–589.Google Scholar
Reus-Smit, Christian 1999. The Moral Purpose of the State: Culture, Social Identity, and Institutional Rationality in International Relations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Reus-Smit, Christian, ed. 2004. The Politics of International Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Reus-Smit, Christian. 2009. “Constructivism and the English School.” In Theorising International Society: English School Methods, edited by Cornelia Navari, 58–78. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Rozakis, Christos L. 1976. The Concept of Jus Cogens in the Law of Treaties. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Salcedo, Juan Antonio Carrillo. 1997. “Reflections on the Existence of a Hierarchy of Norms in International Law.” European Journal of International Law 8(4):583–595.Google Scholar
Saul, Matthew. 2015. “Identifying Jus Cogens Norms: The Interaction of Scholars and International Judges.” Asian Journal of International Law 5(1):1–29.Google Scholar
Schwarzenberger, Georg. 1965. “International Jus Cogens?” Texas Law Review 43(4):455–479.Google Scholar
Schwelb, Egon. 1967. “Some Aspects of International Jus Cogens as Formulated by the International Law Commission.” The American Journal of International Law 61(4):946–975.Google Scholar
Shelton, Dinah. 2006. “Normative Hierarchy in International Law.” The American Journal of International Law 100(2):291–323.Google Scholar
Simma, Bruno. 1994. “From Bilaterism to Community Interest in International Law.” Recueil des Cours 250:271–384.Google Scholar
Sohn, Louis B. 1982. “The New International Law: Protection of the Rights of Individuals Rather Than States.” The American University Law Review 32(1):1–64.Google Scholar
Tambakaki, Paulina. 2009. “Cosmopolitanism or Agonism? Alternative Visions of World Order.” Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 12(1):101–116.Google Scholar
Tambakaki, Paulina 2012. “Agonism in International Relations.” e-International Relations. Accessed April 27, 2016. http://www.e-ir.info/2012/09/18/agonism-in-international-relations/.Google Scholar
Tasioulas, John. 1996. “In Defence of Relative Normativity: Communitarian Values and the Nicaragua Case.” Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 16(1):85–128.Google Scholar
Tomuschat, Christian. 1993. “Obligations Arising From States Without or Against Their Will.” Recueil des Cours 241:195–374.Google Scholar
Tönnies, Ferdinand. 2002. Community and Society. New York: Dover.Google Scholar
United Nations. 1967. Yearbook of the International Law Commission 1 (1976). (UN Doc. A/CN.4/SER.A/1976).Google Scholar
Verdross, Alfred. 1937. “Forbidden Treaties in International Law.” The American Journal of International Law 31(4):571–577.Google Scholar
Verdross, Alfred 1966. “Jus Dispositivum and Jus Cogens in International Law.” The American Journal of International Law 60(1):55–63.Google Scholar
Vincent, Raymond J. 1986. Human Rights and International Relations: Issues and Responses. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Waldock, Humphrey. 1963. “Second Report of the Law of Treaties by the Special Rapporteur.” In Yearbook of the International Law Commission 2, United Nations (UN Doc. A/CN.4/156), pp. 36–94.Google Scholar
Weinert, Mathew. 2011. “Reframing the Pluralist−Solidarist Debate.” Millennium Journal of International Studies 40(1):1–21.Google Scholar
Weisburd, Mark A. 1995. “The Emptiness of the of the Concept of Jus Cogens as Illustrated by the War in Bosnia-Herzigovina.” Michigan Journal of International Law 17(1):1–51.Google Scholar
Wheeler, Nicholas J. 2000. Saving Strangers: Humanitarian Intervention in International Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wiener, Antje. 2009. “Enacting Meaning-In-Use: Qualitative Research on Norms and International Relations.” Review of International Studies 35(1):175–193.Google Scholar
Wiener, Antje, and Puetter, Uwe. 2009. “The Quality of Norms is What Actors Make of It: Critical Constructivist Research on Norms.” Journal of International Law and International Relations 5(1):1–16.Google Scholar
Wight, Martin. 1991. International Theory: The Three Traditions. London: Leicester University Press.Google Scholar
Williams, John. 2005. “Pluralism, Solidarism and the Emergence of World Society in English School Theory.” International Relations 19(1):19–38.Google Scholar
Williams, John 2015. Ethics, Diversity and World Politics: Saving Pluralism From Itself? Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, Peter. 2008. “The English School’s Approach to International Law.” In Theorising International Society: English School Methods, edited by Cornelia Navari, 167–189. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Wolf, Reinhard. 2011. “Respect and Disrespect in International Politics: The Significance of Status Recognition.” International Theory 3(1):105–142.Google Scholar
Wouters, Arno. 1999. Explanation Without a Cause. Utrecht: Zeno.Google Scholar
Wyler, Eric. 2002. “From ‘State Crime’ to Responsibility for ‘Serious Breaches of Obligations Under Peremptory Norms of General International Law’.” European Journal of International Law 13(5):1147–1160.Google Scholar