Chapter 9 reflects on the authors’ approach to redescribing the Cold War and its relationship to international law. It challenges conventional narratives by presenting the Cold War as a subject rather than an object, exploring its multiple manifestations and impacts on global legal and political landscapes. The chapter addresses three key themes: redescription, periodisation, and aftermath. It emphasises the plurality of international laws and Cold Wars experienced worldwide, disrupting the notion of a monolithic, bipolar conflict. The authors discuss the complexities of periodisation, highlighting how different perspectives can yield varying start and end dates for the Cold War. The chapter also explores the Cold War’s legacy in the present, arguing that its influence persists in contemporary global politics and international law. It challenges the idea of a clean break in 1989, suggesting instead that many Cold War dynamics continue to shape current events and legal frameworks. Finally, the authors present their work as both a critique of conventional Cold War narratives and a retrieval project, aiming at uncovering forgotten or marginalised perspectives on international law and global politics during this period. They call for a renewed appreciation of the legal experimentation, political non-alignment, and revolutionary possibilities that emerged during the Cold War era.

Chapter 4 explores how diplomacy was practiced during the Cold War, focusing on how the period reshaped diplomacy and international law. The chapter challenges the view of the Cold War as merely a diplomatic struggle, suggesting instead that it was a struggle over the nature of diplomacy itself. It examines three key struggles: the relationship between openness and secrecy, diplomacy as performance and the concept of neutrality. The Cold War saw a return to secret diplomacy – public diplomacy was intertwined with intelligence and covert operations. In contrast, anti-colonial diplomacy emphasised openness and solidarity, using international institutions as platforms for lawful encounters. The chapter also discusses the contest over neutrality, with European international law protecting neutrality, while the Amero-Soviets disparaged it. The Non-Aligned Movement embraced active neutralism, rejecting Cold War bipolarity. The chapter highlights the diplomatic style of the Third World, which sought to assert a different international law and world order. It critiques the Western response, characterised by anti-diplomacy, relegation, and interventionism. The chapter concludes by emphasising the importance of recognising the plurality of diplomatic practices and international laws during the Cold War, and the ongoing struggle to reconfigure global politics and law after empire.

Chapter 8 explores how the atomic dimension of the Cold War reshaped global politics and international law. The Cuban Missile Crisis serves as a focal point, illustrating the juridical patterning of the Amero-Soviet Cold War and the integration of nuclear weapons into geopolitical strategies. The chapter traces the evolution of anti-nuclear movements, from initial peace initiatives to the emergence of non-proliferation policies. It examines how the threat of nuclear annihilation created a new global consciousness, transcending traditional notions of sovereignty and national interests. The development of satellite surveillance systems is highlighted as a key factor in producing new forms of ‘planetary’ knowledge, contributing to advancements in earth sciences and environmental awareness. The chapter also discusses the paradoxical split between ‘peaceful’ and ‘aggressive’ uses of nuclear technology, as exemplified by the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the International Atomic Energy Agency. Ultimately, the atomic dimension of the Cold War is shown to have globalised the conflict, creating a "global civil war" that eroded distinctions between combatants and civilians. This new reality challenged existing legal frameworks and fostered the emergence of new global subjects, knowledge systems, and technologies that would shape the post–Cold War world.

This chapter introduces Rival Legalities: Practices of International Law in the Cold War, exploring international law’s practices during the Cold War. The authors aim to redescribe Cold War international law, revealing a rich plurality of legal forms and practices. Contrary to the narrative of the Cold War as an interruption in international law’s development, the authors propose viewing it as a period of rivalrous yet mutually constitutive accounts of the ‘international’. This perspective highlights diverse world-making projects beyond the East-West dichotomy, including anti-colonial and anti-anti-colonial efforts. Recognising the plurality of rival world-making projects demands a different conceptual frame than one focused solely on American-Soviet rivalry. The authors argue that international law during the Cold War was not a settled body of norms but a set of practices emerging from the period’s unique conditions. By examining these practices, the book offers a new lens on the Cold War’s impact on international law, highlighting the creative and strategic uses of law by various actors, particularly from the Global South, in their struggles for decolonisation and new international legal orders.

Chapter 3 introduces the term ‘Amero-Soviet’ to describe the Cold War dynamics between the United States and the Soviet Union, framed within the UN Charter. The chapter examines the Truman Doctrine’s focus on containment and the perceived Soviet threat of subversion. It highlights the dual strategies of both superpowers, involving public commitments to international organisations and covert activities to expand influence. ‘Amero-Sovietism’ is coined to capture the collaborative yet competitive project that shaped global governance through sovereign statehood, economic development, and modernisation. This collaboration unfolded in three phases: co-imperium, co-existence and détente, each reflecting a blend of competition and cooperation, formalised through legal instruments. The chapter explores the parallelism in US and Soviet approaches to international law, with both claiming lawfulness while accusing each other of opportunism. It concludes by examining the impact of Amero-Sovietism on global order, highlighting resistance from alternative world-making projects and the enduring influence of the Cold War on international relations. This new term underscores the intertwined nature of US–Soviet relations and their joint influence on shaping the post-war world.

Chapter 5 explores the Global South’s role in shaping international law during the Cold War, challenging the dominant North Atlantic narrative. It highlights the Third World’s active engagement in creating and contesting international law through three case studies: Algeria’s war for independence, the Anglo–Iranian Oil case, and the establishment of a UN Commission on Transnational Corporations. Algeria used the Geneva Conventions to internationalise its struggle against France, redefining anti-colonial warfare as a legitimate fight for self-determination. The Anglo-Iranian Oil case at the ICJ underscored the contestation over international judicial authority, with Iran asserting its sovereignty against the UK. The UN Commission on Transnational Corporations illustrated the Third World’s alliance with the Soviet Union to challenge corporate power. These examples reveal the Cold War as a period of legal experimentation and contestation, with the Third World playing a crucial role in shaping international law and challenging retrospective assumptions about the era.

Chapter 1 reveals the largely unexamined role of geography in shaping the conceptual architecture of International Law. Although legal doctrine depends heavily on spatial categories, the discipline rarely interrogates the geographic imaginaries or cartographic histories that sustain them. This chapter excavates the deep entanglement between legal and geographic thought, tracing how Eurocentric cartography helped construct the modern state system and naturalize the “World Map” as International Law’s default visual ontology. The chapter shows how geographic thought has undergone a conceptual reckoning that International Law has yet to confront.

Despite major transformations in how authority and power are exercised today, international legal reasoning remains anchored in a static, territorial imaginary inherited from statist mapping. This disjuncture narrows the discipline’s capacity to grasp emergent forms of global ordering that operate across discontinuous, networked, and materially mediated spaces. The chapter therefore calls for renewed engagement with contemporary geographic theory, not as a doctrinal supplement but as a means of reworking the spatial premises embedded in legal thought. It frames the book as a project of grafted interdisciplinarity – cultivating new conceptual tools while reconfiguring inherited ones – and invites international lawyers to rethink how global legal space is visualized, institutionalized, and materially enacted.

Chapter 4 advances a transformative theory of territorialization by challenging the deep-rooted assumption that legal authority is spatially organized through fixed, contiguous, and mutually exclusive state territories. It argues that this assumption is not a natural fact of international legal order but the product of an inherited cartographic theory as practice. The chapter traces how this worldview emerged from early modern cartographic science and the geometric legacies of Brunelleschi, Copernicus, and Descartes, whose techniques compressed the Earth into a singular, divisible object. Over time, this image became embedded in legal doctrine.

In response, the chapter develops the concept of juriscapes. Whereas jurisdictions depict authority as a bounded, planar geometry, juriscapes capture the textured, overlapping, and trans-territorial formations through which legal rule is produced in practice. Juriscapes thus complement, rather than supplant, jurisdictions. They reveal what the geometric template of jurisdiction cannot – how legal authority thickens or thins, stretches or fractures, according to the material practices, institutional logics, and spatial continuities and discontinuities that shape territorial rule.

Reimagining territorialization through juriscapes widens the discipline’s circumference of vision, allowing international lawyers to apprehend a fuller spectrum of spatial practices that define global legal rule today.

Chapter 5 examines the Hindu polity literature, a body of early twentieth-century Indian academic works on ancient Indian political ideas, states, constitutional law, and international law. Produced largely by scholars affiliated with the University of Calcutta, these works were partly motivated by a desire to counter Western depictions of Indian constitutional history as backward and despotic. Drawing on sources such as the Arthashastra, the ancient Indian treatise on governance, the Hindu polity literature argued that ancient India had republican institutions, constitutional monarchies, and legal systems grounded in progressive principles. Indian scholars emphasized themes like social contract theory, the existence of international law, and traditions of democratic governance, often comparing these traditions favorably with Western ones. Echoing the anti-colonial Swadeshi political movement that emerged in Bengal at the same time, this scholarship reached its zenith in the 1920s. The chapter discusses the relationship of this body of literature to ideologies such as pan-Asianism and also mentions works on Islamic constitutional history that appeared in colonial India during the same period.

Chapter 6 diagnoses the crisis of Kartenpolitik that has shaped how international lawyers perceive, organize, and legitimate global space. The chapter opens with the fading of the Apollonian dream, the belief that the world can be grasped through a single, sunlit cartographic totality. The map that once furnished ontological security for global governance no longer aligns with the pointillistic geographies increasingly structuring authority today.

The chapter argues that International Law’s spatial crisis is conceptual rather than technical. Drawing on Earthrise, the chapter shows how alternative ways of “writing the Earth” destabilize the assumption that the cartographic globe exhausts planetary reality.

To confront this crisis, it calls for a shift from cartographic fidelity to juriscape literacy – the capacity to recognize, interpret, and navigate the noncontiguous landscapes of contemporary legal authority. Juriscapes illuminate how responsibility attaches at ports, platforms, chokepoints, cloud regions, and extraction sites, revealing spatial grammars obscured by the bordered World Map.

The chapter closes by framing the future of the legal globe as a composite cartography: a coexistence of spatial texts through which International Law must learn to perceive, institutionalize, and argue the Earth anew.

Chapter 6 explores early 20th-century scholarship on ancient Jewish public law written in the Jewish Diaspora and Mandatory Palestine. The chapter shows how rabbis and legal scholars, many of whom were associated in some way with the Tel Aviv School of Law and Economics, argued that Jewish law contained democratic, egalitarian, and international legal principles compatible with modern values. They claimed that Jewish law could be seen as an innovative legal system capable of being used to create the constitutional law of a modern state. In Jewish law, they argued, one could find notions such as the rule of law, separation of powers, equality, norms governing international relations, and principles urging the humane treatment of foreigners, women, and slaves. The chapter discusses critiques of this literature from secular liberals, right-wing nationalists, and ultra-Orthodox thinkers. It also briefly mentions analogous discussions of Islamic public law found in works published by Palestinian-Arab authors, and the impact of this literature on Jewish constitutional discourse in the period immediately before and after Israeli independence in 1948.

This chapter evaluates the efficacy of Emulated Guardians, focusing on the EU’s out-of-court dispute settlement bodies (ODSs) and Meta’s Oversight Board, using criteria adapted from Peter Cane’s administrative law framework: rules, authority, and culture. It argues that neither body currently functions as a truly effective adjudicatory overseer of corporate power due to weak mandates and structural limitations. These shortcomings reflect a broader challenge of emulative institutions: they replicate formal structures from public law but lack the enabling sociopolitical contexts—such as democratic rulemaking or judicial authority—that underpin their role models. However, the chapter also identifies the performative potential of these bodies. By leveraging adjudicative symbolism and public expectations, both ODSs and the Oversight Board can incrementally expand their normative authority. This process, while slow and fraught, mirrors historical adjudicative strategies seen in domestic and international courts. Moreover, early practices show potential for innovation, such as integrating large language models into decision-making. By analyzing rules, authority, and culture, the chapter highlights the ambivalence of Emulated Guardians: while they risk becoming ceremonial “accountability theater,” they may also lay the groundwork for meaningful control over powerful private organizations. These findings have implications far beyond content moderation, applying to emerging governance challenges in AI, biotechnology, and other globalized sectors.

How can we regulate private power in a globalized, digitized world where state-centered sovereignty, territorial boundaries, and traditional legal frameworks fall short? This introductory chapter provides an overview of the book, its arguments, methodology, and contributions, addressing the urgent need for accountability mechanisms to tame the increasingly unilateral global governance by a handful of corporations. Focusing on content moderation, it examines two key case studies: the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA) and Meta’s Oversight Board. Both exemplify “emulation,” where public law mechanisms, particularly constitutional and administrative, are adapted to private governance.

Analyzing these “Emulated Guardians”–institutions borrowing the legitimacy of courts while operating in private or hybrid contexts–this book highlights their reliance on performativity and public perception to assert authority. Through interdisciplinary analysis, empirical findings, and expert interviews, the book reveals the ambivalent outcomes of emulation: promising tools for accountability yet sometimes lacking practical efficacy. Ultimately, this work frames these mechanisms as harbingers of new accountability norms, arguing that governance in the digital age demands not only novel institutions but also robust public engagement. It situates these developments within broader debates about power, legitimacy, and the evolving role of public law ideals in globalized, networked environments.

These conclusions do not intend to summarize and even less to close the debate but instead to revert to the main issues addressed during the conference and maybe identify further issues for research. All contributors agree that not only a discussion on democracy and representation in and by international organisations is not purely speculative or theoretical, but that it seems necessary today. Despite this, contributors are not all in agreement on the need to use the concept of representation when discussing democratization of international organizations. Some question the link between democracy and representation, or whether using representative systems is even feasible in international organizations. This, in turn, leads to the various definitions of the concept of representation in political science and in law. A multiple international representation system (MIRS) as proposed by Besson and Marti is based on a strict concept of democratic representation and contrasts with other more flexible concepts such as ‘descriptive’ or ‘mimetic’ representation. In the end, the chapters address the merits of various systems, including in existing processes of global governance, for further democratizing international organisations.

This paper proposes demoicratic representation as a subtype of representation in international organizational practice. It develops a social ontology of the People and theory of representation which underpins the thesis that the People is represented only by all the different types of representative persons who act within different types of governmental institutions and procedures of the People. A further important tenet of the paper is that democratic Peoples are accountable to each other as Peoples and to each other’s citizens. In a union of Peoples whose representatives act under any decision rule there is a possible second-order consent-deficit about the decision rule. Consequently, in demoi-cratic representation IOs ought to embody all the representative institutions of the People in their organization or be part of a system of mutual accountability and thereby assure demoicratic representation by IOs. Demoicratic representation ought not to be understood as working exclusively under the principle of consent. Rather it is the representational space in which the consent-deficit about the decision rule of inter-People relations is addressed and calibration sought.

The Introduction sets out the question and the scope of this book, and its theoretical and methodological framework. Drawing on historical materialism, it explains the anti-fetishist understanding of information taken by this book, which treats information as embedded in and constitutive of social relations and implicated in the distribution of power and order-making. Based on this historical materialist understanding of information, the Introduction sets out the book’s critique on the liberal treatment of information and its main argument that human rights and free trade have jointly and dialectically formed a hegemonic conceptual framework for the governance of information under international law which obscures the crucial material dimension of information and its connection to power.