Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-07T22:58:13.580Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Opportunity and impasse: social change and the limits of international legal strategy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 August 2020

Lee McConnell Open the ORCID record for Lee McConnell [Opens in a new window]
Lee McConnell*
Affiliation:
University of Bristol, Office 3.21, 8-10 Berkeley Square, Bristol, UK
*
Corresponding author. E-mail: Lee.mcconnell@bristol.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A diverse range of actors, from practitioners and academics to civil society groups and activists, appear to see hope in international law for the advancement of their causes. This paper examines whether this optimism is well-founded. It explores whether international law can serve as an agent of social change, and whether it can accommodate radical changes in social order. It begins by exposing a formalist stance that is immanent to much ‘legal activist’ discourse. It then explores links between this mode of jurisprudential thought and idealist epistemology. Drawing from the philosophy of Theodor Adorno, and in particular his notion of ‘identity-thinking’, it uncovers structural connections between formalism, idealism, law, and economy that call into question international law's socially-transformative potential. The perspective advanced in this paper falls somewhere between the polarities of opportunity and impasse, seeking to acknowledge the importance of legal strategies in safeguarding the disenfranchised, while remaining alive to their potential dangers and limitations.

Keywords

international lawsocial changeformalismepistemologyAdornoKelsenPashukanis
Type
Research Article
Information
International Theory , Volume 14 , Issue 1 , March 2022 , pp. 25 - 56
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

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

Adorno, Theodor. [1951] 2005. Minima Moralia. London: Verso.Google Scholar
Adorno, Theodor. [1956] 2013. Against Epistemology: A Metacritique. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Adorno, Theodor. [1959] 2002. Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Adorno, Theodor. [1968] 2000. Introduction to Sociology. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Adorno, Theodor. 1973. Negative Dialectics. New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Adorno, Theodor. 1976. “Introduction.” In The Positivist Dispute in German Sociology, edited by Adorno, Theodor, et al. , 1–67. London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
Adorno, Theodor. 1977. “The Actuality of Philosophy.” Telos 31: 120–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adorno, Theodor. 2005. “On Subject and Object.” In Critical Models: Interventions and Catchwords, 245–58. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Allott, Philip. 2001. Eunomia: New Order for a New World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allott, Philip. 2016. Eutopia: New Philosophy and New Law for a Troubled World. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Altwicker, Tilmann, and Diggelmann, Oliver. 2014. “How is Progress Constructed in International Legal Scholarship?” European Journal of International Law 25(2): 425–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Austin, John. [1832] 2001. The Province of Jurisprudence Determined. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Beardsworth, Richard. 1996. Derrida and the Political. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bergmann, Gustav, and Zerby, Lewis. 1945. “The Formalism in Kelsen's Pure Theory of Law.” Ethics 55(2): 110–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernstein, Jay M. 2002. “Re-enchanting Nature.” In Reading McDowell: On Mind and World, edited by Smith, Nicholas, 217–45. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bittle, Steven, and Snider, Laureen. 2013. “Examining the Ruggie Report: Can Voluntary Guidelines Tame Global Capitalism?” Critical Criminology 21(2): 177–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradlow, Daniel, and Hunter, David, eds. 2020. Advocating Social Change Through International Law. Boston: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buck-Morss, Susan. 1979. The Origin of Negative Dialectics. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Bull, Hedley. 1986. “Hans Kelsen and International Law.” In Essays on Kelsen, edited by Tur, Richard and Twining, William, 321–35. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Charlesworth, Hilary. 2002. “Author! Author! A Response to David Kennedy.” Harvard Human Rights Journal 15: 127–32.Google Scholar
Chimni, Bhupinder S. 1993. International Law and World Order: A Critique of Contemporary Approaches. New Delhi: Sage.Google Scholar
Choudhury, Barnali. 2011. “Exception Provisions as a Gateway to Incorporating Human Rights Issues into International Investment Agreements.” Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 49: 670–716.Google Scholar
Clapham, Andrew. 2006. Human Rights Obligations of Non-State Actors. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, Richard. 2016. The Institutional Problem in Modern International Law. Oxford: Hart/Bloomsbury Publishing.Google Scholar
Cook, Deborah. 2006. “Adorno's Critical Materialism.” Philosophy and Social Criticism 32(6): 719–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, Deborah. 2014. Adorno on Nature. Abingdon: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Copleston, Frederick. 1994. A History of Philosophy, vol. 6. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
d'Aspremont, Jean. 2011. Formalism and the Sources of International Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derrida, Jacques. 1996. “Remarks on Deconstruction and Pragmatism.” In Deconstruction and Pragmatism, edited by Mouffe, Chantal, 79–90. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Deva, Surya, and Bilchitz, David, eds. 2017. Building a Treaty on Business and Human Rights: Context and Contours. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Devenney, Mark. 2004. Ethics and Politics in Contemporary Theory. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ebenstein, William. 1969. The Pure Theory of Law. New York: AM Kelly.Google Scholar
Ebenstein, William. 1971. “The Pure Theory of Law: Demythologizing Legal Thought.” California Law Review 59(3): 617–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freyenhagen, Fabian. 2013. Adorno's Practical Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Golder, Ben. 2016. “Theorizing Human Rights.” In The Oxford Handbook of the Theory of International Law, edited by Orford, Anne and Hoffmann, Florian, 684–700. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hall, Stephen. 2001. “The Persistent Spectre: Natural Law, International Order and the Limits of Legal Positivism.” European Journal of International Law 12(2): 269–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammer, Stefan. 1999. “A Neo-Kantian Theory of Knowledge in Kelsen's Pure Theory of Law.” In Normativity and Norms: Critical Perspectives on Kelsenian Theory, edited by Paulson, Stanley and Litschewski-Paulson, Bonnie, 177–94. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Hang, Sharon. 2014. “Investing in Human Rights: Using Bilateral Investment Treaties to Hold Multinational Corporations Liable for Labour Rights Violations.” Fordham International Law Journal 37(4): 1215–64.Google Scholar
Head, Michael. 2008. Evgeny Pashukanis: A Critical Reappraisal. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Held, David. 2004. Introduction to Critical Theory. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, Florian. 2009. “Human Rights, the Self and the Other: Reflections on a Pragmatic Theory of Human Rights.” In International Law and its Others, edited by Orford, Anne, 221–44. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Horkheimer, Max, and Adorno, Theodor. [1944] 1997. Dialectic of Enlightenment. London: Verso.Google Scholar
Jarvis, Simon. 1998. Adorno: A Critical Introduction. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jarvis, Simon. 2004. “Adorno, Marx, Materialism.” In The Cambridge Companion to Adorno, edited by Huhn, Tom, 79–100. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jessop, Bob. 1990. State Theory: Putting Capitalism in its Place. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Kammerhofer, Jörg. 2009. “Kelsen – Which Kelsen? A Reapplication of Pure Theory to International Law.” Leiden Journal International Law 22(2): 225–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kammerhofer, Jörg. 2011. Uncertainty in International Law. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kammerhofer, Jörg. 2016. “International Legal Positivism.” In Oxford Handbook of the Theory of International Law, edited by Orford, Anne and Hoffman, Florian, 407–26. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel. [1781] 1998. Critique of Pure Reason. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Karavias, Markos. 2013. Corporate Obligations under International Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karavias, Markos. 2015. “Shared Responsibility and Multinational Enterprises.” Netherlands International Law Review 62(1): 91–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelsen, Hans. 1923. Hauptprobleme der Staatsrechtslehre: Entwickelt aus der Lehre von Rechtssatz. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr.Google Scholar
Kelsen, Hans. 1949. General Theory of Law and State. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Kelsen, Hans. 1952. Principles of International Law. New York: Rinehart & Co.Google Scholar
Kelsen, Hans. 1955. The Communist Theory of Law. New York: Frederick A. Praeger Inc.Google Scholar
Kelsen, Hans. 1967. The Pure Theory of Law. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelsen, Hans. 2000. “Legal Formalism and the Pure Theory of Law (1929).” In Weimar: A Jurisprudence in Crisis, edited by Jacobson, Arthur and Schlink, Bernhard, 76–83. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Kennedy, David. 1994. “A New World Order: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow.” Transnational Law and Contemporary Problems 4(2): 329–76.Google Scholar
Kennedy, David. 2000. “When Renewal Repeats: Thinking Against the Box.” NYU Journal of International Law and Politics 32: 335–500.Google Scholar
Kennedy, David. 2002. “The International Human Rights Movement: Part of the Problem?” Harvard Human Rights Journal 15: 101–26.Google Scholar
Kennedy, Duncan. 1985. “The Role of Law in Economic Thought: Essays on the Fetishism of Commodities.” American University Law Review 34: 939–1001.Google Scholar
Khoury, Stefanie, and Whyte, David. 2017. Corporate Human Rights Violations: Global Prospects for Legal Action. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Knox, Robert. 2009. “Marxism, International Law and Political Strategy.” Leiden Journal of International Law 22(3): 413–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koen, Raymond. 2011. “In Defence of Pashukanism.” Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal 14(4): 104–69.Google Scholar
Koskenniemi, Martti. 2001. The Gentle Civilizer of Nations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koskenniemi, Martti. 2006. From Apology to Utopia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koskenniemi, Martti. 2009. “The Politics of International Law – 20 Years Later.” European Journal of International Law 20(1): 7–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koskenniemi, Martti. 2017. “Between Commitment and Cynicism.” In International Law as a Profession, edited by d'Aspremont, Jean, 38–66. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krajewski, Markus. 2020. “A Nightmare or a Noble Dream? Establishing Investor Obligations Through Treaty-Making and Treaty-Application.” Business and Human Rights Journal 5(2): 105–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laclau, Ernesto. 1990. Reflections on the Revolution of Our Time. London: Verso.Google Scholar
Laclau, Ernesto. 1997. “Converging on an Open Quest.” Diacritics 27(1): 16–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laclau, Ernesto. 2007. “Why do Empty Signifiers Matter in Politics.” In Ernesto Laclau Emancipation(s), 36–46. London: Verso.Google Scholar
Laclau, Ernesto, and Mouffe, Chantal. 1985. Hegemony and Socialist Strategy. London: Verso.Google Scholar
Leiter, Brian. 1999. “Review: Positivism, Formalism, Realism.” Columbia Law Review 99(4): 1138–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linarelli, John, Salomon, Margot E., and Sornarajah, M.. 2018. The Misery of International Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marks, Susan. 2003. The Riddle of All Constitutions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marx, Karl. [1867] 1976. Capital, vol. 1. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Marx, Karl. [1894] 1991. Capital, vol. 3. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Marx, Karl. 1973. Grundrisse. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Marx, Karl, and Engels, Friedrich. [1867] 2004. The German Ideology. New York: International Publishers.Google Scholar
McConnell, Lee. 2016. Extracting Accountability from Non-State Actors in International Law. Abingdon: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McConnell, Lee. 2017. “Assessing the Feasibility of a Business and Human Rights Treaty.” International and Comparative Law Quarterly 66(1): 143–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Methven O'Brien, Claire. 2018. “The Home State Duty to Regulate Human Rights Impacts of TNCs Abroad: A Rebuttal.” Business and Human Rights Journal 3(1): 47–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miéville, China. 2004. Between Equal Rights: A Marxist Theory of International Law. Boston: Brill.Google Scholar
Miller, Russell. 2008. “Paradoxes of Personality: Transnational Corporations, Non-Governmental Organizations and Human Rights.” In Progress in International Law, edited by Miller, Russell and Bratspies, Rebecca M., 381–406. Leiden: Martinus Nihoff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Connor, Brian. 2004. Adorno's Negative Dialectic. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pashukanis, Evgeny. [1924] 1983. Law and Marxism: A General Theory. London: Pluto Press.Google Scholar
Pashukanis, Evgeny. 1980. “Selections from the Encyclopaedia of State and Law.” In Pashukanis: Selected Writings on Marxism and Law, edited by Beirne, Piers and Sharlet, Robert, 165–85. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Paulson, Stanley. 1992. “The Neo-Kantian Dimension of Kelsen's Pure Theory of Law.” Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 12(3): 311–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paulson, Stanley. 2008. “Formalism, Free Law, and the Cognition Quandary: Hans Kelsen's Approaches to Legal Interpretation.” University of Queensland Law Journal 27(2): 7–39.Google Scholar
Portmann, Roland. 2010. Legal Personality in International Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pritchard, Elizabeth. 2002. “Bilderverbot Meets Body in Adorno's Inverse Theology.” Harvard Theological Law Review 95(3): 291–318.Google Scholar
Purvis, Nigel. 1991. “Critical Legal Studies in Public International Law.” Harvard International Law Journal 32(1): 81–127.Google Scholar
Reimann, Mathias. 1990. “Nineteenth Century German Legal Science.” Boston College Law Review 31: 837–97.Google Scholar
Ross, Hamish. 2001. “Hans Kelsen and the Utopia of Theoretical Purism.” Kings Law Journal 12(2): 174–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ryan, Michael. 1982. Marxism and Deconstruction. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Ryngaert, Cedric. 2010. “Imposing International Duties on Non-State Actors and the Legitimacy of International Law.” In Non-State Actor Dynamics in International Law, edited by Ryngaert, Cedric and Noortmann, Math, 69–91. Surrey: Ashgate Publishing.Google Scholar
Shklar, Judith. 1986. Legalism: Law, Morals and Political Trials. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Simpson, Alfred William Brian. 1990. “Legal Iconoclasts and Legal Ideals.” University of Cincinnati Law Review 58(3): 819–44.Google Scholar
Sinclair, Guy F. 2017. To Reform the World: International Organizations and the Making of Modern States. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singh, Sahib. 2016. “Koskenniemi's Images of the International Lawyer.” Leiden Journal of International Law 29(3): 699–726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skouretis, Thomas. 2011. The Notion of Progress in International Law Discourse. The Hague: TMC Asser Press.Google Scholar
Somek, Alexander. 2007. “Kelsen Lives.” European Journal of International Law 18(3): 409–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suganami, Hidemi. 2007. “Understanding Sovereignty through Kelsen/Schmitt.” Review of International Studies 33(3): 511–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tur, Richard. 1986. “The Kelsenian Enterprise.” In Essays on Kelsen, edited by Tur, Richard and Twining, William, 149–86. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Van Dam, Cees, and Gregor, Filip. 2017. “Corporate Responsibility to Respect Human Rights vis-à-vis Legal Duty of Care.” In Human Rights in Business, edited by Álvarez Rubio, Juan José and Yiannibas, Katerina, 119–38. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
von Bernstorff, Jochen. 2010. The Public International Law Theory of Hans Kelsen. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warrington, Ronnie. 1980. “Standing Pashukanis on His Head.” Capital and Class 12: 102–06.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weissbrodt, David, and Kruger, Muria. 2005. “Human Rights Responsibilities of Businesses as Non-State Actors.” In Non State Actors and Human Rights, edited by Alston, Philip, 315–50. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Williams, Patricia. 1987. “Alchemical Notes: Reconstructing Ideals from Deconstructed Rights.” Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review 22(2): 401–34.Google Scholar
Zerk, Jennifer. 2006. Multinationals and Corporate Social Responsibility. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar