Abstract
Tom Ginsburg's thought-provoking Authoritarian International Law? invites us to reflect on the potential changes to the international legal order that might flow from the global decline of liberal democracy and the corresponding rise of illiberal authoritarian regimes. Given that Ginsburg's cautionary tale is predicated on the central interest of authoritarians in the survival of their regimes and their concerns about internal security, it is not surprising that many of the implications he identifies— which involve the expansion of norms that facilitate internal repression, enable repressive regulation of online expression, and dilute international democracy promotion—concern international law's regulation of states’ internal affairs. If Ginsburg's predictions about expanding authoritarianism are correct, however, we should also consider the implications for the evolution of international law in the external security realm, and in particular, for the legal regime governing the use of force and intervention in the affairs of other states. In this essay, I suggest that the expansion of authoritarianism is likely to diminish legal accountability of outside states that support repression by such regimes; to entrench the legal status of existing authoritarian regimes confronting domestic political violence; and to weaken the legal basis for Security Council interventions rooted in the “responsibility to protect” principle. When authoritarian states do wage wars, particularly when they intervene in civil wars, we should expect that their compliance with international humanitarian law (IHL) will be weak.
Highlights
Tom Ginsburg’s thought-provoking Authoritarian International Law? invites us to reflect on the potential changes to the international legal order that might flow from the global decline of liberal democracy and the corresponding rise of illiberal authoritarian regimes
If Ginsburg’s predictions about expanding authoritarianism are correct, we should consider the implications for the evolution of international law in the external security realm, and in particular, for the legal regime governing the use of force and intervention in the affairs of other states
I suggest that the expansion of authoritarianism is likely to diminish legal accountability of outside states that support repression by such regimes; to entrench the legal status of existing authoritarian regimes confronting domestic political violence; and to weaken the legal basis for Security Council interventions rooted in the “responsibility to protect” principle
Summary
A sampling of authoritarian regimes across the globe reveals the wide range of legitimating ideologies on which they rely. The Communist Party regime in China relies on a narrative of developmental prowess and governing efficiency in generating rapid economic progress and lifting hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. Under President Putin, Russia highlights the state’s role in affirming traditional religious and patriotic values,[9] and in serving as a bulwark against the spread of Western decadence. A legitimating ideology that deserves special mention in evaluating the prospects of the use of force by illiberal and authoritarian regimes is nationalism. (noting that “[t]raditional Russian spiritual values are being revived” and invoking “respect for family and faith traditions, and patriotism”). (noting that “[t]raditional Russian spiritual values are being revived” and invoking “respect for family and faith traditions, and patriotism”). 10 Basic Law of Governance, No A/90 (Mar. 1, 1992)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
