Abstract
The article addresses an issue of the role of language and legal scholarship within the ongoing debate on constitutionalisation of international law. The author argues that the lack of common legal language can call into question usefulness of international constitutionalism vocabulary for better understanding of legal changes in contemporary international society. In fact, scholars use different languages within the mentioned debate. There are within it two opposing ‘cohesive elites’, that is to say, two elites sharing different moral, political and social values, and different aims relating to the conduct of academic discourse. Consequently, the article seeks to point out some weaknesses of the constitutionalist approach, which can justify scepticism about constitutionalisation of international law conceived both as a legal process within international society and as a research agenda.
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 callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
