Abstract
Tom Ginsburg's important article comes at a critical time. The COVID-19 crisis has spurred heated debates about political regimes vis-à-vis countries’ bureaucratic capacity. Political regime type is the core independent variable in Ginsburg's conceptualization of authoritarian international law—a global projection of authoritarian states’ domestic politics. This essay echoes Ginsburg's insightful observation but complicates it by shifting the focus to the less-known perspectives of secondary authoritarian countries. I use a matrix case study of two smaller states, Vietnam and Cambodia, on two prominent issues, the South China Sea (SCS) and the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), to demonstrate small states’ effort to use international law to “hedge” big powers. As the case studies show, small authoritarian states, not unlike other small states, prefer a pluralist vision of international law, even if they may at times embrace the alternative model offered by big authoritarian powers. These states thus have an important, perhaps unexpected, role to play in preserving the pluralist international legal order and mitigating the hegemonic tendencies of authoritarian international law.
Highlights
Tom Ginsburg’s important article comes at a critical time
As the case studies show, small authoritarian states, not unlike other small states, prefer a pluralist vision of international law, even if they may at times embrace the alternative model offered by big authoritarian powers
These states have an important, perhaps unexpected, role to play in preserving the pluralist international legal order and mitigating the hegemonic tendencies of authoritarian international law
Summary
International law, like all law, is Janus-faced: despite criticism of its Western and colonial roots,[5] it has played an undeniably pivotal role in small states’ resistance to superior powers,[6] though often in subtle ways. In studying how small authoritarian states employ international law, I have chosen one of the most prominent boundary disputes (the SCS) and one of the most ambitious economic projects (the BRI) because they bring to the fore small states’ acute sensitivities toward power asymmetry. The case studies highlight nuanced modes of dispute resolution and resistance that cannot be captured by the aggregate data used in Ginsburg’s article.[7] Though both Vietnam and Cambodia are developing, authoritarian countries with similar geopolitical concerns, Cambodia is more dependent on and closely aligned with the resident great power, the People’s Republic of China (PRC, or China).[8] This critical factor influences how each state evaluates its regime survival risks and drives its engagement with the international legal order
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 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.
