Abstract
TWAIL has a fundamental problem: its scholars don’t quite know how to relate to international law. This problem is constitutive of the theory, born as it was out of disillusionment with the failures of decolonisation and, of course, of international law. As a consequence, we find in TWAIL scholarship the juxtaposition of powerful critiques of international law alongside noisy calls for more international law. TWAIL’s aspirational projects are timid, constrained as they are by TWAIL’s overriding commitment to a legal regime its scholars bemoan. In this chapter, I propose to use counterfactuals to overcome the schizophrenia. I treat counterfactuals as a device that enables methodical explorations of alternative legal imaginaries. Contrary to Venzke, I propose exploring counterfactuals that are neither probable nor sensible within current regime. For TWAIL, counterfactuals have value if they facilitate thinking beyond the rigidity of the status quo. And that’s the point: if TWAIL’s mission is to upend Eurocentric epistemology and practice, we must begin to imagine international law beyond the parameters established by Europe.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: 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.