What Would E.H. Carr Say? How International Institutions Address Peaceful Political Change

Abstract

I propose a re-reading of Carr’s view of rules binding state behavior, and identify exactly what is meant by these necessary “foundations”. The conclusion to the “Twenty Years’ Crisis”, especially, stands in opposition to common readings of his work. Carr actively engages with the prospect of binding international institutions, and establishes conditions for their ability to ease peaceful political change. The crux of his claims about international law, in particular, is the possibility of law taking into account the protean nature of politics. Much as he argued that economics could not be conceived of as separate from political power, so too was it necessary for law to recognize that which was antecedent to it. Carr had in mind a reflexive aspect of international law whereby the law could somehow adjust itself, or suspend itself entirely, when faced with political necessity. Yet he fell short of fully articulating a mechanism by which this might be achieved. Today’s international institutions, I argue, feature provisions that attempt just such an adaptation to uncertainty.