Support For International Law Research Articles

Historical analogies, traumatic past and responses to the war in Ukraine

Abstract This article examines the use of historical analogies by political leaders during foreign policy crises. Specifically, we focus on the German, Polish and Czech leaderships' reactions to Russia's invasion of Ukraine and investigate the historical analogies which leaders invoked to justify their responses to Russia's aggression. The existing scholarship recognizes the importance of historical analogies in foreign policy decision-making, but the literature focuses predominantly on several high-profile analogies (i.e. the Munich Agreement or the Vietnam War) and lacks comparative perspective. We employ a dual-method approach that combines qualitative coding with semantic network analysis, and conduct a comparative analysis of the full spectrum of analogies used by Polish, Czech and German policy-makers. We find that politicians did not focus on a single overarching analogy, but employed a wide array of historical references. We also find that even though the countries' policies largely aligned and that their leaders often invoked the same events, the meaning of analogies and the signals they sent differed substantially across cases. Analysing the full spectrum of analogies demonstrates that justifications for supporting Ukraine were shaped more by these states' own historical traumas than by their sympathy for Ukraine, support for international law, or desire to uphold the rules-based international order.

Support for international trade law: The US and the EU compared.

In this article we compare United States and European Union support for bilateral and multilateral international trade law. We assess the support for international law of both trading blocs by focusing on the following four dimensions: leadership, consent, compliance and internalization. Although we find strong support for international trade law from both the US and the EU in general, we also witness some variation, most notably in relation to the design of preferential trade agreements (PTAs) and compliance with World Trade Organization (WTO) law. Turning to explaining these (moderate) differences, we argue that outcomes in US trade policy can best be explained by a domestic political factor, namely the direct influence of interest groups. Although the involvement of societal interests also goes a long way in explaining EU behavior, it does not tell the entire story. We posit that, in EU trade policy, institutions are a particular conditioning factor that needs to be stressed. Moreover, we suggest that foreign policy considerations in managing trade relations have characterized EU’s support for international trade law.

Fortunes of a Profession: American Foundations and International Law, 1910–1939

In the Progressive Era large-scale foundation philanthropy emerged at the same time as the American international law community gained in professional standing and political influence. From the 1900s, international lawyers forged a strategic alliance in particular with Carnegie philanthropy. After the First World War, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Commonwealth Fund also gave grants to international lawyers, even if they preferred projects informed by sociological jurisprudence. All three foundations supported the Harvard Research in International Law, the most significant private attempt at codifying international law in the twentieth century. Although foundation support for international law waned in the 1930s, the Harvard Research served as a template for the post-1945 international legal order. Ultimately, foundation support for the research was conditioned by how international law related to American power in the world.

The legacy of Reykjavik and the future of nuclear disarmament

Twenty-five years ago in Reykjavik, Iceland, US President Ronald Reagan and Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev walked to the threshold of a nuclear-free world—and then turned back. Reykjavik has since become synonymous with the unforeseen and anticlimactic in nuclear diplomacy. Another feature of Reykjavik’s legacy is less well-understood—its constructiveness. The authors contend that nuclear disarmament should serve as the public keystone of US efforts to reduce nuclear threats across the board and compare and contrast the geopolitical and diplomatic contexts of 1986 with today. The authors identify three historical parallels—fiscal pressures, nuclear accidents, and missile defense; and they identify three discontinuities—a transition from global bipolarity to multipolarity, a shift in US priorities from arms cuts to nonproliferation, and weakening support for international law in US domestic politics. From this comparative analysis, the authors deem Reykjavik to have imparted three core lessons: Disarmament agreements are achievable if the right conditions exist. Even if unrealized, good-faith disarmament efforts provide the diplomatic framework and global credibility needed for nuclear diplomacy to succeed. And Reykjavik’s successes and shortfalls testify to the crucial importance of leadership in making progress on the entangled matters of nuclear nonproliferation, arms control, and disarmament.

Compulsory Pilotage in the Torres Strait: Overcoming Unacceptable Risks to a Sensitive Marine Environment

This article explores arguments about the international legality of compulsory pilotage in the Torres Strait. Although the measure has been opposed by some user states because the Torres Strait is a strait used for international navigation, Australia and Papua New Guinea believe compulsory pilotage is necessary to overcome the risks posed by unpiloted shipping passing through the hazardous waters. The good health of the marine environment in the Torres Strait is essential, particularly for the well-being of indigenous peoples of the area. The article concludes that compulsory pilotage in Torres Strait reflects the obligations of both the user and border states to preserve and protect the marine environment and has support in international law.

BROWN, C. E. 2002. World Energy Resources. xxv + 810 pp. Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer-Verlag. Price Euros 199.00 (+ VAT at local rate), Sfr 322.00, £139.50, US $225.00 (hard covers). ISBN 3 540 42634 5.

It is difficult to be up-to-date when writing about the world energy scene. Oil and gas prices, in particular, can change markedly over short periods of time, often for unexpected reasons. This book review was written as the world waited to see if the US would invade Iraq, ostensibly to ensure UN resolutions are upheld (though to many people this looks more like an attempt to protect future US oil supplies than support for international law). Does this expensive book, which is written from a distinctly US viewpoint, offer anything that is not already available? The book is divided into four sections. Part I, Introduction to primary energy – nonrenewable sources (153 pages); Part II, Renewable energy sources and alternative energy technologies (82 pages); Part III, United States – energy forecasts and modelling (78 …

Vietnam's national interests and the law of the sea

This article explores the relationship between Vietnam's national interests and the international law of the sea. Vietnam's national interests in the marine sphere include defense (the maintenance of a maritime buffer); international relations (enhancing its regional position through joint development and favorable resolution of boundary and fisheries disputes); and economics (stimulating development of its maritime resources). Although ratification of the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention would be somewhat disadvantageous to Vietnam's maritime defense strategy, many provisions would promote Vietnam's interests. Moreover, ratification and implementation of the Convention would signal Vietnam's support for international law and its desire to “rejoin”; the community of Southeast Asian nations. It might also encourage resolution of its boundary disputes, thus opening new areas to resource exploration and development by foreign companies.

Deep seabed mining and unilateral legislation

Abstract Mining and other kinds of exploitation of the deep seabed and the ocean floor as well as the subsoil thereof are fairly new developments, made possible by modern technology. It is contended here that unilateral exploitation of these areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction is not authorized by existing principles, by the common heritage of mankind concept, or by the emerging consensus at the United Nations Conferences on the Law of the Sea. Invocation of the freedom of the seas doctrine by individual states or corporations for unilateral exploitation purposes find no support in international law. The 1958 Convention on the Continental Shelf and the 200‐meter rule are already obsolete, and the doctrine of the freedom of the seas does not cover every new ocean activity made possible by the progress of science; absolute freedom no longer exists. Exploration and exploitation of the deep seabed were not dealt with by the 1958 Convention on the High Seas, nor does the Convention on the Continen...