Koskenniemi's Argument Analysis

Great Essays
Introduction
I would like to preface by stating that any of my concerns or questions are merely for arguments’ sake (I struggled to find anything controversial or worthy of objections), as the article is generally straightforward and logically sound. I would like to discuss the following (all of which do not pose any serious problems for Koskenniemi): 1) that consensualism is not necessarily theoretically inconsistent, or that; 2) its inconsistencies does not make it useless in practice; 3) that apologism may be less of a problem that it is depicted; and 4) that the extent of the integration of law and social science in the context of international law might be too much.
Notions of Non-Consensualism as a Part of Consent
The article listed two
…show more content…
In fact, the authenticity of consent is often difficult to gauge, especially in the case of less powerful countries, where coerced-induced consent can be hard to detect. However, while my interpretation of consent might not satisfy Koskenniemi’s criticisms of the supposed theoretical inconsistencies of pure consensualism (where it needs non-consensual elements), I do not think that it gives enough cause for consensualism to be declared as defunct in practice. While I am not well-versed in international law cases, it appears to me that tacit consent remains an integral part of international relations and contracts. That is to say, while consensualism is undoubtedly a theory (and a flawed one), it is also an actual practice that is often effectively …show more content…
There exists the sentiment that there must be normativity to international law, that is, that there needs to be “distance between it and actual state behaviour, will, or interest.” On the other hand, too much distance from politics seems to propel law to the theoretical realm, of which lacks concreteness. From my understanding, Koskenniemi is of the opinion (of which I am in agreement with) that completely extracting politics from international law is impossible. The concern however, is that concreteness without normativity will result in apologism. I wonder however, if this can be negated by the state’s self-interests. For example, besides extreme cases, most countries opt to work together and abide by shared agreements. This, I believe, is because of the fact that the countries recognize the advantages of doing so in the long run, where cooperation outweighs short term egoistic benefits. In addition, the domination of one state’s interest over another can be avoided simply because the conflict of interests between two states will ensure that the final agreement reached will be “fair”. This I admit however, is an idealized view that overlooks the power differences between states (especially the reality that western/developed nations hold much more power than their counterparts). The point is, to work closely

Related Documents

  • Great Essays

    While there may be some states and leaders that participate in international law because they believe they have a legal obligation, the reasoning for most states surely must go beyond this. It would seem there are several key reasons states would willfully reduce their sovereignty by participating in international law. These reasons are: coercion, persuasion, and morality, or some combination of the three. Coercion, often called the realist approach is based on the discrepancy of power between the states of the word; there are weak states and strong states. The weak states are at the (hopefully righteous) will of the stronger states and must act in accordance to their orders or suggestions.…

    • 1948 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Hart recognizes that morality and law share qualities, as in duties and obligations, but he holds that Aquinas confuses the two to an unreasonable extent. He goes so far as to equate the statement regarding the unjust law with one expressing that a statute is not a statute (Hart 8). This is not an especially strong refutation of Aquinas, if only because Hart is exercising here the same exaggeration he charges Aquinas of presenting. It is arguable that a more valid opposition would refer to the reality that what is moral alters in any society over time, and thus any reliance on morality to determine the worth of law is inherently suspect. As noted, this reality is certainly evident in American history.…

    • 945 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Great Essays

    Rule Of Law

    • 1584 Words
    • 6 Pages

    The rule of law is an idealistic concept of characteristics in a legal process, which ought to exist in a good constitutional system. There is controversy over the rule of law because there is no definite meaning of it. For example, there is one view that it should prescribe a form of law and the procedure that should be used to form it. This is supported by Lord Bingham’s sub-rule, “questions of legal right and liability should ordinarily be resolved by application of the law and not be the exercise of discretion.” If rule of law was used this way, it could have practical use because it does not prescribe particular content for legal rules, which gives a constitutional system the flexibility to form laws. Professor Raz argues that the rule of law is designed to be a subservient role, meant to “enable the law to promote social good” and sacrificing social goods on the basis of rule of law, would make “the law barren and empty”.…

    • 1584 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The opinions of the minority are not always right; neither are the opinions of the majority always right. Therefore, both sides must receive an equal chance to express their ideas. The presence of legal systems for attending to matters of unfair legislations does not necessarily ensure that such matters would be attended. Undeniably, it would be illogical to believe that the government would be quick to improve its own disorder yet it neglected to identify the disorder to begin with; civil disobedience is essential. Additionally, civil disobedience may be set aside as the pis aller but this would defer justice and consequently form a bigger issue (Lefkowitz 212).…

    • 1009 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    In contrast, Michael Levin advocates in favor of the latter ideology. He does not argue that torture should be used casually, rather his argument stems from the premise that nations should not be so quick to ban torture in every single circumstance. His primary rhetorical strategy is to use hypothetical extremes to prove his point, in addition, he also appeals to emotion to evoke a sense towards Utilitarianism to justify torture in certain cases. His primary downfall in his argument was that many of his hypothetical have yet to be seen in real life, in light of this, it may delegitimize his argument in certain people’s minds. Gushee’s argument was particularly effective because of his employment of historical…

    • 1246 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    We must assume our beliefs are innocent until proven guilty by Good Reason, and that most of our beliefs are probably close enough to the truth, otherwise they would not have aided in the survival and been selected for by evolution. The best argument against moral realism does not even need evolution to make us rightfully worry, but the inclusion of evolution weakens the argument, leading to skepticism again. Our disposition to make a distinction without a difference is a serious moral dilemma, but has no bearing on the current discussion since we are addressing the problem of evolution in relation to realism. The problem here is not in the content of the argument itself, but in the very…

    • 766 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Classic Liberalism

    • 976 Words
    • 4 Pages

    The first explanation indicates that the institutions themselves, which are seen as legitimate enforcers, may have failed at promoting the civilian immunity principle in adequate manner despite the readiness and willingness of states to cooperate and abide by the law. There is another flip side of that argument which argues that the international system has been unreceptive to the cooperation and enforcement tactics the institutions have showed. Either way, the neoliberal institutionalists believe that the law is ineffective because, for one reason or another, institutions were unable to establish enough cooperation on the issue of human rights during conflict. Once again, the major weakness of the law is the lack of…

    • 976 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Therefore, Fuller argues, Hart’s ‘minimum content theory’ represents a contradiction on his part. Fuller believes such theory is analogous with the law’s internal morality, only Hart refers to this as ‘justice in the administration of laws’. It must be argued, to the contrary, that this inclusionary positivistic approach does not constitute a necessary connection…

    • 1154 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Objectivism states that some moral claims are objectively true. One big difference between objectivism and nihilism is that objectivism depends on process of elimination rather than actual merits. It says that nihilism, objectivism, or relativism has to be true before eliminating nihilism and relativism as being false. This leaves only objectivism standing, so proponents say it must be true. While this is a strategic approach, it is not strong.…

    • 1071 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Since this was a ‘single forum’ case, which could only be litigated abroad, it was evident that the criteria set in Castahno were inapplicable. Consequently, Lord Diplock utilised the test of ‘unconscionability’ or ‘unconscionable conduct ‘. In accordance with this criterion, an anti-suit injunction could be granted not only when there was a legal or equitable right not to be sued abroad, but also where there was a substantive equitable defence which justifies the retraining of foreign proceedings. Lord Diplock’s reliance on the obsolete notion of substantive equity was not supported in subsequent cases. However, the concept of unconscionable conduct as a test for the grant of an injunction was used in Midland Bank Plc v Laker Airways Ltd and South Carolina insurance Co v Assurantie Maatschappij .…

    • 850 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays

Related Topics