International Law

FP has an interesting article (polemic, perhaps) by the famous William Easterly on “developmentalism” as a (failed) ideology.  While many of its points are debatable, it does raise valid issues. For international lawyers, this can raise issues in the development context (in the methods/goals/planning/impact of international projects and the like) but also in other IL growth areas such as arbitration/litigation (in terms of the best ways to resolve disputes), international criminal law (in terms of against whom/how/etc. crimes are punished) and especially in the Rule of Law field. It is certainly worth considering whether the ROL field has its own ideology, perhaps closely linked to so-called-developmentalism, on how things should be done — with the accompanying adding of just one more category (”if only you’d done X as well”) when things do not work out.

Ultimately, whether one agrees with Easterly or not (especially with his perhaps too-easy adoption of “classic” economic principles that perhaps risk reflecting an ideology of their own), one must always be cognizant of when broad-brush ideas may become more interested in perpetuating themselves rather than really dealing with the issues at hand, and of course one must always ask who benefits. In the ROL field this has been well explored, and there remains a vital and healthy debate along with some real attempts at finding location-specific solutions to problems, but sometimes one suspects certain ROL programs, especially newer ones or ones based on political agendas rather than reality, of relying too heavily on “standard” sets of norms that may approach (or be aligned with) an ideology. See, for example, the concerns expressed in a previous post here on Good Governance. 

Not that certain goals cannot be helped or inspired by an ideology (often a good thing), but when it comes to making it a practical reality, the danger is relying (or hoping based) on the ideology rather than reality, or assuming that a particular ideology or belief leads inevitably to X or Y conclusion.