International Law

Here is a very interesting discussion by Habermas (courtesy of Continental Philosophy and found by way of Book Forum) on the status of the Kantian project of cosmopolitan law in light of the new wave of IL scholars, which he refers to as the “idealists”.  And despite the recent political setbacks of “neo-conservatives” in light of the ongoing situation in Iraq, there is a very real movement on the front of idealism in IL, including more friendly-sounding or better-packaged (but no less forceful) proclamations often still advocating an essential core of positions (that either through direct force or through “softer” institutions or some combination, the US is justified in enforcing liberal values around the world) such as the Princeton Project of Anne-Marie Slaughter et al. 

The talk is a good summary of Kant’s cosmopolitan law project and what Habermas notes as its chief innovation, namely a shift from international law as a law of states to cosmopolitan law as a law of states and individuals.

It is always interesting to hear Habermans since he speaks somewhat outside of the self-contained and self-referential IL world, which often focuses on minor differences or technicalities or, if it has “new” projects (or the re-packaging/marketing of older projects) like the Princeton Project, the underlying assumptions/worldviews/premises are not properly debated, especially under the prevailing liberal idealist backdrop (in some ways, the “conservative” positions at least have the benefit of a highly critical audience fighting them) and outside ”the box”, which is smaller than many might like to admit.  Seeing Habermans reminds one that meta-debates in IL, including whether one is really after IL or cosmopolitan law, are lacking.

It looks like Libya has freed the Bulgarian nurses and the Palestinian doctor in an interesting political deal that, at least according to the NYTimes, seems to fit in with Libya’s legal code. It seems clear that it was the extensive and ongoing political pressure, Libya’s attempts at “rejoin[ing] the international community”, and whatever chips were offered to Libya (including Cold War debt forgiveness), instead of true legal arguments, that led to the releases. But of course, that is perhaps not any different than anywhere else (in a realist mood today), but this will certainly be an interesting case study in IL, international pressure, “soft power” and the like. With respect to IL, it will be interesting to see if there was much reference to IL at all, either in the trial or during this release (I have not been following the case closely), or if this was kept in the “domestic” legal realm but subjected to outside pressures for this outcome. Seems to be very worthy of an article, or at least a note.

This looks like a very interesting program on PBS on China’s “Legal Revolution”… looking forward to it. Here’s a NYTimes review.