This “post-mortem” post from José Alvarez at the ASIL focuses on the US relativising IL as opposed to France’s focus on the rules and obligatory character of IL (something the US might never truly accept and not, in my view, without some good reason), but it also represents a concern already felt here at the far less scholarly (and more recent) international law post, namely the increasing amount of material falling under the “international law” label. So much so, that, as Alvarez suggests, anything devoted simply to “international law” risks such generalizations as to become almost meaningless.
The IL field is enormous, and as it is increasingly seen by many as “law” rather than policy with some legal footnotes, this makes it incredibly difficult for those who wish to pursue careers in international law, especially on the American side. What does this mean? How does one get the skills one needs? Part of it of course is, as in law in general, an increasing need to specialize. It is incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to be an expert in international finance AND international human rights AND international criminal justice.
Perhaps this is a lament that is overdue, and perhaps international law, in its infancy, presented a sort of lost opportunity and archetype that supposedly used to exist (if it ever really did) in the field of law in the US — the generalist, who could do a business contract one day, litigate the next, draft a will by 5PM and write a brilliant law review article on legal thought in his or her spare time – all with reasonable competence and without committing malpractice. Maybe this general lawyer still exists here and there, perhaps in “small town” practices, but I doubt it. Perhaps rotating to different departments or parts of law school and clinicals and clerkships are trying to keep this generalist dream alive, or at least help lawyers and future lawyers think this is possible.
But in a very complex world, and in the increasingly complex worlds of international business and international litigation approaching (or surpassing) the complexity of domestic litigation, people have to increasingly rely on big firms and specialized players who are aware of bits and pieces but perhaps not the whole. For a young associate this can be extremely trying as one is torn between learning all one can about the particular field one is practicing in while trying to keep up with developments in public international law/other fields.
One is reluctant to make choices and focus, perhaps in part because the allure of Ian Brownlie-types, these “wise elders” of IL, is so strong. Who wouldn’t want to be an IL “guru”? Perhaps it can be maintained by focusing on on the narrow range of obligatory international treaties and rules covering essentially “public international law”. But does this then really do IL justice? Then is one just a hyper-generalist, capable of talking about sources of lL or whatever, but not really able to litigate in the ICJ, close a cross-border offering, or advise a military officer on the legality of the use of force in a particular context? Perhaps there is the focus in one field, then the taking a step back to comment on the larger field. And losing the “wise elder” authorities is a very key and necessary step in the development of any field; often too much power comes from simply being seen as an authority in a “young” field. But without even a realistic ideal of such a person, it does make choosing a career path a bit harder.
But as the public/private distinction falls part, the need for cross-pollination grows even as it gets harder and harder to do, and there seems to be an intricate web of talent, with specializations, cross-understandings, limited expertise in various areas, etc. all coming together. But stuffing this all into an “IL” label gets increasingly difficult. Maybe, as with the matatu, there is “always room for one more”. At least it makes for an interesting, if not always smooth, ride.
