On the Apolitical Character of International Law (or Lack Thereof)

Abstract

International law has an innate and seemingly unquestionable claim on its allegedly apolitical character. However, international law is far from being an apolitical domain. On the contrary, due to systemic influences or by way of politically-informed or other personal interpretations of law, international law proves to be a very political construct. Under the light of this revelation, one feels compelled to probe deeper into the political features of international law by way of theory and to debunk its mythological self-portrait of an apolitical benefactor of humanity. Doing this will enable the opening up of new perspectives for the much needed improvement of international law.

Keywords

• International Law, Critical Legal Studies, Feminist International Law, Theories of International Law

Kaynakça

1. Aral, Berdal. “An Inquiry into the Turkish ‘School’ of International Law”, The European Journal of International Law, Vol. 16, No. 4, Oct. 2005, pp. 769-785.
2. Case Concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America) Merits, Judgment of 27 June 1986, I.C.J. Report.
3. Charlesworth, Hilary. “Feminist Methods in International Law”, American Journal of International Law, Vol. 93, April 1999, pp. 379-394.
4. Charlesworth, Hilary. “Subversive Trends in the Jurisprudence of International Law”, American Society of International Law Proceedings, Vol. 86, 1992, pp. 125-130.
5. Denk, Erdem. “Güle güle uluslararası hukuk, cehenneme kadar yolun var”, Birikim, Vol. 190, February 2005, pp. 71-96.
6. Hurd, Ian. After Anarchy: Legitimacy and Power in the United Nations Security Council, Princeton University Press, Princeton and Oxford, 3rd Printing, 2008.
7. Kennedy, David. “A New Stream of International Scholarship”, Wisconsin International Law Journal, Vol. 7, Number 1, Fall 1988, pp. 1-49.
8. Keohane, Robert O. “The Globalization of Informal Violence, Theories of World Politics, and the “Liberalism of Fear”, Dialogue IO, Vol.1, Issue 1, 2002, pp. 29-43.

9. Koskenniemi, Martti. “Histories of International Law: Dealing with Eurocentrism” Rechtsgeschichte, Zeitschrift des Max-Planck-Instituts für europäische Rechtsgeschichte, 19/2011, pp. 152-176.
10. Kuhn, Thomas S. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London, 3rd. Edition, 1996.
11. Polat, Necati. “Uluslararası Hukukta İçerik Sorunu: Ege Uyuşmazlığı Örneği”, in İhsan Dağı (Ed.), Türk Dış Politikasında Gelenek ve Değişim, Siyasal Kitabevi, Ankara, 1998, pp. 217-247.
12. Polat, Necati. Ahlak Siyaset, Şiddet: Bir Kuram Olarak Uluslararası Hukuk, Kızılelma Yayıncılık, İstanbul, 1999.
13. Purvis, Nigel. “Critical Legal Studies in Public International Law”, Harvard International Law Journal, Vol. 32, Number 1, 1991, pp. 81-127.
14. Quevinét, Noellë. “Feminist Scholars and international (humanitarian) law: Are their claims justified?” Humanitäres Völkerrecht, 4/2002, pp. 227-233.
15. South West Africa (Second Phase), Judgment of 18 July 1966, ICJ Reports, s. 48.
16. The Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion of 8 July 1996, ICJ Reports.
17. The Statute of the International Court of Justice