Anthea Roberts - Is International Law International - Review (original) (raw)
Related papers
E Pluribus Unum? A Divisible College?: Reflections on the International Legal Profession
European Journal of International Law
Anthea Roberts' ambitious monograph, Is International Law International?, calls on international lawyers to suspend our universalist pretensions and reflect from the perspective of different communities of international lawyers, conceived instead as a 'divisible college'. Her innovative and contemporary empirical workon the educational and discursive practices across the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Councilrepresents nothing less than a first stab at a sociology of the international legal profession. In doing so, Roberts has adopted a consciously descriptive approach, with all of the consequences entailed thereby. Moreover, her privileging of certain methods and the focus on the five veto-wielding powers has the potential to reproduce the very power imbalances that she seeks to illuminate and possibly to challenge. Finally, an important counterpoint to the divisibility of the international legal profession is that, however limited we are, we nevertheless remain united by certain other tenetsin particular, our shared understanding of what concepts and ideas find purchase on the international plane and our engagement with, commitment to, or resistance to these concepts and ideas. The ties that bind our epistemic community might be obscured by undue emphasis on our profession as a divisible college. 1 Confessions of an Insider Anthea Roberts' Is International Law International? is hugely ambitious. More about the profession of international lawyers than the actual substance of international law, it is a book that aims to open the eyes of the profession to the hegemonic dimensions of our craft, identifying the social situatedness of the international legal order in which we operate. The
The Politics of International Law - 20 Years Later
European Journal of International Law, 2009
The essay examines some of the changes in my own thinking about the politics of engaging in international law since the original publication of the article that opened the fi rst issue of EJIL in 1990. The essay points to the change of focus from indeterminacy (to which I am as committed as ever) of legal arguments to the structural biases of international institutions. It then discusses the politics of defi nition, that is to say, the strategic practice of defi ning international situations and problems in new expert languages so as to gain control over them. It attacks the increasing ' managerialism ' in the fi eld and ends with a few refl ections about the signifi cance of the moment of the establishment of the Journal 20 years ago.
R. Collins and A. Bohm, 'International Law as Professional Practice: The Bounds of Legal Autonomy'
For many years now international law has been broadly understood as an autonomous system of positive legal rules, similar in nature, though importantly not in structure, to the law that exists in most state-based legal systems. Nevertheless, this structural distinction -the lack of centralised institutions of a judicial, executive or legislative nature -appears to undermine this claim to autonomy to a significant degree, blurring the boundary between the legal subject and the legal official, the participant and the observer. The ultimate effect of this structural condition is a greater level of uncertainty not only as to what the rules are, but also how those rules should be interpreted, applied or understood in relation to one another. 1 At a simplistic level, much of this uncertainty arises from the fact that different international legal participants are using the law to pursue distinct purposes. At a more fundamental level, however, we might also say that such participants have different, often conflicting understandings as to what international law is and, importantly, what it is for. 2 As a result of this structural condition, therefore, there has been recurrent scepticism over the course of the last two centuries, questioning and challenging the idea of international law as an autonomous system, i.e. one in which law can (in theory at least) be identified, understood and applied in isolation of the particular interests and normative pursuits of those who participate in the international legal system (whether states, non-state actors, international lawyers, or other commentators). In fact, much of 20 th and 21 st century international law has been characterised by a tradition of 'anti-formalism,' stressing the creative role of the legal academic, and their projection of the normative purpose of international law, as crucial to the particular nature of international law as a professional practice.
Moscow Journal of International Law, 2020
INTRODUCTION. Occasionally a book appears which has a significant impact on the scholarly community. A fine example of this is the work considered here by the Australian international lawyer, Anthea Roberts. Until very recently, comparative studies on international law were rare. However, as international law further develops and widens, so special attention will need to be paid to ensure that international law students are, to a greater extent, taught the same material and in the same way. As municipal systems of law became more mature, so doctrine and jurisprudence began to diverge. International law has now entered such a phase in its development and, in this excellent book, Dr. Roberts asks a series of very important questions: exactly what is taking place, what are the factors that are driving these processes, is such to be welcomed, is it unstoppable and where do we go from here?MATERIALS AND METHODS. The article reflects on Anthea Roberts’ book “Is International Law Internati...
The Role of Legal Advisers in International Law
Preface x we look back we see great changes. For example: human rights-though it was only with President Carter that governments began to take them seriously; climate charge-what was divisive, and indeed doubted, we now see as a serious subject for legal study; and international criminal law-with its establishment of international courts and tribunals, including the International Criminal Court-this topic in 30 years has gone from zero to seemingly all-consuming for young writers. I am also very pleased to see that the theory of international law is far from dead. So new topics will come, and I know that British writers will rise to the challenge, as will its leading text books. It seems very likely that the valuable underpinnings of the classical, essential demands of international law will continue as British contributions, as will engagement in contemporary issues. These books are testament to the breadth and strength of British contributions to international law, as well as its ongoing influence.
The Nature of International Law
2019
This is a treatise on the philosophy of international law. Hence, its successes or failures should be measured primarily by the yardsticks of legal philosophy. Still, its purpose, as in the case of any other work in the area of jurisprudence, is to cast some new light on the legal practice-in this case the international one-and to offer to those working in this practice a fresh perspective on the issues with which they deal on a daily basis. In doing so, legal philosophers are not there "to act as backroom boffins for the law industry." That is, theirs is not "to lay on new ideas or arguments for lawyers any more than philosophers of art are there to provide new ideas or materials for artists." 1 Theirs is to "see legal problems. .. as different problems from those that appear on the face of the law." 2 In that respect, this book aspires to persuade international legal practitioners that it is meaningful to take a deep gaze at old problems with new eyes. This aspiration is far from warranted though. International scholars are not necessarily keen to employ a jurisprudential perspective. Take Brownlie's words from his General Course to the Hague Academy of International Law: "In spite of considerable exposure to theory, and some experience in teaching jurisprudence, my ultimate position has been that. .. theory produces no real benefits and frequently obscures the more interesting questions." 3 It is mainly legal philosophers' fault for the fact that this statement could, until recently, be taken as representative enough of the overall attitude of the international scholarship. With the notable exception of Kelsen, whose legal philosophy is not always easily digestible even for those working in the field, no other 1
Jindal Journal of International Affairs
Professor Mary-Ellen O’Connell, in her new book, The Art of Law in the International Community, packs the tale of an extra-positive approach to law-making back at the centre of the stage. The book attempts to consider the of the community to explain the rise of two pillars of contemporary international law, namely the legal regulation of the use of force and the rules (or more precisely the meta-rules) on jus cogens. The book shifts steadily towards the intersection between natural law, jus cogens, and the ban of unilateral use of force. Methodologically speaking, the two regimes intersect since both are off springs of the UN Charter and the 1969 Vienna Convention. Perhaps not in the same trend of state practice, both principles formulate the general principle of international law. In sum, they add a small group of rules which feature the new world order in the aftermath of World War II.