Search results

Insists both on the unavoidable interrelation of the disciplines of International Law & International Relations & the problematic nature of combining a critical standpoint with the necessity of decompartmentalizing these fields of study heretofore regarded as separate. The idea of a 'constituent relationship' between the two is presented is presented as the basis of a future reconceptualization for researchers. This new approach would be both critical & holistic. In addition, suggests theories of problem resolution may indicate modes of emancipating these disciplines from familiar restraints, although states an awareness that problem solving techniques themselves are misleadingly presented as simple tools when they involve unexamined assumptions of their own. Due to current statistical methods, the tendency is to do a cost-benefit analysis of the growing institutionalization of international law, focusing on what this or that agent can gain in the way of information or conflict resolution. Some limit this analysis to states; others factor in special interest groups. But the big, unanswered question in research is the two disciplines' interrelation in the problematics of international dynamics. In this regard, a major problem is the predetermined, often binary, rational categories because they make it difficult to deal with the specificity of contemporary problems. Examples given include such oppositions as legal/illegal, stable/anarchic, economic/political, public/private, all categories that do not allow for all possible variables. Two important heuristic dimensions in the future: recognizing that structures & dynamics of international power do not exist apart from the judicial relationships that crystallize & institutionalize them. Law in general & international law in particular cannot be reduced to the 'will' of nations or the idea of 'national interests.' Neither can economics be factored out. Terminology is also an issue because new categories of analysis are needed. References. R. Ruffin