Suchergebnisse

This groundbreaking book uses the idea of experience to investigate the various ways in which international organizations are understood and captured by judges, legal practitioners, legal researchers, legal theorists, and thinkers of global governance. Adopting a unique phenomenological approach, Jean d'Aspremont questions the key patterns of thought that inform the legal practice of international organizations, arguing that said organizations are the product of five specific experiences: affection, insulation, edification, restriction, and conciliation. Through this critical lens, d'Aspremont highlights the limits of the current conceptualizations of international organizations which populate legal practice and legal literature. In doing so, the book crucially develops contemporary discourse on how international lawyers build their claims about the status, rights, duties, responsibilities, failures and falls of international organizations; and assesses how international organizations are thought about in relation to international law, international relations and studies of global governance.

"Inspiring and distinctive, After Meaning provides a radical challenge to the way in which international law is thought and practised. Jean d'Aspremont asserts that the words and texts of international law, as forms, never carry or deliver meaning but, instead, perpetually defer meaning and ensure it is nowhere found within international legal discourse. In challenging the dominant meaning-centrism of the international legal discourse and shedding light on the sovereignty of forms, this book promotes a radical new attitude towards textuality in international law. The author offers new perspectives on interpretation, critique, history, comparison, translation and referencing, inviting international lawyers to reinvent their engagement with these discourses. Chapters define meaning and form in international law, explore deferral of meaning and make an unprecedented use of post-structuralist theory to rethink international law. After Meaning will be an essential reference point for legal scholars, researchers and students who seek to understand a different way of thinking about meaning in

Along with treaties, custom is one of the sources of international law. It is known to consist of two elements: state practice and opinio juris. While many studies have looked at traditional questions of how to identify customary law, this book takes an original approach. It looks instead at the structure of thought that lies beneath the arguments about customary international law. By examining these structures, it uncovers surprising conclusions, and demonstrates what the author describes as the 'discursive splendour' of customary international law

"The exposition of international law as a belief system is meant to serve critique and should be read as an invitation to international lawyers to temporarily suspend their belief system and unlearn some of their knowledge and sensibilities about the fundamental doctrines that they have been trained to reproduce and respond to. Exposing and suspending the international belief system constitutes the ambition of the discussion that follows"--

As a result of the growing prominence of international organizations and non-binding instruments there is increasing controversy as to how to delineate the boundaries of international law. This book advocates a return to a more formal way of determining what is and isn't international law, and suggests ways in which this formalism can be modernized.

The book will feature contributions by renowned scholars each of whom will look at a region, theory or tradition of international law, and will consider how that approach to international law has determined the understanding of the role and status of non-State actors within that particular school of thought. The book will take a critical approach as it will seek to gauge the extent to which each conception and understanding of international law is instrumental to that perception of non-State actors. In undertaking this study the book will necessarily assess the current position of the State in.

Abstract
In international legal thought and practice, anything that is related to the real or is grounded in the real is given discursive primacy. This discursive primacy is the manifestation of a common scientistic hierarchy of discourses inherited from Modernity that accords primacy to discourses about the real and grounded in the real. Anne Orford's International Law and the Politics of History can be read as yet another expression of discontent with such primacy of the real and its scientistic methods. With an emphasis on international lawyers' engagements with history, Orford specifically takes issue with the use of contextualist and empirical methods in the study of the history of international law. And, yet, as is argued in this review essay, scienticism leaves no way out for those seeking to contest it: Orford's charge against contextualism and empiricism itself needs to be contextualized and empirically supported.