Advertisement

The International Lawyer as Agent of Global Governance

  • Andreas L. Paulus

Abstract

According to Niklas Luhmann, globalization is characterized by a shift from territorial borders to functional boundaries (Luhmann 1995, 571; Luhmann 1997, 158–160). Important issue areas (Leebron 2002, 6–10) such as the market, environment, or human rights, have left territorial boundaries behind. But states continue to be the main units of legitimate decision-making. The “democratic deficit” of regional and international institutions remains unresolved; alternative models of legitimacy—such as pure functionalism and market rationality—are based on a standard of efficiency that is itself in need of justification. Systems of rules and norms constructed “bottom-up,” that is, by a process of self-ordering of the relevant issue area (Teubner 1997, 3; Fischer-Lescano and Teubner 2004; Paulus, State 2004), incur problems of legitimacy, because they are self-imposed by the relevant power holders and brokers—and thus open to challenges from all those not participating in the process, but subject to the decisions made.

Keywords

United Nations World Trade Organization Security Council International Criminal Global Governance 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. AB. 1996. United States—Gasoline, Report of the Appellate Body, WTO doc. WT/DS2AB/RGoogle Scholar
  2. —. 1998. Shrimp, United States—Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products, Report of the Appellate Body, WTO Doc. WT/DS58/AB/R, reproduced in: International Legal Materials 38: 121–175.Google Scholar
  3. —. 1998. Beef Hormones, European Communities—Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products, Report of the Appellate Body, WTO Doc. WT/DS48/AB/R.Google Scholar
  4. Allott, Philip. 1990. Eunomia: New Order for a New World. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Alston, Philip. 2002. Resisting the Merger and Acquisition of Human Rights by Trade Law: A Reply to Petersmann, European Journal of International Law 13:815–844.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Alvarez, Jose. 1996. Judging the Security Council. American Journal of International Law 90: 1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Anderson, Kenneth. 2000. The Ottawa Convention Banning Landmines, the Role of International Non-governmental Organizations and the Idea of International Civil Society. European Journal of International Law 11: 91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ascensio, Hervé, Emmanuel Decaux, and Alain Pellet, eds. 2000. Droit international pénal. Paris: Pedone.Google Scholar
  9. Bagwell, K., P. C. Mavroidis, and R. W. Staiger. 2002. It’s a Question of Market Access, American Journal of International Law 96: 56–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bhagwati, Jagdish. 2002. Afterword: The Question of Linkage. American Journal of International Law 96: 126–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Byers, Michael, and Georg Nolte, eds. 2003. United States Hegemony and the Foundations of International Law, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Cassese, Antonio. 1986. International Law in a Divided World. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  13. —. 1995. Self Determination of Peoples: A Legal Reappraisal. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Cassese, A., P. Gaeta, and J. W. D. Jones. 2002. The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Charnovitz, Steve. 1998. The Moral Exception in Trade Policy. Virginia Journal of International Law 38: 689–745.Google Scholar
  16. —. 2002. Triangulating the World Trade Organization, American Journal of International Law 96: 28–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Convention on Biological Diversity. 1992. United Nations Treaty Series 1760: 143–165, reproduced in: International Legal Materials 31 (1992), 818.Google Scholar
  18. Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction. 1997. United Nations Treaty Series 2056: 211.Google Scholar
  19. Crawford, James, ed. 2002. The International Law Commission’s Articles on State Responsibility. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Doha Declaration. 2001. Doha Ministerial Declaration, WTO Doc. WT/MIN(01)/DEC/1 (2001).Google Scholar
  21. Drolshammer, Jens, and Michael Pfeifer, eds. 2001. The Internationalization of the Practice of Law. The Hague et al.: Kluwer Law International.Google Scholar
  22. DSU. 1994. Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes. United Nations Treaty Series 1869: 401–424.Google Scholar
  23. Dworkin, Ronald. 1986. Law’s Empire. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  24. EU-Chile Settlement. 2001. EU and Chile Reach an Amicable Settlement to End WTO/ITLOS swordfish dispute, Doc. IP/01/116, January 25, 2001. Available at http://europa.eu.int/comm/trade/index_en.htm (visited October 3, 2002).Google Scholar
  25. Fassbender, Bardo. 1998. UN Security Council Reform and the Right of Veto: A Constitutional Perspective. Den Haag et al.: Kluwer Law International.Google Scholar
  26. Fischer-Lescano, Andreas, and Gunther Teubner. 2004. Regime-Collisions: The Vain Search for Legal Unity in The Fragmentation of Global Law. Michigan Journal of International Law 25: 999–1046.Google Scholar
  27. Fox, Gregory H., and Brad R. Roth, eds. 2000. Democratic Governance and International Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Franck, Thomas. 1990. The Power of Legitimacy Among Nations, New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  29. GATT 1947/1994. General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. United Nations Treaty Series 1867: 190–199.Google Scholar
  30. GATT Panel 1991. United States—Restrictions on Imports of Tuna, August 16, 1991, reprinted in 30 ILM (1991), 1594 (unadopted), paras 6.3–6.4.Google Scholar
  31. Gowlland-Debbas, Vera. 2000. The Limits of Unilateral Enforcement of Community Objectives in the Framework of UN Peace Maintenance. European Journal of International Law 11: 361–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hafner, G. 2000. Risks Ensuing From Fragmentation of International Law, International Law Commission, Report on the Work of Its Fifty-Second Session, General Assembly, Official Records, Fifty-fifth Session, Suppl. No. 10, UN Doc. A/55/10 (2000): 321–330.Google Scholar
  33. Hart, Herbert L. A. 1994. The Concept of Law. 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  34. Howse, Robert. 2002. Human Rights in the WTO: Whose Rights, What Humanity? European Journal of International Law 13: 651–659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. —. 2002. From Politics to Technocracy—and Back Again: The Fate of the Multilateral Trade Regime, American Journal of International Law 96: 94–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. ICJ. 1970. Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited, I.C.J. Reports: 3–51.Google Scholar
  37. —. 1997. Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project case (Hungary v. Slovakia), I.C.J. Reports 1997: 7–84.Google Scholar
  38. ICTY. 1999. International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, Prosecutor v. Furundžíja, International Legal Materials 38: 317–393.Google Scholar
  39. International Law Commission (ILC). 2001. Report of the Study Group on Fragmentation of International Law, August 1, 2002, UN Doc. A/CN.4/L.628 (2001).Google Scholar
  40. —. 2002. International Law Commission, Report on the Work of Its Fifty-Fourth Session, General Assembly, Official Records, 57th session, Supplement No. 10, UN Doc. A/57/10 (2002).Google Scholar
  41. International Law Commission (ILC). 2004. Report of the International Law Commission, Report on the Work of Its Fifty-Sixth Session. General Assembly, Official Records, 59th session, Supplement No. 10, UN Doc. A/59/10 (2004).Google Scholar
  42. ITLOS Chamber Constitution. 2000. International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, Conservation and Sustainable Exploitation of Swordfish Stocks in the South-Eastern Pacific Ocean (Chile/European Community), Case No. 7, Constitution of Chamber, Order 2000/3, reproduced in: International Legal Materials 40: 474–479.Google Scholar
  43. Jennings, Robert, and Arthur Watts, eds. 1992. Oppenheim’s International Law. 9th ed. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
  44. Kennedy, David. 1987. The Move to Institutions. Cardozo Law Review 8: 841–988.Google Scholar
  45. Keohane, Robert O., and Joseph S. Nye, Jr. 2001. Power and Interdependence. New York: Addison-Wesley Longman, 3rd edition.Google Scholar
  46. Koskenniemi, Martti, and Päivi Leino. 2002. Fragmentation of International Law? Postmodern Anxieties. Leiden Journal of International Law 154: 553–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kuyper, P. J. 1994. The Law of GATT as a Special Field of International Law. Netherlands Yearbook of International Law (1994), 227–225.Google Scholar
  48. Leebron, David W. 2002. Linkages. American Journal of International Law 96: 5–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Luhmann, Niklas. 1995. Das Recht der Gesellschaft. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Taschenbuch.Google Scholar
  50. —. 1997. Die Gesellschaft der Gesellschaft. Vol. 1. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  51. Merkl, A. 1931. Prolegomena zu einer Theorie des rechtlichen Stufenbaues, Gesellschaft, Staat und Recht. Untersuchungen zur Reinen Rechtslehre. Festschrift Hans Kelsen zum 50. Geburtstage. Wien: Springer, 252–294.Google Scholar
  52. Neumann, Jan. 2001. Die materielle und prozessuale Koordination völkerrechtlicher Ordnungen: Die Problematik paralleler Streitbeilegungsverfahren am Beispiel des Schwertfisch-Falls, Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentlichesRecht und Völkerrecht 61: 529–576.Google Scholar
  53. Orellana, Marcos. 2002. The EU and Chile Suspend the Swordfish Case Proceedings at the WTO and the International Tribunal of the Law of the Sea, ASIL Insight, February 2001. Available at http://www.asil.org/insights/insigh60.htm (visited November 4, 2002).Google Scholar
  54. Paulus, Andreas. 1999. Book Review. European Journal of International Law 10: 209–211.Google Scholar
  55. —. 2001. Die internationale Gemeinschaft im Völkerrecht. München: C. H. Beck.Google Scholar
  56. —, Postmodernism. 2001. International Law After Postmodernism: Towards Renewal or Decline of International Law? Leiden JIL 14: 727–755.Google Scholar
  57. —, Iraq. 2004. The War Against Iraq and the Future of International Law. Michigan Journal of International Law 25: 691–733.Google Scholar
  58. —, State. 2004. Comment to Andreas Fischer-Lescano & Gunther Teubner. The Legitimacy of International Law and the Role of the State. Michigan Journal of International Law 25: 1047–1058.Google Scholar
  59. Pauwelyn, Joost. 2001. The Role of Public International Law in the WTO: How Far Can We Go. American Journal of International Law 95: 535–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. —. 2003. Conflict of Norms in Public International Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Petersmann, Ernst-Ulrich. 1997. How to Reform the UN System? Constitutionalism, International Law, and International Organizations. Leiden JIL 10: 421–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. —. 2000. The WTO Constitution and Human Rights. Journal of International Economic Law 19–25.Google Scholar
  63. —. 2002. Time for a United Nations “Global Compact” for Integrating Human Rights into the Law of Worldwide Organizations: Lessons from European Integration. European Journal of International Law 13: 621–650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Porter, R. B. et al., eds. 2001. Efficiency, Equity, and Legitimacy: The Multilateral Trading System at the Millennium. Washington: Brookings.Google Scholar
  65. Rio Declaration on Environment and Development. 1992. UN Conference on Environment and Development. Rio de Janeiro June, 3–14 1992, UN Doc. A/CONE 151/5/Rev. 1 (1992), reproduced in: International Legal Materials 31:876–880.Google Scholar
  66. Rodrígez Cedeño, V. 2002. Fifth Report on Unilateral Acts of States, April 17, UN Doc. A/CN.4/525/Add.1 (2002).Google Scholar
  67. Rome Statute. 1998. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. United Nations Treaty Series 2187: 90–158.Google Scholar
  68. Rosenau, James, and Ernst-Otto Czempiel, eds. 1992. Governance without Government: Order and Change in World Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  69. Schoemann, H. L. and S. Ohlhoff. 1999. “Constitutionalization” and Dispute Settlement in the WTO: National Security as an Issue of Competence. American Journal of International Law 93: 424–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Sharma. 1999. Statement. Security Council, Fifty-forth Year, 3989th mtg., March, 24 1999, UN Doc. S/PV 3989 (1999): 16.Google Scholar
  71. Simma, Bruno. 1985. Self-Contained Regimes. Netherlands Yearbook of International Law 16: 111–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. —. 1994. From Bilateralism to Community Interest in International Law. Recueil des Cours 250: 217–384.Google Scholar
  73. —, ed. 2002. The Charter of the United Nations: A Commentary. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  74. Slaughter, Anne-Marie, and William Burke-White. 2002. An International Constitutional Moment, Harvard International Law Journal 43: 1–21.Google Scholar
  75. Steger, Debra, P. 2002. Afterword: The “Trade and …” Conundrum—A Commentary. American Journal of International Law 96: 135–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Taft, William, H. IV, and Todd F. Buchwald. 2003. Preemption, Iraq, and International Law. American Journal of International Law 97: 557–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Teubner, Gunther, ed. 1997. Global Law without a State. Aldershot: Darthmouth.Google Scholar
  78. Tomuschat, Christian. 1993. Obligations Arising for States with or against Their Will. Recueil des Cours 241: 195–375.Google Scholar
  79. —, ed. 1993. Modern Law of Self-Determination, Dordrecht/Boston/London: Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  80. Tomuschat, Christian, 1995. Die internationale Gemeinschaft, Archiv des Völkerrechts 33: 1–20.Google Scholar
  81. Trachtman, Joel. 2002. Institutional Linkage. American Journal of International Law 96: 77–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. TRIPS. 1994. Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Rights, Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Annex 1 C, United Nations Treaty Series 1869: 299–331.Google Scholar
  83. UN-WTO. 1995. Exchange of Letters Constituting a Global Arrangement on Cooperation, September 29, United Nations Treaty Series 1889: 590–593.Google Scholar
  84. UNCLOS. 1982. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982. United Nations Treaty Series 1833: 397–581.Google Scholar
  85. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. 1969. United Nations Treaty Series 1155:331–353.Google Scholar
  86. Weller, Marc, ed. 1999. International Documents & Analysis 1.Google Scholar
  87. WTO. 1994. Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, United Nations Treaty Series 1867: 154–164.Google Scholar
  88. WTO Panel Request. 2000. Request for the Establishment of a Panel by the European Communities, WTO Doc. WT/DS193/2 (2000).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Markus Lederer and Philipp S. Müller 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andreas L. Paulus

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations