Social Theory of law
Seminar 4 notes, week 5
Tom Stanford (
The very idea of international law is a non-starter because
it violates the right of nations to govern themselves as they see fit.
Agree.
Legitimacy of the state is based on it having ultimate power (Kelsen – pure theory), and a country’s sovereignty is
overridden by international law. (See example of Home Secretary David Blunkett surrendering rights to control immigration policy
in the country last week).
It has great problems with any sort of efficacy, as IL is constantly being
derogated from, for example by the
Furthermore, what of such technicalities in IL that allow
clearly obvious contradictory situations to be allowed, such as the internment
of suspected terrorists in
There are too many cultural differences existing between countries, and as
such, there can be know ‘super’ law to encompass all – could be seen as an
argument against natural law theory’s.
It is just an extension of the Anglo-American interests in enforcing
neo-socialist, liberal economy laws throughout the globe.
Phillip Bobbit – ‘The Achilles Shield’ – would agree
with this suggestion, as his conception involved applying the purpose of
international law to the ‘market state’, or rather market globe.
Bobbit states that country’s need companies to have
low tax, to provide jobs and keep the nation’s economy afloat. Therefore law is
considered in its economic light – e.g. terrorism is seen as a problem as it
inhibits trade, and it is a threat to capitalism.
Hobbes – Leviathan – saw orderless men at odds,
requiring a ruler with a monopoly of force. This might support the view that IL
does violate the right of nations to govern themselves.
However, could it also be seen to support this ‘violation’, as a Leviathan is
requisite in a global context.
This depends on our understanding of international peace seeking/keeping
bodies, such as the UN. Is it that it is a dominating controlling body, or more
of a symbol for a desired, shared ideology? (i.e. is
it peace seeking, or peace keeping?) NB – UN doesn’t have standing army.
Was Hobbes’ Leviathan theory meant to be applied to a
global context, or was it just concerned with nation sovereignty?
Disagree
IL does have a problem with efficacy, but rather than allowing for it to be
seen us upholding the right to nation sovereignty it needs to be made stronger
whilst imposing harsher restrictions.
IL clearly serves many purposes that are inescapable and are required as in
consideration of the entire world. E.g. border disputes, pollution, human
rights, etc.
Important organisations such as Amnesty International and Red Cross came about
because of IL.
IL controls how change of sovereignty takes place. Furthermore, if treaties are
essential, who will safeguard them if IL doesn’t?