![]() The first section, “Realism’s Core Elements and Causal Narratives in International Law,” distills the core elements of the realist tradition in international law over the millennia: the state, state power, state interests. The chapter is organized into five sections. Realism in international law remains alive and vibrant. Finally, realism is critical for the advancement of normative agendas in international law. This book chapter argues that realism remains very much alive, not only because international lawyers have kept it alive by attacking a straw-man misinterpretation of the structural realist variant, but also because it is a useful tool for positive analysis of international law: even its structural realist variant (correctly understood) has heuristic power, and realist concepts may be hybridized with insights of other approaches – for example, cooperation theory in economics, liberalism, social construction theory, or empiricism – to constitute a valuable research program in international law, with substantial explanatory and predictive power. Finally, realists don’t see nearly as much customary law in the world as most international lawyers who aspire to build a more legalized world order. In IL, a field that remains driven largely by normative agendas, realists constantly raise annoying facts and analyses that spoil the party. And it offers a basis for attacking the feasibility of much of the normative work that espouses changing the status quo in international law. There’s another reason IL scholars may dislike realism: it is seen as an amoral theory, at best. It is the null hypothesis that enables international lawyers to show that their argument and life’s work does have meaning. But they also seem to love realism – or a version of it – because the misunderstood and mischaracterized structural realist straw-man claim that “international law does not matter” serves for them as the perfect foil for arguments that international law (IL) is important. Many international law (IL) scholars challenge “realism” because most think it means that international law is epiphenomenal and so devoid of meaning – which could make their jobs irrelevant, wasteful, and quixotic. Some commentators have even asked: is anybody still a realist? Dozens of commentators have attacked realism or written its epitaph. “Realism” is the theory international lawyers love to hate.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |