Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Cynicism and the Autonomy of International Law

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Cynical International Law?

Part of the book series: Beiträge zum ausländischen öffentlichen Recht und Völkerrecht ((BEITRÄGE,volume 296))

  • 556 Accesses

Abstract

This contribution explores the limits encountered by actors trying to use international law for cynical purposes and seeking to manipulate it as they see fit. It defends the idea that present-day international law is not cynical per se; that it is merely a structure created by agents who might then use this structure for cynical purposes (or not). Although the international legal system is more prone to being politicised and abused by powerful actors than domestic legal systems, there are limits to what international law allows powerful actors to do. Put differently, international law enjoys a certain autonomy from politics. The present contribution seeks to identify the basis of the law’s autonomy, arguing that international law should be viewed as a coherence-seeking system. This ‘coherence bias’ not only accounts for the law’s responsiveness to political stimuli but also forms the basis of its autonomy, because (ab)uses of the law that are too cynical to be perceived as being coherent with the values of the international community at large will not be allowed to affect the substance of the law.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The link between cynicism and realpolitik will be explained further below.

  2. 2.

    Luhmann (1988b).

  3. 3.

    Id., pp. 346–347.

  4. 4.

    Kornhauser (1998), p. 772.

  5. 5.

    Baxter (1997/1998), p. 1987.

  6. 6.

    Goldmann (2016), p. 454.

  7. 7.

    Waltz (1979), p. 118.

  8. 8.

    Moravcsik and Legro (1999), p. 50.

  9. 9.

    Goldstein et al. (2000).

  10. 10.

    See e.g. Armstrong et al. (2007), Barker (2000), Benvenisti and Hirsch (2004), Byers (2000), Dunoff and Pollack (2012), Goodman and Jinks (2004), Heupel and Reinold (2016), Holzgrefe and Keohane (2003), Koh and Hathaway (2004), Reus-Smit (2004), Simmons and Steinberg (2007).

  11. 11.

    Barkin (2003).

  12. 12.

    Id., p. 337.

  13. 13.

    Berger and Luckmann (1969), p. 65.

  14. 14.

    Checkel (1998), p. 326; Dessler (1989), p. 452; Wendt (2001), pp. 185–186.

  15. 15.

    Milliken (1999), p. 229.

  16. 16.

    Wendt (1992), pp. 394–395.

  17. 17.

    Id.

  18. 18.

    See e.g. Anghie (2006), Anghie und Chimni (2003), Baxi (2006), Buchanan (2008), Gathi (2000), Mickelson (1997/1998), Mutua (2000), Otto (1996), Rajagopal (2006).

  19. 19.

    See e.g. Said (1978).

  20. 20.

    Otto (1998/1999), p. X.

  21. 21.

    Anghie and Chimni (2003), p. 79.

  22. 22.

    Skouteris (1997), p. 417.

  23. 23.

    Anghie and Chimni (2003), p. 86.

  24. 24.

    Krisch (2005), pp. 377-378.

  25. 25.

    Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1155 UNTS 331, entered into force on 27 January 1980.

  26. 26.

    On the concept of coercion in treaty-making, see De Jong (1984).

  27. 27.

    See e.g. Alvarez (2003), Byers (1999), Byers (2005), Byers and Nolte (2003), Krisch (2005), Vagts (2001).

  28. 28.

    For a critical reception of Grewe’s work, see Fassbender (2002).

  29. 29.

    Grewe (1984), pp. 43–44.

  30. 30.

    Byers (2005).

  31. 31.

    Fox (2003), p. 188.

  32. 32.

    Reus Smit (1997), pp. 584–585.

  33. 33.

    Florini (1996), p. 375.

  34. 34.

    Teubner (1998), p. 28.

  35. 35.

    See e.g. Lempert (1988), p. 158; Luhmann (1988a), p. 20; Teubner (1988a), p. 2.

  36. 36.

    Teubner (1988b), p. 222.

  37. 37.

    On rules of recognition and other secondary rules, see Hart (1961), pp. 78–79.

  38. 38.

    Luhmann (1988b), p. 347.

  39. 39.

    Lempert (1988), p. 187.

  40. 40.

    Festinger (1957).

  41. 41.

    Id.

  42. 42.

    Festinger (1957), p. 3.

  43. 43.

    Heider (1946), p. 108.

  44. 44.

    Id.

  45. 45.

    See e.g. Schlag (1988/1989), Suchman (1997), Simon (1998), Winter (1989).

  46. 46.

    Pennington and Hastie (1986), p. 245.

  47. 47.

    Simon (1998), p. 20.

  48. 48.

    Id.

  49. 49.

    Id., p. 47.

  50. 50.

    Dworkin (1986), p. 179.

  51. 51.

    Waldron (2008), p. 32.

  52. 52.

    Luhmann (1993), pp. 18–19, pp. 222–223, p. 272, pp. 368–372.

  53. 53.

    Dworkin (1986), p. 47, p. 219, p. 227.

  54. 54.

    Id., pp. 179–181.

  55. 55.

    Id., p. 180.

  56. 56.

    MacCormick (1978), p. 152.

  57. 57.

    Id.

  58. 58.

    Id.

  59. 59.

    MacCormick (1978), p. 155, p. 157.

  60. 60.

    MacCormick (2005), pp. 124-126.

  61. 61.

    Id., p. 124.

  62. 62.

    Raz (1994), p. 281.

  63. 63.

    Postema (1994), p. 377.

  64. 64.

    Quoted in Postema (2008), p. 46.

  65. 65.

    Id.

  66. 66.

    Quoted in Id.

  67. 67.

    See e.g. Franck (1988). On the distinction between different types of compliance, see Etzioni (1964).

  68. 68.

    Fuller (1968), p. 57.

  69. 69.

    Postema (1994), p. 361.

  70. 70.

    Id., p. 368.

  71. 71.

    Postema (1994), p. 362.

  72. 72.

    von Savigny (1840), pp. 174–175.

  73. 73.

    D’Amato (1971), p. 97.

  74. 74.

    Liang (2012), p. 2.

  75. 75.

    Id., p. 5.

  76. 76.

    Schwarzenberger (1967), p. 168.

  77. 77.

    Pauwelyn (2003), p. 50.

  78. 78.

    Bianchi (2009), p. 659.

  79. 79.

    Murphy (2013), p. 90.

  80. 80.

    Id., p. 90.

  81. 81.

    Koskenniemi (2005).

  82. 82.

    Id., p. 597.

  83. 83.

    Koskenniemi (2011), p. 241.

References

  • Alvarez, J. E. (2003). Hegemonic international law revisited. American Journal of International Law, 97(4), 873–888.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anghie, A. (2006). The evolution of international law: Colonial and postcolonial realities. Third World Quarterly, 27(5), 739–753.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anghie, A., & Chimni, B. S. (2003). Third world approaches to international law and individual responsibility in internal conflicts. Chinese Journal of International Law, 2(1), 77–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Armstrong, D., Farrell, T., & Lambert, H. (2007). International Law and International Relations. Cambridge: CUP.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Barker, J. C. (2000). International law and international relations. International relations for the 21st century. London: Continuum.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Barkin, J. S. (2003). Realist constructivism. International Studies Review, 5(3), 325–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baxi, U. (2006). What May the ‘Third World’ expect from international law? Third World Quarterly, 27(5), 713–725.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baxter, H. (1997/1998). Autopoiesis and the ‘Relative Autonomy’ of law. Cardozo Law Review, 19(6), 1987–2090.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benvenisti, E., & Hirsch, M. (Eds.). (2004). The impact of international law on international cooperation. Theoretical perspectives. Cambridge: CUP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1969). Die gesellschaftliche Konstruktion der Wirklichkeit: Eine Theorie der Wissenssoziologie. Frankfurt am Main: S. Fischer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bianchi, A. (2009). The international regulation of the use of force: The politics of interpretive method. Leiden Journal of International Law, 22(4), 651–676.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan, R. (2008). Writing resistance into international law. International Community Law Review, 10(4), 445–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Byers, M. (1999). Custom, power, and the power of rules: International relations and customary international law. Cambridge: CUP.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Byers, M. (Ed.). (2000). The role of law in international politics: Essays in international relations and international law. Oxford: OUP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Byers, M. (2005). Not yet Havoc: Geopolitical change and the international rules on military force. Review of International Studies, 31(S1), 51–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Byers, M., & Nolte, G. (Eds.). (2003). United States hegemony and the foundations of international law. Cambridge: CUP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Checkel, J. T. (1998). The constructivist turn in international relations theory. World Politics, 50(2), 324–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D’Amato, A. A. (1971). The concept of custom in international law. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Jong, H. G. (1984). Coercion in the conclusion of treaties. A consideration of Articles 51 and 52 of the Convention on the law of treaties. Netherlands Yearbook of International Law, 15, 209–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dessler, D. (1989). What’s at stake in the agent-structure debate? International Organization, 43(3), 441–473.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunoff, J. L., & Pollack, M. A. (Eds.). (2012). Interdisciplinary perspectives on international law and international relations: The state of the art. Cambridge: CUP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dworkin, R. (1986). Law’s empire. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Etzioni, A. (1964). Modern organizations. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fassbender, B. (2002). Stories of war and peace. On writing the history of international law in the ‘Third Reich’ and after. European Journal of International Law, 13(2), 479–512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Florini, A. (1996). The evolution of international norms. International Studies Quarterly, 40(3), 363–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fox, G. H. (2003). Comments on Chapters 4 and 5. In M. Byers & G. Nolte (Eds.), United States hegemony and the foundations of international law (pp. 187–193). Cambridge: CUP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Franck, T. (1988). Legitimacy in the international system. American Journal of International Law, 82(4), 705–759.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuller, L. (1968). The anatomy of law. Westport: Greenwood Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gathi, J. T. (2000). Rejoinder: Twailing international law. Michigan Law Review, 98(6), 2066–2071.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldmann, M. (2016). A meta-theory of the sources of international law. Exploring the hermeneutics, authority and publicness of international law. In J. d’Aspremont & S. Besson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook on the sources of law (pp. 447–468). Oxford: OUP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein, J., Kahler, M., Keohane, R., & Slaughter, A.-M. (2000). Introduction: legalization and world politics. International Organization, 54(3), 385–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, R., & Jinks, D. (2004). How to influence states: Socialization and international human rights law. Duke Law Journal, 54(3), 621–703.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grewe, W. (1984). Die Epochen der Völkerrechtsgeschichte. Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart, H. L. A. (1961). The concept of law. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heider, F. (1946). Attitudes and cognitive organization. Journal of Psychology, 24(1), 107–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heupel, M., & Reinold, T. (Eds.). (2016). The rule of law in global governance. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holzgrefe, J. L., & Keohane, R. O. (2003). Humanitarian intervention: Ethical, legal, and political dilemmas. Cambridge: CUP.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Koh, H. H., & Hathaway, O. A. (2004). Foundations of international law and politics. New York: Foundation Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kornhauser, L. A. (1998). A world apart? An essay on the autonomy of the law. Boston University Law Review, 78(3), 747–772.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koskenniemi, M. (2005). From apology to Utopia. The structure of international legal argument. Cambridge: CUP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koskenniemi, M. (2011). The politics of international law. Oxford: Hart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krisch, N. (2005). International law in times of hegemony: Unequal power and the shaping of the international legal order. European Journal of International Law, 16(3), 369–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lempert, R. (1988). The autonomy of law: Two visions compared. In G. Teubner (Ed.), Autopoietic law: A new approach to law and society (pp. 152–190). Berlin: De Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liang, J. (2012). Modifying the UN Charter through subsequent practice: Prospects for the charter’s revitalisation. Nordic Journal of International Law, 81(1), 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann, N. (1988a). The unity of the legal system. In G. Teubner (Ed.), Autopoietic law: A new approach to law and society (pp. 12–35). Berlin: De Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann, N. (1988b). Closure and openness: On reality in the world of law. In G. Teubner (Ed.), Autopoietic law: A new approach to law and society (pp. 335–348). Berlin: De Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann, N. (1993). Das Recht der Gesellschaft. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacCormick, N. (1978). Legal theory and legal reasoning. Oxford: OUP.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacCormick, N. (2005). Rhetoric and the rule of law: A theory of legal reasoning. Oxford: OUP.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mickelson, K. (1997/1998). Rhetoric and Rage: Third world voices in international legal discourse. Wisconsin International Law Journal, 16(2), 353–419.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milliken, J. (1999). The study of discourse in international relations: A critique of research and methods. European Journal of International Relations, 5(2), 225–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moravcsik, A., & Legro, J. (1999). Is anybody still a realist? International Security, 24(2), 5–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, S. (2013). The relevance of subsequent agreement and subsequent practice for the interpretation of treaties. In G. Nolte (Ed.), Treaties and subsequent practice (pp. 82–94). Oxford: OUP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mutua, M. (2000). What is TWAIL? Proceedings of the 94th Annual Meeting of the American Society of International Law, 31–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Otto, D. (1996). Subalternity and international law: The problems of global community and the incommensurability of difference. Social & Legal Studies, 5(3), 337–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Otto, D. (1998/1999). Postcolonialism and law? Third World Legal Studies, 15, vii–xviii.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pauwelyn, J. (2003). Conflict of norms in public international law: How WTO law relates to other rules of international law. Cambridge: CUP.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1986). Evidence evaluation in complex decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(2), 242–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Postema, G. (1994). Implicit law. Law and Philosophy, 13(3), 361–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Postema, G. (2008). Conformity, custom and congruence: Rethinking the efficacy of law. In M. Kramer (Ed.), The legacy of H.L.A. Hart: Legal, political, and moral philosophy (pp. 45–65). Oxford: OUP.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Rajagopal, B. (2006). Counter-hegemonic international law: Rethinking human rights and development as a third world strategy. Third World Quarterly, 27(5), 767–783.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raz, J. (1994). Ethics in the public domain. Essays on the morality of law and politics. Oxford: OUP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reus Smit, C. (1997). The constitutional structure of international society and the nature of fundamental institutions. International Organization, 51(4), 555–589.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reus-Smit, C. (Ed.). (2004). The politics of international law. Cambridge: CUP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Said, E. W. (1978). Orientalism. London: Routledge & Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlag, P. (1988/1989). Missing pieces: A cognitive approach to law. Texas Law Review, 67(6), 1195–1250.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwarzenberger, G. (1967). A manual of international law. London: Stevens.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simmons, B. A., & Steinberg, R. (Eds.). (2007). International law and international relations. Cambridge: CUP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, D. (1998). A psychological model of judicial decision-making. Rutgers Law Journal, 30(1), 1–142.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skouteris, T. (1997). Fin de NAIL: New approaches to international law and its impact on contemporary international legal scholarship. Leiden Journal of International Law, 10(3), 415–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suchman, M. C. (1997). On beyond interest: Rational, normative and cognitive perspectives in the social scientific study of law. Wisconsin Law Review, 72(3), 475–477.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teubner, G. (1988a). Introduction to autopoietic law. In G. Teubner (Ed.), Autopoietic law: A new approach to law and society (pp. 1–12). Berlin: De Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teubner, G. (1988b). Evolution of autopoietic law. In G. Teubner (Ed.), Autopoietic law: A new approach to law and society (pp. 217–241). Berlin: De Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teubner, G. (1998). Legal irritants: Good Faith in British law or how unifying law ends up in new divergences. Modern Law Review, 61(1), 11–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vagts, D. F. (2001). Hegemonic international law. American Journal of International Law, 95(4), 843–848.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Savigny, F. (1840). System des heutigen Römischen Rechts. Berlin: Veit.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Waldron, J. (2008). The concept and the rule of law. Georgia Law Review, 43(1), 1–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waltz, K. (1979). Theory of international politics. Reading: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wendt, A. (1992). Anarchy is what states make of it: The social construction of power politics. International Organization, 46(2), 391–425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wendt, A. (2001). Social theory of international politics. Cambridge: CUP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winter, S. L. (1989). Transcendental nonsense, metaphoric reasoning, and the cognitive stakes for law. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 137(4), 1105–1237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Universität Duisburg-Essen, Duisburg, Germany

    Theresa Reinold

Authors
  1. Theresa Reinold
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany

    Björnstjern Baade , Dana Burchardt , Prisca Feihle , Linus Mührel  & Lena Riemer , , ,  & 

  2. Humboldt Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany

    Alicia Köppen

  3. Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law, Heidelberg, Germany

    Raphael Schäfer

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer-Verlag GmbH, DE, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Reinold, T. (2021). Cynicism and the Autonomy of International Law. In: Baade, B., et al. Cynical International Law?. Beiträge zum ausländischen öffentlichen Recht und Völkerrecht, vol 296. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-62128-8_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-62128-8_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-662-62127-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-662-62128-8

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation