Making International Law without Agreeing What It Is

Abstract

The article examines how international law functions despite of decision-makers' different conceptions towards the international legal theory. It highlights the invasion of the U.S. on the construction of a wall by Iraq and Israel around Palestine, which depicts how outcomes of a legal nature can be obtained regardless of different conceptions of international law. It discusses the fragmentation of international legal theory using positivism and policy-oriented jurisprudence.

Keywords

International law -- Interpretation & construction, Legal positivism, International law -- Philosophy, Jurisdiction (International law), International courts

Share

Authors

Tai-Heng Cheng (Vanderbilt University)

Download

Issue

Publication details

Dates

Licence

All rights reserved

File Checksums (MD5)

  • pdf: 13cff1e2ea9800b98ec4f79d40af7512