The chapter International Law, International Relations and Compliance was written by Kal Raustiala and Anne Marie Slaughter who have talked about the literature on compliance in both the disciplines of international relations and international law.
According to the authors, compliance is "a state of conformity or identity between an actor's behaviour and a specified rule" (Raustiala and Slaughter 539). The authors have argued that this topic of compliance has brought the two disciplines together and also that the scholars of international relations were interested in "reviving the study of international law in their discipline" (Raustiala and Slaughter 538) in order to find out how and when does the law matter to state behaviour. Furthermore they have asserted that for "international lawyers eager to use IR theory to address a host of theoretical and practical legal problems, the mechanisms of compliance were equally natural starting point" (Raustiala and Slaughter 538).
However after reading the article, A Compliance Based Theory of International Law, by Andrew Guzman, I have felt that the argument of Raustiala and Slaughter, which is that "compliance literature is a microcosm of the rapprochement between.." (Raustiala and Slaughter) international relations and international law, is not entirely true. The ground reality is that the scholars of international law does require assistance from international relations in theorizing about compliance. As Guzman has noted, they alone cannot explain when and why do "states comply with international law" (Guzman 1). The legal scholars believe that the reason why international law is important is because it affects the behaviour of the states. Unfortunately their theory is flawed because they have relied "heavily on axiomatic claims about national behaviour and" (Guzman 1) lacked "a coherent theory of compliance with international law" (Guzman 1). Due to the absence of the coherent theory, the scholars of international law merely make numerous assumptions rather than explaining why compliance exists. One must not forget that understanding the compliance decision is very crucial in international law and failure to do so can be problematic; Scholars' inability to explain "why states obey international law in some instances and not in others threatens to undermine the very foundations of international law" (Guzman 1). If the legal scholars unable to understand the relation between state actions and international law, then they cannot provide valid suggestions "with respect to international law" (Guzman 1). It is impossible "to improve the functioning of the international legal system" (Guzman 1) and "examine the role of treaties, customary international law or other agreements" (Guzman 1) without devising a compliance theory. It is the discipline of international relations that presents the best theory of compliance and thus which is relevant to the discipline of international law. Unlike the legal scholars, the international relations devise a theory which "explains compliance within a model of rational, self-interested states" (Guzman 2-3). The theory by international relations suggests that the reason why compliance exists is "because states are concerned with both the reputational implications and the direct sanctions of violating the law. The model explains not only why nations comply, but also why and when they violate international law" (Guzman 3). Hence, although the literature of compliance does bring the two disciplines together, in reality it is the discipline of international law which badly needs international relations in theorizing about compliance.
Bibliography
Guzman, Andrew. "A Compliance Based Theory of international law." (2015): 1-76.
https://www.law.berkeley.edu/files/guzmanComplianceandIL.doc
Link for International Law, International Relations and Compliance by Kal Raustiala and Anne Marie Slaughter: http://www.peacepalacelibrary.nl/ebooks/files/C08-0007-Raustiala-compliance.pdf
According to the authors, compliance is "a state of conformity or identity between an actor's behaviour and a specified rule" (Raustiala and Slaughter 539). The authors have argued that this topic of compliance has brought the two disciplines together and also that the scholars of international relations were interested in "reviving the study of international law in their discipline" (Raustiala and Slaughter 538) in order to find out how and when does the law matter to state behaviour. Furthermore they have asserted that for "international lawyers eager to use IR theory to address a host of theoretical and practical legal problems, the mechanisms of compliance were equally natural starting point" (Raustiala and Slaughter 538).
However after reading the article, A Compliance Based Theory of International Law, by Andrew Guzman, I have felt that the argument of Raustiala and Slaughter, which is that "compliance literature is a microcosm of the rapprochement between.." (Raustiala and Slaughter) international relations and international law, is not entirely true. The ground reality is that the scholars of international law does require assistance from international relations in theorizing about compliance. As Guzman has noted, they alone cannot explain when and why do "states comply with international law" (Guzman 1). The legal scholars believe that the reason why international law is important is because it affects the behaviour of the states. Unfortunately their theory is flawed because they have relied "heavily on axiomatic claims about national behaviour and" (Guzman 1) lacked "a coherent theory of compliance with international law" (Guzman 1). Due to the absence of the coherent theory, the scholars of international law merely make numerous assumptions rather than explaining why compliance exists. One must not forget that understanding the compliance decision is very crucial in international law and failure to do so can be problematic; Scholars' inability to explain "why states obey international law in some instances and not in others threatens to undermine the very foundations of international law" (Guzman 1). If the legal scholars unable to understand the relation between state actions and international law, then they cannot provide valid suggestions "with respect to international law" (Guzman 1). It is impossible "to improve the functioning of the international legal system" (Guzman 1) and "examine the role of treaties, customary international law or other agreements" (Guzman 1) without devising a compliance theory. It is the discipline of international relations that presents the best theory of compliance and thus which is relevant to the discipline of international law. Unlike the legal scholars, the international relations devise a theory which "explains compliance within a model of rational, self-interested states" (Guzman 2-3). The theory by international relations suggests that the reason why compliance exists is "because states are concerned with both the reputational implications and the direct sanctions of violating the law. The model explains not only why nations comply, but also why and when they violate international law" (Guzman 3). Hence, although the literature of compliance does bring the two disciplines together, in reality it is the discipline of international law which badly needs international relations in theorizing about compliance.
Bibliography
Guzman, Andrew. "A Compliance Based Theory of international law." (2015): 1-76.
https://www.law.berkeley.edu/files/guzmanComplianceandIL.doc
Link for International Law, International Relations and Compliance by Kal Raustiala and Anne Marie Slaughter: http://www.peacepalacelibrary.nl/ebooks/files/C08-0007-Raustiala-compliance.pdf
Yes, IL does not necessarily need IR, but there have been attempts at interdisciplinary cross-pollination. Perhaps IL does need more IR and, in fact, a recent journal was created to encourage this. That journal, The Journal of International Law and International Relations, is publishing interesting work that intersects both fields.
ReplyDelete