Is International Law International?

Abstract

International lawyers are familiar with the question: “Is international law law?” But this thesis instead asks the question: “Is international law international?” Using a variety of methods, this work sheds light on some of the ways in which international law as a transnational legal field is constructed by international law academics, and is conceptualized in international law textbooks, in the five permanent members of the Security Council: the People’s Republic of China, the French Republic, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America. It explores how different national communities of international lawyers construct and pass on their understandings of “international law” in ways that belie the field’s claim to universality, perpetuating certain forms of difference and dominance. By adopting a comparative approach, it aims to make international lawyers more aware of the frames that shape their own understandings of and approaches to the field, as well as how these might be similar to or different from the frames adopted by those coming from other states, regions or geopolitical groupings. It also examines how some of these patterns might be disrupted as a result of shifts in geopolitical power, such as the movement from unipolar power toward greater multipolarity and the growing confrontations between Western liberal democratic states (like the United States, the United Kingdom, and France) and non-Western authoritarian states (like China and Russia).