International law and international relations: Introducing an interdisciplinary dialogue

Interdisciplinary Perspectives on International Law and International Relations: The State of the Art

Volumn , Issue , 2010, Pages 3-32

  Dunoff, Jeffrey L ^a   Pollack, Mark A ^a  

^a TEMPLE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84927140428     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781139107310.002     Document Type: Chapter

References (102)

1. Abbott, Kenneth W. (1989). “Modern International Relations Theory: A Prospectus for International Lawyers, ” Yale Journal of International Law, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 335–411.
2. (2004–05). “Toward a Richer Institutionalism for International Law and Policy, ”Journal of International Law and International Relations, Vol. 1, Nos. 1–2, pp. 9–34.
3. Abbott, Kenneth W., and Duncan Snidal (2000). “Hard and Soft Law in International Governance, ” International Organization, Vol. 54, No. 3, pp. 421–56.
4. (2013). “Law, Legalization and Politics: An Agenda for the Next Generation of IL/IR Scholars, ” in Jeffrey L. Dunoff and Mark A. Pollack (eds.), Interdisciplinary Perspectives on International Law and International Relations: The State of the Art (New York: Cambridge University Press), pp. 33–56.
5. Abbott, Kenneth W., Robert O. Keohane, Andrew Moravcsik, Anne-Marie Slaughter, and Duncan Snidal (2000). “The Concept of Legalization, ” International Organization, Vol. 54, No. 3, pp. 401–19.
6. Alter, Karen J. (2013). “The Multiple Roles of International Courts and Tribunals: Enforcement, Dispute Settlement, Constitutional and Administrative Review, ” in Jeffrey L. Dunoff and Mark A. Pollack (eds.), Interdisciplinary Perspectives on International Law and International Relations: The State of the Art (New York: Cambridge University Press), pp. 345–70.
7. Armstrong, David, Theo Farrell, and Helene Lambert (2007). International Law and International Relations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
8. Ashley, Richard K. (1984). “The Poverty of Neorealism, ” International Organization, Vol. 38, No. 2, pp. 225–86.
9. Balkin, J. M. (1996). “Interdisciplinarity as Colonization, ” Washington and Lee Law Review, Vol. 53, No. 3, pp. 949–70.
10. Biersteker, Thomas J., Peter J. Spiro, Chandra Lekha Sriram, and Veronica I. Raffo (eds.) (2006). International Law and International Relations: Bridging Theory and Practice (Abingdon: Routledge).
11. Bodansky, Daniel (2013). “Legitimacy: Concepts and Conceptions/Normative and Descriptive, ” in Jeffrey L. Dunoff and Mark A. Pollack (eds.), Interdisciplinary Perspectives on International Law and International Relations: The State of the Art (New York: Cambridge University Press), pp. 321–41.
12. Brewster, Rachel (2013). “Reputation in International Relations and International Law Theory, ” in Jeffrey L. Dunoff and Mark A. Pollack (eds.), Interdisciplinary Perspectives on International Law and International Relations: The State of the Art (New York: Cambridge University Press), pp. 524–43.
13. Brady, Henry E., and David Collier (eds.) (2004). Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standards (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers).
14. Brunnée, Jutta, and Stephen J. Toope (2000). “International Law and Constructivism: Elements of an Interactional Theory of International Law, ” Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, Vol. 39, No. 1, pp. 19–74.
15. (2010). Legitimacy and Legality in International Law: An Interactional Account (New York: Cambridge University Press).
16. (2013). “Constructivism and International Law, ” in Jeffrey L. Dunoff and Mark A. Pollack (eds.), Interdisciplinary Perspectives on International Law and International Relations: The State of the Art (New York: Cambridge University Press), pp. 119–45.
17. Bull, Hedley (1969). “International Theory: The Case for a Classical Approach, ” in Klaus Knorr and James Rosenau (eds.), Contending Approaches to International Politics (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press), pp. 20–38.
18. (1977). The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics (London: Palgrave Macmillan).
19. Burley, Anne-Marie, and Walter Mattli (1993). “Europe before the Court: A Political Theory of Legal Integration, ” International Organization, Vol. 47, No. 1, pp. 41–76.
20. Byers, Michael (1997). “Taking the Law out of International Law: A Critique of the ‘Iterative Perspective,’” Harvard International Law Journal, Vol. 38, No. 1, 201–05.
21. Carr, E. H. (2001). The Twenty Years’ Crisis 1919–1939: An Introduction to the Study of International Relations (London: Palgrave).
22. Chayes, Abram (1974). The Cuban Missile Crisis: International Crises and the Role of Law (New York: Oxford University Press).
23. Chayes, Abram, Thomas Ehrlich, and Andreas F. Lowenfeld (1968). International Legal Process: Materials for an Introductory Course (Boston: Little, Brown and Co.).
24. Checkel, Jeffrey T. (2003). “‘Going Native’ in Europe? Theorizing Social Interaction in European Institutions, ” Comparative Political Studies, Vol. 36, Nos. 1–2, pp. 209231.
25. Conant, Lisa. (2013). “Whose Agents? The Interpretation of International Law in National Courts, ” in Jeffrey L. Dunoff and Mark A. Pollack (eds.), Interdisciplinary Perspectives on International Law and International Relations: The State of the Art (New York: Cambridge University Press), pp. 394–420.
26. Cox, Robert W. (1981). “Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory, ” Millennium, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 126–55.
27. Dunoff, Jeffrey L. (2010). “International Law in Perplexing Times, ” Maryland Journal of International Law, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 11–36.
28. Dunoff, Jeffrey L., and Mark A. Pollack (2012). “What Can International Relations Learn from International Law?” (April 9, 2012). Temple University Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2012–14. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn. com/abstract=2037299 or http://dx. doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2037299.
29. Falk, Richard A. (1970). The Status of Law in International Society (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).
30. Fearon, James, and Alexander Wendt (2002). “Rationalism v. Constructivism: A Skeptical View, ” in Walter Carlsnaes, Thomas Risse, and Beth A. Simmons (eds.), Handbook of International Relations (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications), pp. 52–72.
31. Finnemore, Martha (2000). “Are Legal Norms Distinctive?, ” New York University Journal of International Law and Politics, Vol. 32, No. 3, pp. 699–705.
32. Finnemore, Martha, and Stephen J. Toope. (2001). “Alternatives to ‘Legalization’: Richer Views of Law and Politics, ” International Organization, Vol. 55, No. 3, pp. 743–58.
33. Ginsburg, Tom, and Gregory C. Shaffer (2012). “The Empirical Turn in International Legal Scholarship, ” American Journal of International Law, Vol. 106, No. 1, pp. 1–46.
34. Goldsmith, Jack L., and Eric A. Posner (2005). The Limits of International Law (New York: Oxford University Press).
35. Goldsmith, Jack, and Adrian Vermeule (2002). “Empirical Methodology and Legal Scholarship, ” University of Chicago Law Review, Vol. 69, No. 1, pp. 153–67.
36. Goodman, Ryan, and Derek Jinks (2004). “How to Influence States: Socialization and International Human Rights Law, ” Duke Law Journal, Vol. 54, No. 3, pp. 621–703.
37. Hafner-Burton, Emilie M., David Victor, and Yonatan Lupu (2012). “Political Science Research on International Law: The State of the Field, ” American Journal of International Law, Vol. 106, No. 1, pp. 47–97.
38. Hart, H. L. A. (1961). The Concept of Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
39. Hathaway, Oona A., and Ariel N. Lavinbuk (2006). “Book Review: Rationalism and Revisionism in International Law, ” Harvard Law Review, Vol. 119, No. 5, pp. 1404–43.
40. Helfer, Laurence R. (2013). “Flexibility in International Agreements, ” in Jeffrey L. Dunoff and Mark A. Pollack (eds.), Interdisciplinary Perspectives on International Law and International Relations: The State of the Art (New York: Cambridge University Press), pp. 175–96.
41. Henkin, Louis (1979). How Nations Behave: Law and Foreign Policy, 2nd ed. (New York: Columbia University Press).
42. Hoffmann, Stanley H. (1961). “International Relations: The Long Road to Theory, ” in James N. Rosenau (ed.), International Politics and Foreign Policy (New York: The Free Press of Glencoe), pp. 421–37.
43. Hollis, Martin, and Steve Smith (1990). Explaining and Understanding International Relations (New York: Oxford University Press).
44. Johnstone Ian (2013). “Lawmaking by International Organizations: Perspectives from IL/IR Theory, ” in Jeffrey L. Dunoff and Mark A. Pollack (eds.), Interdisciplinary Perspectives on International Law and International Relations: The State of the Art (New York: Cambridge University Press), pp. 266–92.
45. Katzenstein, Peter J., and Nobuo Okawara (2001). “Japan, Asian-Pacific Security, and the Case for Analytical Eclecticism, ” International Security, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp. 153–85.
46. Katzenstein, Peter, and Rudra Sil (2008). “Eclectic Theorizing in the Study and Practice of International Relations, ” in Christian Reus-Smit and Duncan Snidal (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of International Relations (New York: Oxford University Press), pp. 109–30.
47. Kennan, George F. (1951). American Diplomacy: 1900–1950 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).
48. Keohane, Robert O. (1984). After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in World Political Economy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).
49. (1997). “International Relations and International Law: Two Optics, ” Harvard International Law Journal, Vol. 38, No. 2, pp. 487–502.
50. (1998). “When Does International Law Come Home?, ” Houston Law Review, Vol. 35, No. 3, pp. 699–713.
51. Keohane, Robert O., Andrew Moravcsik, and Anne-Marie Slaughter (2000). “Legalized Dispute Resolution: Interstate and Transnational, ” International Organization, Vol. 54, No. 3, pp. 457–88.
52. King, Gary, Robert O. Keohane, and Sidney Verba (1994). Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).
53. Klabbers, Jan (2004–2005). “The Relative Autonomy of International Law or the Forgotten Politics of Interdisciplinarity, ” Journal of International Law & International Relations, Vol. 1, Nos. 1–2, pp. 35–48.
54. (2009). “The Bridge Crack’d: A Critical Look at Interdisciplinary Relations, ” International Relations, Vol. 23, No. 1, pp. 119–25.
55. Koremenos, Barbara (2013). “Institutionalism and International Law, ” in Jeffrey L. Dunoff and Mark A. Pollack (eds.), Interdisciplinary Perspectives on International Law and International Relations: The State of the Art (New York: Cambridge University Press), pp. 59–82.
56. Koremenos, Barbara, and Timm Betz (2013). “The Design of Dispute Settlement Procedures in International Agreements, ” in Jeffrey L. Dunoff and Mark A. Pollack (eds.), Interdisciplinary Perspectives on International Law and International Relations: The State of the Art (New York: Cambridge University Press), pp. 371–93.
57. Koremenos, Barbara, Charles Lipson, and Duncan Snidal (2001). “The Rational Design of International Institutions, ” International Organization, Vol. 55, No. 4, pp. 761–99.
58. Koskenniemi, Martti (2000). “Carl Schmitt, Hans Morgenthau, and the Image of Law in International Relations, ” in Michael Byers (ed.), The Role of Law in International Politics: Essays in International Relations and International Law (New York: Oxford University Press), pp.17–34.
59. (2001). The Gentle Civilizer of Nations: The Rise and Fall of International Law 18701960 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
60. (2009a). “The Politics of International Law – 20 Years Later, ” European Journal of International Law, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 7–19.
61. (2009b). “Miserable Comforters: International Relations as New Natural Law, ”European Journal of International Relations, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 395–422.
62. Krasner, Stephen D. (1982). “Structural Causes and Regime Consequences: Regimes as Intervening Variables, ” International Organization, Vol. 36, No. 2, pp. 185–205.
63. Kratochwil, Friedrich, and John Gerard Ruggie (1986). “International Organization: A State of the Art on an Art of the State, ” International Organization, Vol. 40, No. 4, pp. 753–75.
64. Lake, David A. (2011). “Why ‘isms’ are Evil: Theory, Epistemology, and Academic Sects as Impediments to Understanding and Progress, ” International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 55, No. 2, pp. 465–80.
65. Lapid, Yosef (1989). “The Third Debate: On the Prospects of International Theory in a Post-Positivist Era, ” International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 33, No. 3, pp. 235–54.
66. Martin, Lisa L. (2013). “Against Compliance, ” in Jeffrey L. Dunoff and Mark A. Pollack (eds.), Interdisciplinary Perspectives on International Law and International Relations: The State of the Art (New York: Cambridge University Press), pp. 591–610.
67. Mattli, Walter, and Anne-Marie Slaughter (1995). “Law and Politics in the European Union: A Reply to Garrett, ” International Organization, Vol. 49, No. 1, pp. 183–90.
68. Moravcsik, Andrew (1997). “Taking Preferences Seriously: A Liberal Theory of International Politics, ” International Organization, Vol. 51, No. 4, pp. 513–53.
69. (2013). “Liberal Theories of International Law, ” in Jeffrey L. Dunoff and Mark A. Pollack (eds.), Interdisciplinary Perspectives on International Law and International Relations: The State of the Art (New York: Cambridge University Press), pp. 83–118.
70. Morgenthau, Hans (1948). Politics among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace (New York: Knopf).
71. Nau, Henry R. (2011). “No Alternative to ‘Isms,’” International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 55, No. 2, pp. 487–91.
72. Newman, Abraham, and David Zaring (2013). “Regulatory Networks: Power, Legitimacy, and Compliance, ” in Jeffrey L. Dunoff and Mark A. Pollack (eds.), Interdisciplinary Perspectives on International Law and International Relations: The State of the Art (New York: Cambridge University Press), pp. 244–65.
73. Nourse, Victoria, and Gregory Shaffer (2009). “Varieties of New Legal Realism: Can a New World Order Prompt a New Legal Theory?, ” Cornell Law Review, Vol. 95, No. 1, pp. 61–138.
74. Oppenheim, Lassa (1908). “The Science of International Law: Its Task and Method, ” American Journal of International Law, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 313–56.
75. Pauwelyn, Joost, and Manfred Elsig (2013). “The Politics of Treaty Interpretation: Variations and Explanations Across International Tribunals, ” in Jeffrey L. Dunoff and Mark A. Pollack (eds.), Interdisciplinary Perspectives on International Law and International Relations: The State of the Art (New York: Cambridge University Press), pp. 445–73.
76. Ratner, Steven R. (2013). “Persuading to Comply: On the Deployment and Avoidance of Legal Argumentation, ” in Jeffrey L. Dunoff and Mark A. Pollack (eds.), Interdisciplinary Perspectives on International Law and International Relations: The State of the Art (New York: Cambridge University Press), pp. 568–90.
77. Raustiala, Kal (2013). “Institutional Proliferation and the International Legal Order, ” in Jeffrey L. Dunoff and Mark A. Pollack (eds.), Interdisciplinary Perspectives on International Law and International Relations: The State of the Art (New York: Cambridge University Press), pp. 293–320.
78. Reus-Smit, Christian (2004) (ed.). The Politics of International Law (New York: Cambridge University Press).
79. Risse, Thomas (2004). “Social Constructivism and European Integration, ” in Antje Wiener and Thomas Diez (eds.), European Integration Theory (New York: Oxford University Press), pp. 159–76.
80. Ruggie, John Gerard (1998). “What Makes the World Hang Together? Neo-utilitarianism and the Social Constructivist Challenge, ” International Organization, Vol. 52, No. 4, pp. 855–85.
81. Samuel, Geoffrey (2009). “Interdisciplinarity and the Authority Paradigm: Should Law Be Taken Seriously by Scientists and Social Scientists?” Journal of Law and Society, Vol. 36, No. 4, pp. 431–59.
82. Schachter, Oscar (1977). “The Invisible College of International Lawyers, ” Northwestern University Law Review, Vol. 72, No. 2, pp. 217–26.
83. Schlegel, John Henry (1995). American Legal Realism & Empirical Social Science (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press).
84. Schmidt, Brian C. (2002). “On the History and Historiography of International Relations, ” in Walter Carlsnaes, Thomas Risse, and Beth A. Simmons (eds.), Handbook of International Relations (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications), pp. 3–22.
85. Shaffer, Gregory C., and Mark A. Pollack (2013). “Hard Law and Soft Law, ” in Jeffrey L. Dunoff and Mark A. Pollack (eds.), Interdisciplinary Perspectives on International Law and International Relations: The State of the Art (New York: Cambridge University Press), pp. 197–222.
86. Shapiro, Scott J. (2006). “What Is the Internal Point of View?, ” Fordham Law Review, Vol. 75, No. 3, pp. 1157–70.
87. Sil, Rudra, and Peter J. Katzenstein (2011). “De-Centering, Not Discarding, the ‘Isms’: Some Friendly Amendments, ” International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 55, No. 2, pp. 481–85.
88. Simmons, Beth A., and Andrew B. Breidenbach (2011). “The Empirical Turn in International Economic Law, ” Minnesota Journal of International Law, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 198–222.
89. Slaughter, Anne-Marie (2000). “International Law and International Relations, ” Recueil des Cours 285 (Boston: Martinus Nijhoff).
90. (2013). “International Law and International Relations Theory: Twenty Years Later, ” in Jeffrey L. Dunoff and Mark A. Pollack (eds.), Interdisciplinary Perspectives on International Law and International Relations: The State of the Art (New York: Cambridge University Press), pp. 613–25.
91. Slaughter Burley, Anne-Marie (1993). “International Law and International Relations Theory: A Dual Agenda, ” American Journal of International Law, Vol. 87, No. 2, pp. 205–39.
92. Spiro, Peter J. (2013). “Nongovernmental Organizations in International Relations (Theory), ” in Jeffrey L. Dunoff and Mark A. Pollack (eds.), Interdisciplinary Perspectives on International Law and International Relations: The State of the Art (New York: Cambridge University Press), pp. 223–43.
93. Steinberg, Richard (2013). “Wanted – Dead or Alive: Realist Approaches to International Law, ” in Jeffrey L. Dunoff and Mark A. Pollack (eds.), Interdisciplinary Perspectives on International Law and International Relations: The State of the Art (New York: Cambridge University Press), pp. 146–72.
94. Thompson, Alexander (2013). “Coercive Enforcement in International Law, ” in Jeffrey L. Dunoff and Mark A. Pollack (eds.), Interdisciplinary Perspectives on International Law and International Relations: The State of the Art (New York: Cambridge University Press), pp. 502–23.
95. Trachtman, Joel P. (2013). “Open Economy Law, ” in Jeffrey L. Dunoff and Mark A. Pollack (eds.), Interdisciplinary Perspectives on International Law and International Relations: The State of the Art (New York: Cambridge University Press), pp. 544–67.
96. Ulen, Thomas S. (2004). “The Unexpected Guest: Law and Economics, Law and Other Cognate Disciplines, and the Future of Legal Scholarship, ” Chicago-Kent Law Review, Vol. 79, No. 2, pp. 403–29.
97. Voeten, Erik (2013). “International Judicial Independence, ” in Jeffrey L. Dunoff and Mark A. Pollack (eds.), Interdisciplinary Perspectives on International Law and International Relations: The State of the Art (New York: Cambridge University Press), pp. 421–44.
98. von Stein, Jana (2013). “The Engines of Compliance, ” in Jeffrey L. Dunoff and Mark A. Pollack (eds.), Interdisciplinary Perspectives on International Law and International Relations: The State of the Art (New York: Cambridge University Press), pp. 477–501.
99. Waltz, Kenneth N. (1979). Theory of International Politics (New York: McGraw-Hill).
100. Wendt, Alexander (1999). Social Theory of International Politics (New York: Cambridge University Press).
101. Wight, Colin (2002). “Philosophy of Social Science and International Relations, ” in Walter Carlsnaes, Thomas Risse, and Beth A. Simmons (eds.), Handbook of International Relations (Thousand Paks, CA: Sage Publications), pp. 23–51.
102. Wyn Jones, Richard (2001) (ed.). Critical Theory & World Politics (Boulder, CO: Lynne Reinner Publishers).