The Disciplines of International Law and Policy

Leiden Journal of International Law

Volumn 12, Issue 1, 1999, Pages 9-133

  Kennedy, David ^a  

^a HARVARD LAW SCHOOL   (United States)

Author keywords

comparative law; interdisciplinary studies; international economic law; international relations; legal theory

Indexed keywords

EID: 85006530760     PISSN: 09221565     EISSN: 14789698     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0922156599000023     Document Type: Article

References (75)

1. See, e.g. A. Anghie, Francisco de Viloria and the Colonial Origins of International Law, 5 Social and Legal Studies 321 (1996); and
2. J. Gathii, International Law and Eurocentricity: A Review Essay, 9 European Journal of International Law 184–211 (1998). It might tum out that even the most open doctrines of comity or reciprocity, calling for a balancing of all implicated transnational interests, nevertheless remained skewed because they tended only to “see” interests which could be assimilated to one or another “national” interest.
3. See, e.g. R. Malley, J. Manas & C. Nix, Constructing the State Extra-territorially: Jurisdictional Discourse, the National Interest, and Transnational Norms, 103 Harvard Law Review 1273 (1990),
4. Feminists in international law have worked to identify bias both in specific rules or institutional practices and in the deeper fabric of the disciplinary imagination. Among the feminist works which have influenced my own work by seeking to blend these two strands have been H. Charlesworth, C. Cbinkin & S. Wright, Feminist Approaches to International Law, 85 American Journal of Intemational Law 613–645 (1991);
5. H. Charlesworth, Women and International Law, 19 Australian Feminist Studies 115 (1994);
6. H. Charlesworth, Tramforming the United Men's Club: Feminist Futuresfor the United Nations, 4 Transnational Law and Contemporary Problems 421 (1995);
7. H. Charlesworth & C. Chinkin, The Gender of Jus Cogens, 15 Human Rights Quarterly 63–76 (1993);
8. K. Engle, International Human Rights and Feminism: When Discourses Meet, 13 Michigan Journal of International Law 517–610 (1992); and
9. K. Knop, Re/Statements: Feminism and State Sovereignty in International Law, 3 Transnational Law and Contemporary Problems 293–344 (1993).
10. D. Kennedy, Les cliches revisites: Le droit international et la politique, five lectures delivered at the University of Paris in February 1998, forthcoming also in French by Pedone.
11. See D. Kennedy & C. Tennant, New Approaches to International Law: A Bibliography, 35 Harvard International Law Journal 417 (1994). A number ofconferences were organized under the New Approaches to International Law rubric at the Harvard Law School, the University of Wisconsin Law School, and the University of Connecticut Law School between 1991 and 1997. The Bibliography was updated for the conference: “Fill de NAIL: A Celebration!” held at the Harvard Law School on 9-11 May 1997. Copies are available on request from the European Law Research Center, Harvard Law School, Cambridge, Massachusetts
12. 02138, USA. See also, O. Korhonen, New International Law: Silence, Defence or Deliverance,
13. 7 European Joumal oflnternational Law I (1996).
14. A selected bibliography fucusing on materials available in Europe is O. Korhonen & I. Skouteris, Under Rhodes Eyes: The “Old” and the “New” International Law at Looking Distance, 11 Leiden Journal of International Law 429–440 (1998).
15. This title seems to have been taken from an essay I wrote called A New Stream in International Law Scholarship, 7 Wisconsin International Law Journal 1 (1988). See, e.g, D. Cass, Navigating the New Stream: Recent Critical Scholarship in International Law, 65 Nordic Journal of International Law 337 (1996).
16. The tendency to link (at least the male) internationalists criticizing the mainstream intemationallaw tradition with the “Critical Legal Studies” movement or school in the United States reached a high point in L. Henkin, R.C. Pugh & O. Schachter, International Law, Cases and Materials, 48–50 (1993).
17. See also N. Purvis, Critical Legal Studies in Public International Law, 32 Harvard International Law Journal 81 (1991);
18. A. Carty, Critical International Law: Recent Trends in Theory of International Law, 2 European Journal of Intemational Law 66 (1991);
19. P. Trimble, International Law, World Order and Critical Legal Studies, 42 Stanford Law Review 811 (1990); and
20. O. De Schutter, Les Critical Legal Studies au pays du droit international public, 22 Droit et Societe 585–605 (1992).
21. Background influences on this essay include D. Kennedy, A Critique of Adjudication: Fin de Siecle (1997);
22. D. Trubek, Y. Dezalay & R. Buchanen, Global Restructuring and the Law: Studies of the Internationalization of Legal Fields and the Creation of Transnational Arenas, 44 Case Western Resolve Law Review 407–498 (1994);
23. M. de S.-O.-l'E. Lasser, Judicial (Seif}-Portraits: Judicial Discourse in the French Legal System, 104 Yale Law Journal 1325 (1995);
24. M.C. Belleau, “Les Juristes Inquiets': Critical Currents of Legal Thought in France at the End of the Nineteenth Century (S.J.D. Dissertation, Harvard Law School 1994). I developed the historical narrative in this essay earlier in A New World Order: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow, 4 Transnational Law and Contemporary Problems 330 (1995); and
25. A New Stream of International Law Scholarship, 7 Wisconsin International Law Journal I (1988).
26. My thinking about international economic law has been influenced by D. Tarullo, Beyond Normalcy in the Regulation of International Trade, 100 Harvard Law Review 546 (1987);
27. J. Paul, Comity in International Law, 32 Harvard International Law Journal I (1991)
28. J. Paul, The Isolation of Private International Law, 7 Wisconsin International Law Journal 149 (1988); and
29. B. Langille, General Reflections on the Relationship of Trade and Labor (Or: Fair Trade is Free Trade's Destiny), in R. Bhagwati & R. Hudec (Eds.), Fair Trade and Harmonization, Prerequisites for Free Trade? 231–266 (1996).
30. Parts of the argument in this essay were published by D. Kennedy, The international Style in Postwar Law and Policy, 1 Utah Law Review 7 (1994);
31. and D. Kennedy, Receiving the International, 10 Connecticut Journal of International Law 1–26 (1994).
32. This essay was influenced by L. Abu-Odeh, Post-Colonial Feminism and the Veil: Considering the Differencess, 26 New England Law Review 1527 (1992);
33. L. Abu-Odeh, Crimes of Honor and the Construction of Gender in Arab Societies (S.J.D. Dissertation, Harvard Law School 1996);
34. R. Ford, The Boundaries of Race: Political Geography in Legal Analysis, 107 Harvard Law Review 1843–1921 (1994);
35. G. Frankenberg, Critical Comparisons: Rethinking Comparative Law, 26 Harvard International Law Journal 411 (1985);
36. J. Esquirol, The Fictions of Latin American Law (part 1), 2 Utah Law Review 425 (1997);
37. A. Riles, Aspiration and Control: International Legal Rhetoric and the Esseniialization of Culture, 106 Harvard Law Review 723–740 (1993);
38. A. Riles, The Viewfrom the International Plane: Perspective and Scale in the Architecture of the Colonial Encounter, 6 Law and Critique 39 (1995); and
39. A. Riles, Representing In-Between: Law, Anihropology and the Rhetoric of Inter disciplinarity, 3 University of Illinois Law Review 597–650 (1994).
40. This essay is largely a shortened version of D. Kennedy, New Approaches to Comparative Law: Comparativism and Iniernational Governance, 2 Utah Law Review 545 (1997).
41. This essay was influenced by A. Anghie, Creating the Nation State: Colonialism and the Making of International Law (S.J.D. Dissertation, Harvard Law School 1995);
42. N. Berman, A Perilous Ambivalence: Nationalist Desire, Legal Autonomy and the Limits of the Interwar Framework, 33 Harvard International Law Journal 353 (1992);
43. N. Berman, Modernism, Nationalism and the Rhetoric of Reconstruction, 4 Yale Journal of Law and the Humanities 351 (1992);
44. N. Berman, But the Alternative Is Despair: European Nationalism and the Modernist Renewal of International Law, 106 Harvard Law Review 1792 (1993);
45. N. Bennan, Between Alliance and Localization: Nationalism and the New Oscillationism, 26 International Law and Policy 449 (1994);
46. D. Bederman, Compulsory Pilotage, Public Policy and the Early Private International Law of Torts, 64 Tulane Law Review 1033 (1990);
47. D. Bedennan, The Souls of International Organizations: Legal Personality andthe Lighthouse of Cape Spartel, 36 Virginia Journal of International Law 275–377 (1996);
48. A. Carty, The Decay of International Law: A Reappraisal of the Limits of Legal Imagination in International Affairs (1986);
49. D. Kennedy, The Rise and Fall of Classical Legal Thought, (unpublished manuscript on file with author);
50. D. Kennedy, Towards an Historical Understanding of Legal Consciousness: The Case of Classical Legal Thought in America 1850-1940, 3 Research in Law and Sociology 3 (1980);
51. M. Koskenneimi, From Apology to Utopia: The Structure of International Legal Argument (1989);
52. C. Landauer, J.L. Brierly and the Modernization of International Law, 25 Virginia Journal of Transnational Law 881 (1993);
53. E. Morgan, Internalization of Customary International Law: An Historical Perspective, 1 Yale Journal of International Law 63 (1987); and
54. O. Vasuaki, Japanese International Law in the Prewar Periad: Perspectives on the Teaching and Research of International Law in Prewar Japan, 29 Japanese Yearbook of International Law 23 (1986).
55. I have developed this historical argument in more detail in D. Kennedy, Primitive Legal Scholarship, 27 Harvard International Law Journal 1 (1986);
56. Id. The Move to Institutions, 8 Cardozo Law Review 841 (1987);
57. Id. Images of Religion in International Legal Theory, in M. Janis (Ed.), The Influence of Religion on the Development of International Law 137 (1991);
58. Id. A New World Order: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow, 4 Transnational Law and Contemporary Problems 330 (1995); and
59. id, International Law in the Nineteenth Century: History ofan Illusion, 65 Nordic Journal of International Law 385–420 (1996).
60. This difference in orientrtion has been present from the start. We need only contrast the bottom-up/client focus of the original Katz and Brewster materials on “international business transactions” with the rather more top/down regime orientation of the Steiner and Vagts materials on “transnational” law. Nevertheless, both styles self-consciously embrace what had, in the author's views, theretofure been considered both national and intemational law, both private and public law. See M. Katz & K. Brewster, The Law of International Transactions and Relations: Cases and Materials (1960); and
61. H. Steiner & D. Vagts, Transnational Legal Problems: Materials and Texts (1968).
62. See F. Kirgis, The Formative Years of the American Society of International Law, 90 American Journal of International Law 559–589 (1996).
63. DWlcan Kennedy analyzes this methodological American exceptionalism in D. Kennedy, A Critique of Adjudication: Fin de Siècle (1997).
64. See also W. T. Fisher IT & M. Horwitz (Eds.), American Legal Realism (1993). It would not be too much to say that in the United States the dominant forms oflegal thought for a century have been in dialog with these ideas, setting international law in the United States in a different orbit from our European counterparts. Although the European legal tradition encountered these ideas as well in the sociological jurisprudence of France, the free law movement in Germany, etc. they were more firmly marginalized from the start. My sense, moreover, is that European international lawyers may see themselves less as exponents of particular “schools of thought': and more as objective instruments of normative elaboration, influenced perhaps by one or another mentor figure oftheir youth.
65. J. Esquirol, The Fictions of Lalin American Law (Part J), 2 Utah Law Review 425 (1997).
66. W. Friedmann, The Position of the Underdeveloped Countries and the Universality of International Law, 2 International Law Bulletin 5, at 9-10 (1%3).
67. R.P. Anand, Attitudes of the Asian-African States Toward Certain Problems of International Law, in F. Snyder & S. Sathirathai (Eds.), Third World Attitudes Towards International Law 5, at 17 (1987).
68. M.A. Glendon etal. Comparative Legal Traditions; Text, Materials, and Cases 8 (1994).
69. I explore the doctrinal “sources of international law” in D. Kennedy, The Sources of International Law, 2 American University Journal of Intemational Law & Politics 1 (1987).
70. D. Kennedy, A New World Order: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow, 4 Transnational Law and Contemporary Problems 330 (1995); and
71. iii, The Move to Institutions, 8 Cardozo Law Review, 841 (1987).
72. The best articulation ofthis last idea is J.H. Bello, The World Trade Organization Dispute Settlement Understanding: Less is More, 90 American Journal of Intemationai Law 416 (1996).
73. See Towards a New International Economic Order (UNESCO) 98 (1979).
74. See, e.g. S.P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order (1996).
75. D. Acheson, Present at the Creation: My Years at the State Department (1969).