We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 06 March 2019
In the first place, I should like to stress that the emphasis of my rather ambitious-sounding subtitle is on ‘speculation’, and not on ‘the future of international law’; for one, it is, at least at the time of writing, entirely speculative to think about the mid- and long-term consequences of the September 11 attacks, since, so far, the announced response to the attacks by the United States, the ‘West’ and the ‘civilised world’, has not yet happened. We are in a strange state of limbo, where everything seems possible, from secret James Bond-type operations to outright military attack of Afghanistan by the US and NATO troops, from civil war in Pakistan to biological —or even nuclear-counterattacks by the terrorist fold, from ‘business as (almost) usual’ to ‘the world is out of joint’. At such times, to speculate is not only all one can do, but it is, I believe, positively encouraged for those who professionally and/or passionately deal with the structure and meaning of social reality, as, inter alia, international legal academics do. Secondly, the emphasis is also on speculation because, evidently, it would be quite preposterous to pretend to set out, in a very brief comment written ‘out of the moment’, what all this will come to mean for so richly textured an academic discourse as international law. Yet international law and international lawyers are in everyone's mouth at this moment, and so it seems precisely apt to ‘speculate’ —and no more—, in rough sketch, about the consequences the events of September 11 and their political-military aftermath could have on the theory and practice of the ‘law of nations’.
(1) The use of the term ‚American' rather than ‚US', or ‚US American' is for the sake of simplicity only, and is not meant to subscribe to the notion that the US has the monopoly over ‘American-ness’, as is, unfortunately, occasionally done.Google Scholar
(2) Roth, K.: Letter to the members of the Human Rights Watch community, Human Rights Watch, September 21, 2001, at http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/september11/community.htm Google Scholar
(3) Cerone, J.: “Comment: Acts of War and State Responsibility in ‚Muddy Waters': the non-state actor dilemma”, in ASIL Insights: terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, September 2001, at http://qqq.asil.org/insights/insigh77.htm Google Scholar
(4) Koskenniemi, M.: From Apology to Utopia, Helsinki: Finnsih Lawyers' Publishing Company, 1989, p. 22ff.Google Scholar
(5) See the various contributions in the ASIL Insights: terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, September 2001, at http://qqq.asil.org/insights/insigh77.htm Google Scholar
(6) See, for example, Pellet, A.: „Non, ce n'est pas la guerre !“, in Le Monde 20/09/2001, at http://www.lemonde.fr/rech_art/0,5987,222831,00.html Google Scholar
(7) Habermas, J.: „Bestialität und Humanitaet – Ein Krieg and der Grenze zwischen Recht und Moral-“, in Die Zeit, 18, 1999, also available at http://www.zeit.de/1999/18/199918 krieg.htmlGoogle Scholar
(8) Ibid.Google Scholar
(9) For a good account of such ‚law without a state, see, among others, Teubner, G.: „Des Königs viele Leiber: Die Selbstdekonstruktion der Hierarchie des Rechts“, in Brunkhorst, H./Kettner, M.: Globalisierung und Demokratie, Frankfurt a.M.: Surkamp, 2000 Google Scholar
(10) Koskenniemi, (1989), p. 2Google Scholar
(11) See Habermas, J.: Faktizitaet und Geltung – Beitraege zur Diskurstheorie des Rechts und des Demokratischen Rechtsstaats, 4th ed., Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp, 1994.Google Scholar
You have
Access
