Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The International Lawyer as Agent of Global Governance

  • Chapter
Criticizing Global Governance

Abstract

According to Niklas Luhmann, globalization is characterized by a shift from territorial borders to functional boundaries (Luhmann 1995, 571; Luhmann 1997, 158–160). Important issue areas (Leebron 2002, 6–10) such as the market, environment, or human rights, have left territorial boundaries behind. But states continue to be the main units of legitimate decision-making. The “democratic deficit” of regional and international institutions remains unresolved; alternative models of legitimacy—such as pure functionalism and market rationality—are based on a standard of efficiency that is itself in need of justification. Systems of rules and norms constructed “bottom-up,” that is, by a process of self-ordering of the relevant issue area (Teubner 1997, 3; Fischer-Lescano and Teubner 2004; Paulus, State 2004), incur problems of legitimacy, because they are self-imposed by the relevant power holders and brokers—and thus open to challenges from all those not participating in the process, but subject to the decisions made.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • AB. 1996. United States—Gasoline, Report of the Appellate Body, WTO doc. WT/DS2AB/R

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 1998. Shrimp, United States—Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products, Report of the Appellate Body, WTO Doc. WT/DS58/AB/R, reproduced in: International Legal Materials 38: 121–175.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 1998. Beef Hormones, European Communities—Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products, Report of the Appellate Body, WTO Doc. WT/DS48/AB/R.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allott, Philip. 1990. Eunomia: New Order for a New World. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alston, Philip. 2002. Resisting the Merger and Acquisition of Human Rights by Trade Law: A Reply to Petersmann, European Journal of International Law 13:815–844.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alvarez, Jose. 1996. Judging the Security Council. American Journal of International Law 90: 1–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, Kenneth. 2000. The Ottawa Convention Banning Landmines, the Role of International Non-governmental Organizations and the Idea of International Civil Society. European Journal of International Law 11: 91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ascensio, Hervé, Emmanuel Decaux, and Alain Pellet, eds. 2000. Droit international pénal. Paris: Pedone.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bagwell, K., P. C. Mavroidis, and R. W. Staiger. 2002. It’s a Question of Market Access, American Journal of International Law 96: 56–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhagwati, Jagdish. 2002. Afterword: The Question of Linkage. American Journal of International Law 96: 126–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Byers, Michael, and Georg Nolte, eds. 2003. United States Hegemony and the Foundations of International Law, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassese, Antonio. 1986. International Law in a Divided World. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 1995. Self Determination of Peoples: A Legal Reappraisal. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassese, A., P. Gaeta, and J. W. D. Jones. 2002. The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Charnovitz, Steve. 1998. The Moral Exception in Trade Policy. Virginia Journal of International Law 38: 689–745.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 2002. Triangulating the World Trade Organization, American Journal of International Law 96: 28–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Convention on Biological Diversity. 1992. United Nations Treaty Series 1760: 143–165, reproduced in: International Legal Materials 31 (1992), 818.

    Google Scholar 

  • Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction. 1997. United Nations Treaty Series 2056: 211.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crawford, James, ed. 2002. The International Law Commission’s Articles on State Responsibility. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doha Declaration. 2001. Doha Ministerial Declaration, WTO Doc. WT/MIN(01)/DEC/1 (2001).

    Google Scholar 

  • Drolshammer, Jens, and Michael Pfeifer, eds. 2001. The Internationalization of the Practice of Law. The Hague et al.: Kluwer Law International.

    Google Scholar 

  • DSU. 1994. Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes. United Nations Treaty Series 1869: 401–424.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dworkin, Ronald. 1986. Law’s Empire. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • EU-Chile Settlement. 2001. EU and Chile Reach an Amicable Settlement to End WTO/ITLOS swordfish dispute, Doc. IP/01/116, January 25, 2001. Available at http://europa.eu.int/comm/trade/index_en.htm (visited October 3, 2002).

    Google Scholar 

  • Fassbender, Bardo. 1998. UN Security Council Reform and the Right of Veto: A Constitutional Perspective. Den Haag et al.: Kluwer Law International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer-Lescano, Andreas, and Gunther Teubner. 2004. Regime-Collisions: The Vain Search for Legal Unity in The Fragmentation of Global Law. Michigan Journal of International Law 25: 999–1046.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox, Gregory H., and Brad R. Roth, eds. 2000. Democratic Governance and International Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Franck, Thomas. 1990. The Power of Legitimacy Among Nations, New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • GATT 1947/1994. General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. United Nations Treaty Series 1867: 190–199.

    Google Scholar 

  • GATT Panel 1991. United States—Restrictions on Imports of Tuna, August 16, 1991, reprinted in 30 ILM (1991), 1594 (unadopted), paras 6.3–6.4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gowlland-Debbas, Vera. 2000. The Limits of Unilateral Enforcement of Community Objectives in the Framework of UN Peace Maintenance. European Journal of International Law 11: 361–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hafner, G. 2000. Risks Ensuing From Fragmentation of International Law, International Law Commission, Report on the Work of Its Fifty-Second Session, General Assembly, Official Records, Fifty-fifth Session, Suppl. No. 10, UN Doc. A/55/10 (2000): 321–330.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart, Herbert L. A. 1994. The Concept of Law. 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howse, Robert. 2002. Human Rights in the WTO: Whose Rights, What Humanity? European Journal of International Law 13: 651–659.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —. 2002. From Politics to Technocracy—and Back Again: The Fate of the Multilateral Trade Regime, American Journal of International Law 96: 94–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ICJ. 1970. Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited, I.C.J. Reports: 3–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 1997. Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project case (Hungary v. Slovakia), I.C.J. Reports 1997: 7–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • ICTY. 1999. International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, Prosecutor v. Furundžíja, International Legal Materials 38: 317–393.

    Google Scholar 

  • International Law Commission (ILC). 2001. Report of the Study Group on Fragmentation of International Law, August 1, 2002, UN Doc. A/CN.4/L.628 (2001).

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 2002. International Law Commission, Report on the Work of Its Fifty-Fourth Session, General Assembly, Official Records, 57th session, Supplement No. 10, UN Doc. A/57/10 (2002).

    Google Scholar 

  • International Law Commission (ILC). 2004. Report of the International Law Commission, Report on the Work of Its Fifty-Sixth Session. General Assembly, Official Records, 59th session, Supplement No. 10, UN Doc. A/59/10 (2004).

    Google Scholar 

  • ITLOS Chamber Constitution. 2000. International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, Conservation and Sustainable Exploitation of Swordfish Stocks in the South-Eastern Pacific Ocean (Chile/European Community), Case No. 7, Constitution of Chamber, Order 2000/3, reproduced in: International Legal Materials 40: 474–479.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jennings, Robert, and Arthur Watts, eds. 1992. Oppenheim’s International Law. 9th ed. Harlow: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, David. 1987. The Move to Institutions. Cardozo Law Review 8: 841–988.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keohane, Robert O., and Joseph S. Nye, Jr. 2001. Power and Interdependence. New York: Addison-Wesley Longman, 3rd edition.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koskenniemi, Martti, and Päivi Leino. 2002. Fragmentation of International Law? Postmodern Anxieties. Leiden Journal of International Law 154: 553–579.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuyper, P. J. 1994. The Law of GATT as a Special Field of International Law. Netherlands Yearbook of International Law (1994), 227–225.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leebron, David W. 2002. Linkages. American Journal of International Law 96: 5–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann, Niklas. 1995. Das Recht der Gesellschaft. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Taschenbuch.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 1997. Die Gesellschaft der Gesellschaft. Vol. 1. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merkl, A. 1931. Prolegomena zu einer Theorie des rechtlichen Stufenbaues, Gesellschaft, Staat und Recht. Untersuchungen zur Reinen Rechtslehre. Festschrift Hans Kelsen zum 50. Geburtstage. Wien: Springer, 252–294.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neumann, Jan. 2001. Die materielle und prozessuale Koordination völkerrechtlicher Ordnungen: Die Problematik paralleler Streitbeilegungsverfahren am Beispiel des Schwertfisch-Falls, Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentlichesRecht und Völkerrecht 61: 529–576.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orellana, Marcos. 2002. The EU and Chile Suspend the Swordfish Case Proceedings at the WTO and the International Tribunal of the Law of the Sea, ASIL Insight, February 2001. Available at http://www.asil.org/insights/insigh60.htm (visited November 4, 2002).

    Google Scholar 

  • Paulus, Andreas. 1999. Book Review. European Journal of International Law 10: 209–211.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 2001. Die internationale Gemeinschaft im Völkerrecht. München: C. H. Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  • —, Postmodernism. 2001. International Law After Postmodernism: Towards Renewal or Decline of International Law? Leiden JIL 14: 727–755.

    Google Scholar 

  • —, Iraq. 2004. The War Against Iraq and the Future of International Law. Michigan Journal of International Law 25: 691–733.

    Google Scholar 

  • —, State. 2004. Comment to Andreas Fischer-Lescano & Gunther Teubner. The Legitimacy of International Law and the Role of the State. Michigan Journal of International Law 25: 1047–1058.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pauwelyn, Joost. 2001. The Role of Public International Law in the WTO: How Far Can We Go. American Journal of International Law 95: 535–578.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —. 2003. Conflict of Norms in Public International Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Petersmann, Ernst-Ulrich. 1997. How to Reform the UN System? Constitutionalism, International Law, and International Organizations. Leiden JIL 10: 421–474.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —. 2000. The WTO Constitution and Human Rights. Journal of International Economic Law 19–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 2002. Time for a United Nations “Global Compact” for Integrating Human Rights into the Law of Worldwide Organizations: Lessons from European Integration. European Journal of International Law 13: 621–650.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, R. B. et al., eds. 2001. Efficiency, Equity, and Legitimacy: The Multilateral Trading System at the Millennium. Washington: Brookings.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rio Declaration on Environment and Development. 1992. UN Conference on Environment and Development. Rio de Janeiro June, 3–14 1992, UN Doc. A/CONE 151/5/Rev. 1 (1992), reproduced in: International Legal Materials 31:876–880.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodrígez Cedeño, V. 2002. Fifth Report on Unilateral Acts of States, April 17, UN Doc. A/CN.4/525/Add.1 (2002).

    Google Scholar 

  • Rome Statute. 1998. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. United Nations Treaty Series 2187: 90–158.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenau, James, and Ernst-Otto Czempiel, eds. 1992. Governance without Government: Order and Change in World Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoemann, H. L. and S. Ohlhoff. 1999. “Constitutionalization” and Dispute Settlement in the WTO: National Security as an Issue of Competence. American Journal of International Law 93: 424–451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharma. 1999. Statement. Security Council, Fifty-forth Year, 3989th mtg., March, 24 1999, UN Doc. S/PV 3989 (1999): 16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simma, Bruno. 1985. Self-Contained Regimes. Netherlands Yearbook of International Law 16: 111–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —. 1994. From Bilateralism to Community Interest in International Law. Recueil des Cours 250: 217–384.

    Google Scholar 

  • —, ed. 2002. The Charter of the United Nations: A Commentary. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slaughter, Anne-Marie, and William Burke-White. 2002. An International Constitutional Moment, Harvard International Law Journal 43: 1–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steger, Debra, P. 2002. Afterword: The “Trade and …” Conundrum—A Commentary. American Journal of International Law 96: 135–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taft, William, H. IV, and Todd F. Buchwald. 2003. Preemption, Iraq, and International Law. American Journal of International Law 97: 557–563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teubner, Gunther, ed. 1997. Global Law without a State. Aldershot: Darthmouth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomuschat, Christian. 1993. Obligations Arising for States with or against Their Will. Recueil des Cours 241: 195–375.

    Google Scholar 

  • —, ed. 1993. Modern Law of Self-Determination, Dordrecht/Boston/London: Nijhoff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomuschat, Christian, 1995. Die internationale Gemeinschaft, Archiv des Völkerrechts 33: 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trachtman, Joel. 2002. Institutional Linkage. American Journal of International Law 96: 77–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • TRIPS. 1994. Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Rights, Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Annex 1 C, United Nations Treaty Series 1869: 299–331.

    Google Scholar 

  • UN-WTO. 1995. Exchange of Letters Constituting a Global Arrangement on Cooperation, September 29, United Nations Treaty Series 1889: 590–593.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNCLOS. 1982. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982. United Nations Treaty Series 1833: 397–581.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. 1969. United Nations Treaty Series 1155:331–353.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weller, Marc, ed. 1999. International Documents & Analysis 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • WTO. 1994. Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, United Nations Treaty Series 1867: 154–164.

    Google Scholar 

  • WTO Panel Request. 2000. Request for the Establishment of a Panel by the European Communities, WTO Doc. WT/DS193/2 (2000).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Andreas L. Paulus
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Potsdam, Germany

    Markus Lederer (research fellow at the Chair of International Politics) (research fellow at the Chair of International Politics)

  2. Graduate School for Public Administration and Public Policy of Tecnológico de Monterrey (EGAP—Tec de Monterrey), Mexico

    Philipp S. Müller (Professor for International Relations) (Professor for International Relations)

Copyright information

© 2005 Markus Lederer and Philipp S. Müller

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Paulus, A.L. (2005). The International Lawyer as Agent of Global Governance. In: Lederer, M., Müller, P.S. (eds) Criticizing Global Governance. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781403979513_10

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation