A Comparative Foreign Relations Law Agenda: Opportunities and Challenges

Oona A. Hathaway
{"title":"A Comparative Foreign Relations Law Agenda: Opportunities and Challenges","authors":"Oona A. Hathaway","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3363312","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"International law is generally understood to be made up of the rules that states accept as binding in their relations with one another. But international law is the product not only of a political and legal process that takes place between states — as this common understanding implies — but also of processes that take place within them. And yet to date there has been remarkably little cross-national work examining the role of domestic politics and law in the creation of treaties and other international law. Part of the reason for this gap is the difficulty of conducting cross-national studies of foreign relations law on a large scale. To the extent there have been comparative studies done of foreign relations law, they have been largely limited to relatively small-scale case studies. More comprehensive examination of the differences across nations in the ways in which they make international commitments is rare. This chapter aims to contribute to an emerging conversation about how best to carry out a more comprehensive examination of differences between states in the law governing their engagement in the world around them. It maps out five areas that offer opportunities and challenges for the study of comparative foreign relations law. First, the choice of methodology, whether quantitative or qualitative. Second, the under-representation of certain states in existing foreign relations scholarship. Third, the domestic political and institutional structures that shape the interplay between the legislative, executive, and judicial functions within states. Fourth, the role of geopolitics. Fifth, the chapter sounds a cautionary note about approaching international law through domestic law.","PeriodicalId":191678,"journal":{"name":"PSN: International Agreements/Treaties (Topic)","volume":"89 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-03-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PSN: International Agreements/Treaties (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3363312","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

International law is generally understood to be made up of the rules that states accept as binding in their relations with one another. But international law is the product not only of a political and legal process that takes place between states — as this common understanding implies — but also of processes that take place within them. And yet to date there has been remarkably little cross-national work examining the role of domestic politics and law in the creation of treaties and other international law. Part of the reason for this gap is the difficulty of conducting cross-national studies of foreign relations law on a large scale. To the extent there have been comparative studies done of foreign relations law, they have been largely limited to relatively small-scale case studies. More comprehensive examination of the differences across nations in the ways in which they make international commitments is rare. This chapter aims to contribute to an emerging conversation about how best to carry out a more comprehensive examination of differences between states in the law governing their engagement in the world around them. It maps out five areas that offer opportunities and challenges for the study of comparative foreign relations law. First, the choice of methodology, whether quantitative or qualitative. Second, the under-representation of certain states in existing foreign relations scholarship. Third, the domestic political and institutional structures that shape the interplay between the legislative, executive, and judicial functions within states. Fourth, the role of geopolitics. Fifth, the chapter sounds a cautionary note about approaching international law through domestic law.
比较外交关系法议程:机遇与挑战
国际法通常被理解为由各国在相互关系中接受并具有约束力的规则组成。但是,国际法不仅是发生在国家之间的政治和法律过程的产物——正如这种共识所暗示的那样——而且也是发生在国家内部的过程的产物。然而,迄今为止,审查国内政治和法律在条约和其他国际法的制定中所起作用的跨国工作却少之又少。造成这种差距的部分原因是很难进行大规模的跨国外交关系法研究。就对外关系法的比较研究而言,它们大多局限于相对小规模的案例研究。对各国在作出国际承诺的方式上的差异进行更全面的考察是罕见的。本章旨在促进一种新兴的对话,即如何最好地对国家之间在法律上的差异进行更全面的检查,这些法律制约着他们参与周围的世界。它描绘了五个领域,为比较外交关系法的研究提供了机遇和挑战。第一,方法论的选择,是定量的还是定性的。第二,某些国家在现有外交关系研究中的代表性不足。第三,影响国家立法、行政和司法职能相互作用的国内政治和制度结构。第四,地缘政治的作用。第五,本章对通过国内法来处理国际法发出了警告。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信