国际法私营化

P. Stephan
{"title":"国际法私营化","authors":"P. Stephan","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1780468","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The old understanding of international law as something created solely by and for sovereigns is defunct. Today the production and enforcement of international law increasingly depends on private actors, not traditional political authorities. As with other public services that we used to take for granted – schools, prisons, energy utilities and transportation networks – privatization has come to international law.The tasks of this paper are both positive and normative. It both locates the privatization process within a broader model of law production and uses criteria supplied by that theory to assess its value. It argues that innovation in the production of international law may achieve considerable benefits. Changes in international economics and politics make experimentation imperative. At the same time, some forms of privatization pose considerable risks without corresponding benefits. The question whether international law applies at all to particular conduct is fundamental and has profound consequences. It involves a choice between legal systems, not simply a choice among applicable rules. Privatization that destabilizes the domain of international law, i.e., that makes it less clear where international rules apply, produces high costs that require exceptional justification.In particular, the last portion of the paper traces through a range of areas where the political branches, through statutes, have given different directions as to the application of international law in lawsuits. I argue that courts should follow these directions, not only because of a general obligation to fulfill statutory intent, but because disregard of them will confuse the general issue of when international law applies. Thus the courts should not expand the domain of international law when statutory law indicates otherwise, and should not demur from applying international law where legislation invokes it, no matter what private litigants seek and whether or not courts generally wish to contribute to the development of international law. As simple and straightforward as these propositions may seem, they resolve many pressing current disputes.","PeriodicalId":113747,"journal":{"name":"Litigation & Procedure eJournal","volume":"112 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-03-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"11","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Privatizing International Law\",\"authors\":\"P. Stephan\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.1780468\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The old understanding of international law as something created solely by and for sovereigns is defunct. Today the production and enforcement of international law increasingly depends on private actors, not traditional political authorities. As with other public services that we used to take for granted – schools, prisons, energy utilities and transportation networks – privatization has come to international law.The tasks of this paper are both positive and normative. It both locates the privatization process within a broader model of law production and uses criteria supplied by that theory to assess its value. It argues that innovation in the production of international law may achieve considerable benefits. Changes in international economics and politics make experimentation imperative. At the same time, some forms of privatization pose considerable risks without corresponding benefits. The question whether international law applies at all to particular conduct is fundamental and has profound consequences. It involves a choice between legal systems, not simply a choice among applicable rules. Privatization that destabilizes the domain of international law, i.e., that makes it less clear where international rules apply, produces high costs that require exceptional justification.In particular, the last portion of the paper traces through a range of areas where the political branches, through statutes, have given different directions as to the application of international law in lawsuits. I argue that courts should follow these directions, not only because of a general obligation to fulfill statutory intent, but because disregard of them will confuse the general issue of when international law applies. Thus the courts should not expand the domain of international law when statutory law indicates otherwise, and should not demur from applying international law where legislation invokes it, no matter what private litigants seek and whether or not courts generally wish to contribute to the development of international law. As simple and straightforward as these propositions may seem, they resolve many pressing current disputes.\",\"PeriodicalId\":113747,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Litigation & Procedure eJournal\",\"volume\":\"112 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2011-03-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"11\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Litigation & Procedure eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1780468\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Litigation & Procedure eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1780468","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 11

摘要

将国际法视为完全由主权国家创造并为主权国家服务的旧观念已经不复存在。今天,国际法的制定和执行越来越依赖于私人行为者,而不是传统的政治当局。与我们过去认为理所当然的其他公共服务- -学校、监狱、能源公用事业和运输网络- -一样,私有化已成为国际法。本文的任务是积极的和规范的。它既将私有化进程置于一个更广泛的法律产生模型中,又使用该理论提供的标准来评估其价值。它认为,在国际法的制定方面的创新可能会带来相当大的好处。国际经济和政治的变化使得实验势在必行。同时,某些形式的私有化带来相当大的风险,却没有相应的好处。国际法是否完全适用于特定行为的问题是根本的,具有深远的影响。它涉及法律体系之间的选择,而不仅仅是在适用规则之间的选择。私有化破坏了国际法领域的稳定,即使国际规则在何处适用变得不那么明确,产生了需要特殊理由的高昂成本。特别是,本文件的最后一部分追溯了政治部门通过法规对在诉讼中适用国际法给出不同指示的一系列领域。我认为,法院应该遵循这些指示,不仅是因为履行法定意图的一般义务,而且因为无视这些指示会混淆国际法何时适用的一般问题。因此,法院不应在成文法另有指示的情况下扩大国际法的领域,也不应反对在立法援引国际法的情况下适用国际法,无论私人诉讼人的要求如何,无论法院一般是否希望对国际法的发展作出贡献。尽管这些主张看起来简单明了,但它们解决了当前许多紧迫的争端。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Privatizing International Law
The old understanding of international law as something created solely by and for sovereigns is defunct. Today the production and enforcement of international law increasingly depends on private actors, not traditional political authorities. As with other public services that we used to take for granted – schools, prisons, energy utilities and transportation networks – privatization has come to international law.The tasks of this paper are both positive and normative. It both locates the privatization process within a broader model of law production and uses criteria supplied by that theory to assess its value. It argues that innovation in the production of international law may achieve considerable benefits. Changes in international economics and politics make experimentation imperative. At the same time, some forms of privatization pose considerable risks without corresponding benefits. The question whether international law applies at all to particular conduct is fundamental and has profound consequences. It involves a choice between legal systems, not simply a choice among applicable rules. Privatization that destabilizes the domain of international law, i.e., that makes it less clear where international rules apply, produces high costs that require exceptional justification.In particular, the last portion of the paper traces through a range of areas where the political branches, through statutes, have given different directions as to the application of international law in lawsuits. I argue that courts should follow these directions, not only because of a general obligation to fulfill statutory intent, but because disregard of them will confuse the general issue of when international law applies. Thus the courts should not expand the domain of international law when statutory law indicates otherwise, and should not demur from applying international law where legislation invokes it, no matter what private litigants seek and whether or not courts generally wish to contribute to the development of international law. As simple and straightforward as these propositions may seem, they resolve many pressing current disputes.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信