{"title":"国际法及其他方面","authors":"S. Chesterman","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3122185","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This chapter is a comment on Aniruddha Rajput’s discussion of how BRICS states influence various areas of international law. First, it questions the coherence of the approach towards international law of the BRICS states as a category. Second, it highlights that the respective states often defend traditional norms of sovereignty and non-intervention rather than promote an alternative new vision of international law. Third, it emphasizes that rising powers’ conservativism leads to increased difficulty of adopting new regimes.","PeriodicalId":112523,"journal":{"name":"The International Rule of Law","volume":"50 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-02-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"International Law and Its Others\",\"authors\":\"S. Chesterman\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.3122185\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This chapter is a comment on Aniruddha Rajput’s discussion of how BRICS states influence various areas of international law. First, it questions the coherence of the approach towards international law of the BRICS states as a category. Second, it highlights that the respective states often defend traditional norms of sovereignty and non-intervention rather than promote an alternative new vision of international law. Third, it emphasizes that rising powers’ conservativism leads to increased difficulty of adopting new regimes.\",\"PeriodicalId\":112523,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The International Rule of Law\",\"volume\":\"50 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-02-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The International Rule of Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3122185\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The International Rule of Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3122185","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
This chapter is a comment on Aniruddha Rajput’s discussion of how BRICS states influence various areas of international law. First, it questions the coherence of the approach towards international law of the BRICS states as a category. Second, it highlights that the respective states often defend traditional norms of sovereignty and non-intervention rather than promote an alternative new vision of international law. Third, it emphasizes that rising powers’ conservativism leads to increased difficulty of adopting new regimes.