Legal Deliberation and Argumentation in International Decision Making

doi:10.1017/CBO9780511691614.007

6 - Legal Deliberation and Argumentation in International Decision Making

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 06 April 2010

Ian Johnstone

Edited by

Hilary Charlesworth and

Jean-Marc Coicaud

Show author details

Hilary Charlesworth: Affiliation:
Australian National University, Canberra
Jean-Marc Coicaud: Affiliation:
United Nations University, New York

Book contents

Get access

Summary

Questions about the legitimacy of international decision making have arisen in proportion to the growing autonomy of international organizations. If these organizations are able to wield influence not directly traceable to the consent of member governments, what is the source of their legitimacy? In the context of the European Union (EU), the concern is typically framed in terms of the democratic deficit, characterized by the increasing remoteness of those who make decisions from those who are affected by them. Proposals on how to bring down that deficit bump up against a larger question: Can democracy be transposed beyond the level of the nation-state? This chapter explores that question by drawing on the theory of deliberative democracy. My central claim is that voting arrangements are not the only gauge of legitimacy in international organizations; one must also look at the quality of deliberations that precede and follow decisions taken. I support that claim first by identifying a core principle of the theory of deliberative democracy: any decision must be backed by good arguments. What counts as a “good argument” varies from setting to setting, depending on the normative framework within which the deliberation occurs. I then consider whether, as a matter of theory, there are grounds for applying the deliberative principle at the transnational level. I argue that particular conventions of argument and discourse operate in any deliberative enterprise, the parameters of which are set by an interpretive community associated with the enterprise.

Type: Chapter
Information: Fault Lines of International Legitimacy , pp. 175 - 203

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511691614.007 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Johnstone, Ian (2008). “Legislation and Adjudication in the UN Security Council: Bringing Down the Deliberative Deficit,” American Journal of International Law, 102, JulyCrossRef Google Scholar

Cohen, Joshua (1997). “Deliberation and Democratic Legitimacy,” in Bohman, James & Rehg, William (eds.), Essays on Reason and Politics: Deliberative Democracy (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press), p. 67Google Scholar

Seyla, Benhabib (1996). “Toward a Deliberative Model of Democratic Legitimacy,” in Benhabib, Seyla (ed.), Democracy and Difference: Testing the Boundaries of the Political (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press), p. 68Google Scholar

Elster, John (1998). “Introduction,” in Elster, John (ed.), Deliberative Democracy (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press), p. 6CrossRef Google Scholar

Gutmann, & Thompson, (2004). Why Deliberative Democracy? (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press), pp. 98–102Google Scholar

Crawford, Neta (2002). Argument and Change in World Politics: Ethics, Decolonization, and Humanitarian Intervention (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press)CrossRef Google Scholar

Habermas, Jürgen (1996). Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, translated by Rehg, William (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press), p. 540Google Scholar

Gutmann, Amy, & Thompson, Denis (1996). Democracy and Disagreement (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press), p. 55Google Scholar

Gutmann, (1999), “Deliberative Democracy and Majority Rule: Reply to Waldron,” in Koh, Harold & Slye, Ronald (eds.), Deliberative Democracy and Human Rights (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press), p. 234Google Scholar

Macedo, Stephen (1999). “Introduction,” in Macedo, Stephen (ed.), Deliberative Politics: Essays on Democracy and Disagreement (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press), p. 4Google Scholar

Jürgen, Habermas (2001). “Why Europe Needs a Constitution,” New Left Review, 11, September–OctoberGoogle Scholar

Cunningham, Frank (2002). Theories of Democracy: A Critical Introduction (London, UK: Routledge), p. 176Google Scholar

Lose, Lars (2001). “Communicative Action and the World of Diplomacy,” in Fierke, K. & Jorgensen, K. E. (eds.), Constructing International Relations: The Next Generation (Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe, Inc.)Google Scholar

Eriksen, Erik Oddvar (2000). “Deliberative Supranationalism in the EU,” in Eriksen, Erik & Fossum, John Erik (eds.), Democracy in the European Union: Integration through Deliberation? (London, UK: Routledge)Google Scholar

Bohman, James (1999). “Citizenship and Norms of Publicity: Wide Public Reason in Cosmopolitan Societies,” Political Theory 27(2), 180CrossRef Google Scholar

Bohman, James (1999). “International Regimes and Democratic Governance: Political Equality and Influence in Global Institutions,” International Affairs, 75(3), 499CrossRef Google Scholar

Dryzek, John (2000). Deliberative Democracy and Beyond: Liberals, Critics, Contestations (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press), p. 115Google Scholar

Muller, Harald (2004). “Arguing, Bargaining, and All That: Communicative Action, Rationalist Theory, and the Logic of Appropriateness in International Relations,” European Journal of International Relations, 10(3), 395–435CrossRef Google Scholar

Mitzen, Jennifer (2005). “Reading Habermas in Anarchy: Multilateral Diplomacy and Global Public Spheres,” American Political Science Review, 99(3), 401CrossRef Google Scholar

Bodansky, Daniel (1999). “The Legitimacy of International Governance: A Coming Challenge for International Environmental Law,” American Journal of International Law, 93(3), 616CrossRef Google Scholar

Michael, Zürn (2000). “Democratic Governance beyond the Nation-State: The EU and Other International Institutions,” European Journal of International Relations, 6(2)Google Scholar

Weiler, Joseph (1999). The Constitution of Europe: “Do the New Clothes Have an Emperor?” and Other Essays on European Integration (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press)Google Scholar

Barber, Walter, & Robert, Bartlett (2005). Deliberative Environmental Politics: Democracy and Ecological Rationality (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press)Google Scholar

Johnstone, (2003). “Security Council Deliberations: The Power of the Better Argument,” European Journal of International Law, 14(3)CrossRef Google Scholar

Johnstone, (2005). “The Power of Interpretive Communities,” in Barnett, & Duvall, (eds.), Power in Global Governance (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press), p. 185Google Scholar

Kratochwil, Friedrich (1989). Rules, Norms, and Decisions: On the Conditions of Practical and Legal Reasoning in International Affairs (Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press), p. 214CrossRef Google Scholar

Chayes, Abraham, & Chayes, Antonia Handler (1995). The New Sovereignty: Compliance with International Regulatory Agreements (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press), p. 119Google Scholar

Franck, Thomas (1995). Fairness in International Law and Institutions (Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press)Google Scholar

Koh, Harold (1997). “Why Do Nations Obey International Law?,” Yale Law Journal, 106(8)CrossRef Google Scholar

Kratochwil, Friedrich (2000). “How Do Norms Matter?,” in Byers, Michael (ed.), The Role of Law in International Politics (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press), p. 51Google Scholar

Sunstein, Cass (1996). Legal Reasoning and Political Conflict (New York: Oxford University Press), p. 13Google Scholar

Skinner, Quentin (2002). Visions of Politics: Regarding Method (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press), p. 156Google Scholar

Wheeler, Nicholas J. (2002). Saving Strangers: Humanitarian Intervention in International Society (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press), p. 7CrossRef Google Scholar

Schachter, Oscar (1991). International Law in Theory and Practice (Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff), p. 46Google Scholar

Koskienniemi, Marti (1989). From Apology to Utopia (Helsinki: Lakimiesliiton Kustunnus), p. 48Google Scholar

Elster, John (1995). “The Strategic Uses of Argument,” in Arrow, K., Mnookin, R., Ross, L., Tversky, A., & Wilson, R. (eds.), Barriers to Conflict Resolution (New York: W.W. Norton and Company), pp. 236, 249Google Scholar

Risse, Thomas (2000). “‘Let's Argue’: Communicative Action in World Politics,” International Organizations, 54(1), 32–33CrossRef Google Scholar

Fish, Stanley (1990). Is There a Text in This Class? The Authority of Interpretive Communities (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press)Google Scholar

Kenneth, Abraham (1988). “Statutory Interpretation and Literary Theory: Some Common Concerns of an Unlikely Pair,” in Levinson, S. & Mailloux, S. (eds.), Interpreting Law and Literature: A Hermeneutic Reader (Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press), pp. 115, 122–124Google Scholar

Fish, Stanley (1989). Doing What Comes Naturally: Change, Rhetoric, and the Practice of Theory in Literary and Legal Studies (Durham, NC: Duke University Press), p. 116CrossRef Google Scholar

Schachter, Oscar (2005). “The Invisible College of International Lawyers,” Northwestern University Law Review, 72, 217Google Scholar

Johnstone, Ian (2008). “The Security Council as Legislature,” in Cronin, Bruce & Hurd, Ian (eds.), The UN Security Council and the Politics of International Authority (New York: Routledge)Google Scholar

Thakur, Ramesh (eds.) (2000). Kosovo and the Challenge of Humanitarian Intervention (New York: United Nations University Press)Google Scholar

Matheson, Michael (2000). “Justification for the NATO Air Campaign in Kosovo,” in Proceedings of the Ninety-fourth Annual Conference of the American Society of International Law, p. 301Google Scholar

Baranovsky, Vladimir (2001). “Humanitarian Intervention: Russian Perspectives,” in Pugwash Study Group Occasional Papers, Intervention, Sovereignty, and International Security, 2(1), 12, 17–18Google Scholar

Henkin, Louis; Wedgewood, Ruth; Charney, Jonathan; Chinkin, Christine; Falk, Richard; Franck, Thomas; & Riesman, W. Michael (1999). “Editorial Comments: NATO's Kosovo Intervention,” American Journal of International Law, 93(4), 83Google Scholar

Alvarez, José (2001). “Constitutional Interpretation in International Organizations,” in Coicaud, Jean-Marc & Heiskanen, Veijo (eds.), The Legitimacy of International Organizations (New York: UNU Press), pp. 134, 136Google Scholar

Johnstone, Ian (2007). “The Secretary-General as Norm Entrepreneur,” in Chesterman, Simon (ed.), Secretary or General? The UN Secretary-General in World Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), p. 123CrossRef Google Scholar

Johnstone, Ian (2004). “US–UN Relations after Iraq: The End of the World (Order) As We Know It?,” European Journal of International Law, 15(3), 813, 830–835CrossRef Google Scholar

Lori, Fisler Damrosch, & Bernard, Oxman (eds.) (2003). “Agora: Future Implications of the Iraq Conflict,” American Journal of International Law, (97)3, 553–642

Kull, S.; Ramsey, M.; & Lewis, C. (2003–2004). “Misperceptions, the Media, and the Iraq War,” Political Science Quarterly, 118, 569CrossRef Google Scholar

Baker, Gerard; Blitz, James; Dempsey, Judy; Graham, Robert; Peel, Quentin; & Turner, Mark (2003). “Blair's Mission Impossible: The Doomed Effort to Win a Second Resolution,” Financial Times, 29 May, p. 4Google Scholar

Murphy, Sean D. (2003). “Use of Military Force to Disarm Iraq,” American Journal of International Law, 97(2), 419Google Scholar

Johnstone, Ian (2005). “The Plea of ‘Necessity’ in International Legal Discourse: Humanitarian Intervention and Counter-terrorism,” Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, 43(2), 338, 370–372Google Scholar

Murphy, Sean (2002). “Terrorist Attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon,” American Journal of International Law, 96(1), 244–249Google Scholar

Ratner, Stephen (2002). “Jus Ad Bellum and Jus in Bell after September 11,” American Journal of International Law, 96(4), 909–910CrossRef Google Scholar

Ackerman, Spencer, & Judis, John B. (2003). “The First Casualty,” New Republic, 30 June, p. 14Google Scholar

“Discursive Power in the UN Security Council,” Journal of International Law and International Relations, 2(1) (2006), 76

Sanger, David (2003). “Canvassing the Votes to Gain Legitimacy,” New York Times, 13 March, p. A12Google Scholar

Krauthammer, Charles (2003). “UN: RIP,” Washington Post, 31 JanuaryGoogle Scholar

Lehman, Nicholas (2003). “How It Came to War,” New Yorker, 31 MarchGoogle Scholar

Rubin, James (2003). “Stumbling into War,” Foreign Affairs, 82(5), 55CrossRef Google Scholar

Nye, Joseph (2003). “American Power and Strategy,” Foreign Affairs, July/August, p. 63Google Scholar

Zakaria, Fareed (2003). “The Arrogant Empire,” Newsweek, 24 MarchGoogle Scholar

Kifner, John (2003). “India Decides Not to Send Troops to Iraq Now,” New York Times, 13 July, p. A13Google Scholar

Hossain, Farid (2003). “Bangladesh against Sending Troops to Iraq,” Guardian, 27 SeptemberGoogle Scholar

Fisher, Ian (2003). “Iraqi Leaders Condemn Plan for Troops from Turkey,” New York Times, 9 October, p. A14Google Scholar

Cirincione, Joseph (2007). Bomb Scare: The History and Future of Nuclear Weapons (New York: Columbia University Press), pp. 118–120Google Scholar

Albright, Madeleine (2003). “Bridges, Bombs, or Bluster?,” Foreign Affairs, 82(5), 4CrossRef Google Scholar

Brainard, Lael, & O'Hanlon, Michael (2003). “The Heavy Price of America's Going It Alone,” Financial Times, 6 August, p. 17Google Scholar