Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 December 2011
Paradigms of International Law
An international lawyer, when publishing, deciding or advising about the law, should be cognizant of the possible theoretical foundations of his or her position as well as of those of opposing views, not least because such awareness can help to develop legal solutions that all parties can live with. Theories about the nature and the finality of international law arise within the framework of their fundamental conceptual preconditions – their underlying “paradigms” or assumptions about the world. Understanding these paradigms should provide a better framework for reconciling the diverse and contrasting positions within international legal scholarship. Greater conceptual clarity about the underlying paradigms will also support intercultural dialogue on international law. International legal scholarship should not be limited to debate about the best interpretation of a given norm in a given situation. It should also extend to a broader discourse about the varied conceptions of legal order that have developed in different legal cultures throughout the world.
Parsimony is an essential element of a good scientific inquiry. This chapter situates the impressive variety of visions of international law that have been formulated during its long history – and therefore also the parochial and the cosmopolitan understanding of human rights – within the framework of its two traditionally competing paradigms: particularism and universalism. By paradigm, we mean the fundamental conceptual preconditions on the basis of which theories are developed. By theory, we understand a conceptual construction that explains phenomena and provides orientation. The paradigm of particularism forms the basis of all theories of international law that assert that true public order is only possible within the framework of a limited community. Hence, it is strictly related, albeit not identical, to the parochial approach to the human rights question as the theory that asserts that rights and values are deeply and inseparably rooted in the cultural soil of a specific tradition. If one accepts the particularistic claim, then the order that international law provides is substantially different from the order that can be accomplished within the single polity. In fact, from the particularistic point of view, international order would be better described as a containment of disorder. In contrast, the paradigm of universalism underlies all positions asserting that a truly public order on a global scale is possible at all. Once again, the closeness to the concept of cosmopolitanism is evident – and, once again, they are not precisely the same.
To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.
To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.
To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.