There is a new empirical turn in international legal scholarship. Building on decades of theoretical work in law and social science, a new generation of empirical studies is elaborating on how international law works in different contexts. The theoretical debate over whether international law matters is a stale one. What matters now is the study of the conditions under which international law is formed and has effects. International law is the product of specific forces and factors; it accomplishes its ends under particular conditions. The trend toward empirical study has expanded through the efforts of scholars in multiple disciplines, with legal scholars playing central roles independently and as collaborators in generating new empirical work. Legal scholars are also now pressed to be increasingly sophisticated consumers of this work. It is time to take stock and evaluate this new generation of multidisciplinary, multimethod empirical scholarship.

The discipline of political science has developed an active research program on the development, operation, spread, and impact of international legal norms, agreements, and institutions. Meanwhile, a growing number of public international lawyers have developed an interest in political science research and methods. For more than two decades, scholars have been calling for international lawyers and political scientists to collaborate, and have suggested possible frameworks for doing so. Some prominent collaborations are under way—sharing research methods and insights.

The International Court of Justice issued its judgment on the merits in the case of Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua on June 27, 1986. A public discussion to mark the twenty-fifth anniversary of the rendering of that judgment took place in The Hague on June 27, 2011. The meeting—“The Nicaragua Case 25 Years Later: Its Impact on the Law and the Court”—was arranged with the participation of individuals involved in the formulation and presentation of Nicaragua’s case. A diversity of views was expressed on whether the Court had jurisdiction in the case and on elements of its judgment on the merits, but the mood of the Hague session was celebratory.

International law is no stranger to controversy in the U.S. court system. The Supreme Court’s occasional citations to international law and foreign laws have generated debate in Congress, academia, and civil society, and between the justices themselves. In 2004 and 2005, “Constitution Restoration Act” bills were introduced into both houses of Congress that would have, inter alia, subjected federal judges to impeachment for any citation to international or foreign law (other than the English common law) when interpreting the U.S. Constitution. Neither bill was adopted, but they attracted five senatorial cosponsors and thirty-four in the House of Representatives.

In Al-Skeini v. United Kingdom, decided on July 7, 2011, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg (the Court) found that the human rights obligations of the United Kingdom applied to its actions in Iraq and that the United Kingdom had violated Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Convention or ECHR) by failing to investigate the circumstances of the deaths of the relatives of five of the six applicants. The case deals with the extraterritorial application in Iraq of the Convention, which is part of UK domestic law by virtue of the Human Rights Act, 1998, and involves the concepts of jurisdiction, effective control, and the scope of the right to life.