In this contribution, the key elements of the book’s progress narrative will be discussed. The focus will be set on the ‘backbone’ of the book, which consists of three ideas or elements: the periodisation decision (II), the claim of a specific conception of social change (III), and a specific understanding of international law (IV). In regard to each of those elements it will be asked how they are justified, what insights they provide and whether there are blind spots.

The Internationalists argues that the outlawry of war in 1928 created the modern international order. This review essay critiques this single-cause account of world history. It shows how The Internationalists relies on statistics that obfuscate the character of war and on a juridical model of international politics that makes liberal empire invisible. I argue that war making by Asian and African peasants played more of a role in bringing about decolonisation than peacemaking by Western lawyers.

These comments address three themes concerning Oona A Hathaway’s and Scott J Shapiro’s The Internationalists (Hathaway and Shapiro 2017), a great contribution to scholarship about international relations, international law and international legal theory. I first explore further some game theoretical themes, how the Peace Pact arguably contributed to avoid war by creating institutions – such as international courts – that helped stabilise an assurance game among states by providing trustworthy information and commitments, in turn influencing practices and beliefs concerning mutual non-aggression. Second, I suggest that the authors should not claim more than that the Peace Pact was one cause of the massive shift in reduced warfare. Further arguments are needed to show that this treaty was the trigger that ‘began a cascade’. Third, I suggest that the lessons for the future are limited, as we explore how to preserve and improve on the New World Order of the Pact, rather than backsliding into the Old World Order.

Why has interstate war declined and why do states refrain from territorial conquests in the post-Second World War order? The 1928 Peace Pact cannot account for these remarkable developments. This article argues that outlawing war is not enough to promote international peace. International Relations debates on the influence of weapons of mass destruction, democratic regime types and political cultures on interstate behaviour provide further important insights into the delegitimation of certain types of war. Since the 1990s, a changing character of war and warfare has emerged that is especially promoted by democratic states. How democratic states have justified their military use of force and how they have conducted their military interventions has a strong and ambivalent impact on the liberal world order.

If the main merit of The Internationalists is to shed light, in a powerful and convincing way, on the transformative power of rules, the role of institutions – and in particular of the United Nations and its collective security system centred around the activity of the Security Council – does not come out of the book as clearly as it might. It is submitted that the decision to concentrate upon the rule – the prohibition to use force – while limiting the attention paid to the institution – the United Nations and its collective security system – is not without consequence, particularly given the strict link existing, in the common perception, between the rule and the institution. This brief comment will focus on certain ambivalences emerging from the book about the contribution of the United Nations, as a peace-enforcing organisation, to fostering the emergence of a New World Order, as well as its continuing relevance for preserving the effectiveness of the principle on non-use of force.

The Internationalists is a fascinating book. The authors present a clear proposition about the significance of the 1928 Pact for the Renunciation of War for a more peaceful world. My focus is on the role of what the authors call outcasting, as an alternative to war. I argue that outcasting is hardly new. It has been known as reprisals or self-help, and currently as countermeasures. It is essential that such measures are brought under international control. What is more, the current US administration is a threat to the current world order. Other states and civil society need to continue to develop internationally controlled sanctions against violations of international law – also in the absence of the USA.

This article is dedicated to analysis of the traditionalist agenda, promoted by Russia, in recent debates in the United Nations Human Rights Council (‘Traditional values’ from 2009 to 2013, ‘Protection of the family’ from 2014 to 2017). The traditionalist agenda could be interpreted as yet another chapter of contextualist opposition to the universalist application human of rights and as a successor to the cultural relativism in human rights promoted in the past by the Organization of Islamic States or countries from the Global South. This article seeks to challenge such an interpretation and instead makes the argument that the traditionalist agenda employs novel aspects of illiberal norm protagonism in the human rights sphere. The article undertakes an in-depth analysis of the discourse coalitions of both supporters and opponents of the traditionalist agenda, using the tools of discourse analysis in international relations and drawing on a constructivist approach to norm diffusion in international organisations.

Existing discussions about shareholder control work with a state-centric and Westphalian conception of democracy. Therefore, they see the corporation as a state-analogue: shareholders (citizens) elect a board (legislature) charged with the responsibility to ensure that the executive follows their ‘collective interest’. We claim that state-centric models of democracy are not apt for an environment of corporate governance characterised by complex interdependence, porous boundaries, and criss-crossing relations of weak allegiances. Instead, we suggest that recent theories of transnational democracy provide us with better models for thinking about ‘popular’ control in such an environment. We look at shareholder democracy not as a system where a single body representing a ‘demos’ tries to control a single executive; instead, we view shareholders as constituting multiple dêmoi which must coordinate and collaborate to control multiple corporate executives. We emphasise deliberation and communicative power as a central mechanism for these dêmoi of shareholders to effectuate control.