Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T13:16:41.105Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Good global governance: custom, the cosmopolitan and international law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 July 2007

John R. Morss
John R. Morss*
Affiliation:
Deakin University Law School, Melbourne
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

International law has both less and more to offer to the cosmopolitan project than one might think. As currently understood, international law presages a global system of obligations comprising the convergent systems of universal customary international laws and near-universal conventional instruments (treaties), both of which legal forms are characterised by natural law tendencies. From the point of view of a pluralistic cosmopolitanism, this is a dead end. Thinking beyond these formulae requires that international law be treated as a species of general law rather than state-centred law.

Type
Research Article
Information
International Journal of Law in Context , Volume 3 , Issue 1 , March 2007 , pp. 59 - 71
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2007

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.)

References

Carty, Anthony (1986) The Decay of International Law? Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
Cassese, Antonio (2005) International Law, 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cheng, Bin (1965) ‘United Nations Resolutions on Outer Space: ‘Instant’ International Customary Law?’, Indian Journal of International Law 5: 23.Google Scholar
Clark, Nigel (2004) ‘Citizenship and Ecological Obligations’, in Demaine, J. (ed.), Citizenship and Political Education Today. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 107–23.Google Scholar
Glick Schiller, Nina (2005) ‘Transborder Citizenship: An Outcome of Legal Pluralism within Transnational Social Fields’, in Von Benda-Beckmann, F., Von Benda-Beckmann, K. and Griffiths, A. (eds.), Mobile People, Mobile Law: Expanding Legal Relations in a Contracting World, Aldershot: Ashgate, pp. 27–49.Google Scholar
Keane, John (2003) Global Civil Society? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koskenniemi, Martti (2001) The Gentle Civilizer of Nations: The Rise and Fall of International Law 1870–1960. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koskenniemi, Martti (2005) From Apology to Utopia: The Structure of International Legal Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kostakopoulou, Dora (2005) ‘Ideas, Norms and European Citizenship: Explaining Institutional Change’, Modern Law Review 68: 233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kostakopoulou, Dora (2006) ‘Thick, Thin and Thinner Patriotisms: Is This All There Is?’, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 26: 73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marks, Susan (2000) ‘International Law, Democracy and the End of History’, in Fox, G. and Roth, B. (eds.), Democratic Governance and International Law, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 532–66.Google Scholar
Morss, John R. (2003) ‘Saving Human Rights From Its Friends: The Imaginary Justice of Costas Douzinas, Melbourne University Law Review 27: 889.Google Scholar
Morss, John R. (2005) ‘Sources of Doubt, Sources of Duty: H. L. A. Hart on International Law’, Deakin Law Review 10: 41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morss, John R. and Bagaric, Mirko (2005) ‘If We Can’t Have Global Democracy, Let’s All Be Americans: Injecting principle into the international law making process.’ Transnational Law and Contemporary Problems 15: 217.Google Scholar
Morss, John R. and Bagaric, Mirko (2006) ‘The Banality of Justice: Reflections on Sierra Leone’s Special Court’, Oregon Review of International Law 8: 1.Google Scholar
Postema, Gerald (2002) ‘Philosophy of the Common Law,’ in Coleman, J. and Shapiro, S. (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Jurisprudence,. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 588.Google Scholar
Pureza, Jose Manuel (2005) ‘Defensive and Oppositional Counter-Hegemonic uses of International Law: From the International Criminal Court to the Common Heritage of Mankind’, in de Sousa Santos, B. and Rodriguez-Garavito, C. (eds.), Law and Globalisation From Below: Towards a Cosmopolitan Legality, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 267–80.Google Scholar
Shaw, Malcolm (2003) International Law, 5th edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skordas, Achilles (2003) ‘Hegemonic Custom?’ in Byers, M. and Nolte, G. (eds.), United States Hegemony and the Foundations of International Law, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 317–47.Google Scholar
Smillie, John (2006) ‘Who Wants Juristocracy?’, Otago Law Review 11: 183.Google Scholar
Sousa Santos, Boaventura De (2002) Toward a New Legal Common Sense, 2nd edn. London: Butterworths.Google Scholar
Tamanaha, Brian (2001) A General Jurisprudence of Law and Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toope, Stephen (2003) ‘Powerful but Unpersuasive? The Role of the United States in the Evolution of Customary International Law’, in Byers, M. and Nolte, G. (eds.), United States Hegemony and the Foundations of International Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 287–316.Google Scholar
Twining, William (2000) Globalisation and Legal Theory. London: Butterworths.Google Scholar
Twining, William (2003) ‘A Post-Westphalian Conception of Law’, Law and Society Review 37: 199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Twining, William (2005) ‘Have Concepts, Will Travel: Analytical Jurisprudence in a Global Context’, International Journal of Law in Context 1: 5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waldron, Jeremy (1999) The Dignity of Legislation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waldron, Jeremy (2005) ‘Foreign Law and the Modern Ius Gentium’, Harvard Law Review 119: 129.Google Scholar
Waldron, Jeremy (2006) ‘The Half-Life of Treaties: Waitangi, Rebus Sic Stantibus’, Otago Law Review 11: 161.Google Scholar