Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T15:02:00.042Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On concepts, conceptions, and conceptors: remarks ‘On the concept of law’

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 December 2020

Knut Traisbach Open the ORCID record for Knut Traisbach [Opens in a new window]
Knut Traisbach*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Law, University of Barcelona and Department of Society, Politics and Sustainability, University Ramon Llull, ESADE, Barcelona, Spain
*
Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In order to understand the concept of law, that is to understand what law is and does, Friedrich Kratochwil proposes to look at how we ‘use’ norms and relate them to actions. His approach promises less theoretical impasses and the ability ‘to go on’. These comments contend that a focus on ‘norm practice’ can only provide a particular understanding of how law functions. The article further suggests that the proposition and contestation of conceptions of law, including the uses of law these conceptions enable and legitimize, form part of the social practice of law. This calls for a comparative perspective.

Keywords

Concept of lawconceptionsexpertizationconceptual comparativism
Type
Symposium: In the Midst of Theory and Practice: Edited by Hannes Peltonen and Knut Traisbach
Information
International Theory , Volume 13 , Issue 3 , November 2021 , pp. 530 - 537
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

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

Bartelson, Jens. 2016. “The Language of Law and the Laws of Language.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 44 (2): 250–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brunnée, Jutta, and Toope, Stephen J.. 2010. Legitimacy and Legality in International Law: An Interactional Account. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bueger, Christian. 2021. “Meditating Deformalization: Remarks on ‘Of Experts, Helpers, and Enthusiasts’.” International Theory 13 (3): 546–51.Google Scholar
D'Aspremont, Jean. 2012. “From a Pluralization of International Norm-Making Processes to a Pluralization of the Concept of International Law.” In Informal International Lawmaking, edited by Pauwelyn, Joost, Wessel, Ramses, and Wouters, Jan, 185–99. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dworkin, Ronald. 1986. Law's Empire. London: Fontana Press.Google Scholar
Dworkin, Ronald. 2006. Justice in Robes. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.Google Scholar
Friedrichs, Jörg, and Kratochwil, Friedrich. 2009. “On Acting and Knowing: How Pragmatism Can Advance International Relations Research and Methodology.” International Organization 63 (4): 701–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hart, Herbert L. A. 1994. The Concept of Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Katzenstein, Peter, and Sil, Rudra. 2008. “Eclectic Theorizing in the Study and Practice of International Relations.” In The Oxford Handbook of International Relations, edited by Reus-Smit, Christian and Snidal, Duncan, 109–30. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Koskenniemi, Martti. 1997. “Hierarchy in International Law: A Sketch.” European Journal of International Law 8 (4): 566–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kratochwil, Friedrich. 1986. “Of Systems, Boundaries, and Territoriality: An Inquiry into the Formation of the State System.” World Politics 39 (1): 27–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kratochwil, Friedrich. 2007. “Of False Promises and Good Bets: A Plea for a Pragmatic Approach to Theory Building (The Tartu Lecture).” Journal of International Relations and Development 10 (1): 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kratochwil, Friedrich. 2014. “The Status of Law in World Society: Meditations on the Role and Rule of Law.” Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kratochwil, Friedrich. 2021. “On Engagement and Distance in Social Analysis: A Reply to My Critics.” International Theory 13 (3): 588–602.Google Scholar
Krygier, Martin. 1986. “Law as Tradition.” Law and Philosophy 5 (2): 237–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas S. 1962/2012. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lebow, Richard Ned. 2007. “What Can We Know? How Do We Know?” In Theory and Evidence in Comparative Politics and International Relations, edited by Lebow, Richard Ned and Lichbach, Mark Irving, 1–22. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDougal, Myres S. 1953. “International Law, Power, and Policy: A Contemporary Conception.” Recueil des Cours 82 (I): 133–259.Google Scholar
Onuf, Nicholas. 2021. “Bewitching the World: Remarks on ‘Inter-disciplinarity, the Epistemological Ideal of Incontrovertible Foundations, and the Problem of Praxis’.” International Theory 13 (3): 522–9.Google Scholar
Peltonen, Hannes. 2021. “Sense and Sensibility or: Remarks on the ‘Bounds of (Non)Sense’.” International Theory 13 (3): 581–7.Google Scholar
Price, Richard, and Reus-Smit, Christian. 1998. “Dangerous Liaisons? Critical International Theory and Constructivism.” European Journal of International Relations 4 (3): 259–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, Anthea, Stephan, Paul B., Verdier, Pierre-Hugues and Versteeg, Mila, ed. 2018. Comparative International Law. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tamanaha, Brian Z. 1997. Realistic Socio-Legal Theory: Pragmatism and a Social Theory of Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Werner, Wouter. 2016. “What's Going On? Reflections on Kratochwil's Concept of Law.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 44 (2): 258–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar