No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Pragmatism and Principle in International Humanitarian Law
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 19 March 2012
Abstract
As we seek to identify new norms to bridge the gaps between extant law and the challenges that new conflict modes pose today, we confront a threshold question as to which methodological ground we should stand upon in doing so. Based on a background assumption of positivism as the source of substantive norms, the issue for some observers comes down to a clash between pragmatism and formalism. To formalism's proponents, the concept of pragmatism—which sees law as a functional instrument to be used in pursuit of pre-envisioned ends—has contributed to a dearth of moral obligation in international humanitarian law discourse. Such a view considers that the emphasis on empiricism found in pragmatism both legitimizes and shrouds the reality of effective power lurking behind the law. The alternative they prefer, championed most articulately by Professor Koskenniemi, is a “culture of formalism” that sees law as an object of universal obligation and as a form of critique that unmasks the pragmatic mode for what it is, namely, a rationalization of might. As this Article suggests, this understanding misapprehends the true nature of pragmatism, which is neither a smokescreen nor an apoloay. Rather, pragmatism's focus on real-world effects and consequences holds far greater promise for advancing the actual humanitarianism of IHL. Formalism, moreover; is subsumed within the constellation of factors that pragmatic analysis demands. These ideas are explored on a theoretical level, and are then illustrated by a look at the Israel separation barrier cases decided by the International Court of Justice and the Israeli High Court of Justice.
- Type
- Symposium on Complementing International Humanitarian Law: Exploring the Need for Additional Norms to Govern Contemporary Conflict Situations
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press and The Faculty of Law, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 2009
References
1 Conference Prospectus, Complementing IHL. Exploring the Need for Additional Norms to Govern Contemporary Conflict Situations (Minerva Center for Human Rights, The Hebrew University 2008).
2 See Dupuy, Pierre-Marie, Some Reflections on Contemporary International Law and the Appeal to Universal Values: A Response to Martti Koskenniemi, 16 Eur. J. Int'l L. 131, 136 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar (referring to the use of jus cogens by the ICJ and regional human rights bodies as the “effective application” of the concept).
3 Kennedy, David, Of Law and War 90 (2006)Google Scholar.
4 Neuman, Gerald L., Talking to Ourselves, 16 Eur. J. Int'l L. 139 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 140 & 142 respectively.
5 See Koskenniemi, Martti, Occupied Zone—“A Zone of Reasonableness”?, 41 Isr. L. Rev. 13, 16 (2008)Google Scholar [hereinafter Occupied Zone].
6 Posner, Richard A., Law Pragmatism and Democracy 29–30 (2003)Google Scholar.
7 See, e.g., Orakhelashvili, Alexander, The Impact of Peremptory Norms on the Interpretation and Application of United Nations Security Council Resolutions, 16 Eur. J. Int'l L. 59 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
8 See Glennon, Michael J., Peremptory Nonsense, in Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law: Liber Amicorum Luzius Wildhaber (Breitenmoser, Stephan et al. eds., 2007)Google Scholar.
9 See, e.g., Guzman, Andrew T., How International Law Works passim (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
10 See Hart, H.L.A., Positivism and the Separation of Law and Morals, 71 Harv. L. Rev. 593, 603 (1958)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
11 See, e.g., Guzman, supra note 9; Posner, Eric. A. & Goldsmith, Jack, The Limits of International Law (2004)Google Scholar; Koh, Harold Hongju, Why Do Nations Obey International Law?, 106 Yale L. J. 2599 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
12 Guzman, supra note 9, at 8.
13 Id.
14 These sources are: treaties, custom, general principles of law “recognized by civilized nations” and, secondarily, judicial decisions and scholarly treatises. Statute of the International Court of Justice, art. 38(1)(c), June 26, 1945, 59 Stat. 1055, 3 Bevans. 1153. Article 38 establishes as follows:
1. The Court, whose function is to decide in accordance with international law such disputes as are submitted to it, shall apply:
a. international conventions, whether general or particular, establishing rules expressly recognized by the contesting states;
b. international custom, as evidence of a general practice accepted as law;
c. the general principles of law recognized by civilized nations;
d. subject to the provisions of Article 59, judicial decisions and the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations, as subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law.
2. This provision shall not prejudice the power of the Court to decide a case ex aequo et bono, if the parties agree thereto.
An exhaustive inquiry into complementary IHL principles should not exclude the impact of non-legal norms or others incentives that can shape state behavior, such as moral concerns of decision-makers or negative media attention. As Ellickson observes, “lawmakers who are unappreciative of the social conditions that foster informal cooperation are likely to create a world in which there is both more law and less order.” Ellickson, Robert C., Order Without Law: How Neighbors Settle Disputes 286 (2005)Google Scholar.
15 See, e.g., Hart, supra note 10, at 604.
16 Kelsen, Hans, Introduction, Problems of Legal Theory 81 (Litschewski, trans. 1992)Google Scholar, quoted in Koskenniemi, Martti, Formalism, Fragmentation, Freedom: Kantian Themes, in Today's International Law, 4 No Foundations 10 (Oct. 2007)Google Scholar, available at http://www.helsinki.fi/nofo [hereinafter Formalism, Fragmentation].
17 Compare HCJ 769/02 The Public Committee Against Torture in Israel v. The Gov't of Israel [Dec. 14, 2006] (unpublished) at para. 40 (“[A] civilian taking a direct part in hostilities cannot be attacked at such time as he is doing so, if a less harmful means can be employed.”) with Cohen, Amichai & Shany, Yuval, A Development of Modest Proportions: The Application of the Principle of Proportionality in the Israeli Supreme Court Judgment on the Lawfulness of Targeted Killings, Research Paper No. 5-07 at 9 (Apr. 2007)Google Scholar, available at www.ssrn.com/abstractid=979071 (“the HCJ'S legal conclusion … [that] armies must always resort to less-injurious alternatives, in all cases involving civilians taking a direct part in hostilities … is, at best, unsubstantiated and probably also inaccurate.”).
18 Hart, H.L.A., The Concept of Law 94 (2nd ed. 1997)Google Scholar.
19 Koskenniemi, , Formalism, Fragmentation, supra note 16, at 21Google Scholar.
20 See Posner, supra note 6, at 266. Despite his elaborate and sophisticated engagement with the question of how these issues should be decided, Koskenniemi suggests that it is in fact irrelevant. “The question is no longer what technique or vocabulary one should use but who should decide. Soldiers or lawyers?” Koskenniemi, , Occupied Zone, supra note 5, at 29Google Scholar.
21 See Kelsen, supra note 16.
22 Posner, supra note 6, at 6.
23 Compare Schieder, Siegfried, Pragmatism as a Path Towards a Discursive and Open Theory of International Law, 11 Eur. J. Int'l L. 663, 686 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar with Koskenniemi, Occupied Zone, supra note 5, passim. See also Koskenniemi, Martti, Between Apology and Utopia (1989)Google Scholar.
24 See, e.g., Posner, supra note 6, at 19; see also Grey, Thomas, The New Formalism, Stanford Public Law and Legal Theory Working Paper Series No. 4 (Sep. 6, 1999)Google Scholar, at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=200732.
25 Posner, supra note 6, at 3.
26 Id.
27 The choice of this term is simply one of convenience. See Shany, Yuval, Capacities and Inadequacies: A Look at the Two Separation Barrier Cases, 38 Isr. L. Rev. 230–31 n.3 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Kretzmer, David, The ICJ Advisory Opinion: The Light Treatment of International Humanitarian Law, 99 Am. J. Int'l L. 88 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar for detailed rationales regarding the appropriate terminology for this structure.
28 See HCJ 2056/04 Beit Sourik Village Council v. The Gov't of Israel [2004] IsrSC 58(5) 807; English translation, available at http://elyon1.court.gov.il/files_eng/04/560/020/A28/04020560.a28.pdf (last visited Feb. 14, 2009); see also HCJ 2056/04 Beit Sourik Village Council v. The Government of Israel, 38 Isr. L. Rev. 83 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
29 HCJ 7957/04 Mara'abe v. The Prime Minister of Israel [Sept. 15, 2005] (unpublished), English translation, available at http://elyon1.court.gov.il/files_eng/04/570/079/A14/04079570.a14.pdf (last visited Mar. 15, 2009).
30 See, e.g., Shany, Capacities and Inadequacies, supra note 27; Falk, Richard A., Toward Authoritativeness: The ICJ Ruling on Israel's Security Wall, 99 Am. J. Int'l L. 42 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kretzmer, supra note 27, at 88 n.3.
31 Id.
32 Hart, , Concept of Law, supra note 18, at 94Google Scholar.
33 Id. at 102 (on emphasis M.M.L.). John Dewey disputed the distinction between legal and practical reasoning, considering them both species, to a greater or lesser degree, of scientific reasoning. See Dewey, John, Logical Method and the Law, 10 Cornell L. Q. 17 (1924)Google Scholar.
34 See Grey, supra note 24.
35 Hart, Concept of Law, supra note 18; Grey, Thomas C., Holmes and Legal Pragmatism, 41 Stan. L. Rev. 787, 822 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Posner, Richard A., Legal Formalism, Legal Realism, and the Interpretation of Statutes and the Constitution, 37 Case W. Res. L. Rev. 179, 180–86 (1987)Google Scholar.
36 Weinrib, Ernest, Legal Formalism: On the Immanent Rationality of Law, 97 Yale L. J. 949, 1001–02 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
37 See Posner, supra note 35. See also Grey, supra note 24, at 2-3.
38 Schieder, supra note 23, at 692.
39 Posner, supra note 6, at 269.
40 Koskenniemi, , Formalism, Fragmentation, supra note 16, at 10Google Scholar.
41 Id. at 10.
42 Id.
43 Id. at 24.
44 Id. at 23.
45 Id. at 21.
46 Koskenniemi, Martti, Gentle Civilizer of Nations: The Rise and Fall of International Law 1870–1960 at 484–94 (2004)Google Scholar.
47 See Menand, Louis, The Metaphysical Club (2001)Google Scholar.
48 We see this in the work of Critical Legal Studies(CLS)-inspired realism, rational choice theorists, empiricists, international law and relations scholars and others. Of these, the CLS-inspired Kennedy has grappled most with pragmatism as a methodological matter, while the rest continue to articulate the second order theories and functional inquiries that the pragmatic view of the law demands. See, e.g., Kennedy, supra note 3; Posner & Goldsmith, supra note 11; Guzman, supra note 9.
49 Posner, supra note 6, at 8.
50 Rorty, Richard, Consequences of Pragmatism 161 (1982)Google Scholar.
51 Posner, supra note 6; Menand, supra note 47.
52 See Posner, supra note 6, at 6-7, 12
53 Fisch, M.H. et al. , 3 Writings of Charles S. Peirce: A Chronological Edition 2566 (1982)Google Scholar, cited in Schieder, supra note 23, at 681.
54 James, William, Pragmatism: A New Name for Some Old Ways of (Thinking 45 1907)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
55 Posner, supra note 6, at 5, 33-35.
56 See Menand, supra note 47, at 177-95. See also Kennedy, supra note 3, at 90 (2006).
57 Koskenniemi, , Formalism, Fragmentation, supra note 16, at 20Google Scholar.
58 Id. at 21.
59 Id. at 23.
60 Koskenniemi, , Occupied Zone, supra note 5, at 25–26Google Scholar.
61 Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Dec. 10, 1984, 1465 U.N.T.S. 85.
62 See Bellamy, Alex J., No Pain, No Gain? Torture and Ethics in the War on Terror, 82 Int'l Aff. 112 (2006)Google Scholar.
63 Koskenniemi, , Formalism, Fragmentation, supra note 16, at 4Google Scholar.
64 See Posner, Richard A., Economic Analysis of Law 590–95 (5th ed. 1998)Google Scholar.
65 See Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, (Dissenting Opinions of Justices Weeramantry, at 433-555 and Koroma, at 556-82. The ICJ in that case, however, declined to go so far, leaving open the possibility that in some largely unspecified circumstances the use of nuclear weapons could conceivably be legitimate (see paras. 42-43 at 245 id. of the Advisory Opinion).
66 Koskenniemi, , Formalism, Fragmentation, supra note 16, at 9Google Scholar.
67 Id. at 24.
68 See Mara'abe v. The Prime Minister of Israel, supra note 29, at para. 30 (observing that “reasonableness and good faith” underlie “the principle of proportionality.”)
69 See Cohen & Shany, supra note 17; Lieberman, Michael M., The Pragmatic Method and International Law in the Fight against Terrorism, in Terrorism and International Law 195 (Glennon, Michael J. & Sur, Serge eds. 2007)Google Scholar.
70 Kattan, Victor, The Legality of the West Bank Wall: Israel's High Court of Justice v. the International Court of Justice, 40 Vand. J. Transnat'l L. 1425, 1453–56 (2007)Google Scholar.
71 Convention on the Rights of the Child of 1989, art. 38, Nov. 20, 1989, 1577 U.N.T.S. 3.
72 See Report of the Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights, John Dugard, Question of the Violation of Human Rights in the Occupied Arab Territories, including Palestine, U.N. Doc. ElCN.41200416 (Sept. 8, 2003).
73 As Yuval Shany points out, there “is no indication in the advisory opinion that the specific factual and legal assertions of the Israeli government, as presented during the numerous HCJ proceedings on the legality of the barrier in Israel, were taken into consideration.” Capacities and Inadequacies, supra note 27, at 234 n. 14.
74 Legal Consequences of the Wall, Dissenting Opinion of Judge Buerenthal, at para. 7. See also Koskenniemi, , Occupied Zone, supra note 5, at 25Google Scholar, n. 43 (“surely [the ICJ] had at least unofficial access to [relevant] data despite Israel's absence from The Hague.”); Shany, Capacities and Inadequacies, supra note 27 (discussing the ICJ's treatment of facts in Beit Sourik in light of its role as an international tribunal).
75 Alvarez, Jose E., ASIL Newsletter, Spring 2007Google Scholar, available at http://www.asil.org/newsletter/president/pres070625.html (last visited Feb. 6, 2009). See also Franck, Thomas M., Fairness in International Law and Institutions 335 et seq. (1995)Google Scholar; Kazazi, Mojtaba, Burden of Proof and Related Issues: A Study on Evidence Before International Tribunals 83 et seq. (1996)Google Scholar.
76 See, e.g., Beit Sourik Village Council v. The Gov't of Israel, supra note 28, at paras. 49-81; Mara'abe v. The Prime Minister of Israel, supra note 29, at paras. 95-109.
77 Mara'abe v. The Prime Minister of Israel, supra note 29, at para. 61. The difference between the HCJ and ICJ decisions reflects various institutional and attitudinal factors, as Professors Cohen and Shany have observed, stemming in large part from the tribunals' respective roles and capacities as domestic and international forums. These characteristics are not alternative explanations, but rather predictors of pragmatic outlooks.
78 Koskenniemi, , Occupied Zone, supra note 5, at 40Google Scholar.
79 Id.
80 Id.
81 Id.
82 Id.
83 Quoted in Menand, supra note 47, at 342.