Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T00:26:26.528Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Law and contestation in international negotiations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 September 2020

Kyle Rapp Open the ORCID record for Kyle Rapp [Opens in a new window]
Kyle Rapp*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science and International Relations, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, United States
*
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

What is the role of rhetoric and argumentation in international relations? Some argue that it is little more than ‘cheap talk’, while others say that it may play a role in persuasion or coordination. However, why states deploy certain arguments, and why these arguments succeed or fail, is less well understood. I argue that, in international negotiations, certain types of legal frames are particularly useful for creating winning arguments. When a state bases its arguments on constitutive legal claims, opponents are more likely to become trapped by the law: unable to develop sustainable rebuttals or advance their preferred policy. To evaluate this theory, I apply qualitative discourse analysis to the US arguments on the crime of aggression at the Kampala Review Conference of the International Criminal Court – where the US advanced numerous arguments intended to reshape the crime to align with US interests. The analysis supports the theoretical propositions – arguments framed on codified legal grounds had greater success, while arguments framed on more political grounds were less sustainable, failing to achieve the desired outcomes. These findings further develop our understanding of the use of international law in rhetoric, argumentation, and negotiation.

Keywords

International LawRhetoricArgumentationInternational Criminal CourtDiscourse Analysis
Type
Research Article
Information
Review of International Studies , Volume 46 , Issue 5 , December 2020 , pp. 672 - 690
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the British International Studies Association

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

1 Schimmelfennig, Frank, ‘The community trap: Liberal norms, rhetorical action, and the Eastern enlargement of the European Union’, International Organization, 55:1 (2001), pp. 47–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2 Fearon, James D., ‘Domestic political audiences and the escalation of international disputes’, American Political Science Review, 88:3 (1994), pp. 577–92; Kristopher W. Ramsay, ‘Cheap talk diplomacy, voluntary negotiations, and variable bargaining power: Cheap talk diplomacy’, International Studies Quarterly, 55:4 (2011), pp. 1003–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 Crawford, Neta, Argument and Change in World Politics: Ethics, Decolonization, and Humanitarian Intervention (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Deitelhoff, Nicole, ‘The discursive process of legalization: Charting islands of persuasion in the ICC case’, International Organization, 63:1 (2009), p. 33CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Deitelhoff, Nicole and Müller, Harald, ‘Theoretical paradise: Empirically lost? Arguing with Habermas’, Review of International Studies, 31:1 (2005), pp. 167–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Habermas, Jurgen, The Theory of Communicative Action, trans. McCarthy, Thomas (Boston: Beacon Press, 1984)Google Scholar; Risse, Thomas, ‘“Let's argue!”: Communicative action in world politics’, International Organization, 54:1 (2000), pp. 1–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 Bower, Adam, ‘Arguing with law: Strategic legal argumentation, US diplomacy, and debates over the International Criminal Court’, Review of International Studies, 41:2 (2015), pp. 337–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Holland, Jack and Aaronson, Mike, ‘Dominance through coercion: Strategic rhetorical balancing and the tactics of justification in Afghanistan and Libya’, Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding, 8:1 (2014), pp. 1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Krebs, Ronald R. and Jackson, Patrick Thaddeus, ‘Twisting tongues and twisting arms: The power of political rhetoric’, European Journal of International Relations, 13:1 (2007), pp. 35–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Nuñez-Mietz, Fernando G., ‘Legalization and the legitimation of the use of force: Revisiting Kosovo’, International Organization (2018), pp. 1–33Google Scholar.

5 Krebs and Jackson, ‘Twisting tongues and twisting arms’, p. 42; Nuñez-Mietz, ‘Legalization and the legitimation of the use of force’, p. 3; Schimmelfennig, ‘The community trap’, pp. 62–6.

6 Bower, ‘Arguing with law’, p. 338; Bower, Adam, Norms without the Great Powers: International Law and Changing Social Standards in World Politics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017), p. 35CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 Johnstone, Ian, ‘Security Council deliberations: The power of the better argument’, European Journal of International Law, 14:3 (2003), pp. 441–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Johnstone, Ian, The Power of Deliberation: International Law, Politics and Organizations (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Nuñez-Mietz, ‘Legalization and the legitimation of the use of force’; Scott, Shirley V., ‘International law as ideology: Theorizing the relationship between international law and international politics’, European Journal of International Law, 5:3 (1994), pp. 313–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8 Bower, ‘Arguing with law’.

9 Relevance refers to the texts position vis-à-vis the argument. While certain principles of IL may be legally ‘relevant’ to many arguments (that is, sovereign equality), the focus here is on the laws that are nearest to the topic.

10 Quayle, Peter, ‘Treaties of a particular type: The ICJ's interpretive approach to the constituent instruments of international organizations’, Leiden Journal of International Law, 29 (2016), pp. 853–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar; International Court of Justice, Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons (1996), p. 226.

11 Bower, ‘Arguing with law’, p. 38; Johnstone, ‘Security Council deliberations’; Reus-Smit, Christian, ‘Politics and international legal obligation’, European Journal of International Relations, 9:4 (2003), pp. 591–625CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12 Bower, Norms without the Great Powers, pp. 138–72.

13 Krebs and Jackson, ‘Twisting tongues and twisting arms’, p. 37.

14 Goldsmith, Jack L. and Posner, Eric A., ‘Moral and legal rhetoric in international relations: A rational choice perspective’, The Journal of Legal Studies, 31:S1 (2002), pp. S115–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Krebs and Jackson, ‘Twisting tongues and twisting arms’, p. 37.

15 Fearon, James, ‘Domestic political audiences and the escalation of international disputes’, American Political Science Review, 88:3 (1994), pp. 577–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sartori, Anne, ‘The might of the pen: A reputational theory of communication in international disputes’, International Organization, 56:1 (2002), pp. 121–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

16 Druckman, James, ‘The implications of framing effects for citizen competence’, Political Behavior, 23:3 (2001), pp. 225–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

17 Krebs and Jackson, ‘Twisting tongues and twisting arms’, p. 38.

18 Crawford, Argument and Change in World Politics, pp. 11–16.

19 Finnemore, Martha and Sikkink, Kathryn, ‘International norm dynamics and political change’, International Organization, 52:4 (1998), pp. 887–917CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

20 Risse, ‘“Let's argue!”’, p. 7.

21 Alastair Iain Johnston, ‘Treating international institutions as social environments’, International Studies Quarterly, 45:4 (2001), pp. 487–515; Rodger Payne, ‘Persuasion, frames and norm construction’, European Journal of International Relations, 7:1 (2001), pp. 37–61.

22 Crawford, Argument and Change in World Politics, pp. 28–33.

23 Morin, Jean-Frédéric and Gold, E. Richard, ‘Consensus-seeking, distrust and rhetorical entrapment: The WTO decision on access to medicines’, European Journal of International Relations, 16:4 (2010), p. 566CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

24 Holland and Aaronson, ‘Dominance through coercion’, p. 3; Krebs and Jackson, ‘Twisting tongues and twisting arms’, p. 42; Nuñez-Mietz, ‘Legalization and the legitimation of the use of force’, p. 3; Schimmelfennig, ‘The community trap’, pp. 62–6.

25 Benford, Robert D. and Snow, David A., ‘Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment’, Annual Review of Sociology, 26:1 (2000), p. 611CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Seymour, Lee J. M., ‘Let's bullshit! Arguing, bargaining and dissembling over Darfur’, European Journal of International Relations, 20:3 (2014), p. 573CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Vennesson, Pascal, ‘War under transnational surveillance: Framing ambiguity and the politics of shame’, Review of International Studies, 40:1 (2014), p. 31CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

26 Payne, ‘Persuasion, frames and norm construction’, p. 39.

27 Benford and Snow, ‘Framing processes and social movements’, p. 628.

28 Krebs and Jackson, ‘Twisting tongues and twisting arms’, p. 43.

29 Crawford, Argument and Change in World Politics, p. 17.

30 Krebs and Jackson, ‘Twisting tongues and twisting arms’, pp. 44–5; Payne, ‘Persuasion, frames and norm construction’, pp. 45–6.

31 Payne, ‘Persuasion, frames and norm construction’.

32 Holland and Aaronson, ‘Dominance through coercion’, p. 3; Krebs and Jackson, ‘Twisting tongues and twisting arms’, p. 42; Schimmelfennig, ‘The community trap’, pp. 62–6.

33 Bower, ‘Arguing with law’, p. 341.

34 Petrova, Margarita H., ‘Rhetorical entrapment and normative enticement: How the United Kingdom turned from spoiler into champion of the Cluster Munition Ban’, International Studies Quarterly, 60:3 (2016), pp. 389–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Schimmelfennig, ‘The community trap’, pp. 64–5.

35 Johnstone, The Power of Deliberation, p. 34.

36 Jacobs, Lawrence and Page, Benjamin, ‘Who influences U.S. foreign policy?’, American Political Science Review, 99:1 (2005), pp. 107–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Johnstone, The Power of Deliberation, pp. 41–3.

37 Kornprobst, Markus and Senn, Martin, ‘Arguing deep ideational change’, Contemporary Politics, 23:1 (2017), p. 103CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kratochwil, Friedrich, Rules, Norms, and Decisions: On the Conditions of Practical Legal Reasoning in International Relations and Domestic Affairs (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), pp. 38–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Krebs and Jackson, ‘Twisting tongues and twisting arms’, pp. 43–7; Krebs, Ronald R. and Lobasz, Jennifer K., ‘Fixing the meaning of 9/11: Hegemony, coercion, and the road to war in Iraq’, Security Studies, 16:3 (2007), p. 421CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

38 Bower, ‘Arguing with law’, p. 338; Krebs and Jackson, ‘Twisting tongues and twisting arms’, pp. 43–7; Nuñez-Mietz, ‘Legalization and the legitimation of the use of force’, pp. 3–5.

39 Crawford, Argument and Change in World Politics, pp. 19–23; Krebs and Jackson, ‘Twisting tongues and twisting arms’, p. 44.

40 Schon, Donald and Rein, Martin, Frame Reflection: Toward the Resolution of Intractable Policy Controversies (New York, NY: Basic Books, 1994)Google Scholar.

41 Bower, ‘Arguing with law’, pp. 343–6; Bower, Norms without the Great Powers.

42 Johnstone, ‘Security Council deliberations’, pp. 441–3; Nuñez-Mietz, ‘Legalization and the legitimation of the use of force’; Reus-Smit, ‘Politics and international legal obligation’; Scott, ‘International law as ideology’.

43 Johnstone, The Power of Deliberation, p. 21.

44 Quayle, ‘Treaties of a particular type’.

45 Bower, ‘Arguing with law’, p. 339.

46 Percy, Sarah, ‘Mercenaries: Strong norm, weak law’, International Organization, 61:2 (2007), p. 390CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

47 Bower, ‘Arguing with law’, p. 339.

48 Schabas, William, The International Criminal Court (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2010), pp. 109–10Google Scholar.

49 Schabas, William, An Introduction to the International Criminal Court (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2011), p. 146CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

50 Barriga, Stefan and Grover, Leena, ‘A historic breakthrough on the crime of aggression’, The American Journal of International Law, 105:3 (2011), p. 518CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Barriga, Stefan and Kreß, Claus, The Travaux Préparatoires of the Crime of Aggression (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2012), pp. 15–16Google Scholar; Schabas, An Introduction to the International Criminal Court, pp. 21–2; Weisbord, Noah, ‘Bargaining practices: Negotiating the Kampala compromise for the International Criminal Court’, Law and Contemporary Problems, 76 (2013), pp. 85–117Google Scholar.

51 Wenaweser, Christian, ‘Reaching the Kampala compromise on aggression: The Chair's perspective’, Leiden Journal of International Law, 23:4 (2010), p. 884CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

52 Barriga and Grover, ‘A historic breakthrough on the crime of aggression’, p. 523; Wenaweser, ‘Reaching the Kampala compromise on aggression’, p. 883.

53 Trahan, Jennifer, ‘The Rome Statute's amendment on the crime of aggression: Negotiations at the Kampala Review Conference’, International Criminal Law Review, 11:1 (2011), p. 67Google Scholar.

54 Ibid., pp. 67–78.

55 Harold Koh, ‘Statement at the Review Conference of the International Criminal Court’ (2010).

56 Trahan, ‘The Rome Statute's amendment on the crime of aggression’, p. 68.

57 Schaack, Beth Van, ‘Negotiating at the interface of power and law: The crime of aggression’, Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, 49:3 (2011), pp. 514–16Google Scholar.

58 Bennett, Andrew, ‘Case study methods: Design, use and comparative advantages’, in Sprinz, Detlef and Wolinsky-Nahmias, Yael (eds), Models, Numbers, and Cases (Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 2004), pp. 29–30Google Scholar; Gerring, John, Case Study Research: Principles and Practices (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2007), pp. 115–22Google Scholar.

59 Trahan, ‘The Rome Statute's amendment on the crime of aggression’, p. 68.

60 Bower, Norms without the Great Powers, p. 169.

61 Goldstein, Judith, Kahler, Miles, Keohane, Robert O., and Slaughter, Anne-Marie, ‘Introduction: Legalization and world politics’, International Organization, 54:3 (2000), pp. 385–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

62 Keller, Reiner, ‘Approaches in discourse research’, in Doing Discourse Research: An Introduction for Social Scientists (London: SAGE Publications Ltd, 2013), pp. 31–2CrossRefGoogle Scholar; LeGreco, Marianne, ‘Discourse analysis’, in Mills, Jane and Birks, Melanie (eds), Qualitative Methodology: A Practical Guide (London: SAGE Publications, Inc., 2014), pp. 67–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

63 Johnston, Hank, ‘A methodology for frame analysis: From discourse to cognitive schema’, in Johnston, Hank and Klandermans, Bert (eds), Social Movements and Culture (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1995), pp. 219–29Google Scholar.

64 Koh, Harold and Buchwald, Todd, ‘The crime of aggression: The United States perspective’, The American Journal of International Law, 109:2 (2015), pp. 257–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

65 Krebs and Jackson, ‘Twisting tongues and twisting arms’.

66 Bower, ‘Arguing with law’.

67 Krebs and Jackson, ‘Twisting tongues and twisting arms’, p. 36.

68 Trahan, ‘The Rome Statute's amendment on the crime of aggression’, p. 70, fn. 85.

69 Harold Koh, ‘The Obama Administration and International Law’ (2010); ‘Closing Intervention at the Review Conference of the International Criminal Court’ (2010); Stephen Rapp, ‘Speech to the Assembly of State Parties’ (2009).

70 Statements by Observer States after the Adoption of Resolution RC/Res.6 on the Crime of Aggression, Review Conference Official Records, RC/11, Annex IX, A, E, F.

71 International Criminal Court, Assembly of State Parties, Report of the Special Working Group on the Crime of Aggression, ICC-ASP/7/SWGCA/2 (20 February 2009). paras 18–24, Annex I, para. 4.

72 Clark, Roger S., ‘Negotiating provisions defining the crime of aggression, its elements and the conditions for ICC exercise of jurisdiction over it’, European Journal of International Law, 20:4 (2009), p. 1114CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

73 ‘Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court’ (2002).

74 ‘Charter of the United Nations’ (1945), Article 39.

75 ICC-ASP/7/SWGCA/2, Annex I, para 4.

76 Ibid., Annex I, para. 5.

77 Amos Wako, ‘Statement on Behalf of the African State Parties to the International Criminal Court’ (2010).

78 A. C. Nel, ‘Opening Statement to the Review Conference of the International Criminal Court’ (2010); Jose Serrano, ‘Statement During the General Debate of the Review Conference of the Rome Statute’ (2010).

79 Tsokolo Makhethe, ‘Statement to the Review Conference of the International Criminal Court’ (2010).

80 Mohammed Bello Adoke, ‘Statement of Nigeria’ (2010); Makhethe, ‘Statement to the Review Conference of the International Criminal Court’; Mahmoud Samy, ‘Statement on Behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement’ (2010).

81 Blokker, Niels and Kress, Claus, ‘A consensus agreement on the crime of aggression: Impressions from Kampala’, Leiden Journal of International Law, 23:4 (2010), p. 894CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

82 Barriga and Kreß, The Travaux Préparatoires of the Crime of Aggression, Doc. 91.

83 ICC-ASP/7/SWGCA/2, Annex I, para. 5.

84 International Criminal Court, Assembly of State Parties, Conference Room Paper on the Crime of Aggression, RC/WGCA/1 (25 May 2010), Annex I.

85 International Criminal Court, Assembly of State Parties, Conference Room Paper on the Crime of Aggression, RC/WGCA/1/Rev. 2 (10 June 2010), Annex I.

86 Lavers, Troy, ‘The new crime of aggression: A triumph for powerful states’, Journal of Conflict and Security Law, 18:3 (2013), pp. 499–522CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

87 ICC-ASP/7/SWGCA/2 Annex 1, para. 3.

88 Van Schaack, ‘Negotiating at the interface of power and law’, pp. 562–3.

89 Stephen Rapp, ‘Statement to the Review Conference of the International Criminal Court’ (2010).

90 Koh, ‘Statement at the Review Conference of the International Criminal Court’; Harold Koh and Stephen Rapp, ‘U.S. Engagement with the ICC and the Outcome of the Recently Concluded Review Conference’, available at: {https://2009-2017.state.gov/j/gcj/us_releases/remarks/2010/143178.htm}; Stephen Rapp, ‘International Justice and the Use of Force’ (2010).

91 ICC-ASP/7/SWGCA/2, para. 13.

92 Ernest Hirsch Ballin, ‘Statement of the Netherlands’ (2010).

93 Adoke, ‘Statement of Nigeria’; Maciej Szpunar, ‘Statement of Poland’ (2010); Wako, ‘Statement on Behalf of the African State Parties to the International Criminal Court’; Amos Wako, ‘Statement of Romania’ (2010).

94 Barriga and Grover, ‘A historic breakthrough on the crime of aggression’, p. 523; Wenaweser, ‘Reaching the Kampala compromise on aggression’, pp. 883–4.

95 ICC-ASP/7/SWGCA/2, para. 13.

96 Koh, ‘Statement at the Review Conference of the International Criminal Court’.

97 Manifest refers to the ‘character, scale, and gravity’ of an act that constitutes a violation of the law. Egregious is a higher threshold, referring to a blatant violation. This distinction was grounded with reference to Resolution 3314 and the idea that not all individual acts of aggression constituted a crime of aggression.

98 Koh, ‘Statement at the Review Conference of the International Criminal Court’; Rapp, ‘International Justice and the Use of Force’.

99 Koh, ‘Statement at the Review Conference of the International Criminal Court’.

100 General Assembly Resolution 3314(XXIX), Definition of Aggression, A/RES/3314(XXIX) (14 December 1974).

101 Koh, ‘Statement at the Review Conference of the International Criminal Court’; Rapp, ‘International Justice and the Use of Force’.

102 Rapp, ‘International Justice and the Use of Force’.

103 Koh, ‘Statement at the Review Conference of the International Criminal Court’.

104 Barriga and Kreß, The Travaux Préparatoires of the Crime of Aggression, Doc. 138.

105 ICC-ASP/7/SWGCA/2, para. 13.

106 Ballin, ‘Statement of the Netherlands’; Wako, ‘Statement on Behalf of the African State Parties to the International Criminal Court’.

107 A/RES/3314(XXIX), Article 1.

108 Ibid., Article 5.

109 Trahan, ‘The Rome Statute's amendment on the crime of aggression’, p. 75.

110 Barriga and Kreß, The Travaux Préparatoires of the Crime of Aggression, Doc. 138; ICC-ASP/7/SWGCA/2, para. 13.

111 Harold Koh, ‘The Obama Administration and International Law’ (2010); Koh, ‘Statement at the Review Conference of the International Criminal Court’; Koh and Rapp, ‘U.S. Engagement with the ICC’; Rapp, ‘International Justice and the Use of Force’.

112 International Criminal Court, Assembly of State Parties, Understandings Regarding the Amendments to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court on the Crime of Aggression, RC/10/Add.1 (11 June 2010), para. 6.

113 Ibid., para. 7.

114 Koh, ‘Statement at the Review Conference of the International Criminal Court’; Harold Koh, ‘The Challenges and Future of International Justice’ (2010).

115 Barriga and Grover, ‘A historic breakthrough on the crime of aggression’, pp. 523–4.

116 ICC-ASP/7/SWGCA/2, paras 6–11.

117 International Criminal Court, Assembly of State Parties, Draft Report of the Working Group on the Crime of Aggression, RC/WGCA/3 (6 June 2010), para. 4.

118 ex. Turkey, France, United Kingdom.

119 Barriga and Grover, ‘A historic breakthrough on the crime of aggression’, pp. 524–5.

120 ‘Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court’ (2002), Article 121(5).

121 Koh, ‘The Challenges and Future of International Justice’.

122 RC/WGCA/3, para. 4.

123 Barriga and Grover, ‘A historic breakthrough on the crime of aggression’, pp. 523–4.

124 ICC-ASP/7/SWGCA/2, para. 10.

125 Ibid., para. 9.

126 Ibid.

127 Marcel Biato, ‘Statement on the Behalf of the Brazilian Delegation to the Review Conference’ (2010).

128 Nel, ‘Opening Statement’.

129 Non-paper Submitted by Delegations of Argentina, Brazil and Switzerland as of 6 June 2010, Review Conference Official Records, RC/11, Annex III, App. V, A.

130 Barriga and Grover, ‘A historic breakthrough on the crime of aggression’, p. 525.

131 Non-paper Submitted by the Delegation of Canada as of 8 June 2010, Review Conference Official Records, RC/11, Annex III, App. V, B.

132 Barriga and Grover, ‘A historic breakthrough on the crime of aggression’, p. 526.; International Criminal Court, Assembly of State Parties, Draft Resolution Submitted by the President of the Review Conference, RC/10 (11 June 2010)

133 Van Schaack, ‘Negotiating at the interface of power and law’, p. 591.

134 Lavers, ‘The new crime of aggression’, p. 514.

135 Trahan, ‘The Rome Statute's amendment on the crime of aggression’, p. 68.

136 Bower, Norms without the Great Powers, p. 169.

137 Bower, ‘Arguing with law’, p. 359.

138 Bower, ‘Arguing with law’.