Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

3 results

  • 6 - Conclusion

  • Madelaine Chiam, La Trobe University, Victoria
  • Book:
    International Law in Public Debate
    Published online:
    30 November 2021
    Print publication:
    09 December 2021, pp 174-184

  • Summary

    In this concluding chapter, I reflect in two ways on the questions that have informed my analysis. First, I reiterate the argument for a popular international law and the characteristics that I have identified in this book. Second, I consider some of the implications of my argument for international legal practice.

International Law in Public Debate
  • Madelaine Chiam
  • Published online:
    30 November 2021
    Print publication:
    09 December 2021
  • Public debates in the language of international law have occurred across the 20th and 21st centuries and have produced a popular form of international law that matters for international practice. This book analyses the people who used international law and how they used it in debates over Australia's participation in the 2003 Iraq War, the Vietnam War and the First World War. It examines texts such as newspapers, parliamentary debates, public protests and other expressions of public opinion. It argues that these interventions produced a form of international law that shares a vocabulary and grammar with the expert forms of that language and distinct competences in order to be persuasive. This longer history also illustrates a move from the use of international legal language as part of collective justifications to the use of international law as an autonomous justification for state action.