Disenchantment of Sovereignty as a Way to Enhance International law’s ‎Involvement in National Elections

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Department of Public Law, Faculty of Law, University of Shahid Beheshti, Tehran, Iran‎

2 Department of Public International Law, Faculty of Law, University of Shahid Beheshti, Tehran, ‎Iran

Abstract

In this article, it is argued that the teachings of the New Haven School (NHS) of International law, provide the best theoretical framework for the promotion of international electoral norms. The article argues that there is no inexplicable mystery in component elements of the state and sovereignty. It also maintains that the idea of the inconsistency of national sovereignty with the promotion of international electoral norms is based upon a distorted conception of sovereignty. As a legal concept, national sovereignty has long been invoked by states to obstruct the promotion of international norms and standards on free and fair elections. Demystification of the elements of the state reveals that international scholars may convincingly overcome the theoretical challenges of sovereigntists through the deconstruction of the concepts of state and sovereignty. For the New Haven School, all legal concepts and arrangements (including Sovereignty) are designed to achieve human dignity. For all practical purposes, if international law scholars want to understand a different view on the relations between sovereignty and people, they must promote a deeper understanding of New Haven’s epistemological and methodological apparatus. Taking a contextual-functional approach to sovereignty, the New Haven School of international law subordinates sovereignty to the recognized international standards of humanity.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. Alvarez, J.E., (2012). State Sovereignty is Not Withering Away: A Few Lessons for the Future, in Cassese, A., (ed), Realizing Utopia: The Future of International Law, Oxford University Press, 26-37.
  2. Beaulac, S., (2000). The Westphalian Legal Orthodoxy-Myth or Reality, Journal of the History of International Law, Vol. 2, (2), 148–77.
  3. Beaulac, S., (2004). The Westphalian Model in Defining International Law: Challenging the Myth, Australian Journal of Legal History, Vol. 8 (2), 181-213.
  4. Besson, S., (2011). Sovereignty, in Wolfrum, R. (ed.), Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press, para. 16. https://opil.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e1472?prd=MPIL Last accessed: 11/11/2022
  5. Bodin, J., (1992). On sovereignty: four chapters from the six books of the commonwealth, Translated by Hasan Abiniki, Tehran: SAMT (In Persian).
  6. Chinkin, C., (1994). The End of Sovereignty, Proceedings of the ASIL Annual Meeting, 88, 71-87.
  7. Croxton, D., (1999). The Peace of Westphalia of 1648 and the Origins of Sovereignty, The International History Review, Vol. 21 (3), 569-591.
  8. Evans, M., (2018). International Law, 5th Edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  9. Gross, L., (1948). The Peace of Westphalia: 1648–1948, American Journal of International Law, Vol. 42(1), 20-41.
  10. Hathaway, O.A., (2008). International Delegation and State Sovereignty, Law and Contemporary Problems, Vol. 71 (1), 115-149.
  11. Heller, H., (2019). Sovereignty: A Contribution to the Theory of Public and International Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  12. Henkin, L., (1994). The Mythology of Sovereignty, in Macdonald, R.S.J., (ed), Essays in Honour of Wang Tieya, Leiden: Nijhoff Publishers, 351-358.
  13. Henkin, L., (1999). That "S" Word: Sovereignty, and Globalization, and Human Rights, Et Cetera, Fordham Law Review, 68 (1), 1-14.
  14. Hudson, W., (2008). Fables of Sovereignty, in Jacobsen, T., & Sampford, C. & Thakur, R., (eds), Re-envisioning Sovereignty the End of Westphalia? Burlington: Ashgate Publishing Limited, 19-31.
  15. James, A., (1999). The practice of sovereign statehood in contemporary international society, Political Studies, Vol. 74 (3), 457-473.
  16. Jennings, R., & Watts, A., (2008). Oppenheim's International Law, 9th Edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press
  17. Jennings, R., (2002). Sovereignty and International Law, in Kreijen, G. & Brus, M., Duursma, J. &; De Vos, E. & Dugard, J., (eds), State, Sovereignty, and International Governance, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 27-44.
  18. Kelsen, H., (1944). The Principle of Sovereign Equality of States as a Basis for International Organizition, Yale Law Journal, Vol. 53 (2), 207-220.
  19. Kingsbury, B., (1998). Sovereignty and Inequality, European Journal of International Law, Vol. 9 (4), 599-625.
  20. Koskenniemi, M., (1994). The Wonderful Artificiality of States, Proceedings of the ASIL, 88, 22-29.
  21. Koskenniemi, M., (2006). From Apology to Utopia: The Structure of International Legal Argument, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  22. Koskenniemi, M., (2011). What Use for Sovereignty Today, Asian Journal of International Law, Vol. 1(1), 61-70.
  23. Krasner, S. D., (1999). Sovereignty: organized hypocrisy, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  24. Krasner, S.D., (1993). Westphalia and All That, In Goldstein, J. &; Keohane, & R.O., Ideas and foreign policy: Beliefs, institutions, and political change, (Ithaca: Cornell University Press), 235-264.
  25. Lauterpacht, E., (1997). Sovereignty-Myth or Reality, International Affairs, Vol. 73(1), 137-150.
  26. Lewis, J. U, (2016). Jean Bodin’s Logic of Sovereignty, in Franklin, J., Jean Bodin, New York: Routledge. 3-19.
  27. MacCormick, N., (2002). Questioning Sovereignty: Law, State, and Nation in the European Commonwealth, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  28. Malanczuk, P., (1997). Akehurst's Modern Introduction to International Law, 7th edition, New York: Routledge.
  29. McDougal, M.S., & Lasswell, H.D., & Chen, L.C, (1980). Human Rights and World Public Order: The Basic Policies of an International Law of Human Dignity, New Haven: Yale University Press
  30. McDougal, M.S., & Lasswell, H.D., (1992). Jurisprudence for a Free Society: Studies in Law, Science and Policy, New Haven: New Haven Press.
  31. McDougal, M.S., (1959). Perspectives for an International Law of Human Dignity, Proceedings of ASIL, 53, 107-132.
  32. McDougal, M.S., (1959). The Impact of International Law upon National Law: A Policy Oriented Perspective., South Dakota Law Review, Vol. 25 (4), 25-92.
  33. Oppenheim, L., (1912). International Law: A Treatise, Second Edition, vol. 1, New York: Longmans, Green and Co.
  34. Orakhelashvili, A., (2018). Akehurst's Modern Introduction to International Law, 8th edition, New York: Routledge.
  35. Osiander, A., (2001). Sovereignty, International Relations, and the Westphalian Myth, International Organization, Vol. 55, (2), 251-287.
  36. Peak, T., (2021). Westphalia from Below: Humanitarian Intervention and the Myth of 1648, London: Hurst & Company.
  37. Peters, A., (2009). Humanity as the A and Ω of Sovereignty, European Journal of International Law, Vol 20 (3), 513-544.
  38. Philpott, D., (2001). Revolutions in Sovereignty: How Ideas Shaped Modern International Relations, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  39. Reisman, M.W. (2017). The Quest for World Order and Human Dignity in the Twenty- first Century: Constitutive Process and Individual Commitment: General Course on Public International Law, Hague: Hague Academy of International Law.
  40. Reisman, W.M., (1990). Sovereignty and Human Rights in Contemporary International Law, The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 84 (4), 866-876.
  41. Reisman, W.M., (2007). The Evolving International Standard and Sovereignty, proceedings of ASIL, Vol. 101, 462-465.
  42. Ross, A., (1974). A Text-book of International Law: General Part, London: Longmans, Green and Co.
  43. Saga, , (2018). The Opinion of Mankind: Sociability and the Theory of the State from Hobbes to Smith, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  44. Schwarzenberger, G., (1957). The Forms of Sovereignty: An Essay in Comparative Jurisprudence, Current Legal Problems, Vol. 10)1(, 264-295.
  45. Stacy, H., (2003). Relational Sovereignty, Stanford Law Review, Vol. 55 (5), 2029-2059.
  46. Troper, M., (2015). Sovereignty and Natural Law in the Legal Discourse of the Ancien Régime, Theoretical Inquiries in Law, Vol. 16 (2), 315-335.
  47. Verdirame, G., (2019). Sovereignty, in d’Aspremont, J., & Singh, S., (eds) Concepts for International Law Contributions to Disciplinary Thought, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 827-837.
Comparative Law Review
Volume 14, Issue 2
Autumn $ Winter 2023-2024
January 2024
Pages 1089-1112

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics