Abstract
Recent studies have highlighted the instrumental use of language, wherein actors deploy claims to strategically pursue policy goals in the absence of persuasion or socialisation. Yet these accounts are insufficiently attentive to the social context in which an audience assesses and responds to strategic appeals. I present a theoretical account that highlights the distinctly powerful role of international law in framing strategic argumentation. Legalised discourses are especially legitimate because law is premised on a set of internally coherent practices that constitute actors and forms of action. I then illustrate the implications in a hard case concerning US efforts to secure immunities from International Criminal Court jurisdiction. Contrary to realist accounts of law as a tool of the powerful, I show that both pro- and anti-ICC diplomacy was channelled through a legal lens that imposed substantial constraints on the pursuit of policy objectives. Court proponents responded to US diplomatic pressure with their own legal arguments; this narrowed the scope of the exemptions, even as the Security Council temporarily conceded to US demands. While the US sought to marry coercion with argumentative appeals, it failed to generate a lasting change in global practice concerning ICC jurisdiction.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 337-360 |
Journal | Review of International Studies |
Volume | 41 |
Issue number | 2 |
Early online date | 8 Aug 2014 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - Apr 2015 |
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'Arguing with law: strategic legal argumentation, US diplomacy, and debates over the International Criminal Court'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Profiles
-
Adam Stephen Bower
- School of International Relations - Director of Impact, Senior Lecturer in International Relations
- Institute of Legal and Constitutional Research
- Centre for Global Law and Governance - Co-Director
Person: Academic