International Law Review

International Law Review

The Necessity of Democratization of International legal Order

Document Type : academic

Authors
Zahra Hajipour 1
Pouria Askary 2
1 PhD Candidate of Public International Law, Allameh Tabataba’i University, Tehran, Iran
2 Associate Professor, Faculty of Law and Political Science, Allameh Tabataba’i University, Tehran, Iran
10.22066/cilamag.2024.2020841.2545
Abstract
Extended Abstract
1. Introduction 
As the third millennium begins, humanity grapples with a complex web of problems such as poverty, unemployment, increasing inequality within and between States, increasing weapons, war and militarism, terrorism and fundamentalism, financial and environmental crises, refuge and immigration, violation of human rights and democracy, discrimination along lines such as sex/gender, ethnicity, and race, widespread violence, etc. What is important is to understand the relationship of these problems with each other and with the order based on domination, injustice, and systematic inequality ruling the world. All of the above issues can be seen as the result of the order based on the relations of domination and power at various levels, which, in the final analysis, create limitations in the realization of the autonomy of individuals. 
In the contemporary globalized and interconnected world, these issues, some of which were controllable by States, transcend the capabilities of individual ones, demanding global solutions outside the State-centric order in the form of a global legal order that can effectively bind States and Non-State Actors in the international sphere to guarantee the autonomy of individuals. In avoiding idealism in this field, which leads to proposals such as the creation of a centralized global government, international law is an available option to do the aforementioned function; However, the realization of this matter, considering the limited success of international law in this regard, requires overcoming the obstacles to the effective functioning of international law in carrying out this mission. This article considers the reason for the necessity of democratization of the international legal order as its central question in addressing these issues and facilitating a transition from the current state of affairs, and to improve the feasibility and effectiveness of this solution, conceptualizes it as a gradual, dynamic and multidimensional process centeredon the United Nations system, which relying on the democratic defects of the existing order, makes changes at different levels to guarantee autonomy of individuals. By overcoming the shortcomings of international law, the mentioned process can help strengthen it to act as a global law capable of 
establishing the rule of law at the global level.
2. Research Gap and Objective 
It is impossible to solve, control, and contain the above issues except through a set of regulations and norms with a global scope. However, the success of international law in realizing this goal has been scant. The limited success of international law in this regard can be attributed to two factors: First, the nature and characteristics of international society, and second, the structural weaknesses and deficiencies within international law, as well as its lack of objectivity and neutrality, which raises international law as part of the problem. Nevertheless, acknowledging the role of politics in international law, its lack of objectivity and neutrality, and its close ties to politics does not negate the potential of international law as a solution. International law possesses a distinct identity and playes a crucial guiding role in maintaining global order. Therefore, while international law is part of the problem, it is also part of the solution to overcome the existing situation and manage the current issues. To effectively serve as part of the solution, international law must undergo a process of democratization.
3. Methodology
The present text adopts a critical approach and emphasizes the connection between law and politics, and the need for legal analysis within its social context on the one hand, and emphasizes the structure, logic, and internal dynamics of the law on the other. An interdisciplinary methodology is employed within the text, and the analytical tools of social sciences are used to study, critique, and reconstruct international law. Moreover, by emphasizingthe normative nature of international law, the authors have utilized its research methods such as analytical and descriptive means in the related 
areas.
4. Key Findings
The article argues that addressing the above challenges which often restrict autonomy of individuals, necessitates the reform and democratization of the current international legal order and emphasizes that democratizing the international legal order, with a focus on autonomy can, inter alia, overcome the cross structures of rejection and domination, as well as the tension between objectivism and subjectivism, and help to increase legitimacy and compliance with international law, and as a result, strengthen the rule of international law.
5. Contribution to the Field
Studies addressing the need for democratization of the international legal order, have primarily progressed in two directions within political theory and international law. In political theory, the focus lies mainly on the core democratic values challenged by globalization within the traditional political societies' framework. As a result, international law's reform and democratizationare suggested as a pragmatic solution to overcome these challenges. On the international legal-studies side, democracy is usually assumed as the preferred form of governance and concentrate on a set of democratic institutional requirements. Thus, the need for international law democratizationemerges as a consequence of deficiencies within these mechanisms. In an effort to respond to this question, this article starts from the concept of autonomy as a non-instrumental and central value of democracy, and by avoiding a formal or procedural approach to the democratization of the international legal order, considers its necessity due to the challenges of realizing autonomy in the State-oriented perception of it in the present era.
Additionally, by analyzing the issue from the international law perspective, it demonstrates how this process can help overcome the limitations and barriers hindering international law's effectiveness as a key factor in shaping the global order.
6. Conclusion
In the current globalized community, overcoming the forces and structures that threaten the autonomy of individuals can no longer be guaranteed within the framework of traditional political communities. Protecting autonomy requires the expansion of democracy on a global scale, enabling citizens to participate in all decisions affecting their lives. Establishing a global democracy does not necessitate a centralized global government; changes can be implemented at various levels to uphold democratic values and guarantee individual autonomy. Given the undesirability and impossibility of a global government, or a less centralized model, and contemporary political and social realities, international law emerges as the most viable option for creating a global democratic order. This requires the democratization of the international legal order around the United Nations system under a gradual and multidimensional process; In such a way that relying on the democratic defects of the existing order, it applies changes at its different levels to manifest democratic values and guarantee autonomy of the people. Democratizing the international legal order presents an opportunity for international law to transcend its inherent structural limitations. By embracing diverse subjectivities, the aforementioned process can help international law to act as a space in which an intersubjective consensus can be provided to achieve objectivity. Also, the democratization of the international legal order to ensure the autonomy of citizens is a pragmatic solution to simultaneously overcome the multiple and intersecting structures of domination and inequality to avoid focusing on a specific feature of it. Strengthening the objectivity and overcoming the existing inequalities from the above channels will ultimately lead to an increase in the objectivity and universality of international law, and as a result, increase the legitimacy and compliance with the rules of international law, and strengthen its position to act as an effective global or transnational law.
Keywords
Personal Autonomy
Democracy
Global Democracy
Democratic Defects of International Law
Democratization of the International Legal Order

Subjects

  1. - Books

    1. Chemillier Gendearu, Monique. Humanity and sovereignties, an overview of international law, translated by Morteza Kalantarian. Tehran: Agah Publishing, 2012)in Persian)
    2. Muller, Klaus. sovereignty, democracy and world politics in the era of globalization. Translated by Lotfali Samino. Tehran: Akhtaran, 2004 (in Persian)
    3. Hart, H. L. A. (2012), The Concept Of Law, Translated by Mohammad Rasakh. Tehran: Ney Publishing, 2013 (in Persian)
    4. Anghie, Antony. Imperialism, Sovereignty and the Making of International Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.
    5. Archibugi, Daniele and David Held (Editors). Cosmopolitan democracy: An agenda for a new world order. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1995.
    6. Archibugi, Daniele. The Global Commonwealth of Citizens, Toward Cosmopolitan Democracy. Princeton & Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2008.
    7. Bianchi, Andrea. International Law Theories: An Inquiry into Different Ways of Thinking. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016.
    8. Charlesworth, Hilary, and Christine Chinkin. The Boundaries of International Law: A Feminist Analysis. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2000.
    9. Chimni, B. S. International Law and World Order: A Critique of Contemporary Approaches, Second Edition (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2017).
    10. Clapham, Andrew. Brierly’s Law of Nations, An Introduction to the Role of International Law in International Relations, Seventh Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.
    11. Domingo, Rafael. The New Global Law. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010.
    12. Dryzek, John S. Deliberative Global Politics Discourse and Democracy in a Divided World (Key Concepts). Cambridge & Maiden: Polity, 2006.
    13. Falk, Richard. On Humane Governance. University Park, Penn: Penn State University Press, 1995.
    14. Gaeta, Paola, Viñuales, Jorge E. and Zappalá, Salvatore. Cassese's International Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020.
    15. Grewe, Wilhelm G. The Epochs of International Law, Translated and revised by Michael Byers. Berlin & New York: de Gruyter, 2000.
    16. Held, David, Democracy and the Global Order From the Modern State to Cosmopolitan Governance. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 1995.
    17. Koskenniemi, Martti. From Apology to Utopia: The Structure of International Legal Argument. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
    18. Liddell, Henry George, and Robert Scott. A Greek-English Lexicon, 8th New York: Harper & Brothers, Franklin Square, 1897.
    19. Malanczuk, Peter. Akehurst's Modern Introduction to International Law, 7th Revised Version. London & New York: Routledge, 1997.
    20. Marchetti, Raffaele. Global Democracy, For and Against: Ethical Theory, Institutional Design, and Social Struggles. Abingdon Oxon & New York: Routledge, 2008.
    21. Patomaki, Heikki and Teivo Teivainen. A Possible World: Democratic Transformation of Global Institutions. London & Newyork: Zed Books, 2004.
    22. Raaflaub, Kurt. The Discovery of Freedom in Ancient Greece, Revised and Updated Edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2004.
    23. Raz, Joseph. The Morality of Freedom. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988.
    24. Scheuerman, William E. The Realist Case for Global Reform. Cambridge & Malden: Polity Press, 2011.
    25. Shaw, Malcolm N. International Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017.
    26. Viroli, Maurizio. Republicanism, Translated from the Italian hy Antony Shugaar. New York, Hill and Wang: 2002.

     

    - Articles

    1. Anghie, Antony. “The Evolution of International Law: colonial and postcolonial realities”. Third World Quarterly 27, no. 5 (2006).
    2. Archibugi, Daniele. “Principles of Cosmopolitan Democracy”, in Re-imagining Political Community: Studies in Cosmopolitan Democracy. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1998.
    3. Bagchi, Kanad. “Marxist Approaches to International Law: An Outline”, Max Planck Institute For Comparative Public Law & International Law (MPIL), Research Paper No. 2022-16, (2022).
    4. Beetham, David. “Conditions for Democratic Consolidation” Review of African Political Economy 21, no. 60 (1994).
    5. Boutros-Ghali, Boutros. “Discours De Clôture Du Secrétaire Général De L'organisation des Nations Unies”, in International Law as A Language for International Relations (The Netherlands: Kluwer Law International, 1996).
    6. Bradley Curtis A. & Goldsmith, Jack L. “Presidential Control over International Law”, Harvard Law Review 131, no. 5 (2018).
    7. Burchardt, Dana. “The Functions of Law and their Challenges: The Differentiated Functionality of International Law”. German Law Journal 20, (2019).
    8. Carty, Anthony. “Critical International Law: Recent Trends in the Theory of International Law”. European Journal of International Law 2, no. 1 (1991).
    9. Cass, Deborah Z. “Navigating the Newstream: Recent Critical Scholarship in International Law”. Nordic Journal of International Law 65 (1996).
    10. Cerna, Christina. “Universal Democracy: An International Legal Right or the Pipe Dream of the West?”. New York University Journal of International Law & Politics 27, no. 2 (1995).
    11. Charlesworth, Hilary, Chinkin, Christine & Wright, Shelley. “Feminist Approaches to International Law”, The American Journal of International Law 85, no. 4 (1991).
    12. Fassbender, Bardo. “The State’s Unabandoned Claim to be the Center of the Legal Universe”, International Journal of Constitutional Law 16, no. 4 (2018).
    13. Fox, Gregory H. & Nolte, Georg. “Intolerant Democracies”. Harvard International Law Journal 36, (1995).
    14. Franck, Thomas M. “Democracy as a Human Right”. in Human Rights: An Agenda for the Next Century, edited by Louis Henkin and John Hargrove. Washington: American Society of International Law, 1994.
    15. Franck, Thomas M. “Legitimacy in the International System”. The American Journal of International Law 82, no. 4 (1988).
    16. Franck, Thomas M. “The Emerging Right to Democratic Governance”. American Journal of International Law 86, (1992).
    17. Gregory H. Fox & Brad R. Roth, “Democracy and international law”. Review of International Studies 27, (2001).
    18. Kennedy, David. “A New Stream of International Law Scholarship”. Wisconsin International Law Journal 7, no. 1 (1988).
    19. Knox, Robert. “Marxist Approaches to International Law”. in Oxford handbook of the theory of international law, Edited by Anne Orford. Florian Hoffmann & Martin Clark, 2016.
    20. Kritsiotis, Dino. “The Power of International Law as Language”. California Western Law Review 34, no. 2 (1998).
    21. Lovett, Adam. “Democratic Autonomy and the Shortcomings of Citizens”. Journal of Moral Philosophy 18, no. 4 (2020).
    22. Lu, Catherine. “World government”. in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2006), Available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/world-government/.
    23. Mann, Michael. “Has Globalization Ended the Rise and Rise of the Nation-State?”. Review of International Political Economy 4, no. 3 (1997).
    24. Marchetti, Raffaele. “Models of global democracy: In defence of cosmo-federalism”. in Global Democracy: Normative and Empirical Perspectives, Edited by Daniele Archibugi, Mathias Koenig-Archibugi and Raffaele Marchetti. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012.
    25. Marks, Susan. “International Law, Democracy and the End of History”. in Democratic Governance and International Law, Edited by Gregory H. Fox & Brad R. Roth, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
    26. McGrew, Anthony G. “Democracy beyond Borders?: Globalization and the Reconstruction of Democratic Theory and Politics”. in The Transformation of Democracy? Globalization and Territorial Democracy, Edited by Anthony G. McGrew. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1997.
    27. Mutua, Makau. “What is TWAIL?”. American Society of International Law 94, (2000).
    28. Otto, Dianne. “Feminist Approaches to International Law”. in Oxford handbook of the theory of international law, Edited by Anne Orford. Florian Hoffmann & Martin Clark, 2016.
    29. Otto, Dianne. “Taking a Break from Normal: Thinking Queer in the Context of International Law”. American Society of International Law Proceedings 101, (2007).
    30. Paulus, Andreas L. “International Law After Postmodernism: Towards Renewal or Decline of International Law?”. Leiden Journal of International Law 14, no. 4 (2001).
    31. Pinto, M.C.W. “Democratization of International Relations and its Implication for Development and Application of International law”. Asian Yearbook oj International Law 5, (1995).
    32. Raffaele Marchetti. “Global Governance or World Federalism? A Cosmopolitan Dispute on Institutional Models”. Global Society 20, no. 3 (2006).
    33. Rostbøll, Christian F. “The Non-instrumental Value of Democracy: The Freedom Argument”. Constellations 22, no. 2 (2015).
    34. Swaine, Lucas. “The Origins of Autonomy”. History of Political Thought 37, no. 2 (2016).
    35. Weiler, J. H. H. and Paulus Andreas L. “The Structure of Change in International Law or Is There a Hierarchy of Norms in International Law?”. European Journal of International Law 8, (1997).
    36. Wouters, Jan, Meester, Bart De, and Ryngaert, Cedric. “Democracy and International Law”. Netherlands Yearbook of International Law XXXIV, (2003).

     

    - Case

    Military and Pramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Merits, Judgment, I.C.J Reports 1986, p. 14.

  • Receive Date 21 April 2024
  • Revise Date 10 August 2024
  • Accept Date 15 September 2024