The Influence of Utopian Projects on the Interpretation of International Law and the Healthy Myth of Objectivity
JOURNAL ARTICLE
Cite JOURNAL ARTICLE
Style
Format
The Influence of Utopian Projects on the Interpretation of International Law and the Healthy Myth of Objectivity
German Yearbook of International Law, Vol. 60 (2018), Iss. 1 : pp. 515–538
Additional Information
Article Details
Pricing
Author Details
Severin Meier, PhD candidate and research assistant, University of Zurich.
Abstract
Social Darwinism as a utopian project had a decisive influence on the interpretation of the ius ad bellum before World War I. This contribution tries, among others, to draw parallels to the way today’s utopian visions of democracy and the rule of law affect international law. Approaches to legal interpretation influenced by critical legal theory are used to explain how such extra-legal considerations can play a role in the interpretation of international legal norms. Such approaches maintain that international law cannot be objective, i.e. simultaneously based on State consent and on extra-consensual standards. The article further asks how international law should be understood if it cannot be objective. In other words, it discusses the practical consequences if international law has to rely on extra-legal considerations, such as the belief in Social Darwinism or the desire to spread democracy, in order to reach solutions to legal problems. It is argued that upholding the belief in international law’s objectivity is preferable to its alternatives.
Table of Contents
| Section Title | Page | Action | Price |
|---|---|---|---|
| Severin Meier: The Influence of Utopian Projects on the Interpretation of International Law and the Healthy Myth of Objectivity | 1 | ||
| I. Introduction | 1 | ||
| II. Social Darwinism and World War I or Why Utopian Thought in International Law Can Lead to Human Suffering | 2 | ||
| III. The Role of Utopian Thought in Liberal and Critical Legal Theory | 9 | ||
| IV. The Healthy Myth of Objectivity | 1 | ||
| V. Conclusion | 2 |