Menu Expand

Operation »Enduring Freedom« and the Fragmentation of International Legal Culture

Cite BOOK

Style

Kredel, N. (2006). Operation »Enduring Freedom« and the Fragmentation of International Legal Culture. Comparing US Common Law and Civil Law Perspectives on the International Use of Force. Duncker & Humblot. https://doi.org/10.3790/978-3-428-51949-1
Kredel, Nicolas. Operation »Enduring Freedom« and the Fragmentation of International Legal Culture: Comparing US Common Law and Civil Law Perspectives on the International Use of Force. Duncker & Humblot, 2006. Book. https://doi.org/10.3790/978-3-428-51949-1
Kredel, N (2006): Operation »Enduring Freedom« and the Fragmentation of International Legal Culture: Comparing US Common Law and Civil Law Perspectives on the International Use of Force, Duncker & Humblot, [online] https://doi.org/10.3790/978-3-428-51949-1

Format

Operation »Enduring Freedom« and the Fragmentation of International Legal Culture

Comparing US Common Law and Civil Law Perspectives on the International Use of Force

Kredel, Nicolas

Schriften zum Völkerrecht, Vol. 163

(2006)

Additional Information

Book Details

Pricing

Abstract

In legal discourse, culture matters. The current debate an the international use of force experiences a transatlantic divide between the US and Continental Europe. This divide can be explained by the fragmentation of legal culture. Continental-European civil law and US common law culture fundamentally differ with regard to the role of the judicial process, the method of legal reasoning, the general paradigm of legal analysis, the value of neutrality, and the required degree of formalism. In the field of the international use of force, cultural differences shape international legal discourse an a theoretical and on a methodological plane. Traditionalist theories and methodologies are shaped by a Continental-European civil law culture. Reality-oriented theories and methodologies are informed by US common law culture. Natural law-based approaches reflect a civil law culture on the theoretical, a US common law culture an the methodological plane. These cultural differences prejudice legal opinions on the legality of international forceful action, catalyze opposing views as to the continued validity of the UN Charter system, and accommodate opposing worldviews on the role of international law in international relations. To bridge the transatlantic divide, international lawyers must adapt their argumentative style to the cultural conventions of their transatlantic audience.

Table of Contents

Section Title Page Action Price
Preface 7
Overview 9
Content 11
Part 1: Introduction 17
A. Caveat: Limitations of a Bipolar Approach to Legal Culture 23
B. Working Hypothesis – Theory and Method as Genotype and Phenotype of Legal Culture 25
1. Method as the Phenotype of Legal Culture 25
2. Theory as the Genotype of Legal Culture 28
Part 2: Civil Law v. U.S. Common Law Culture – A Comparative Analysis 30
A. “Consumers” v. “Producers” – The Role of the Judicial Process 31
B. Deduction v. Induction – The Way of Legal Reasoning 35
C. Logic v. Policy – The Paradigm of Legal Analysis 39
1. Civil Law: The Primacy of Logic 39
2. US Common Law: The Lawyer as a Policy Maker 42
3. Summary 47
D. Neutrality v. the Market of Opinions – Procedural Law and Academic Tradition 47
E. Form v. Freedom – Formal Constraints in Legal Analysis 49
1. Civil Law 49
2. US Common Law 52
3. Summary 56
F. Summary Analysis – Common Law v. Civil Law 56
Part 3: Legal Culture and the International Use of Force – Examining a Transatlantic Divide 59
A. Legal Culture and the International Use of Force – Theoretical Approaches 62
1. Traditionalist Positivism, the International Use of Force, and Legal Culture 63
a) Traditionalist Positivism’s General Assumptions About International Law 67
(1) The Objective of International Law Analysis 67
(2) Distinct Normative Power and Efficacy of International Law 68
(3) Third-Party-Determination of Legality/Justiciability 70
b) Traditionalist Positivism and the Prohibition of the International Use of Force 71
(1) The Prohibition of the Use of Force, Voluntarism and ius cogens 71
(2) The Prohibition of the International Use of Force in a Hostile Reality 73
(3) The Prohibition as a Positive Commitment towards a Value Hierarchy 76
c) Summary 77
2. Universal Natural Law and the Use of Force: The Just War Tradition and Legal Culture 78
a) War in Antiquity and the Middle Ages: The Bellum Iustum 79
b) The Totalitarian Experience: Reemergence of Natural Law in Criminal Proceedings 81
c) Contemporary Natural Law-Based Approaches to the International Use of Force 82
(1) The Just War Tradition, Realism and Positivism 82
(2) The Just War Tradition and the Presumption Against Violence 85
d) Summary 86
3. Reality-Oriented International Legal Theories and Legal Culture 89
a) The Realists: Denying a Valid Prohibition of the International Use of Force 90
b) Policy-Oriented Jurisprudence: The “New Haven School”, Its Disciples, and the Prohibition of the International Use of Force 93
(1) Original Policy-Oriented Jurisprudence 93
(2) New Haven-Influenced “Positivists”? 96
(3) Summary 98
c) International Law/International Relations Theory and the Prohibition of the International Use of Force 100
d) Economic Analysis of International Law and the Prohibition of the International Use of Force 104
e) The Newstream: Postmodern International Law and the Prohibition of the International Use of Force 107
(1) Deconstructivism and the Prohibition of the International Use of Force 108
(2) ‘Exit Strategies’ from Deconstruction and the Prohibition of the International Use of Force 110
(3) Summary 113
4. Summary Analysis 114
a) Theories on the International Use of Force and Legal Culture 114
b) Theories on the International Use of Force and the US-Continental Stereotype 116
B. Legal Culture and the International Use of Force – Methodological Approaches to Operation“ Enduring Freedom” 117
1. Preface: The Facts of 11 September 2001 and Operation “Enduring Freedom” 119
2. Traditionalist Positivist Methodology and Legal Culture 124
a) The Structure of Traditionalist Analyses of Operation Enduring Freedom 125
b) UN-Charter-based Methodologies 127
(1) UN-Charter-Based Methodologies, Legal Culture, and the US-Continental Stereotype 128
(a) The Formalists: Conventional Charter Interpretation 129
(b) Subsequent Practice Modifying the Charter Provisions 134
(c) Post-Charter Customary International Law Modifying Charter Provisions 136
(d) Summary 138
(aa) Charter-Based Methodologies and Legal Culture 139
(bb) Charter-based Methodologies and the US-Continental Stereotype 143
(2) UN Charter-based Methodology and Outcome 144
(a) Analyses Regarding “Enduring Freedom” as illegal 144
(b) Analyses Asserting the Legality of “Enduring Freedom” 147
(c) Analyses Holding for Forceful Action Against Al-Qaeda, but not Against the Taleban 150
(d) Summary 151
(3) Summary – UN Charter-Based Methodology 153
c) Alternative CIL-Based Methodology and Legal Culture 154
(1) Justifying “Enduring Freedom” by Necessity 156
(2) Intervention by Invitation 157
(3) Piracy – Terrorists as New Subjects of International Law 158
(4) Forceful Self-Help/Reprisals/Retaliation 159
(5) Summary 161
d) Summary Analysis – Traditionalist Methodology, Legal Culture and Outcome 163
(1) Traditionalist Methodology and Legal Culture 163
(2) Traditionalist Methodology and the US-Continental Stereotype 163
(3) Traditionalist Methodology and Outcome 164
3. Natural Law-Based Methodology and Legal Culture: The Just War Tradition 166
a) Determining Which Cause is Just 168
(1) Just Cause as Defined by the Responsible Authority 168
(2) Just Cause as the Smallest Common Denominator 170
b) Limits on the Conduct of War 172
c) Summary Analysis – The Just War Tradition, Legal Culture, Stereotypes and Outcome 172
(1) The Just War Tradition and Legal Culture 173
(2) The Just War Tradition and the US-Continental Stereotype 174
(3) The Just War Tradition and Outcome 175
4. Reality-Oriented Methodology and Legal Culture 175
a) “Policy-Guided” Methodology – Between Positive Law and Policy-Decisions 177
b) Policy-Oriented Methodology – The New Haven School and Its Disciples 183
(1) New Haven Scholars and Forceful Counter-Terrorism 184
(2) New Haven’s Disciples: Legal Realist “Positivism” 187
(3) Summary Analysis 188
c) Interdisciplinary Methodology – International Relations Theory, International Law and “Enduring Freedom” 191
d) Realist Methodology and “Enduring Freedom” 193
e) “Reconstructive” Legal Feminism and “Enduring Freedom” 196
f) Summary – Reality-Oriented Methodologies 200
(1) Reality-Oriented Methodologies and Legal Culture 200
(2) Reality-Oriented Methodologies and the US-Continental Stereotype 202
(3) Reality-Oriented Methodologies and Outcome 203
5. Summary Analysis – Operation “Enduring Freedom”, Methodology, and Legal Culture 203
a) Legal Culture and Method 204
b) Legal Culture, Method and the US-Continental Stereotype 205
c) Legal Culture, Method and the Outcome of Legal Analysis 206
C. Conclusion – The Fragmentation of International Legal Culture: A Reason for the Transatlantic Divide 207
1. Legal Culture shapes Legal Theory on the International Use of Force 208
2. Legal Culture shapes International Lawyers’ Method of Legal Analysis 208
3. Reality does not always confirm the Cultural Stereotype 208
4. Legal Culture shapes the Outcome of Legal Analysis 209
5. Civil Law Culture tends to preserve, US Common Law Culture tends to undermine the Charter System of Collective Security 210
6. Civil Law Culture tends to accommodate a Kelsenian, US Common Law a Hobbesian Worldview 211
Part 4: The Fragmentation of Legal Culture and Future Transatlantic International Legal Discourse 214
A. Cultural Fragmentation and the International Legal Discourse 214
B. Bridging the Transatlantic Divide – Taking Legal Culture Seriously 218
Abstract 224
Zusammenfassung 225
References 242
Press, Speeches 256
Documents 260
Table of Cases 261
Index 262