2020 marks 19 years that Zimbabwe is under sanctions both political and economic from the US government and the European Union. There are two narratives about sanctions in Zimbabwe. The first comes from the Zimbabwe government that sanctions come about as a result of frustrated correctional land redistribution. The second narrative comes from the West, that they are no sanctions in Zimbabwe but targeted travel restrictions on specific individuals and companies who impede on democracy, human rights and the rule of law. The African Union (AU) and Southern African Development Community (SADC) have been in the mix trying first to be mediating the relations of US and EU to lift sanctions on Zimbabwe and suddenly demanding that sanctions be removed. Using the Third World Approach to International Law, this paper aims to critically analyse if AU and SADC intervention has been effective in creating trust amongst Zimbabweans in improving relations with US government and the European Union.
Chinkin, Charlesworth and Wright claim that international law is a thoroughly gendered system and argue that both the structures of international lawmaking and the content of the rules of international law privilege men. They point out that feminist legal theory has the potential to contribute to the progressive development of international law by challenging the nature and operation of international law. Using the exposing nature of feminist legal theory as a tool, this paper aims to make a comparative analysis of women's narratives in Turkey and Mexico in the last decade and the overall mistrust in judiciary and public institutions, and explore what kinds of implications can women's mistrust in justice mechanisms have on international law, through the lessons taken from the studied cases.
In the theory of International Law, concepts of International (ILP) and Transnational Legal Process (TLP), developed at the end of the 20th century, see International Law as a process, and in this way, occupy a middle position between major schools of positive and natural law. One side, the ILP states the vital role of law and international institutions in the process of policy decisions in the international realm. In turn, the theory of TLP questions on what makes the states comply and intrust in the norms. The paper will analyse in a comparative approach the two corresponding theories through their practicality in International Law, ultimately exploring which of the concepts constructs the closest to modern reality system on the course of trust of states and society in international institutions and International Law in general.
When it was announced at the UN Climate Change Conference in 2015, the Paris Agreement was welcomed by some in a celebratory mood, while some condemning it as a fail. By the withdrawal of the US, discussions are heated again. As it is scientifically declared the world has entered 6th mass extinction, it becomes more valuable for international lawyers to study on if the Agreement can provide an effective response in combatting with climate change, acknowledging the structural challenges of the international law.
The panellist aims to theorize the Agreement through a critical legal theory perspective by answering such questions: What legal responses does the Paris Agreement provide in combatting climate change? Can it be effective to satisfy its objective when the given structure of international law is taking into consideration? If there are some deficiencies, then how could it be possible to reformulate a more effective legal response to climate change within international law?
In his posthumous essay, A New Philosophy for International Law, Ronald Dworkin for the very first time gazed upon the raison d'être of International Law and its idealistic dimension. In doing so, he revealed a novel approach, from a moral standpoint, opposing the positivist reading based on a consensus-based approach as the ultimate basis of International Law. To this purpose, Dworkin proposed a new reading, namely: the salience and mitigation principles. These two principles, in his view, which should have been read as a unicum, offer a more persuasive basis for justifying the foundation of International Law since the theory, this time, is defined on and for a moral purpose. This paper intends to investigate to what extent the Interpretivist reading of International Law might pave the way for a new era of trust involving supranational institutions.