The extent to which law circumscribes the activities of states
is an old dilemma in international law. The traditional position of
the states has been that some areas of international relations are
not susceptible to legal resolution. This arises from a desire to
protect as much sovereignty as possible. Opposed to this is the
position which suggests that there are no issues to which
international law does not speak. At stake is the usefulness of
international adjudication.
This book addresses this political/legal dichotomy through
doctrinal study and case law. The considerations of previous
scholars, as well as state practice and the opinions of various
international courts are all included. The author finds that
although scholarly opinion and state practice incline toward a more
realist position that recognizes the imperatives of state
sovereignty, the International Court of Justice has never turned
away a case due to the political sensitivities of the subject
matter or of the disputants. The Court has quietly set a
jurisprudence for the international community that is more
idealistic than realistic.
General
Is the information for this product incomplete, wrong or inappropriate?
Let us know about it.
Does this product have an incorrect or missing image?
Send us a new image.
Is this product missing categories?
Add more categories.
Review This Product
No reviews yet - be the first to create one!