This book provides an expanded conceptualization of legalization that focuses on implementation of obligation, precision, and delegation at the international and domestic levels of politics. By adding domestic politics and the actors to the international level of analysis, the authors add the insights of Kenneth Waltz, Graham Allison, and Louis Henkin to understand why most international law is developed and observed most of the time. However, the authors argue that law-breaking and law-distorting occurs as a part of negative legalization. Consequently, the book offers a framework for understanding how international law both produces and undermines order and justice. The authors also draw from realist, liberal, constructivist, cosmopolitan and critical theories to analyse how legalization can both build and/or undermine consensus, which results in either positive or negative legalization of international law. The authors argue that legalization is a process over time and not just a snapshot in time.

Understanding International Law through Moot Courts: Genocide, Torture, Habeas Corpus, Chemical Weapons, and the Responsibility to Protect consists of five sets of opposing legal briefs and judge's decisions for five moot court cases held before the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court. Each moot court brief included in the book addresses contemporary controversies in international affairs; issues ranging from the application of the newly emerging Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine, to the torture of detainees, to the derogation from international due process protections. These moot court briefs and case judgments help students formulate legal arguments that will be applicable to other similar cases. They also provide students with excellent sources of international and domestic law, as well as greater comprehension of topics ranging from jurisdictional disputes to matters of evidence. Chapter 1 of the book provides an overview of the book as well as instructions regarding the construction of a moot court. Chapter two, by George Andreopoulos discusses the interrelationship between human rights and international criminal law. Chapters 3 through 7 are the cases. The introduction to each chapter (and subsequently each case) lays out the facts of the case in question, discusses (where applicable) issues associated with the material and contextual elements of the crimes(s) in question, provides additional topics for classroom discussion, and also places the issues of contention between the parties within the broader context of foreign affairs and international relations. After each set of briefs and legal judgments is an appendix which includes an example moot court, as well as an appendix that includes a set of alterable facts that students and faculty could adopt to change the general legal argument of the particular case.

There have been many political dilemmas that impose structural constraints on the effort to legalize, judicialize, and criminalize normatively deviant behavior in international politics. The annual costs of these tribunals has peaked at approximately $400 million, of which $140 million is allocated to the ICC, the latter now having spent $1 billion in its first decade of existence. What has been the track record of these international criminal courts with jurisdiction to try heads of states and leading official and military officers? Has the domestic political will of states increased to prosecute their own leaders, following the ICC's complimentary jurisdiction? How have powerful states supported these courts and how have they undermined them? In succeeding in punishing a number of high-profile cases, the tribunals arguably constitute what Habermas called communicative action that expresses the aspirations and nascent norms of international society. Beyond the confines of a specific of international cooperation, these courts are increasingly becoming norm entrepreneurs, defining the norms of coexistence among states, such that internal atrocities are seen not only as international crimes, but threats to the stability and order of international society. These courts are also redefining the attributes of what states must practice to preserve their reputations, a breach of which will prove increasingly costly. The tribunals are increasingly incentivizing and mobilizing informational networks from NGOs, IGOs, and states to document and publicize violations of international criminal law, thereby increasing exposure risks of perpetration. To be sure the patchwork of compliance and norm communication is fraught with double standards, hypocrisy, selective enforcement, and neoimperial delegitimation of the subaltern. Still, what has begun as institutions created in the absence of humanitarian action by the powerful may come to constitute normal state attributes similar to sovereignty, whose violation will be seen as not only illegitimate, but also meriting humanitarian action to correct and punish such behavior. The question remains whether ongoing impunity of both the powerful and the powerless will undermine or limit this potential.

Understanding International Law through Moot Courts: Genocide, Torture, Habeas Corpus, Chemical Weapons, and the Responsibility to Protect consists of five sets of opposing legal briefs and judge's decisions for five moot court cases held before the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court. Each moot court brief included in the book addresses contemporary controversies in international affairs; issues ranging from the application of the newly emerging Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine, to the torture of detainees, to the derogation from international due process protections. These moot court briefs and case judgments help students formulate legal arguments that will be applicable to other similar cases. They also provide students with excellent sources of international and domestic law, as well as greater comprehension of topics ranging from jurisdictional disputes to matters of evidence. Chapter 1 of the book provides an overview of the book as well as instructions regarding the construction of a moot court. Chapter two, by George Andreopoulos discusses the interrelationship between human rights and international criminal law. Chapters 3 through 7 are the cases. The introduction to each chapter (and subsequently each case) lays out the facts of the case in question, discusses (where applicable) issues associated with the material and contextual elements of the crimes(s) in question, provides additional topics for classroom discussion, and also places the issues of contention between the parties within the broader context of foreign affairs and international relations. After each set of briefs and legal judgments is an appendix which includes an example moot court, as well as an appendix that includes a set of alterable facts that students and faculty could adopt to change the general legal argument of the particular case.

There have been many political dilemmas that impose structural constraints on the effort to legalize, judicialize, and criminalize normatively deviant behavior in international politics. The annual costs of these tribunals has peaked at approximately $400 million, of which $140 million is allocated to the ICC, the latter now having spent $1 billion in its first decade of existence. What has been the track record of these international criminal courts with jurisdiction to try heads of states and leading official and military officers? Has the domestic political will of states increased to prosecute their own leaders, following the ICC's complimentary jurisdiction? How have powerful states supported these courts and how have they undermined them? In succeeding in punishing a number of high-profile cases, the tribunals arguably constitute what Habermas called communicative action that expresses the aspirations and nascent norms of international society. Beyond the confines of a specific of international cooperation, these courts are increasingly becoming norm entrepreneurs, defining the norms of coexistence among states, such that internal atrocities are seen not only as international crimes, but threats to the stability and order of international society. These courts are also redefining the attributes of what states must practice to preserve their reputations, a breach of which will prove increasingly costly. The tribunals are increasingly incentivizing and mobilizing informational networks from NGOs, IGOs, and states to document and publicize violations of international criminal law, thereby increasing exposure risks of perpetration. To be sure the patchwork of compliance and norm communication is fraught with double standards, hypocrisy, selective enforcement, and neoimperial delegitimation of the subaltern. Still, what has begun as institutions created in the absence of humanitarian action by the powerful may come to constitute normal state attributes similar to sovereignty, whose violation will be seen as not only illegitimate, but also meriting humanitarian action to correct and punish such behavior. The question remains whether ongoing impunity of both the powerful and the powerless will undermine or limit this potential.