International Norm Disputes: The Link between Contestation and Norm Robustness offers a rich, comparative study of when and why contested international norms decline. It presents central findings on the link between contestation and norm robustness based on four detailed, contemporary case studies - the torture prohibition, the responsibility to protect, the duty to prosecute institutionalized in the International Criminal Court, and the moratorium on commercial whaling. It also includes two historical case studies - privateering and the transatlantic slave trade. This scholarly volume provides in-depth knowledge on contestation and robustness dynamics of central international norms. Having meticulously collected relevant data and conducted extensive qualitative coding, the authors clearly demonstrate that norms are likely to weaken when challengers contest the validity of a norm's core claims but remain robust when they contest a norm's application and contestation does not become permanent. These important findings, comparatively presented here for the first time, are crucial for understanding the much-discussed problems of the contemporary liberal international order. The insights provided establish how different types of challenges will affect global governance mechanisms and which conditions are most likely to create fundamental change.

Provides a comprehensive global survey on multi-tier dispute resolution, examining its trends, its strengths and weaknesses, and the way forward.

International Norm Disputes: The Link between Contestation and Norm Robustness offers a rich, comparative study of when and why contested international norms decline. It presents central findings on the link between contestation and norm robustness based on four detailed, contemporary case studies - the torture prohibition, the responsibility to protect, the moratorium on commercial whaling, and the duty to prosecute institutionalized in the International Criminal Court. It also includes two historical case studies - privateering and the transatlantic slave trade. This book provides in-depth knowledge on contestation and robustness dynamics of central international norms. Having meticulously collected relevant data and conducted extensive qualitative coding, the authors demonstrate that norms are likely to weaken when challengers contest the validity of a norm's core claims but remain robust when they contest a norm's application and contestation does not become permanent. These important findings, comparatively presented here for the first time, are crucial for understanding the much-discussed problems of the contemporary liberal international order. The insights provided establish how different types of challenges will affect global governance mechanisms and which conditions are most likely to create fundamental change.

Wayne Sandholtz and Kendall Stiles sketch the primary theoretical perspectives on international norm change, the 'legalisation' and 'transnational activist' approaches, and argue that both are limited by their focus on international rules as outcomes.

Conventionally, international legal scholarship concerned with norm conflicts focuses on identifying how international law can or should resolve them. This book adopts a different approach. It focuses on identifying those norm conflicts that law cannot and should not resolve. The book offers an unprecedented, controversial, yet sophisticated, argument in favour of construing such irresolvable conflicts as legal dilemmas. Legal dilemmas exist when a legal actor confronts a conflict between at least two legal norms that cannot be avoided or resolved. Addressing both academics and practitioners, the book aims to identify the character and consequences of legal dilemmas, to distil their legal function within the sphere of international law, and to encourage serious theoretical and practical investigation into the conditions that lead to a legal dilemma. The first part proposes a definition of legal dilemmas and distinguishes the term from numerous related concepts. Based on this definition, the second part scrutinises international law's contemporary norm conflict resolution and accommodation devices in order to identify their limited ability to resolve certain kinds of norm conflicts. Against the background of the limits identified in the second part, the third part outlines and evaluates the book's proposed method of dealing with legal dilemmas. In contrast to conventional approaches that recommend dealing with irresolvable norm conflicts by means of non liquet declarations, judicial law-making, or a balancing test, the book's proposal envisions that irresolvable norm conflicts are dealt with by judicial and sovereign actors in a complementary fashion. Judicial actors should openly acknowledge irresolvable conflicts and sovereign actors should decide with which norm they will comply. The book concludes with the argument that analysing various aspects of international law through the concept of a legal dilemma enhances its conceptual accuracy, facilitates more legitimate decision-making, and maintains its dynamic responsiveness.

This work offers a comprehensive and critic approach to international judicial and arbitral case law concerning interpretation of international norms and international institutions as well as to the way the International Court of Justice conceives access to its jurisdiction and its exercise.

This book assesses the impact of norms on decision-making. It argues that norms influence choices not by being causes for actions, but by providing reasons. Consequently it approaches the problem via an investigation of the reasoning process in which norms play a decisive role. Kratochwil argues that, depending upon the strictness the guidance norms provide in arriving at a decision, different styles of reasoning with norms can be distinguished. While the focus in this book is largely analytical, the argument is developed through the interpretation of the classic thinkers in international law (Grotius, Vattel, Pufendorf, Rousseau, Hume, Habermas).