Explore the vast range of titles available.

How can we account for the normative dimension of international practices? Silviya Lechner and Mervyn Frost’s Practice Theory and International Relations answers this question by proposing, with a considerable degree of epistemological sophistication, what the authors call ‘normative descriptivism’, which they combine with a focus on ‘macro practices’. In this contribution, I start by examining the authors’ engagement with IR’s practice turn, and the insights this engagement may offer on the underlying objective of their approach. I then turn to Lechner and Frost’s decision to eclipse history. The contribution concludes by using the evolution of international law as a cursory illustration of the types of analyses Lechner and Frost’s approach would lead to. It thereby emphasises potential challenges inherent in the authors’ combination of internalism as rooted in individual self-consciousness and a focus on ‘macro practices’, including the possibility that it might limit the potential to critically question the standard that becomes identified as universal.

Which groups do global governance institutions address in their efforts to legitimate themselves? Global governance institutions are increasingly attempting to present themselves as legitimate vis-à-vis both internal and external audiences. Yet, empirical research on these legitimation audiences is still nascent. This article proposes a conceptual framework that highlights the selection of audiences by global governance institutions as a key element of their self-legitimation. Specifically, we argue that our approach addresses three continuing challenges in empirical research on self-legitimation. First, it emphasises how different actors within the institution may pursue multiple, and potentially conflicting, strategies with regard to the legitimation audiences they address. Second, our framework calls attention to what we call intermediary legitimation audiences, that is, audiences targeted with the expectation that they will in turn convince other audiences of the institution’s legitimacy. Finally, instead of taking for granted that external critique steers who is targeted by self-legitimation, our approach highlights that an institution’s internal assessment of such critique is decisive. We demonstrate the wide applicability of our framework through exploratory studies of three global governance institutions that differ with regard to their membership compositions: the World Health Organization, the International Criminal Court and the Forest Stewardship Council.

This Article provides the outline for a conceptual framework focusing on legal infrastructures, comprised of socio-material assemblages and entangled legal normativities that both enable and constrain human societies. Section A introduces the growing transdisciplinary field of infrastructural studies, which employs the notion of infrastructure as a tool for analyzing the constitutive relationship between society and essential material structures. It then draws out the analytical conjunction of law and infrastructure in the role ascribed to law within existing applications of infrastructural studies and the nascent engagement with infrastructural theory within the legal discipline itself. Part II develops a conceptual framework on legal infrastructures, outlining three avenues for how thinking infrastructurally may yield new perspectives on the dynamic relationship between law, social practices, and socio-technical materiality; (a) legal infrastructures as socio-material formations that generate societal effects (b) legal infrastructures as schemes of social practice that recursively entangle to produce new configurations, and (c) legal infrastructures as distributing norms across transnational and regime boundaries.

The question of change has emerged as one of the main conceptual and empirical challenges for International Relations' practice turn. In the context of international law, such a challenge is brought into particularly stark relief due to the significant development of legal meaning through more informal, interpretive avenues, including through the judgments of international courts. This paper develops a framework for theorizing how interpretive legal practices generate normative content change in international law. Specifically, it uses the example of the development of international criminal law through the decisions of international criminal courts to analyze how legal interpretation can lead to normative change in practice. Drawing on interviews conducted with judges and legal officers at the International Criminal Court (ICC), the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), and the Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL), I analyze how a community of legal practice centered around these courts was able to construct and alter legal meaning in international criminal law, and how such a potential for change was curbed by understandings of the interpretive process and the role of international courts dominant among international lawyers.

What role have international legal scholars played in the development of international criminal law? Building on recent studies of the citation practices of international courts, the article provides an empirical assessment of the use and functions of citations to scholarly writings in the judgments of international criminal courts and tribunals. Using a mixed-methods approach, the article combines: a) a quantitative analysis of judgments interpreting the law of war crimes across four international and hybrid courts; with b) qualitative interviews with judges and legal officers at the International Criminal Court (ICC), the ad hoc Tribunals, and the Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL). The article argues that scholarly writings have been strikingly visible in the judgments of international criminal courts and tribunals, and especially at the ICC, which entails significant implications for the functions of academic writings and the role of international legal scholars.

The International Criminal Court (ICC) has come under challenge in recent years as some countries have decided, or considered, to withdraw from it. Against this backdrop, an emerging literature has begun to examine attitudes toward the court among the general public as a key court constituency. However, little is known about how domestic elites perceive the court. This research gap is particularly surprising given that domestic elites have a considerable impact on both public and state support of the court. This article explains why political and societal elites across world regions have confidence or lack confidence in the ICC. We present the results from a unique survey of 722 elite respondents conducted from 2017 to 2019 across six countries: Brazil, Germany, the Philippines, Russia, South Africa, and the United States. We furthermore enrich our analysis by using public opinion data to draw comparisons between elites and the general public. The analyses reveal that the views of elites are most consistently related to their perceptions of other, more well-known international organizations and their country’s relationship with the ICC. Our findings indicate both similarities and differences between how elite and public opinion about the ICC are formed, demonstrating the value of further research on elite opinion on international courts.

In international criminal law (ICL), legal meaning has been developed substantially through the judgments of international courts. Compared to some of their prosecutorial decisions, however, the way in which international judges have interpreted legal provisions has remained relatively uncontested. This study uses practice theory as a particularly fruitful lens through which to study the politics of legal interpretation. It analyses the conditions under which the creation of a comparatively uncontested judicial space became possible as an interplay between political commitments and the professional assumptions of ICL experts. The study argues that international criminal courts - unlike hybrid courts - have been accorded a particularly high degree of interpretive authority through what will be called the 'practice of privileged precedent'. It traces how this interpretive practice has been shared across institutional settings within a broader interpretive community, including by government officials and civil society representatives. Through this research, this thesis emphasises the relevance of legal interpretation for IR's understanding of international law and international courts. Drawing on legal theory, it also addresses one of the key challenges of IR's practice turn: its capacity to account for the creative potential of international practices. Methodologically, the thesis combines qualitative and quantitative forms of content analysis, elite interviews, and legal interpretive methods. It is based on an examination of over 100 judgments of international and hybrid criminal courts interpreting the crime of genocide and the law of war crimes, including judicial decisions delivered by the International Criminal Court (ICC), the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), and the Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL). This analysis is supplemented by 28 elite interviews with judges and legal experts at international criminal courts, staff at civil society organisations, and government officials working for the British and German foreign offices.

Book Review: 'Talking international law: Legal argumentation outside the courtroom', by Ian Johnstone and Steven Ratner, eds. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2021. Pp. xii, 362. Index.