Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Global Power Shifts and International Law

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Power Transition in the Anarchical Society

Part of the book series: Palgrave Studies in International Relations ((PSIR))

  • 754 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter assesses how power transition affects and is affected by, international law. It reviews the complex relationship between global power transition and international law, understood as one of international society’s key ordering institutions. Stressing the constitutive nature and ‘productive power’ of international law and legal practice, the chapter illustrates the relationship through empirical examples drawn from various cases, most notably that of China as the world’s preeminent rising power and potentially the main challenger to the post-Cold War normative and institutional framework. China engages with international law in a way that is emblematic of a non-Western power seeking to assert its status in international society, which reveals much about how international law structures, and is structured by, current global power dynamics.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    On the notion of intersubjectivity, see Adler (1997).

  2. 2.

    For a rational compliance-based theory of international law, see Guzman (2002).

  3. 3.

    For an account of order in international society, see Bull (1977).

  4. 4.

    I agree with Clark (2005, 23) that, theoretically, we are best served to decouple international society from any particular institution.

  5. 5.

    Here, I follow Hurrell’s (2007, 20) three-fold understanding of the constitution of international society.

  6. 6.

    The legality of how the right is exercised is frequently contested, most notably through disagreements over the use and extent of the Council’s Chapter VII powers in the context of humanitarian interventions. See for example, Nahlawi (2018).

  7. 7.

    Note that customary international law evolves according to state practice, covering both material and verbal acts, and the belief on behalf of the state that this practice is required by the law.

  8. 8.

    While IR scholars have become increasingly familiar with the notion of practice, its application to international law is still somewhat limited. That said, recent works on the matter indicate a general appetite to theorise international law as practice (e.g. Aalberts & Venzke, 2017; Stappert, 2020; Wallenius, 2019). It would go far beyond the purpose of this chapter to offer an exhaustive discussion here. Suffice to say that practice theory offers the English School an exciting theoretical resource to get to grips with the nature, effects, and function of primary institutions, including international law. See for example Navari (2011), Friedner Parrat (2017).

  9. 9.

    This resonates with Navari’s idea of power as a social role advanced in Chapter 10 of this volume.

  10. 10.

    For a detailed analysis of the history and evolution of China’s understanding of sovereignty, see Carrai (2019).

  11. 11.

    For an excellent discussion of the normative desirability of pluralist conceptions of international society, see Williams (2015).

  12. 12.

    For a good overview of the diverse regional initiatives of order-building in international society, see Stivachtis (2021).

  13. 13.

    On the fragmentation of primary institutions, see Schmidt (2020a).

References

  • Aalberts, T., & Venzke, I. (2017). Moving beyond interdisciplinary turf wars: Towards an understanding of international law as practice. In J. D’Aspremont (Ed.), International law as a profession (pp. 287–310). Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Adler, E. (1997). Seizing the middle ground: Constructivism in world politics. European Journal of International Relations, 3(3), 319–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brunnée, J., & Toope, S. J. (2011). Interactional international law: An introduction. International Theory, 3(2), 307–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bull, H. (1977). The anarchical society: A study of order in world politics. Palgrave.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Burke-White, W. W. (2015). Power shifts in international law: Structural realignment and substantive pluralism. Harvard International Law Journal, 56(1), 1–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buzan, B. (2004). From international to world society? Cambridge Univeristy Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Carrai, M. A. (2019). Sovereignty in China: A genealogy of a concept since. Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Chan, P. C. W. (2015). China, state sovereignty and international legal order. Brill|Nijhoff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chin, G., & Thakur, R. (2010). Will China change the rules of global order? The Washington Quarterly, 33(4), 119–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, I. (2005). Legitimacy in international society. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Contessi, N. P. (2010). Multilateralism, intervention and norm contestation: China’s stance on Darfur in the UN Security Council. Security Dialogue, 41(3), 323–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costa Buranelli, F. (2019). Global international society, regional international societies and regional international organizations: A dataset of primary institutions. In T. B. Knudsen & C. Navari (Eds.), International organization in the anarchical society (pp. 233–263). Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crawford, J. (2012). International law as discipline and profession. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting (American Society of International Law), 106, 471–486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fassbender, B. (2009). The United Nations Charter as the constitution of the international community. Brill|Nijhoff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finder, S. (2016). China’s maritime courts: Defenders of ‘judicial sovereignty’. The Diplomat. https://thediplomat.com/2016/04/chinas-maritime-courts-defenders-of-judicial-sovereignty/

  • Friedner Parrat, C. (2017). On the evolution of primary institutions of international society. International Studies Quarterly, 61(3), 623–630.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldsmith, J. L., & Posner, E. A. (2005). The limits of international law. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guzman, A. T. (2002). A compliance-based theory of international law. California Law Review, 90(6), 1823–1887.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henkin, L. (1979). How nations behave: Law and foreign policy. Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang, P. C., & Bernhardt, K. (2014). The history and theory of legal practice in China. Brill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hurd, I. (2017). How to do things with international law. Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hurrell, A. (2007). On global order: Power values and the constitution of international society. Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ikenberry, J. G. (2018). The end of liberal international order? International Affairs, 94(1), 7–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, R. (2000). The global covenant: Human conduct in a world of states. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jorgensen, M. (2018). Equilibrium and fragmentation in the international rule of law: The rising Chinese geolegal order (KFG Working Paper Series, No. 21). Berlin Potsdam Research Group “The International Rule of Law—Rise or Decline?” https://ssrn.com/abstract=3283626

  • Kelsen, H. (1941). Recognition in international law: Theoretical observations. The American Journal of International Law, 35(4), 605–617.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kent, A. (2009). Beyond compliance: China, international organizations, and global security. Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kocs, S. A. (1994). Explaining the strategic behavior of states: International law as system structure. International Studies Quarterly, 38(4), 535–556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koskenniemi, M. (2005). From apology to Utopia: The structure of international legal argument. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kratochwil, F., & Ruggie, J. (1986). International organization: A state of the art on an art of the state. International Organization, 40(4), 753–775.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krisch, N. (2005). International law in times of hegemony: Unequal power and the shaping of the international legal order. European Journal of International Law, 16(3), 369–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lauterpacht, H. (1947). Recognition in international law. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marxsen, C. (2014). The Crimea crisis—An international law perspective. Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht [Heidelberg Journal of International Law], 74(2), 367–391.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayall, J. (2000). World politics: Progress and limits. Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCourt, D. M. (2016). Practice theory and relationalism as the new constructivism. International Studies Quarterly, 60(3), 475–485.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moynihan, H. (2017). China’s evolving approach to international dispute settlement. Chatham House. https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/publications/research/2017-03-29-chinas-evolving-approach-international-dispute-settlement-moynihan-final.pdf

  • Nahlawi, Y. (2018). The legality of NATO’s pursuit of regime change in Libya. Journal on the Use of Force and International Law, 5(2), 295–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Navari, C. (2011). The concept of practice in the English School. European Journal of International Relations, 17(4), 611–630.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Navari, C. (2014). Territoriality, self-determination and Crimea after Badinter. International Affairs, 90(6), 1299–1318.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neumann, I. B. (2002). Returning practice to the linguistic turn: The case of diplomacy. Millennium, 31(3), 627–651.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nuñez-Mietz, F. G. (2018). Legalization and the legitimation of the use of force: Revisiting Kosovo. International Organization, 72(3), 725–757.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paulus, A. (2009). The international legal system as a constitution. In J. Dunoff & J. Trachtman (Eds.), Ruling the world? Constitutionalism, international law, and global governance (pp. 96–110). Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peters, A. (2009). Humanity as the A and Ω of sovereignty. European Journal of International Law, 20(3), 513–544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Price, R. (2004). Emerging customary norms and anti-personnel landmines. In C. Reus-Smit (Ed.), The politics of international law (pp. 106–130). Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Prime Minister’s Office. (2018). Syria action—UK government legal position. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/syria-action-uk-government-legal-position/syria-action-uk-government-legal-position

  • Roberts, A. (2017). Is international law international? Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rühlig, T. (2018). How China approaches international law: Implications for Europe. European Institute for Asian Studies. https://www.eias.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/EU_Asia_at_a_Glance_Ruhlig_2018_China_International_Law.pdf

  • Saul, M. (2015). Identifying jus cogens norms: The interaction of scholars and international judges. Asian Journal of International Law, 5(1), 26–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, D. R. (2016). Peremptory law, global order, and the normative boundaries of a pluralistic world. International Theory, 8(2), 262–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, D. R. (2020a). Complexity in international society: Theorising fragmentation and linkages in primary and secondary institutions. Complexity, Governance & Networks, 6(1), 94–108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, D. R. (2020b). Pluralism and international law in the English School. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 33(4), 491–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, D. R., & Trenta, L. (2018). Changes in the law of self-defence? Drones, imminence, and international norm dynamics. Journal on the Use of Force and International Law, 5(2), 201–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schouenborg, L. (2012). The Scandinavian international society: Primary institutions and binding forces, 1815–2010. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shambaugh, D. (2013). China goes global: The partial power. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stappert, N. (2020). Practice theory and change in international law: Theorizing the development of legal meaning through the interpretive practices of international criminal courts. International Theory, 12(1), 33–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stivachtis, Y. A. (2015). Interrogating regional international societies, questioning the global international society. Global Discourse, 5(3), 327–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stivachtis, Y. A. (2021). Regionalism. In C. Navari (Ed.), International society: The English school (pp. 109–127). Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Tourinho, M., Stuenkel, O., & Brockmeier, S. (2016). “Responsibility while protecting”: Reforming R2P implementation. Global Society, 30(1), 134–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • US House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs. (2020). Notice on the legal and policy frameworks guiding the United States’ use of military force and related national security operations. https://foreignaffairs.house.gov/_cache/files/4/3/4362ca46-3a7d-43e8-a3ec-be0245705722/6E1A0F30F9204E380A7AD0C84EC572EC.doc148.pdf

  • Wallenius, T. (2019). The case for a history of global legal practices. European Journal of International Relations, 25(1), 108–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wheeler, N. J. (2000). Saving strangers: Humanitarian intervention in international society. Oxford Univeristy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, J. (2015). Ethics, diversity and world politics: Saving pluralism from itself? Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, R. D. (2020). International law with Chinese characteristics: Beijing and the ‘rule-based’ global order. Brookings Institution. https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/FP_20201012_international_law_china_williams.pdf

  • Wilson, P. (2008). The English school’s approach to international law. In C. Navari (Ed.), Theorising international society: English school methods. Palgrave Macmillian.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, P. (2021). Sovereignty, law, and international society: The contribution of C. A. W. Manning. In C. Navari (Ed.), International society: The English school. Palgrave Macmillian.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wye, R. (2017). China paves its way in new areas of international law. Chatham House. https://www.chathamhouse.org/2017/03/china-paves-its-way-new-areas-international-law

  • Young, M. A. (2012). Regime interaction in international law: Facing fragmentation. Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, Y. (2016). China and liberal hierarchies in global international society: Power and negotiation for normative change. International Affairs, 92(4), 795–816.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Swansea University, Swansea, UK

    Dennis R. Schmidt

Authors
  1. Dennis R. Schmidt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dennis R. Schmidt .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Political Science, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark

    Tonny Brems Knudsen

  2. Buckingham, UK

    Cornelia Navari

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Schmidt, D.R. (2022). Global Power Shifts and International Law. In: Knudsen, T.B., Navari, C. (eds) Power Transition in the Anarchical Society. Palgrave Studies in International Relations. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-97711-5_8

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation