To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
The historic American concept of freedom of the seas refers to the normative value, international law doctrine, and economic and military strategy of the United States that the oceans should be open for navigation and commerce to all nations. No single state should control or restrict the movement of ships on the high seas, in peacetime or against neutral rights in time of war. This idea has been a cornerstone of US foreign and maritime policy since the country’s founding, evolving in response to challenges over the centuries.
Japan’s pursuit of counterstrike capability exposes tensions between the self-defense limits in Article 9 of its constitution, the evolution of an exclusively defensive defense posture, and international legal standards. Expanding self-defense to include counterstrike requires reconciling constitutional constraints, strategic necessity, and strict tests of necessity and proportionality under Article 51 of the UN Charter. These pressures show that counterstrike is not a technical upgrade but a fundamental challenge to Japan’s legal identity, strategic doctrine, and credibility in the Indo-Pacific.
This piece highlights the role of the media in priming audiences for genocide of the Palestinian people in Gaza. While the themes illuminated here regarding mainstream media coverage of the Middle East have long been endemic, the Gaza genocide brought them into acute view. The piece also presents three television interviews with the author, Noura Erakat, a human rights attorney, Professor at the Rutgers University, New Brunswick in the Department of Africana Studies and the Program in Criminal Justice, and Co-Founding Editor of Jadaliyya, an electronic magazine on the Middle East that combines scholarly expertise and local knowledge. The select interviews, which are part of a significant archive of such interviews featuring Palestinian interlocutors and mainstream Western media outlets, are dated to November 13, 2023, February 10, 2024, and January 17, 2025. The introductory remarks reflect the significance of Palestinian interlocutors being able to speak for themselves, the hostilities they face as they serve as both experts and media correctives, the endemic bias of media outlets, as well as the double standards at play in comparison to other guests often saying similar things. This introduction emphasizes how the media’s construction of narratives that enabled the genocide is as significant as the political and legal orders also at play.
Chapter 2 provides an overview of the Australian legal system, its structure, function and philosophical underpinnings. It explains what counts as law in Australia and who can set the rules, and it sets out the differences between legislation, common law, criminal law and civil law. It illustrates how the law is relevant to nurses and the profession, especially the concept of ‘scope of practice’. This edition of the book also raises some new concepts, such as the ‘stabilising’ and ‘disburdening’ effects of law, both of which smooth the way for people who are essentially strangers to each other to interact in everyday life.
The erosion of international law is not unique in today’s world. Its crisis of legitimacy is characterised by polarisation in world affairs, declining trust among actors on the international plane and competing claims to authority. Existing perspectives on international law and international relations explain this erosion only partially since they overlook the relational processes through which international law acquires meaning and binding force. This article introduces the Theory on the Relational Normativity of International Law (TORNIL), which reconceptualises the sources of international law’s normativity as arising from the interaction of formal rules, moral values, and relationships— between actors concerned with and affected by its application and development—characterised along a continuum of trust and distrust. By operationalising this framework through the practices of principled negotiation, the article advances a relational understanding of international law’s normativity and offers a pathway for rebuilding legitimacy and trust in global governance.
International law today inhabits a difficult paradox. Public confidence in its capacity to constrain geopolitical violence, regulate economic coercion, or respond to planetary risk appears increasingly thin. Armed conflict persists amid allegations of legal violation with limited remedial effect; trade measures reorganize markets while evading multilateral scrutiny; and climate governance oscillates between ambitious commitments and weak enforcement. For many observers beyond the discipline, international law appears politically ineffective or normatively exhausted. Yet this erosion of external confidence has not produced disciplinary decline. Inside the field, scholarship and doctrinal production remain vigorous, and legal expertise continues to structure significant domains of governance. The resulting condition is not collapse but misalignment between international law’s internal productivity and its capacity to function as a publicly legible language of authority and ordering. This article argues that the misalignment reflects a condition of disciplinary failing. Public international law remains oriented toward canonical objects – treaties, custom, and adjudication – even as authority is increasingly exercised through operational legalities embedded in sanctions infrastructures, compliance architectures, contractual layering, and related governance systems. Legal ordering has not receded; rather, legality has been redistributed into environments that international law is poorly equipped to register. Conceptualizing this condition as legality without order, the article argues for spatial reflexivity, visual literacy, and interdisciplinary method as necessary adjustments if international law is to recover analytical purchase on contemporary formations of legal authority without abandoning its normative ambition.
This article places maritime violence at the center of the history of international ordering. It views the transformation of the nineteenth-century Atlantic from the deck of one ship, a Baltimore-built privateer called the Irresistible. The ship’s captain seized Spanish and Portuguese shipping under a privateering commission from the Oriental Republic. Sponsorship of privateers by the Oriental Republic and other new Latin American governments reflected an open-ended Atlantic constitutionalism that recognized sovereignty at multiple scales. That constitutional context formed the background to three cases involving the Irresistible and its crew that reached the U.S. Supreme Court. The cases show how privateering politics opened to wide-ranging debates about the definition of states, war, and piracy, while preserving the indeterminacies of sovereignty in the new Atlantic system. That system, closing as it formed, was composed of new states pressured to align with powerful empires. Privateering disputes featured sharpening rhetoric about piracy as a crime under the law of nations while at the same time preserving a regime that protected low-level maritime violence. Situating the politics of piracy at the nexus of domestic and international orders, the article highlights the political uses and legal limits of the discourse of pirates as enemies of all and connects this history to an understanding of terrorism and states in the international order.
At the foundation of knowledge production is the question of who exactly is doing the producing, on what basis, when, where and for whom? Are all views equal? Whose views are or ought to be included? And with what implications? In this 2025 LJIL Lecture, Professor Ardi Imseis meditates on these and other related questions through the prism of one of the most pressing international legal and moral issues of our time: Palestine.
The post-1919 international order extended to China formal sovereign equality while offering few legal means to exercise it. The Sino-Belgian treaty dispute of 1926–29 reveals this: when China abrogated its 1865 treaty with Belgium and Brussels sued at the Permanent Court of International Justice, the institutions that promised peaceful revision could not deliver it without the consent of the powers whose privileges were at stake. The ‘unequal treaties’, a political category coined only in 1923, named the contradiction the order had built in. Four lawyer-diplomats—Wellington Koo, Wang Chung-hui, C.T. Wang, and Eugene Chen—were each caught between national autonomy and admission among the ‘civilised’ powers. The turn from legal argument to ‘revolutionary diplomacy’ was the structure’s doing, not a failure of nerve. Read beside Turkey, Persia, and the Latin American states, China’s case locates the obstacle: not semi-peripheral weakness as such, but the institutional position from which each engaged an order that subordinated its members through the very terms of their admission.
In this chapter, we look at two different ways to categorise various elements of the law, and to fit them into one coherent whole. In the first part of the chapter, we consider sources of law, or how the law was made. Did this particular law come to us from Parliament? From the courts? From the courts interpreting Parliament? From international law?
In the second part of the chapter, we break the law down by the nature of the relationships the law is regulating, or the nature of the rights it is creating and administering: we look at public law, which regulates the relationship between the individual and the government; we look at private law, which regulates the relationship between private individuals within our society; and we look at procedural law, which regulates the way that our laws (whether public or private) are applied.
This provides our overall framework, so that as we begin to look more closely at various areas of law, you can mentally fit those areas of law into the broad, overall concept of ‘the law’.
Across a fractured geopolitical landscape, the Global South faces renewed constraints on its capacity to pursue sovereign development. Rather than treating these pressures as symptoms of a ‘new Cold War’, this article returns to the original Cold War as a decisive moment in the consolidation of the legal and epistemic foundations of today’s global economy. It argues that the Cold War was a pivotal phase in a longer history of disembedding, through which economic governance was separated from social and political life and reorganized through juridical, financial, and metrological techniques. While the Soviet project often advanced more solidaristic visions of development, both socialist and Western frameworks ultimately relied on technocratic and growth-centred models that narrowed the space for postcolonial demands for redistribution and structural reform. Through a longue durée analysis of the colonial, Cold War and post-Cold War periods, the article traces how international law and development co-evolved as interlocking techniques that rearticulated imperial hierarchies into global economic norms and institutions. Revisiting this history reveals the juridical infrastructures that continue to reproduce global inequality and the legal imaginations and material sites through which the Global South continues to contest its fate.
Matthew Craven, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London,Sundhya Pahuja, University of Melbourne,Gerry Simpson, London School of Economics and Political Science
Chapter 9 reflects on the authors’ approach to redescribing the Cold War and its relationship to international law. It challenges conventional narratives by presenting the Cold War as a subject rather than an object, exploring its multiple manifestations and impacts on global legal and political landscapes. The chapter addresses three key themes: redescription, periodisation, and aftermath. It emphasises the plurality of international laws and Cold Wars experienced worldwide, disrupting the notion of a monolithic, bipolar conflict. The authors discuss the complexities of periodisation, highlighting how different perspectives can yield varying start and end dates for the Cold War. The chapter also explores the Cold War’s legacy in the present, arguing that its influence persists in contemporary global politics and international law. It challenges the idea of a clean break in 1989, suggesting instead that many Cold War dynamics continue to shape current events and legal frameworks. Finally, the authors present their work as both a critique of conventional Cold War narratives and a retrieval project, aiming at uncovering forgotten or marginalised perspectives on international law and global politics during this period. They call for a renewed appreciation of the legal experimentation, political non-alignment, and revolutionary possibilities that emerged during the Cold War era.
Matthew Craven, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London,Sundhya Pahuja, University of Melbourne,Gerry Simpson, London School of Economics and Political Science
Chapter 4 explores how diplomacy was practiced during the Cold War, focusing on how the period reshaped diplomacy and international law. The chapter challenges the view of the Cold War as merely a diplomatic struggle, suggesting instead that it was a struggle over the nature of diplomacy itself. It examines three key struggles: the relationship between openness and secrecy, diplomacy as performance and the concept of neutrality. The Cold War saw a return to secret diplomacy – public diplomacy was intertwined with intelligence and covert operations. In contrast, anti-colonial diplomacy emphasised openness and solidarity, using international institutions as platforms for lawful encounters. The chapter also discusses the contest over neutrality, with European international law protecting neutrality, while the Amero-Soviets disparaged it. The Non-Aligned Movement embraced active neutralism, rejecting Cold War bipolarity. The chapter highlights the diplomatic style of the Third World, which sought to assert a different international law and world order. It critiques the Western response, characterised by anti-diplomacy, relegation, and interventionism. The chapter concludes by emphasising the importance of recognising the plurality of diplomatic practices and international laws during the Cold War, and the ongoing struggle to reconfigure global politics and law after empire.
Matthew Craven, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London,Sundhya Pahuja, University of Melbourne,Gerry Simpson, London School of Economics and Political Science
Chapter 8 explores how the atomic dimension of the Cold War reshaped global politics and international law. The Cuban Missile Crisis serves as a focal point, illustrating the juridical patterning of the Amero-Soviet Cold War and the integration of nuclear weapons into geopolitical strategies. The chapter traces the evolution of anti-nuclear movements, from initial peace initiatives to the emergence of non-proliferation policies. It examines how the threat of nuclear annihilation created a new global consciousness, transcending traditional notions of sovereignty and national interests. The development of satellite surveillance systems is highlighted as a key factor in producing new forms of ‘planetary’ knowledge, contributing to advancements in earth sciences and environmental awareness. The chapter also discusses the paradoxical split between ‘peaceful’ and ‘aggressive’ uses of nuclear technology, as exemplified by the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the International Atomic Energy Agency. Ultimately, the atomic dimension of the Cold War is shown to have globalised the conflict, creating a "global civil war" that eroded distinctions between combatants and civilians. This new reality challenged existing legal frameworks and fostered the emergence of new global subjects, knowledge systems, and technologies that would shape the post–Cold War world.
Matthew Craven, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London,Sundhya Pahuja, University of Melbourne,Gerry Simpson, London School of Economics and Political Science
This chapter introduces Rival Legalities: Practices of International Law in the Cold War, exploring international law’s practices during the Cold War. The authors aim to redescribe Cold War international law, revealing a rich plurality of legal forms and practices. Contrary to the narrative of the Cold War as an interruption in international law’s development, the authors propose viewing it as a period of rivalrous yet mutually constitutive accounts of the ‘international’. This perspective highlights diverse world-making projects beyond the East-West dichotomy, including anti-colonial and anti-anti-colonial efforts. Recognising the plurality of rival world-making projects demands a different conceptual frame than one focused solely on American-Soviet rivalry. The authors argue that international law during the Cold War was not a settled body of norms but a set of practices emerging from the period’s unique conditions. By examining these practices, the book offers a new lens on the Cold War’s impact on international law, highlighting the creative and strategic uses of law by various actors, particularly from the Global South, in their struggles for decolonisation and new international legal orders.
Matthew Craven, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London,Sundhya Pahuja, University of Melbourne,Gerry Simpson, London School of Economics and Political Science
Chapter 3 introduces the term ‘Amero-Soviet’ to describe the Cold War dynamics between the United States and the Soviet Union, framed within the UN Charter. The chapter examines the Truman Doctrine’s focus on containment and the perceived Soviet threat of subversion. It highlights the dual strategies of both superpowers, involving public commitments to international organisations and covert activities to expand influence. ‘Amero-Sovietism’ is coined to capture the collaborative yet competitive project that shaped global governance through sovereign statehood, economic development, and modernisation. This collaboration unfolded in three phases: co-imperium, co-existence and détente, each reflecting a blend of competition and cooperation, formalised through legal instruments. The chapter explores the parallelism in US and Soviet approaches to international law, with both claiming lawfulness while accusing each other of opportunism. It concludes by examining the impact of Amero-Sovietism on global order, highlighting resistance from alternative world-making projects and the enduring influence of the Cold War on international relations. This new term underscores the intertwined nature of US–Soviet relations and their joint influence on shaping the post-war world.
Matthew Craven, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London,Sundhya Pahuja, University of Melbourne,Gerry Simpson, London School of Economics and Political Science
Chapter 5 explores the Global South’s role in shaping international law during the Cold War, challenging the dominant North Atlantic narrative. It highlights the Third World’s active engagement in creating and contesting international law through three case studies: Algeria’s war for independence, the Anglo–Iranian Oil case, and the establishment of a UN Commission on Transnational Corporations. Algeria used the Geneva Conventions to internationalise its struggle against France, redefining anti-colonial warfare as a legitimate fight for self-determination. The Anglo-Iranian Oil case at the ICJ underscored the contestation over international judicial authority, with Iran asserting its sovereignty against the UK. The UN Commission on Transnational Corporations illustrated the Third World’s alliance with the Soviet Union to challenge corporate power. These examples reveal the Cold War as a period of legal experimentation and contestation, with the Third World playing a crucial role in shaping international law and challenging retrospective assumptions about the era.
Chapter 1 reveals the largely unexamined role of geography in shaping the conceptual architecture of International Law. Although legal doctrine depends heavily on spatial categories, the discipline rarely interrogates the geographic imaginaries or cartographic histories that sustain them. This chapter excavates the deep entanglement between legal and geographic thought, tracing how Eurocentric cartography helped construct the modern state system and naturalize the “World Map” as International Law’s default visual ontology. The chapter shows how geographic thought has undergone a conceptual reckoning that International Law has yet to confront.
Despite major transformations in how authority and power are exercised today, international legal reasoning remains anchored in a static, territorial imaginary inherited from statist mapping. This disjuncture narrows the discipline’s capacity to grasp emergent forms of global ordering that operate across discontinuous, networked, and materially mediated spaces. The chapter therefore calls for renewed engagement with contemporary geographic theory, not as a doctrinal supplement but as a means of reworking the spatial premises embedded in legal thought. It frames the book as a project of grafted interdisciplinarity – cultivating new conceptual tools while reconfiguring inherited ones – and invites international lawyers to rethink how global legal space is visualized, institutionalized, and materially enacted.
Chapter 4 advances a transformative theory of territorialization by challenging the deep-rooted assumption that legal authority is spatially organized through fixed, contiguous, and mutually exclusive state territories. It argues that this assumption is not a natural fact of international legal order but the product of an inherited cartographic theory as practice. The chapter traces how this worldview emerged from early modern cartographic science and the geometric legacies of Brunelleschi, Copernicus, and Descartes, whose techniques compressed the Earth into a singular, divisible object. Over time, this image became embedded in legal doctrine.
In response, the chapter develops the concept of juriscapes. Whereas jurisdictions depict authority as a bounded, planar geometry, juriscapes capture the textured, overlapping, and trans-territorial formations through which legal rule is produced in practice. Juriscapes thus complement, rather than supplant, jurisdictions. They reveal what the geometric template of jurisdiction cannot – how legal authority thickens or thins, stretches or fractures, according to the material practices, institutional logics, and spatial continuities and discontinuities that shape territorial rule.
Reimagining territorialization through juriscapes widens the discipline’s circumference of vision, allowing international lawyers to apprehend a fuller spectrum of spatial practices that define global legal rule today.
Chapter 5 examines the Hindu polity literature, a body of early twentieth-century Indian academic works on ancient Indian political ideas, states, constitutional law, and international law. Produced largely by scholars affiliated with the University of Calcutta, these works were partly motivated by a desire to counter Western depictions of Indian constitutional history as backward and despotic. Drawing on sources such as the Arthashastra, the ancient Indian treatise on governance, the Hindu polity literature argued that ancient India had republican institutions, constitutional monarchies, and legal systems grounded in progressive principles. Indian scholars emphasized themes like social contract theory, the existence of international law, and traditions of democratic governance, often comparing these traditions favorably with Western ones. Echoing the anti-colonial Swadeshi political movement that emerged in Bengal at the same time, this scholarship reached its zenith in the 1920s. The chapter discusses the relationship of this body of literature to ideologies such as pan-Asianism and also mentions works on Islamic constitutional history that appeared in colonial India during the same period.