Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorKRATOCHWIL, Friedrich
dc.date.accessioned2011-05-23T13:39:21Z
dc.date.available2011-05-23T13:39:21Z
dc.date.issued2010
dc.identifier.citationComparative sociology, 2010, 9, 1, 120-145
dc.identifier.issn1569-1322
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1814/17324
dc.description.abstractThis article explores the limits of Anne-Marie Slaughter's liberal theory of (international) law. Despite her admirable interdisciplinary work, Slaughter falls prey to proposing largely technical solutions based on best practices and buttressed by universal norms. She thereby misses the purpose of law as a source of meaning, not to mention the historicity and content-independent authority of law that can be legitimized only politically. Despite all universality, a closer look reveals that the practices of the US are taken to be best practices which then make them part of an imperial project. They are not a means of mediating between the inevitable cultural, political, and historical tensions that are part of our predicament.
dc.language.isoen
dc.subjectLiberalism
dc.subjectInternational law
dc.subjectUniversalism
dc.subjectLegal theory
dc.subjectLaw
dc.subjectHistory of law
dc.subjectU.S.A.
dc.titleHow (Il)liberal is the liberal theory of law? Some critical remarks on slaughter's approach
dc.typeArticle
dc.identifier.doi10.1163/156913210X12535202814478
dc.identifier.volume9
dc.identifier.startpage120
dc.identifier.endpage145
eui.subscribe.skiptrue
dc.identifier.issue1


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record