An exploration of human choice in international legal and political decision making that investigates the neurobiology of choice and the history of how it has affected international peace and security.

Human Choice in International Law is an exploration of human choice in international legal and political decision making. This book investigates the neurobiology of how people choose and the history of how personal choice has affected decisions about international peace and security. It charts important decision moments in international law about genocide, intervention into armed conflict and nuclear weapons at the central institutions of the international legal order. Professor Spain Bradley analyzes the role that particular individuals, serving as international judges or Security Council representatives, play in shaping decision outcomes and then applies insights from neuroscience to assert the importance of analyzing how cognitive processes such as empathy, emotion and bias can influence such decisionmakers. Drawing upon historical accounts and personal interviews, this book reveals the beauty and struggle of human influences that shape the creation and practice of international law.

Filling a conspicuous gap in the legal literature, Andrew T. Guzman's How International Law Works develops a coherent theory of international law and applies that theory to the primary sources of law, treaties, customary international law, and soft law. Starting where most non-specialists start, Guzman looks at how a legal system without enforcement tools can succeed. If international law is not enforced through coercive tools, how is it enforced at all? And why would states comply with it?--Publisher.

In Irrational Human Rights? An Examination of International Human Rights Treaties Naiade el-Khoury pursues the question how effective international human rights treaties really are and offers a discussion on the effects of treaty mechanisms.

International law is much debated and discussed, but poorly understood. Does international law matter, or do states regularly violate it with impunity? If international law is of no importance, then why do states devote so much energy to negotiating treaties and providing legal defenses for their actions? In turn, if international law does matter, why does it reflect the interests of powerful states, why does it change so often, and why are violations of international law usually not punished? In this book, Jack Goldsmith and Eric Posner argue that international law matters but that it is less powerful and less significant than public officials, legal experts, and the media believe. International law, they contend, is simply a product of states pursuing their interests on the international stage. It does not pull states towards compliance contrary to their interests, and the possibilities for what it can achieve are limited. It follows that many global problems are simply unsolvable. The book has important implications for debates about the role of international law in the foreign policy of the United States and other nations. The authors see international law as an instrument for advancing national policy, but one that is precarious and delicate, constantly changing in unpredictable ways based on non-legal changes in international politics. They believe that efforts to replace international politics with international law rest on unjustified optimism about international law's past accomplishments and present capacities.

This book provides a theoretical framework for explaining the choices made by international decision-makers in terms of what constitutes law. It comprehensively analyzes the practice of human rights courts in applying legal instruments outside their competence and proposes that this practice recognizes that different normative instruments coexist in an un-ordered space, and that meaning can be produced by the free interaction of those instruments around a problem. Based on this, the book advances its normative plurality hypothesis, which states that decision-makers must survey the acquis of international law in order to identify all the instruments containing relevant normative information for a particular situation. The set of rules of law applicable to the situation must then be complemented with other instruments containing specific normative information relevant to the situation, resulting in a complete system of norms advancing a common purpose.

Advocating Social Change through International Law, edited by Professors Daniel Bradlow and David Hunter, explores the use of hard and soft international law in advocating for social change. Using case studies rooted in inter alia human rights, international crimes, environmental protection, public heath, and financial regulation, the book focuses on both state and non-state actors’ strategic choices regarding the use of hard and soft international law in advocating for social change. Looking through the social change lens provides new insights into the interplay between soft and hard international law, the perceived costs and benefits associated with hard and soft international law in different contexts, and the factors affecting the effectiveness of hard and soft approaches to international law.