This book challenges the idea that international law looks the same from anywhere in the world. Instead, how international lawyers understand and approach their field is often deeply influenced by the national contexts in which they lived, studied, and worked. International law in the United States and in the United Kingdom looks different compared to international law in China and Russia, though some approaches (particularly Western, Anglo-American ones) are more influential outside their borders than others. Given shifts in geopolitical power and the rise of non-Western powers like China, it is increasingly important for international lawyers to understand how others coming from diverse backgrounds approach the field. By examining the international law academies and textbooks of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, Roberts provides a window into these different communities of international lawyers, and she uncovers some of the similarities and differences in how they understand and approach international law.

'What's wrong with international law?' This is the question Professor A.H.A. Soons provocatively posed to his colleagues around the world when leaving his chair in public international law at Utrecht University. Meant to provoke discussion about what actually is wrong with international law as well as act in defence of the discipline, his conclusion was a resounding 'nothing!' Honouring Professor Soons's achievements throughout his long career as a scholar and a practitioner of international law, this Liber Amicorum exmaines whether, indeed, there is something wrong with international law. The contributors identify gaps or 'wrong norms' in specific fields of international law, and assess whether there is something wrong with the regulatory function of international law as a system for creating global public order.

In December 2011, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the International Law Commission's articles on the responsibility of international organizations, bringing to conclusion not only nearly ten years of reflection by the Commission, governments and organizations on this specific topic, but also decades of study of the wider subject of international responsibility, which had initially focused on State responsibility. Parallel to this reflection by the Commission, diplomats and public officials, the body of international case-law and literature on the many facets of the topic has steadily been growing. Responsibility of International Organizations: Essays in Memory of Sir Ian Brownlie contributes to the body of international literature by collecting a broad spectrum of different and sometimes differing perspectives from well-known experts in the field, ranging from the bench to the Commission, academia, and the world of in-house counsel. The book is also a memorial to the renowned Sir Ian Brownlie, himself a former Chairman of the International Law Commission who, as a leading scholar and practitioner, greatly contributed to the reflection on international responsibility, including the responsibility of international organizations. Edited by Maurizio Ragazzi, a former pupil of Sir Ian, the book is an ideal companion to International Responsibility Today, a collection of essays on international responsibility which the same editor presented in 2005 in memory of Oscar Schachter, and to which Sir Ian Brownlie had contributed. The essays collected in Responsibility of International Organizations: Essays in Memory of Sir Ian Brownlie, conveniently grouped by the editor under broad areas for the reader's benefit, will be relevant not only to all those interested in this specific subject but also, more generally, to all those engaged in the field of international law and the law of international organizations.

A runner-up for the 2018 Chadwick Alger Prize, International Studies Association's International Organization Section, this provocative reassessment of the rule of law in world politics examines how and why governments use and manipulate international law in foreign policy.

Explores the ideological, political, and economic stakes of struggles over international law's history and its relation to empire and capitalism.

Why U.S. support for international law is so inconsistent