Thread by @ProfPaulPoast

Is International Law more like @WWE or @ufc?

Let's break it down!

[THREAD]

This question is inspired by Stephen Budiansky's famous indictment of international law:

"International Law is to law what Professional Wrestling is to Wrestling"

The implication of Budiansky's quote should be clear: international law might, like domestic law, fill up law books...

...and be argued in courts,...

...but international law, unlike domestic law, is not REAL and is often ignored.
vox.com/22737140/un-co…

In other words, International law might look like domestic law, but it, like Professional wrestling, is largely just performative (dare I say, fake).

Why would someone think that?

One big criticism: there is not world government to enforce international law.
academic.oup.com/isq/article/53…

Domestic law relies on a state to impose fines, imprisonment, or even worse for breaking the law.

It's how "order" is maintained (so the argument goes).

At the global level, there is no entity to automatically carry out such functions.

In other words, there is no guarantee that the international equivalent of @steveaustinBSR will drop stunners for turning heel

Instead, enforcement of international law relies exclusively on "organized volunteerism"
amazon.com/Why-Cooperate-…

But does a lack of overarching global government to enforce international law mean international law is not "real"?

@TheRock thinks that's a good question!

@oonahathaway & @scottjshapiro point out that while international law lacks a central government to enforce, that doesn't mean it's "not real law".
yalelawjournal.org/article/outcas…

Why is that?

Let's think a bit more about how International Law works.

First of all, unlike domestic law, countries get to pick and choose which laws they want to follow.

In other words, there is "selection": states sign onto laws that are consistent with their current and expected behavior
cambridge.org/core/journals/…

Second, states spend time designing the treaties to ensure that the law works in a manner consistent with their interests (of course, we see such design at the domestic level too)
cambridge.org/core/journals/…

Notably, those design features include provisions to exit and opt-out of specific clauses (see Koremenos & @AllisonMNau)
scholarship.law.duke.edu/djcil/vol21/is…

Third, even without specific exit clauses, states can exit treaties anyhow (see, again, lack of world government to stop them).

As Beth Simmons wrote in @AnnualReviews, "agreements that cannot be enforced by a third party must be self-enforcing"
annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.114…

Admittedly, there is much legal debate on this point: see section 1A of this Laurence Helfer chapter:
scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewconten…

Fourth, while international law is not the same as domestic law (CAVEAT: sometimes treaty law can become domestic law depending on the ratification process), it's still useful for...

...setting expectations between the signatories...
amazon.com/Order-within-A…

...or communicating to audiences (such as domestic audiences) beyond the signatories.
cambridge.org/core/journals/…

Moreover, going against international law can carry real consequences for states, either by hurting reputations...
amazon.com/How-Internatio…

...or leading to a state being labeled a "rogue" (and then other states using that label to justify taking action against it).
scholarship.law.gwu.edu/cgi/viewconten…

So let's summarize:

- states can choose their own approach.
- the actions communicate with audiences.
- it's expected/common that you "tap out" whenever you're in trouble/don't like the situation
- there are real consequences for the participants.

Hmmm...that sounds a lot like another sport: Mixed Martial Arts!

So in the final analysis, I say International Law has more in common with @ufc than with @WWE.

But @WWE does have one connection to international law that @ufc can't touch: New World Order!

[END]