Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T05:53:03.071Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

‘After fragmentation’: Notes from the global South

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2020

SIDDHARTH MALLAVARAPU Open the ORCID record for SIDDHARTH MALLAVARAPU [Opens in a new window]
SIDDHARTH MALLAVARAPU*
Affiliation:
Shiv Nadar University, International Relations and Governance Studies, NH-91, Tehsil Dadri Gautam Buddha Nagar, Uttar Pradesh, India.
*
Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The contributions in the volume do a fine job of recounting the sites and modes of unravelling meaty issue-area ‘interface conflicts’ and studying their diverse implications. I have sought to consciously read these contestations here from the broader perspective of the global South. My overall plea is for more politics and not less when it comes to studying ‘interface conflicts’ and norm contestations. What this translates into is to embed the technicalities of norm conflicts in the backdrop of more fully fleshed out political currents and contexts. Methodologically speaking, while sympathetic to the process-driven agential micro-constructivist approach to studying these ‘interface conflicts’, I argue that ‘internalist’ accounts of perceptions must ideally tap on insiders to arrive at a richer appreciation of the anxieties and hopes surrounding particular norm contestations in specific issue-areas.

Keywords

International relations‘interface conflicts’norm contestationTWAILglobal Southinternational law and politics
Type
Special Issue: After Fragmentation
Information
Global Constitutionalism , Volume 9 , Issue 2 , July 2020 , pp. 424 - 436
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press, 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ambrus, Mónika. 2013. “Through the Looking Glass of Constitutionalism and Global Administrative Law.” Erasmus Law Review 1:32–49.Google Scholar
Anderson, Benedict. 1991. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso.Google Scholar
Anghie, Antony. 2007. Imperialism, Sovereignty and the Making of International Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bell, Daniel A. 2017. “Comparing Political Values in China and the West: What Can Be Learned and Why It Matters.” Annual Review of Political Science 20:93–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birkenkötter, Hannah. 2020. “International Law as a Common Language across Spheres of Authority?” Global Constitutionalism 9(2):318–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boisson de Chazournes, Laurence and Sands, Philippe (eds). 1999. International Law, The International Court of Justice and Nuclear Weapons. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chatterjee, Partha. 1993. “Whose Imagined Community?” In The Nation and Its Fragments: Colonial and Postcolonial Histories (1st edn), 3–13. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Chimni, B. S. 1997. “Nuclear Weapons and International Law: Some Reflections.” Indian Journal of International Law 37(2):250–61.Google Scholar
Chimni, B. S. 2006. “Third World Approaches to International Law: A Manifesto.” International Community Law Review 8:3–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chimni, B. S. 2010. “International Law Scholarship in Post-colonial India: Coping with Dualism.” Leiden Journal of International Law 23(1):23–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cuenca-Sánchez, Ignacio. 2017. “From a Deficit of Democracy to a Technocratic Order: The Postcrisis Debate on Europe.” Annual Review of Political Science 20:351–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eslava, Luis, Fakhri, Michael and Nesiah, Vasuki. 2017. Bandung, Global History, and International Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faude, Benjamin and Fuß, Julia. 2020. “Coordination or Conflict? The Causes and Consequences of Institutional Overlap in a Disaggregated World Order.” Global Constitutionalism 9(2):268–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finnemore, Martha and Sikkink, Kathryn. 1998. “International Norm Dynamics and Political Change.” International Organization 52(4):887–917.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flonk, Daniëlle, Jachtenfuchs, Markus and Obendiek, Anke. 2020. “Authority Conflicts in Internet Governance: Liberals vs Sovereigntists?” Global Constitutionalism 9(2):364–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gathii, James Thuo. 2018. “The Agenda of Third World Approaches to International Law (TWAIL).” In International Legal Theory: Foundations and Frontiers (forthcoming), edited by Dunoff, Jeffrey and Pollack, Mark. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Available at <http://ssrn.com/abstract=3304767>.Google Scholar
Gholiagha, Sassan, Holzscheiter, Anna and Liese, Andrea. 2020. “Activating Norm Collisions: Interface Conflicts in International Drug Control.” Global Constitutionalism 9(2):290–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grant, Andrew J. 2018. “Agential Constructivism and Change in World Politics.” International Studies Review 20(2):255–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ikenberry, G. John. 2011. Liberal Leviathan: The Origins, Crisis, and Transformation of the American World Order. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Kahnemann, Daniel and Tversky, Amos. 1974. “Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases.” Science 185 (4157):1124–31.Google Scholar
Kennedy, D. 2008. “The Mystery of Global Governance.” Ohio Northern University Law Review 34:827.Google Scholar
Kreuder-Sonnen, Christian and Zürn, Michael. 2020. “After Fragmentation: Norm Collisions, Interface Conflict, and Conflict Management.” Global Constitutionalism 9(2):241–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krisch, Nico, Corradini, Francesco and Reimers, Lucy Lu. 2020. “Order at the Margins: The Legal Construction of Interface Conflicts over Time.” Global Constitutionalism 9(2):343–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kumm, Mattias, Havercroft, Jonathan, Dunoff, Jeffrey L. and Wiener, Antje. 2017. “Editorial: The End of ‘the West’ and the Future of Global Constitutionalism.” Global Constitutionalism 6(1):1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mallavarapu, Siddharth. 2007. Banning the Bomb: The Politics of Norm Creation. New Delhi: Pearson Longman.Google Scholar
Mallavarapu, Siddharth. 2019. “Why Octavio Paz Matters: Lessons for Critical International Relations.” In Routledge Handbook of Critical International Relations, edited by Edkins, Jenny, 214–28. Abingdon: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luise Wiuff, Moe and Anna, Geis. 2020. “From Liberal Interventionism to Stabilisation: A New Consensus on Norm-Downsizing in Interventions in Africa.” Global Constitutionalism 9(2):387–412.Google Scholar
Mutua, Makau. “What is Twail?” 2000. American Society of International Law, Proceedings of the 94th Annual Meeting, 31–9. Available at SSRN: <https://ssrn.com/abstract=1533471>.CrossRef.>Google Scholar
Oklopcic, Zoran. 2016. “The South of Western Constitutionalism: A Map ahead of a Journey.” Third World Quarterly 37(11):2080–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Voeten, Erik. 2019. “Making Sense of the Design of International Institutions.” Annual Review of Political Science 22:147–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, James Boyd. 1985. “Law as Rhetoric, Rhetoric as Law: The Arts of Cultural and Communal Life.” The University of Chicago Law Review 52(3):684–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar