Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T05:43:48.733Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Making paradoxes invisible: international law as an autopoietic system

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 June 2017

Kenneth Kang
Kenneth Kang*
Affiliation:
China International Water Law Research Group, School of Law, Xiamen University, Xiamen, China. E-mail: [email protected].
*
[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

When a state claims its practices are lawful but at the same time another claims this unlawful, a paradox emerges. Legal indeterminacy becomes the ordinary rule, while the resolution of disputes is designated the exception. To illustrate how international law deals with paradoxes, this paper will employ the dichotomy of upstream–downstream trans-boundary interstate relations. Here the paradox arises, since upstream states traditionally advocate for the free utilisation of water within their territory, while downstream states instead advocate for the waters full continued flow. Although, from a logical perspective, such a paradox would typically be viewed as something negative, from a social perspective, paradoxes also draw attention to the frames of common sense. Indeed, by employing a Luhmannian-inspired theoretical framework, this paper proposes that, through a sociological understanding of paradoxes, one can more adequately rediscover and reconceptualise the manner in which international law institutionalises conflicting expectations into a more harmless, bounded and permitted contradiction.

Type
Article
Information
International Journal of Law in Context , Volume 14 , Issue 3 , September 2018 , pp. 315 - 334
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

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.)

Footnotes

I would like to thank Andreas Philippopoulos-Mihalopoulos, Tom Webb, Bald de Vries, Patricia Wouters, Sergei Vinogradov, Huiping Chen, Huaqun Zeng and the China International Water Law research group for their support and encouragement during the course of this research. I would also like to make a very special thank you to Cedric Gilson, Owen Mcintyre, David Devlaeminck and the anonymous reviewers for their detailed and invaluable comments made on earlier versions of this manuscript.

References

Barry, John (2004) ‘From Environmental Politics to the Politics of the Environment: The Pacification and Normalization of Environmentalism?’ in Levy, Yoram and Wissenburg, Marcel (eds) Liberal Democracy and Environmentalism: The End of Environmentalism? London: Routledge, 179–192.Google Scholar
Bergthaller, Hannes (2014) ‘On the Limits of Agency: Notes on the Material Turn from a Systems-Theoretical Perspective’ in Lovino, Serenella and Oppermann, Serpil (eds) Material Ecocriticism. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 37–50.Google Scholar
Bernstorff, Jochen Von (2006) ‘Sisyphus Was an International Lawyer: On Martti Koskenniemi's “From Apology to Utopia” and the Place of Law in International Politics’, German Law Journal 7(12): 1015–1036.Google Scholar
Blomley, Nicholas (1994) Law, Space, and the Geographies of Power. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Borch, Christian (2011) Niklas Luhmann (Key Sociologists). Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bostian, Ida (1998) ‘Flushing the Danube: The World Court's Decision Concerning the Gabcikovo Dam’, Colorado Journal of International Environmental Law and Policy 9(2): 401–427.Google Scholar
Commoner, Barry (1971) The Closing Circle: Nature, Man, and Technology. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
D'Amato, Anthony (2005) ‘International Law as an Autopoietic System’ in Wolfrum, Rudiger and Roben, Volker (eds) Developments of International Law in Treaty Making. Berlin: Springer, 335–399.Google Scholar
D'Amato, Anthony (2009) ‘Softness in International Law: A Self-Serving Quest for New Legal Materials: A Reply to Jean d'Aspremont’, European Journal of International Law 20(3): 1057–1093.Google Scholar
D'Amato, Anthony (2014) ‘Groundwork for International Law’, American Journal of International Law 108(4): 650–679.Google Scholar
Deleuze, Gilles (1990) The Logic of Sense, trans. Lester, Mark and Stivale, Charles. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, Jaye (2009) ‘Sustainable Development and Fragmentation in International Society’, Working Paper Series, McGill University, pp. 1–24.Google Scholar
Eslava, Luis and Pahuja, Sundhya (2012) ‘Beyond the (Post)Colonial: TWAIL and the Everyday Life of International Law’, Journal of Law and Politics in Africa, Asia and Latin America [Verfassung und Recht in Übersee] 45(2): 195–221.Google Scholar
Fischer-Lescano, Andreas (2007) ‘Global Constitutional Struggles: Human Rights between colère publique and colère politique’ in Kaleck, Wolfgang, Ratner, Michael, Singelnstein, Tobias and Weiss, Peter (eds) International Prosecution of Human Rights Crimes. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 13–27.Google Scholar
Fischer-Lescano, Andreas and Teubner, Gunther (2004) ‘Regime-Collisions: The Vain Search for Legal Unity in the Fragmentation of Globlal Law’, Michigan Journal of International Law 25(4): 999–1046.Google Scholar
Friedman, Thomas L. (2006) The World Is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
Guski, Roman (2013) ‘Autonomy as Sovereignty: On Teubner's Constitutionalization of Transnational Function Regimes’, International Journal of Constitutional Law 11(2): 523–536.Google Scholar
Halsey, Mark (2011) ‘Majesty and Monstrosity: Deleuze and the Defence of Nature’ in Philippopoulos-Mihalopoulos, Andreas (ed.) Law and Ecology: New Environmental Foundations. Oxon: Routledge, 214–236.Google Scholar
Hofstadter, Douglas R. (1979) Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Kang, Kenneth (2017) ‘Making Use of Paradoxes: Law, Transboundary Hydropower Dams and Beyond the Technical’, Law and Critique: 1–22.Google Scholar
Kessler, Oliver and Kratochwill, Friedrich (2013) ‘Functional Differentiation and the Oughts and Musts of International Law’ in Albert, Mathias, Buzan, Barry and Zuern, Michael (eds) Bringing Sociology to International Relations: World Politics as Differentiation Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 159–181.Google Scholar
King, Michael and Thornhill, Chris (2003) Niklas Luhmann's Theory of Politics and Law. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Koskenniemi, Martti (1989) From Apology to Utopia: The Structure of International Legal Argument. Helsinki: Finnish Lawyers’ Pub. Co.Google Scholar
Koskenniemi, Martti (2001) The Gentle Civilizer of Nations: The Rise and Fall of International Law 1870–1960. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Koskenniemi, Martti (2005) From Apology to Utopia: The Structure of International Legal Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Koskenniemi, Martti (2009) ‘Miserable Comforters: International Relations as New Natural Law’, European Journal of International Relations 15(3): 395–422.Google Scholar
Lee, Jing (2013) ‘The Preservation of Freshwater Ecosystems of International Watercourses and the Integration of Rules: An Interpretative Mechanism’, Water International 38(2): 156–165.Google Scholar
Lier, Irene van (1980) Acid Rain and International Law. Alphen aan den Rijn: Sijthoff & Noordhoff.Google Scholar
Luhmann, Niklas (1969) Legitimation durch Verfahren [Legitimation by Procedures]. Auflage: Frankfurt am Main.Google Scholar
Luhmann, Niklas (1987) Archimedes und wir: Interviews [Archimedes and Us: Interviews]. Berlin: Merve Verlag.Google Scholar
Luhmann, Niklas (1989) Ecological Communication. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Luhmann, Niklas (1992) ‘The Concept of Society’, Thesis Eleven 31(1): 67–80.Google Scholar
Luhmann, Niklas (1993) Risk: A Sociological Theory, trans. Barret, R. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Luhmann, Niklas (1995a) Das recht der gesellschaft [The Right of Society]. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Luhmann, Niklas (1995b) ‘Legal Argumentation: An Analysis of Its Form’, Modern Law Review 58(3): 285–298.Google Scholar
Luhmann, Niklas (1997) Die Gesellschaft der Gesellschaft [The Company Society]. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Luhmann, Niklas (2000a) Organisation und Entscheidung [Organisation and Decision]. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.Google Scholar
Luhmann, Niklas (2000b) The Reality of the Mass Media, trans. Cross, Kathleen. Stanford: Stanford University PressGoogle Scholar
Luhmann, Niklas (2004) Law as a Social System. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Luhmann, Niklas (2006) ‘System as Difference’, Organization 13(1): 37–57.Google Scholar
Luhmann, Niklas (2008) ‘Are There Still Indispensable Norms in Our Society?’, Soziale Systeme 14(1): 18–37.Google Scholar
Mattheis, Clemens (2012) ‘The System Theory of Niklas Luhmann and the Constitutionalization of the World Society’, Goettingen Journal of International Law 4(2): 625–647.Google Scholar
McAfee, Kathleen (1999) ‘Selling Nature to Save It? Biodiversity and Green Developmentalism’, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 17(2): 133–154.Google Scholar
Mcintyre, Owen (2007) Environmental Protection of International Watercourses under International Law. Aldershot, Hampshire: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Mcintyre, Owen (2010) ‘The Proceduralisation and Growing Maturity of International Water Law Case Concerning Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v Uruguay), International Court of Justice, 20 April 2010’, Journal of Environmental Law 22(3): 475–497.Google Scholar
Moeller, Hans-Georg (2005) Luhmann Explained: From Souls to Systems. Chicago/La Salle: Open Court Publishing.Google Scholar
Orford, Anne (2006) International Law and Its Others. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Paulus, Andreas (2011) ‘Reciprocity Revisited’ in Fastenrath, Ulrich, Geiger, Rudolf, Khan, Daniel-Erasmus, Paulus, Andreas, von Schorlemer, Sabine and Vedder, Christoph (eds) From Bilateralism to Community Interest: Essays in Honour of Bruno Simma. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 113–137.Google Scholar
Peña, Alejandro M. (2015) ‘Governing Differentiation: On Standardisation as Political Steering’, European Journal of International Relations 21(1): 52–75.Google Scholar
Philippopoulos-Mihalopoulos, Andreas (2009) Niklas Luhmann: Law, Justice, Society Nomikoi Critical Legal Thinkers. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Philippopoulos-Mihalopoulos, Andreas (2013a) ‘Critical Autopoiesis and the Materiality of Law’, International Journal for the Semiotics of Law 27(2): 389–418.Google Scholar
Philippopoulos-Mihalopoulos, Andreas (2013b) ‘The Autopoietic Fold: Critical Autopoiesis between Luhmann and Deleuze’ in La Cour, Anders and Philippopoulos-Mihalopoulos, Andreas (eds) Luhmann Observed: Radical Theoretical Encounters. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 60–84.Google Scholar
Simma, Bruno (1984) ‘Reciprocity’ in Bernhardt, Rudolf (ed.) History of International Law, Foundations and Principles of International Law, Sources of International Law, Law of Treaties. Amsterdam/New York/Oxford: North-Holland Publishing Co., 400–404.Google Scholar
Tarlock, Dan (2004) ‘Is There a There in Environmental Law?’, Journal of Land Use 19(2): 213–254.Google Scholar
Teubner, Gunther (2001a) ‘Alienating Justice: On the Surplus Value of the Twelfth Camel’ in Nelken, David and Pribán, Jirí (eds) Law's New Boundaries: The Consequences of Legal Autopoiesis. London: Ashgate, 21–44.Google Scholar
Teubner, Gunther (2001b) ‘Economics of Gift – Positivity of Justice: The Mutual Paranoia of Jacques Derrida and Niklas Luhmann’, Theory, Culture & Society 18(1): 29–47.Google Scholar
Teubner, Gunther (2006) ‘Rights of Non-Humans? Electronic Agents and Animals as New Actors in Politics and Law’, Journal of Law and Society 33(4): 497–521.Google Scholar
Teubner, Gunther (2012) Constitutional Fragments: Societal Constitutionalism and Globalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tremblay, Hugo (2011) ‘A Clash of Paradigms in the Water Sector? Tensions and Synergies between Integrated Water Resources Management and the Human Rights-Based Approach to Development’, Natural Resources Journal 51(2): 307–356.Google Scholar
UNEP (2006) Challenges to International Waters: Regional Assessments in a Global Perspective. Nairobi, Kenya: United Nations Environment Programme.Google Scholar
Vandenberghe, Frédéric (1999) ‘Obituary. Niklas Luhmann (1927–1998)’, Radical Philosophy 94: 54–56.Google Scholar
Verschraegen, Gert (2002) ‘Human Rights and Modern Society: A Sociological Analysis from the Perspective of Systems Theory’, Journal of Law and Society 29(2): 258–281.Google Scholar
Whiteside, Kerry H. (2006) Precautionary Politics: Principle and Practice in Confronting Environmental Risk. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Zumbansen, Peer (2001) ‘Die Vergangene Zukunft des Völkerrechts’ [‘The Past Future of International Law’]. Kritische Justiz [Critical Justice] 34(1): 46–69.Google Scholar