No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 March 2019
The very notion of “multilateralism” seems straightforward. It immediately suggests an approach of international relations different from the one to which other “ism” notions refer, like “unilateralism,” “bilateralism,” “regionalism,” imperialism,” and “colonialism.” In this respect, “multilateralism” sounds like some kind of good international governance, like an alternative to the absence of a “global state.” Yet, in any endeavor to assess what could be “the future” of multilateralism, it is worth trying to better approach the notion, as it is understood in the international legal world.
1 See, e.g., Murase, Shinya, Extraterritorial Application of Domestic Environmental Law, in Collected Courses of The Hague Academy, Vol. 253, at 356 (1995)Google Scholar.
2 See, e.g., Meron, Theodor, International Law in the Age of Human Rights: General Course on Public International Law, in Collected Courses of The Hague Academy, Vol. 301, at 249 (2003)Google Scholar; Crawford, James, The Development of Multilateral Law-Making, in Collected Courses of The Hague Academy, Vol. 319, at 335 (2006)Google Scholar.
3 Regionalism and Multilateralism After the Uruguay Round, Convergence, Divergence and Interaction (Paul Demaret, Jean-François Bellis, Gonzalo García Jiménez eds., 1997).
4 By contrast, multilateralism is a notion quite remote from other “ism” notions, like realism, constructivism, liberalism, rationalism and constructivism, on which Anne-Marie Slaughter has elaborated in Slaughter, Anne-Marie, International Law and International Relations, in Collected Courses of The Hague Academy, Vol. 285, at 189 (2000)Google Scholar.
5 Röpke, Wilhelm, Economic Order and International Law, in Collected Courses of The Hague Academy, Vol. 86, at 225, 240 (1954)Google Scholar.
6 Id. at 253. According to Röpke: “Free convertibility of currencies makes multilaterality [of international trade] possible which, in turn, is the essential pre-requisite of an integrated international economy.” Id. at 252. See also the use of “multilateralism” by Mann, Frederick Alexander, Money in International Public Law Order, in Collected Courses of The Hague Academy, Vol. 96, at 9–11 (1959)Google Scholar.
7 Schwarzenberger, Georg, The Principles and Standards of International Economic Law, in Collected Courses of The Hague Academy, Vol. 117, at 27 (1966)Google Scholar.
8 de Mestral, Armand, The North American Free Trade Agreement: A Comparative Analysis, in Collected Courses of The Hague Academy, Vol. 275 (1998)Google Scholar.
9 Lachs, Manfred, The Peaceful Settlement of Disputes, in Collected Courses of The Hague Academy, Vol. 169, at 218, 233 (1980)Google Scholar.
10 Brownlie, Ian, The Use of Force by States, in Collected Courses of The Hague Academy, Vol. 255, at 202–03 (1995)Google Scholar.
11 Barboza, Julio, The Criminal Responsibility, in Collected Courses of The Hague Academy, Vol. 278, at 109 (1999)Google Scholar.
12 Simma, Bruno, From Bilateralism to Community Interest in International Law, in Collected Courses of The Hague Academy, Vol. 250, at 323–24 (1994)Google Scholar.
13 Crawford, supra note 2, at 336.
14 Id. at 190.
15 Id. at 192.
16 Id. at 204.
17 Henqin, Xue, Multilateralism and Regional Co-operation, in Collected Courses of The Hague Academy, Vol. 355, at 186 (2012)Google Scholar.