International Law fron the South

In the first two sessions, we did a background reading on international law. Orientalism is
responsible for discourse which is the systematic production of knowledge.

Three stages of Orientalist writing:

1) 19th century

2) 20th century

Fanon said that white colonizers are like a machone which has no rationality. They don't listen or
engage in dialogue. This culture would not be Western but it shouldn't be replaced with
indigenous culture either. This is because indigenous culture is a degenerated, degraded culture.
Marxism and Darwinism have been used to look down on us because of its description of the
linear progress of society.

Benedict Anderson talked about how nations are constructs, and not an objective reality. The
book "Imagined Communities"is about the history of nationalism. Responding to this came
subaltern studies. Religion and culture played a role in the rise and construction of Indian
nationalism. Subaltern Studies was a complete departure from Eurocentric studies. Subaltern
studies soon moved towards the post-structuralist school of thought, as opposed to writing with
a strongly Marxist shade.

E.P.Thompson was a very persuasive sub-altern writer who talked about how day to day
struggles shaped the histories of the working people,. Orientalism was still playing a role about
the fault-lines that separated the East and the West.

Subaltern studies basically separated two histories of Europe and India. The History of the East is
separate from the history of the West.

Subaltern studies was critiqued by Vivek Chibbar who was a die hard marxist and who exposed
subaltern studies as an example of post colonial theory.

International Law usually written from the perspective of political economy. Marxist position is
basically revolving around Economics. E.P. Thomson launched a revolt and showed how history
cannot be explained through structire. He also wrote a book on the origins of the Black Acts. He
argued that law cannot be explained through politics but primarily through cultire. Law is
entrenched in the very fabric of society.

After this, there was a cultural turn in the understanding of law. It started studying law from the
point of view of culture that looked at society more so than it did at courts Law is also "the
social", and we are living in that era. Now we are looking at law from a social perpsective.

Foucault talks about how power lies in the very capillaries of the society that we live in.

FIRST LECTURE ABOUT INTERNATIONAL LAW (CLAIR CUTLER)

What is the main argument?

International Law is losing legitimacy because of its reliance on Westphalian assumptions

1) State centricity

2) Positive International Law

3) Public definition of Authority

The main actors and signatories were states. The objects of law ae individuals and MNCs while
the subjects are states. Objects are being represented through subjects. IL is incapable of dealing
with informal cultures because of its positivist underpinnings. Humans can decide sovereognity
and membership of international law through positive law. Positive Law is human reason. There
was a move from natural law to positive law.

It is incapable to represent private power in the global political economy. It is only representing
states and agreements between states. As a result, MNCs and individuals not being represented
leads to MNCs being able to influence IL and given that individual is not being represented, he
cannot sue MNCs internationally. MNCs are becominhg subjects but international law cannot
recognize that.

As a result, there is a separation of the political and the economic. The politics of a state is very
different from the politics of the civil society. MNCs interests and the interest of the indiviual is
basically represented through the sttae. MNCs and individuals are asbtracted and objectified into
being similar to states. Even when individuals are being represented de jure by international law,
they are not being represented de facto.

The problem wtih International law is that I am to be represented by the state. However, the
state is not representing me in reality,

There is a division in International Law between private international law and public
international law.
MNCs are always pushing for limited representation in international law, as opposed to full
representation so that the individual cannot ask for the latter hinself. This is an agenda to limit
the autonomy of the individual.

MNCs are resorting to number of techniques which indicate a "soft" approach.