Download the PDF
Abstract:
Whether they represent themselves as orthodox, positivist, interdisciplinary, postmodern, postcolonial, feminist, queer, sociologist, empiricist, etc. international legal scholars all profess their adoration of, and subjection to, critique. Indeed, the overwhelming majority of scholars describe themselves as well as their work as being critical. Critical is the common go-to adjective to represent one’s handling of international law. Whatever the formidable and compelling merits of some of those works that represent themselves as critical, this essay argues that it is quite incongruous for international legal scholars seek that their work be adorned with critical credentials. This essay provides two reasons for the incongruity of such critical representations. First, it recalls that the critical attitude is the very legacy of modernity and thus synonymous with all what it has done to the world since modernity. Second, it highlights the tension between international legal scholars’ search for critical credentials and their self-righteous continuous contribution to a virilist, violent, capitalist, and western-centric discipline. The essay continues with a few observations on the idea of a post-critique. A postscript has been added to reflect on international law’s critical misrepresentation and the current atrocities witnessed in some parts of the world as this article went to press.
Keywords: international law, legal theory, critique, critical legal studies, modernity, post-structuralism, post-critique, Gaza