In Power and International Law , Steinberg and Zasloff have analysed some liberal and constructivist methods of international law. The modern society is characterized by liberalism methods, which are demonstrated by the existence of the term liberal democracy. This term is commonly used to describe states that promote free and fair elections, protects civil liberties and rule of law (Steinberg & Zasloff, 2006). But, within the constructs of international law, liberalism is a distinct entity of its own.
The world has evolved into an international system founded on the liberal world order (Steinberg & Zasloff, 2006). The international norms, organizations and institutions that prevail in this world order are based on the same foundations as the liberal norms and institutions. Sadly, power remains highly dispersed and diluted globally than it is within the states. Steinberg and Zasloff give numerous examples. They cite how states, either individually or as a collective body like the United Nations have the power to intervene militarily or impose sanctions against an offending state. Moreover, the offending or aggressive state risks losing benefits of peace like foreign aid, diplomatic recognition and the gains from international trade (Steinberg & Zasloff, 2006).
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Steinberg and Zasloff have discussed a range of constructivist stances. Hard constructivism focuses on the most basic components of the international legal system (the state, consent and sovereignty) as the constructs that pattern and reflects behavior (Steinberg & Zasloff, 2006). Steinberg and Zasloff give the example of how this view is manifested in Friedrich Kratochwil’s application of constructivism to international law. According to Kratochwil, only through the process of international socialization can state come to understand and even speak about state interests (Steinberg & Zasloff, 2006). In this sense, power is not material, rather, it is ideational and the relevance of power in the material sense relies on the social world in which a state exists. As discussed by Steinberg and Zasloff, soft constructivism on the other accepts the powerful influence of material forces in world politics.
Constructivism methods of international law seek to demonstrate how core elements of international relations are contrary to the assumptions of liberalism, socially constructed (Steinberg & Zasloff, 2006). In simply words, ongoing processes of social interaction and practice shape these core aspects. Steinberg and Zasloff cite the two increasingly accepted basic tenets of constructivism as argued by Alexander Wendt. According to Wendt, rather than material forces, shared ideas primarily determine the structures of human association. Moreover, the interests and identities of purposive actors are constructed by these shared ideas; they are not given by nature. According to this view, the basic structures of international relations are social rather than material (Steinberg & Zasloff, 2006). This leads to the constructivist argument that changes in the nature of social relationships among states can yield fundamental shifts towards greater international security.
Today, it has become a modal position for the society to apply elements from both the liberal and constructivism theories. As suggested in Steinberg and Zasloff’s analysis, it is increasingly common to see hybrid arguments that employ liberalism and constructivism, especially to explain developments in international human rights and economic law. As for constructivists, they prefer using hybridized methods, some of which blend a constructive orientation with liberal elements and others that blend it with realist elements (Steinberg & Zasloff, 2006). Some commentators use varying theoretical approaches depending on the issue being addressed. On the other hand, others deploy complex frameworks blended by a myriad of facets, which echo the methods of early post war frameworks. In their journal, Steinberg and Zasloff offer a quantitative analysis of the development and impact of international law. According to their understanding, this demands that alternative explanations must be controlled, which also reflects this complexity. Metatheory is the key to understanding the social forces, which influence international behavior and law. Sadly, with metatheory alone, the society would miss the complex nature of international phenomena, risk shunning the numerous explanations and eventually restrict the effectiveness of the related prescriptions.
References
Steinberg, R., & Zasloff, J. (2006). Power and International Law. The American Journal of International Law, 100 (1), 64-87. doi:10.2307/3518831
