|
Abstract: Over the last ten years, international relations (IR) theory, a branch of political science, has animated some of the most exciting scholarship in international law. If a true joint discipline has not yet emerged, scholars in both fields have clearly established the value of interdisciplinary cross-fertilization. Yet IR--like international law-- comprises several distinct theoretical approaches or “methods.” While this complexity makes interactions between the disciplines especially rich, it also makes them difficult to explore concisely.
This essay summarizes the four principal schools of IR theory--conventionally identified as “realist,” “institutionalist,” “liberal” and “constructivist”--and then applies them to the norms and institutions governing serious violations of human dignity during internal conflicts (the “atrocities regime”), exploring how they might explain three central features of the atrocities regime: the distinction between international and internal armed conflicts, the emergence of norms governing certain abuses outside of armed conflict, and the increasing reliance on criminal responsibility and criminal tribunals. The visions of international relations and international law presented here have significant implications for the future of the atrocities regime. This essay summarizes the engines of change identified by the leading schools of IR theory, and then considers the special role of legal institutions in the evolution of the regime.
|