Conceptualizing International Law through Crisis

The inherent aim of any legal system, including international law, is preservation of stability. However, this does not mean that legal systems are static; several mechanisms exists whereby flexibility in rules is realized and social change is made possible; treaties can be altered or terminated, new ones can be negotiated, interpretations can vary etc. The application and implementation of law means that legal rules are constantly tested, which is a normal feature of any legal system. Yet, it seems that when a rule of international law is breached or if its interpretation differs from standard understanding, there is immediate claims about the ‘crisis of international law’. This holds true in particular for the international rules regulating the use of force. The humanitarian intervention in Kosovo in 1999 generated a widespread claim of the crisis of international law, as did the Russian invasion of Crimea in 2014. The aim of this paper is therefore to explore why the threshold for crisis-mentality is so low concerning the international legal order, whether international law is perceived as a discipline of crisis by international lawyers themselves or mainly by IR scholars, and what the consequences of crisis-talk are upon international law.