Our Vision
CIL Dialogues is the re-imagination of the existing blog of the Centre for International Law (CIL) of the National University of Singapore (NUS). The editorial team’s approach to CIL Dialogues reflects two shared commitments. First, we share a generalist perspective of international law, viewed as raising shared foundational questions across specialised fields, institutions, regions, and inquiries. Secondly, we are appreciative that CIL Dialogues is not based in (the virtual space of), or associated with institutions in the ‘Western European and Others States Group’. The blog will therefore be interested in international law broadly conceived and seek to be attentive to regional perspectives to questions of universal and general relevance, particularly relating to Asia Pacific, as well as the views and voices that may have been traditionally excluded.
Why have we chosen, as the title, CIL Dialogues? In part this reflects the limited shared amount of creativity of the editorial team in articulating deep thoughts in a snappy format, an unexpectedly humbling experience for the Twitter era. But ‘Dialogues’ also makes a serious point about the nature and character of the international legal order, relevant in different ways for different intellectual traditions of international law that we are interested in exploring. The summary by the late and much missed Judge James Crawford from a decade ago is hard to improve upon:
‘international law is the product of a process of a claim and counterclaim, assertion and reaction, by Governments as representative of States and by other actors at the international level. This implies a diffuse judgment which may take time to arrive at, although where the judgment is widely shared or is formulated by a body recognized as authoritative in the matter, such as the Security Council acting under Chapter VII of the Charter or a competent regional organization, or a competent court or tribunal, the judgment may be arrived at fairly rapidly and may stick’ (‘Chance, Order, Change: The Course of International Law’ (2013) 365 Recueil des Cours 13, 21-22).
What is that, if not the description of a dialogue, a sort of a never-ending conversation with participants and topics dropping in and out of focus, with nothing ever quite being resolved, let alone to everybody’s satisfaction? To call international law a dialogue is not to understate its peculiarity, in particular its capacity to determine or legitimise the distribution of rights, powers, resources, and capacities (including those relating to violence). Nevertheless, this framing is helpful for answering questions that are the bread and butter of mainstream international law: what are the States (and governments of States) that partake in this process? What other actors are relevant and for what purposes? How to articulate a claim or a counterclaim? When is a judgement widely shared? What institutions and tribunals are competent to pass the authoritative judg(e)ment? Who determines whether the judgement sticks – and how can it be unstuck or guided towards or away from stickiness?
Thinking of international law as a dialogue is also a helpful way for articulating questions that mainstream perspectives may be less comfortable with, or attuned to. Who drafts the invitation lists to the dialogue and by reference to what criteria? Why do some participants always tend to lead the conversation, and are voices from some regions excluded or not given due weight? Who decides on the topics for conversation? If they are set by the notional lead of the dialogue, do they tend to go in the direction of whether ‘every man must take off his hat on entering a church’, or include as a matter of course issues of empire, class, race, gender, sexuality, and disability – as well as such unbearably vulgar things as money? Do speakers tend to get more excited by the crisis of the day, or are they similarly interested in everyday challenges, including for those not in the room? Does the dialogue matter at all in the real world – should such a place exist – or is the elegance of the interlocutory process its own, and only reward?
CIL Dialogues does not have the answers, nor even necessarily the right questions. The modest perspective that the editorial team puts forward as our vision emphasises the infinite variety of international law, which, in light of its peculiarly decentralised character that simultaneously reflects multiple truths. Bilateral and multilateral. Generalist and specialist. Universal and regional. Formal and informal. Institutional and deinstitutionalised. Monolingual and multilingual. Autonomous and intermeshed. Emancipatory and oppressive. International law is all of these things – and more. We welcome your questions and answers.
CIL Dialogues will be articulated in three formats: Symposia, Reflections, and Interventions (more on the format in the accompanying page). Symposia engage with diverse perspectives on current developments in practice and scholarship of international law as well as classic texts and events. Reflections consider foundational questions of international law. Interventions are individual contributions, familiar in format from other leading international legal blogs. We welcome unsolicited submissions for the Interventions rubric as well as suggestions for Symposia on any topic of international law, with a particular interest in contributions relating to Asia Pacific as well as those coming from outside the pool of usual suspects.