International Law and Boydian Instructional Psychology

Murphy — 2 major ways of creating law without legislatures
– treaties – silence is refusal
– customs – silence is consent
– but — treatiest and customs can intersect

“use cogens” is a rule of law that lawfully supercedes any other rule
– but no agreement on list of “use cogens”, or agreement on definitions

distinction between International Law and International legitimacy
– “be careful when using legitimate and legitimacy”
– legitimacy is what is considered “appropriate” or “reasonable” (like stealing food and water after a hurricane)
– this sounds like “cognition,” and law is “social cognition” — but then what is behavioralism?
– murky law as part of underdeveloped institution of weak systems?

Executive Agreements are treaties in the international sense, but not in the domestic sense

“Hard Law” and “Soft Law” can be thought of as fuzzy categories

similarly, in fuzy logic,

cold: [0 .. 60]
warm: [50 .. 100]

Open Questions

Law = Social Cognition = Moral Warfare ??
Pragmatism = Behavioralism = Physical Warfare ??
Legitimacy = Cognition = Mental Warfare ??

Implications for 3GW/4GW/5GW ?
Visualize as 3D box?

Self-Executing Treaties are automatically domestic law; not so with non-self-executing treaties

RUDs = reservations, understandings, and declarations
Missouri v Holland: treaties can trump states rights

Monisms v Dualisms: is international law the same as national law (America is dualistis, so not here)

“Stand-off Capacity” = counterveiling power (?)

International Court of Justice (ICJ)
– power is advisory (moral / social cognitive / internationally lawful)
– cases get to it when certain states request it, may be listed in a treaty
– of the UNSC5, only UK has given general compulsary declarative (GCD) power to ICJ – -meaning of the UNSC5, ICJ rulings are domestic law only in UK
– previously, had qualified GCD in USA, but lost after Nicaragua v. USA
– states can have foreign policies in areas that are not prempted by federal government

Filartiga (sp?) (1980) and Alien Tort Claims Act (1970)
– US upheld tort against Paraguay for torture of Paraguayan in Paraguay
– used customary international law
– “ended” or “ending” now?
– Carter admin encouraged the Court to rule as it did

Growing American International Relations

International Politics 1

How is International Relations an American discipline?
– rational choice emphasis (‘rationalism”)
– calcuated cost/benefits (outcomes and ratios)
– also likely responses of others
– implies realism

instrumental science: suggests science is a tool to further human domination
critical theorists: Western social science extends that domination to other humans

(but not Eastern philosophy — tdaxp?)

(state premption, localization, lack of professionalism as roadbloacks to practical instrument social science
– compare to development of “useless” general aesthetics as developed field i n Europe)

Western/Newtonian/Cartestian/American/Anglo-Saxon worldview
– destruction, creationism, mechanics, individual
– blogospheric: tdaxp link?

Many prominent “American” IR Realists are European
– Hertz, Kissinger, Brezinski, Morganthau
– some non-realist ones two (Hoffman)

“The Great Debatein International Relations”
Idealists (emphasis on ability to reform humanity) v. Realists (emphasis on unchanging state of main)
(idealism as similar to dadaism?)
(idealism after WWI, realism before and after)
(realism as “default” position”)
(what about non-state realism?)

also: Science (focus on quantitative method) v. Tradition (focus on law and history)

Dependency Theory – from Latin America in the 1970s
– blunted by East Asian (ROK, ROC, SING, HK) growth

Ways / Causes of growth of IR
– Professionalization (verticalization)
– Interdisciplinary Borrowing (horizontalization)
(but isn’t verticalization a horizontalization an effect, not a cause?)
– Events (but what did similar events not inspire growth elsewhere)
– Demands (but why demands?)

Is social science more politics driven than hard sciences?
More “progress” in hard sciencess