Navigating the Backlash against Global Law and Institutions

Abstract

One of five objectives listed to be "of fundamental importance to Australia's security and prosperity" is to "promote and protect the international rules that support stability and prosperity and enable cooperation to tackle global challenges." 2 The 2017 White Paper provides one succinct and authoritative summary of some of these trends, noting a period of "sharper challenge" to international rules and institutions (ibid, 1, 6).

International Criminology and International Connectivity: Reflections at a Pivotal Juncture

“…The evolving backlash to the growth of international criminal law and its institutions across different fields – human rights, peace and security, the environment, and trade—reflects the strains of the emergent multipolar international order. This backlash also shows little sign of diminishing, broadening as it has from the involvement of countries of the global South to now encompass those of the global North, including states such as the US, the UK, France and Australia (see further Danchin et al, 2021 ; Vinjamuri, 2017 ; Xenakis & Cheliotis, 2018 ). With regard to the international human rights regime in particular, opposition has been voiced partly on the grounds that state sovereignty has increasingly been infringed, and partly on the grounds that the ambitious over-reach of pertinent law and institutions has undermined both its legitimacy and functionality (see, e.g., Tasioulas, 2019 ), and calls have been made for alternative approaches to international harms to receive greater consideration (see e.g., Braithwaite, 2020 ).…”