Abstract
Abstract
This article is about the problem of non-disclosure of an assumed method and approach to international law. That makes some real and current issues of international more difficult to grasp – and how to debate about something if there is a misunderstanding of the basics? The problem is depicted with two examples: the attitude of international law toward the statehood of Taiwan along with the on-going development of the Responsibility to Protect doctrine. Both reveal the clash between so-called black-letterism and a policy-approach to international law. Meanwhile the doctrinal method is fully functional and mostly accepted in domestic law, though often contested in international law. But after all, international law being sui generis law is not just an instance of the domestic-type law which is the effect of particular features of the international community.
Reference26 articles.
1. Aust, A. (2013). Modern Treaty Law and Practice, New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139152341
2. Austin. J. (with Hart, H.L.A.) (1954). The Province of Jurisprudence Determined and The Uses of The Study of Jurisprudence. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson (Original work published 1832).
3. Cassese, A, (2005). International Law (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
4. Chan, P.C.W. (2009). The Legal Status of Taiwan and the Legality of the Use of Force in a Cross-Taiwan Strait Conflict, Chinese Journal of International Law, 8(2), 455–492.10.1093/chinesejil/jmp014
5. Deng, F.M. (2010). From ‘Sovereignty as Responsibility’ to the ‘Responsibility to Protect’, Global Responsibility to Protect, 2, 353–370.10.1163/187598410X519534