Theories of international law and politics are a product of their times. They focus on the issues of the day (or of the immediate past) and their assumptions are often the assumptions of the society in which they were born. Perhaps that it is why so many international relations scholars were surprised by the end of the Cold War: Their theories were so informed by bipolarity that they were unable to see the actual changes that would transform the state system. As international relations scholars are re-assessing their theories in a post-Cold War world, lawyers may do the same concerning international legal jurisprudence. Throughout the Cold War, the New Haven School of policyoriented jurisprudence attempted to describe how law was actually used in the policymaking process and to suggest how it should be used towards the goals of securing human dignity and the spread of free societies.' But with the titanic struggle between competing world orders being replaced by parochial fights and feuds, whither the New Haven School? What insights does it have for today's world? Does the New Haven School's theory need to catch up to the practice of international law?
Christopher J. Borgen,
Whose Public, Whose Order? Imperium, Region, and Normative Friction,
Yale J. Int'l L.
Available at: http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/yjil/vol32/iss2/4