AI Summary & Key Takeaways
AI InsightThe conclusion points to the potential alternatives, beyond the existing legal framework and calls for a rethinking of the epistemological foundations of international law.
📌 3 Key Takeaways
Abstract
The article offers a critical examination of “state responsibility,” a subfield of international law, arguing that it plays a central role in concealing structural inequalities within international law particularly in the regulation of the use of force and the attribution of legal responsibility. Grounded in historically dominant conceptions of sovereignty and statehood, the framework of state responsibility facilitates and reproduces a particular model of international relations that sustains the superior standing of certain states, while marginalizing others. The analysis focuses on the Israeli-Palestinian context to illustrate how these asymmetries are reproduced in both legal theory and practice. Israel’s repeated violations of international legal norms, especially in its recent acts of aggression against the Palestinian population, are not anomalies but reflections of a broader systematic pattern. The state’s shifting legal stance treating the occupied territories either as internal jurisdictions or as external spaces to justify self-defense demonstrates its capacity to manipulate legal categories to its advantage. These dynamics expose how dominant powers utilize the discourse of sovereignty and statehood selectively, reinforcing geopolitical hierarchies rather than challenging them. The article further contends that Israel’s impunity reveals a deeper transformation in the global legal-political order. Israel’s aggression and the legal responses to it signal a transition away from previous models of global governance centered on human rights and the pursuit of peace. The conclusion points to the potential alternatives, beyond the existing legal framework and calls for a rethinking of the epistemological foundations of international law.
Özet
The article offers a critical examination of “state responsibility,” a subfield of international law, arguing that it plays a central role in concealing structural inequalities within international law particularly in the regulation of the use of force and the attribution of legal responsibility. Grounded in historically dominant conceptions of sovereignty and statehood, the framework of state responsibility facilitates and reproduces a particular model of international relations that sustains the superior standing of certain states, while marginalizing others. The analysis focuses on the Israeli-Palestinian context to illustrate how these asymmetries are reproduced in both legal theory and practice. Israel’s repeated violations of international legal norms, especially in its recent acts of aggression against the Palestinian population, are not anomalies but reflections of a broader systematic pattern. The state’s shifting legal stance treating the occupied territories either as internal jurisdictions or as external spaces to justify self-defense demonstrates its capacity to manipulate legal categories to its advantage. These dynamics expose how dominant powers utilize the discourse of sovereignty and statehood selectively, reinforcing geopolitical hierarchies rather than challenging them. The article further contends that Israel’s impunity reveals a deeper transformation in the global legal-political order. Israel’s aggression and the legal responses to it signal a transition away from previous models of global governance centered on human rights and the pursuit of peace. The conclusion points to the potential alternatives, beyond the existing legal framework and calls for a rethinking of the epistemological foundations of international law.