Let’s not argue
Diplomatic Legal Talk and the Issues of Abortion and Same-Sex Partnerships
Datos Bibliográficos
| ID | 6060901 |
|---|---|
| Autores | Monika De Silva (0009-0007-0851-139X, University of Gothenburg, autor de correspondencia) |
| Año | 2025 |
| Fecha de publicación | 2025-06-19 |
| Peer Reviewed | Sí |
| Open Access | Sí |
| Tipo | ARTICLE |
| Revista | European Journal of International Relations (JOURNAL) |
| Identificadores de la revista | ISSN: 1354-0661 • E-ISSN: 1460-3713 |
| Editorial | SAGE Publications Inc (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1177/13540661251345437 |
| OpenAlex | W4411441647 |
| Idioma | EN |
| Citas recibidas | 1 |
| Referencias citadas | 53 |
How does legal talk matter and how it is used in diplomatic practice? International law’s inherent openness to interpretation is an opportunity for states to shape it to their advantage through argumentation, a well-studied type of legal rhetoric. In this article, I investigate another avenue: legal openness can also be used in a way that actively maintains and reproduces it through ambiguous discourse, in a way that is consequential for the emergence (or lack thereof) of international norms and for the quality of relations between states. This article puts scholarship on international law in conversation with practice theory and diplomatic theory by arguing that international legal practice, including legal talk, depends on the logic of practicality of those who practice it. The article develops a theoretical framework of discursive uses of international law and employs it to the study of engagement of progressive states on the issues of abortion and same-sex partnerships in Poland. I conclude that diplomats construct ambiguity about their countries’ positions on how human rights square with the principle of non-interference. Consequently, international law is found as a discursive resource not only for argumentation in the interest of statecraft but also for maintenance of ambiguity in the interest of co-existence. Interestingly, these findings from a bilateral site stand in contrast with argumentative legal practice used in multilateral fora
Ambiguity · Argumentation theory · Conversation · Epistemology · International law · International relations · International relations theory · Law and economics · Legal practice · Political science · Politics · Sociology · European Union Policy and Governance · International Arbitration and Investment Law · International Law and Human Rights · Law
Sustainable Diplomacies
Constructivism and the Politics of International Law
Ambiguity and verbal disguise within diplomatic culture
How to Do Things with International Law
Legitimacy and Legality in International Law
International practices
Rules, Norms, and Decisions
Between Statecraft and Humanism
Moving Beyond Interdisciplinary Turf Wars
International Security in Practice
The Practice of Human Rights
International practices
International norm polarization
Practice theory and change in international law
The responsibility to protect – An incoherent doctrine
Security Council Deliberations
International Law in and with International Politics
The Argumentative Power of International Law
Law and contestation in international negotiations
Arguing with law
What is a validity claim
On diplomacy
Positivism, Functionalism, and International Law
Diplomatic Sites
Practice theory and the study of diplomacy
Towards a Practice Turn in EU Studies
International Institutions and Socialization in Europe
Incredibly loud and extremely silent
Strategies of Contestation
Gender Wars? Diplomacy as a Depolarizing Practice in International Politics of Gender and Sexuality
What Should Be Done? Pragmatic Constructivist Ethics and the Responsibility to Protect
The Logic of Practicality
International Norm Dynamics and Political Change
The Discursive Process of Legalization
Let's Argue
Agreeing to Disagree
Legitimating the Use of Force in International Politics
The purpose of United Nations Security Council practice
Euro-centric diplomacy
Returning Practice to the Linguistic Turn
Law and the Practice of Diplomacy
Anthropology and International Law
| Obras citantes distintas | 1 |
|---|---|
| Citas por año | 1 |
| Intervalo de citas | 2025 - 2025 (1) |
| Velocidad de citación | recent |
| Altamente citado | No |
| Tipos de cita | Neutras: 1 |