What Role for Academic Writers in Interpreting International Law?--A Rejoinder to Orakhelashvili
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 12779185 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Peter Hilpold (0000-0001-9947-3972, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2009 |
| Volume | 8 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 291-298 |
| Publication date | 2009-06-13 |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Chinese Journal of International Law (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1540-1650 • E-ISSN: 1746-9937 |
| Publisher | Oxford University Press (OUP) (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1093/chinesejil/jmp013 |
| OpenAlex | W1996792816 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 1 |
The points of criticism advanced by Orakhelashvili can be confuted easily. Secession is a fact. A rule according to which secession can produce legal effects only to the extent these are allowed, as identified by Orakhelashvili, cannot be found in International Law. On a whole, the right to self-determination is a far more complex concept than portrayed by Orakhelashvili. Finally, Orakhelashvili seems to attribute a very limited role to the academic writer in norm interpretation: the straightforward choice between “right” and “false” interpretations. However, a more nuanced position must be taken
Criticism · Epistemology · International law · Interpretation (philosophy · Linguistics · Norm (philosophy · Political science · Secession · Sociology · International Law and Human Rights · Legal and Policy Issues · Post-Soviet Geopolitical Dynamics · Law · Philosophy
| Citations per year | 0.25 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2022 - 2022 (1) |
| Highly cited | No |