User:BonifaciusVIII/Sandbox1
External Links
[edit]Official webpage of the Sixth Committee
References
[edit]
New Haven Approach
[edit]The New Haven School is a policy-oriented perspective on international law pioneered by Myres S. McDougal and Harold D. Lasswell.[1] Its intellectual antecedents lie in sociological jurisprudence of Roscoe Pound and the reformist ambitions of the American Legal Realists. From the standpoint of the New Haven approach, jurisprudence is a theory about making social choices. The primary jurisprudential and intellectual tasks are the prescription and application of policy in ways that maintain community order and simultaneously achieve the best possible approximation of the community’s social goals.[2] These normative social goals or values of the New Haven approach include the production of wealth, of enlightenment, of skill, of health and well-being, of affection, of respect and rectitude.[3] In 2007, the Yale Journal of International Law convened a conference to discuss whether there is now a purported New New Haven Approach.[4] The New New Haven Approach draws heavily upon the older methodology of Transnational Legal Process (TLP) and seeks to encompass both the New Haven Approach and TLP. The key elements of the purported New New Haven approach are described as follows: the "scholarship often takes a normative stand;" it "often takes a flexible approach to the actors of international law;" and it "adopts a practice-oriented study of the norms and processes of international law in action on the ground."[5]
International Relations/International Law approach
[edit]Realism
[edit](Enforcement Theory)
Rational Choice and Game theory
[edit]Liberalism
[edit]Institutionalism
[edit](Managerialism)
Transnational Legal Process
[edit]Constructivism
[edit]Normativism (Reputational Theory) (Legitimacy Theory)
Organizational-Cultural Theory
[edit](Bureucratic politics theory)[6]
http://gradworks.umi.com/32/96/3296923.html
Footnotes
[edit]- ^ Reisman, Michael. “The View from the New Haven School of International Law” International Law in Contemporary Perspective (Foundation Press, New York, NY 1992)
- ^ Reisman (2004), 2
- ^ Reisman (2004), 5
- ^ Dickinson, Laura. “COMMENTARY:Toward a 'New' New Haven School of International Law?" The Yale Journal of International Law, Inc. (Yale Journal of International Law 2007)
- ^ Dickinson, Commentary(2007)
- ^ Carlos Fernando Diaz-Paniagua, International Law and the Decision Making Process: Some Observation on Tacsan's Alternative Approach, International Legal Theory, V. II (1) 1996, pp. 9-10:
States are not unitary decision making actors but sets of bureaucrats bargaining between themselves. The actions attributed to the state are not rationally chosen solutions to particular problems but rather the result from compromise, conflict, and confusion among officials with diverse interests and unequal influence. Therefore, governmental action is either the agglomeration of independent decisions taken and actions performed by individuals or coalitions of individuals, or the outcome of a formal decision which results from a combination of either the preferences and relative influence of the central actors or of the special subset of actors dealing with the particular issue. (...) In a decision making process described in Allison's terms, International law can play four different roles. First, it might be an element in the formation of the individual actors' goals and interests. Second, it might be part of the subject matter being decided. Third, it might be a bargaining advantage in the hands of some of the actors; and, fourth, it can be part of the constraints that might exist upon the bargaining process. Its effectiveness depends on whether, in any of these roles, it affects the decision making process in such a way that the final outcome will comply or be in accordance with its substantive provisions.