WHY_IL.xlsx

	A	B	C
1	What is International Law good for, if the most powerful actors do not abide by the rules?	Please type your full name and area of research	How would you like to be quoted?
2	I follow a rather classic take, in that I believe that IL is much more than its violations, in a ‘tip of the iceberg situation’. International law is also generally misunderstood as being not ‘real’, not effective because powerful actors do not abide by the rules. However, that does not mean - and it should not mean - that we should get rid of the rules. This isn’t only because the reasoning can be pushed to the absurd (a lot of domestic rules would also then have to go if ‘effective’ is to mean ‘everyone abides by it’). IL is not only a set of rules; it also makes up a framework, a ‘language’ that is widely shared. Indeed, those powerful actors still mention IL, even if it is to deny that it applies in their specific situation. Having a language/framework in common is vital in a crisis - actors that talk past each other will struggle a lot more than those that share a vocabulary. In that sense, not giving up on IL as a framework - despite the drawbacks - is smart and necessary.	Héloïse Guichardaz, International Law	Name and Area of Research
3	This is a good question, and one we should be asking not just about International Law, but Law in general, and not only in moments of crisis like these, but also in the periods of relative peace between them. What is Law good for if Russia can invade Ukraine, if Amazon can exploit workers and avoid tax, if pharmaceutical companies can make life-saving medicines unaffordable, if criminal gangs can operate across the globe? One common answer is that Law remains useful in providing certainty and stability in society because most actors follow most laws most of the time. While true, this answer offers little comfort to those suffering the effects of, or outraged by, the behaviour of powerful actors. Doubly so, when we realise that powerful actors can do just as much, if not more, harm when they do abide by the rules (since laws are written and enforced in ways that often protect the powerful at the expense of the powerless). There is no easy solution to this problem, but the need to find one is growing increasingly urgent.	Christopher M.J. Boyd, International Labour Law	Name and Area of Research
4	Nothing	Anonym	Anonymous
5	Financial stability!	International Economic Law	Area of Research only
6	International Law is often mistaken as a force of good in itself. Instead of assuming the intrinsic benevolent quality of International Law we need to understand that it is an instrument that can serve both well-intentioned and ill-intentioned agendas. At the same time, we need to have in mind that for as much as International Law may outlaws some forms of violence, it simultaneously legitimises violence through the introduction of exceptions (e.g. Security Council Authorisation) or specific legal regimes (e.g. IHL). Be that as it may, International Law often provides the goalposts in which the political game is played, restricting in that way, or at least introducing another layer of consideration, before a powerful actor takes a decision to use force. In the end, International Law can be used for emancipatory purposes, to further peace and enhance the protection of the most vulnerables, but it can also used for the exact opposite. In fact, if we take into account its history and the unequal distribution of influence between dominant political and economic interests on the one hand and ordinary people on the other, we can safely conclude that International Law is employed quite often for justifying oppression and exploitation as well.	Andreas Piperides, International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights	Name and Area of Research
7	As far		Area of Research only
8	international law doesn't have sufficient power over most powerful nations. however, we cannot underestimate it's importance as it regulate diplomatic relations between countries, humanitarian assistance and international finance. particularly, international law doesn't have powerful implementation in the areas of armed conflict and environmental protection.		Anonymous
9	Even the biggest powers take international law into account even if they don't follow it always. So it does affect their judgement. If it weren't for international law, they wouldn't at least in part rein themselves in	Neofytos Sakellaridis Mangouras, legal theory	Name and Area of Research
10
11	International law enables the creation of global fora discussing and determining best practices that make markets more efficient, resilient, and sustainable. It has the power to circulate among jurisdictions and market actors even if not binding: those that do not abide by the rules are exposed to a significant reputational risk and may attract fewer investments.	Federica Agostini, (international) financial law and sustainability
12	International law is important, it works, and it matters. Our daily lives are regulated and shaped by international law, perhaps more than we might think, in terms of mailing a package, the items we buy and the food we eat, how we communicate with each other, the places we travel to, etc. International law, as the complex system that states use to cooperate, to regulate transnational issues, and to settle disputes, works quite well, most of the time. There is a well-known quote from Louis Henkin, which says: “Almost all nations observe almost all principles of international law and almost all of their obligations almost all of the time.” Perhaps surprisingly, states do seem to care about their reputation, and generally comply with the rules of international law. What we hear on the news are the times that bad things happen and when international law is breached and does not (seem to) work. International law is not perfect and there are certainly things that should not happen or do not work well, like human rights violations; the veto power of the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council; and a state like Russia using force and invading another country, which is happening in Ukraine now. However, most of the time, things do go well, and states respect and abide by international law. On a related note, national law is often imperfect too. Just because we have murderers, and other persons breaking the law, this does not mean that our national laws are not working. So why is it said that international law is not working, or meaningless rhetoric, if the most powerful actors do, at times, not abide by the rules? International law does make a difference, because even the most powerful actors do invoke international law and use the language of international law when defending themselves against a claim that they have breached international law. They also use the same vocabulary to accuse other states of violating a rule of international law. International law is what we have, and what we need to work with. Without international law, there would be more wars, more conflict, more death, more human rights violations, more pollution, and more harm done to the (marine) environment. Also, international law can still be effective, even if the most powerful actors do not abide by the rules at times.	Jessica Schechinger (general international law, international law of the sea, international human rights law)
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100