Faculty Sponsor(s)
Kenneth Knowlton
Subject Area
Philosophy
Description
Who enforces international law? The answer lies in the different countries that make up international treaties and bodies that legislate international law. These laws conceptually are supposed to serve the same purpose that laws domestically do. They are meant to preserve justice for the different nations, with a theoretical framework that follows liberal ideals popularized by theorists like H.L.A Hart. However, these conceptions are wholly inaccurate as they lack the historical context that any analysis and justification of a system must need to be valid. I begin with a historical analysis of how the legal system has been used under the framework popularized by Hart. Historical analysis shows why things are what they are, rather than leaving the state of the world entirely to theory. I then will combine the analyses of China Mieville, Margaret Davies, and Sora Han to construct a new vision of international law as it really is: a mechanism of violence for selfish ends. This critique will focus on how international law is predicated on coercive violence, creates and sustains itself through its own normative truths, and how legal precedence taints the roots of international law. Through this I argue that international law is not a mechanism for justice, but instead a veil for the oligarchy of powerful nations to have their way with those that lack the strength to resist.
Recommended Citation
McMillen, Kenneth H., "The Veil of Jurisprudence: How International Law Masks Coercive Violence" (2026). Linfield University Student Symposium: A Celebration of Scholarship and Creative Achievement. Event. Submission 8.
https://digitalcommons.linfield.edu/symposium/2026/all/8
The Veil of Jurisprudence: How International Law Masks Coercive Violence
Who enforces international law? The answer lies in the different countries that make up international treaties and bodies that legislate international law. These laws conceptually are supposed to serve the same purpose that laws domestically do. They are meant to preserve justice for the different nations, with a theoretical framework that follows liberal ideals popularized by theorists like H.L.A Hart. However, these conceptions are wholly inaccurate as they lack the historical context that any analysis and justification of a system must need to be valid. I begin with a historical analysis of how the legal system has been used under the framework popularized by Hart. Historical analysis shows why things are what they are, rather than leaving the state of the world entirely to theory. I then will combine the analyses of China Mieville, Margaret Davies, and Sora Han to construct a new vision of international law as it really is: a mechanism of violence for selfish ends. This critique will focus on how international law is predicated on coercive violence, creates and sustains itself through its own normative truths, and how legal precedence taints the roots of international law. Through this I argue that international law is not a mechanism for justice, but instead a veil for the oligarchy of powerful nations to have their way with those that lack the strength to resist.