sciplinary scholarship fusing IR and PIL (“compliance” studies and “legalization”
literature), coercive factors again fade into the background.
To address this gap in the literature, this project [conference and edited book] will bringtogether original research in various contexts where coercion is at play, and would befruitfully explored by theoretical, doctrinal, empirical studies in PIL. We can look both tolongstanding tensions that remain unresolved or underexplored within PIL scholarship, aswell as to topics that are emerging as practices change. Among the former, possible topics
include the “use of force” doctrine delineated in the UN Charter, “duress” as a
circumstances precluding responsibility (justification or excuse) under the law of stateresponsibility; as well as the different treatment of agents of the state under the laws of war, diplomatic immunity, and law of treaties.
Among the latter, the currency of the topicis evident in emerging coercive mechanisms and forms of regulation of coercion in the
context of (1) the doctrinal and institutional “fragmentation” of international law, (2) the
emergence of international criminal law (ICL), the newly formulated definition of
“aggression” in the ICC, as well as the elaboration of rules of evi
dence and proceduretherein, (3) the tension and interplay between humanitarian law of armed conflict and
human rights law, (4) the expanding scope and “legislative” force of sanctions imposed by
the UN Security Council, and (5) economic sanctions and various intersections betweeninter-state trade, multinational corporate activity, and public and private violence. Theseexamples are salient ones but by no means exhaustive; a few key themes and analytics willbe developed below in order to help identify a relevant range of topics for the project.
than an analogy, to recognize that there is a zone of contingency at the heart of international law. It is not surprisingthat states experiencing states of emergency, whether through formal doctrines or contingent decisions, oftenattempt to exit from obligations under international law. Nor is it a novel insight to say that emergency situationshave trans-border effects. However, recent experience shows us that there are actually transnational processes,including some based in international law that rather than restraining emergency measures, but also facilitate them..5
Apart from the very general level at which concepts in IR (such as ―balance of power‖) rely upon coercivecapacities, a more focused literature has grown on the issues of ―coercive inducement‖ and ―coercive prevention.‖
See Donald C.F. Daniel, Bradd C. Hayes, and Chantal de Jonge Oudraat,
Coercive Inducement and the Containment of International Crises
. Washington: United States Institute of Peace, 1999.
Bruce W. Jentleson, ―
CoercivePrevention: Normative, Political, and Policy Dilemmas
No. 35. Washington: United States Institute of Peace, 2000.6 See e.g., Michael Glennon,
The Fog of Law
(Stanford 2010). (Glennon grounds the effectiveness of international
law precisely in its lack of coercive power: ―In contrast to states is ultimately
upheld through coercion, internationallaw is based on consent: states must choose to abide by the strictures and obligations of international law, and they
can just as easily withdraw their consent‖).
7 In his only mention of international law in his legal and philosophical study of coercion, Alan Wertheimer
observes that ―if a soldier surrenders and is taken prisoner of war, he cannot argue that he acquires no obligations to
his captors because he surrenders under duress. And whereas coercion applied to the representative of a state will
invalidate a treaty the coercion imposed by the victor [state] upon the vanquished state will not.‖ Alan Wertheimer,
(Princeton 1987) at 170-171 (citing on the POWs, Michael Walzer,
(Harvard University Press1970) and on the other points citing and quoting Lassa Oppenheim, International Law, Vol. I, 8th Ed.  at 891).
In addition to Wertheimer‘s monograph, the 1972 volume of
collects a number of perspectives by legalphilosophers on coercion. J. Ronald Pennock and John Chapman, eds.,
Nomos XIV: Coercion
(New York: AldineAtherton 1972).