University of Tehran Public Law Studies Quarterly 2423-8120 55 3 2025 09 23 Chromatic International Law; On Authority in International Law Chromatic International Law; On Authority in International Law 1553 1578 103443 10.22059/jplsq.2025.396069.3764 FA Hassan Jafaritabar Associate Professor, Department of Private and Islamic Law, Faculty of Law and Political Science, ‎University of Tehran, Iran‎ Journal Article 2025 05 26 International law has historically manifested in two distinct paradigms: Monochromatic International Law and Multichromatic International Law. Monochromaticity, advocated by thinkers like Kant and Grotius, aims to unify international relations within a singular legal framework or a universal federation (monism), ultimately striving for a cosmopolitan world and lasting peace. In contrast, Multichromaticity, rooted in the philosophies of Jean Bodin and Hegel, embraces diversity and recognizes the struggle for acknowledgment among distinct entities. Postmodern International Law emerges as a synthesis of these two approaches, integrating monochromatic and multichromatic principles under the dual banners of globalism—drawing from Kantian cosmopolitanism—and the prominence of non-state actors, reflecting Hegelian dialectical pluralism. However, despite its emphasis on peace, Chromatic International Law remains indifferent to humanity, states, non-states, and the world at large. Instead, it prioritizes the country as the central unit serving humanity by addressing the disorder in international law caused by the proliferation of state and non-state actors. The concept of a country extends beyond the definition of a state. While the number of states globally may rise to around two hundred, historical and geopolitical realities limit the number of true countries to no more than ten—among which Iran must undoubtedly be included. International law has historically manifested in two distinct paradigms: Monochromatic International Law and Multichromatic International Law. Monochromaticity, advocated by thinkers like Kant and Grotius, aims to unify international relations within a singular legal framework or a universal federation (monism), ultimately striving for a cosmopolitan world and lasting peace. In contrast, Multichromaticity, rooted in the philosophies of Jean Bodin and Hegel, embraces diversity and recognizes the struggle for acknowledgment among distinct entities. Postmodern International Law emerges as a synthesis of these two approaches, integrating monochromatic and multichromatic principles under the dual banners of globalism—drawing from Kantian cosmopolitanism—and the prominence of non-state actors, reflecting Hegelian dialectical pluralism. However, despite its emphasis on peace, Chromatic International Law remains indifferent to humanity, states, non-states, and the world at large. Instead, it prioritizes the country as the central unit serving humanity by addressing the disorder in international law caused by the proliferation of state and non-state actors. The concept of a country extends beyond the definition of a state. While the number of states globally may rise to around two hundred, historical and geopolitical realities limit the number of true countries to no more than ten—among which Iran must undoubtedly be included. https://jplsq.ut.ac.ir/article_103443_f1f83bd16a373c13c9e1388e55ce51f8.pdf