Public Law Studies Quarterly

Lawmaking by the International Court of Justice from the Perspective of Weberian Rationality

Document Type : Article

Authors

Ali Abdollahpour 1
Fazlollah Mousavi 2

1 Ph.D. Student‏ ‏in International law, Department of Public Law, Faculty of Law and Political ‎Science, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran‎

2 Professor, Department of Public Law, Faculty of Law and Political Science, University of Tehran, ‎Tehran, Iran

https://doi.org/10.22059/jplsq.2024.364397.3382
Abstract
The reliance of the International Court of Justice's legislation on rationality can play a significant role in the public acceptance of the Court's rulings. By adopting a sociological-legal perspective on the Court's actions, it can theoretically facilitate the development of international law through the Court's rule-making. Therefore, this research aims to theorize the possibility of aligning the Court's legislative actions with rational actions and types of Weberian rationality, using a descriptive-analytical method. This article acknowledges the specific approach to rationality and concludes that the Court's legislation, as a translinguistic concept, can be understood as the creation of rules and the establishment of rational and obligatory action patterns by the Court. The Court's actions in law-making can be categorized under value-oriented rational action and goal-oriented rational action. However, the relationship between the Court's actions and emotional or traditional actions is one of contrast. Additionally, among the four types of Weberian rationality, the Court's legislation can be characterized as theoretical, intrinsic, and formal rationality, while considering the identified components for practical rationality, this Court's action cannot be classified as practical rationality.

Keywords

International Court Of Justice
law-making
Max Weber
rationality
social actions
Subjects

  1. English

    1. A) Books
    2. Aharon, B. (2005). Purposive Interpretation in Law. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
    3. Bennett, Christopher (2012). The Apology Ritual: A Philosophical Theory of Punishment. first edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    4. Luhmann Niklas (2016). A Sociological Theory of Law. edited by: Martin Albrow. translated by: Elizabeth King-Utz, and Martin Albrow. Published by Routledge, Schawrnzenbergr, G. (1972). Equity in International Law. Yearbook of World Affairs.
    5. Schawrnzenbergr, G. (1972). Equity in International Law. Yearbook of World Affairs.
    6. Schutz, A. (1962)1984. Collected Papers: The Problem of Social Reality. The Hague/Boston/London: Martinus Nijhoff.
    7. Thirlway, Hugh (2019). The Sources of International Law. Oxford: Oxford Public International Law.
    8. Weber, M. (1930) 2005. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. translated by Talcott Parsons. London and New York: Taylor & Francis e-Library.
    9. Weber, M. (1946/1958). Essays in Sociology. In M. Weber, H. Gerth, & C. W. Mills (Eds.) From Max Weber. New York: Oxford University Press.
    10. Weber, M. (1951). The Religion of China. Translated and edited by Hans H. Gerth. New York: Free Press.
    11. Weber, M. (1968). Economy and Society. Edited by Guenther Roth and Claus Wittich. New York: Bedminister. Originally: (1921) 1976. Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft, Edited by Johannes Winckelmann, Tubingen: Mohr.

     

    1. B) Articles
    2. Brunnée, J. & Christopher Campbell-Duruflé (2022). International Legislation. Max Planck Encyclopedias of International Law [MPEPIL], 1-20.
    3. Kalberg, S. (1980). Max Weber's Types of Rationality: Cornerstones for the Analysis of Rationalization Processes in History. The American Journal of Sociology, 85(5), 1145-1179.
    4. Kolb, Robert (2006). Principles as Sources of International Law; with Special Reference to Good Faith. Netherlands International Law Review, (53), 1-36.
    5. Mosterín, J, (2002). Acceptance Without Belief. Manuscrito, Instituto de Filosofía CSIC Calle Pinar, (25), 313–335.
    6. Swidler, Ann (1973). The Concept of Rationality in the Work of Max Weber. Sociological Inquiry, 43 (1), 35-42.
    7. Tucker, William, T. (1965). Max Weber's Verstehen. The Sociological Quarterly, Taylor & Francis, 6 (2), 157-165.
    8. Weber, M, (1946) 2010. Politics as Vocation, H. Gerth and C. W. Mills (eds). Oxford University Press. 77-127.

     

    1. C) Cases
    2. Aegean Sea Continental Shelf (Greece v Turkey) (Judgment), ICJ Reports 1978.
    3. Amco Asia Corporation and Others v. Republic of Indonesia, (1986), ICSID Case No. ARB/81/1, Ad hoc Committee Decision on the Application for Annulment of May 16, 1986, 25 ILM 1439.
    4. Anglo-Iranian Oil Co. case (jurisdiction), judgment of July 22nd, I952: I. C. Reports I952.
    5. Case Concerning Barcelona Traction, Light, and Power Company, Ltd [1970] ICJ Reports 1970.
    6. Case concerning Right of Passage over Indian Territory, (1960) Merits,(Portugal v. India) Merits, ICJ Reports, 1960.
    7. Case Concerning Rights of United States Nationals in Morocco, (France v. United States of America), JUDGMENT OF AUGUST 27th, 1952.
    8. Corfu Channel Case (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v. People's Republic of Albania) (Merits), ICJ Reports 1949.
    9. Dispute Regarding Navigational and Related Rights, (2009) Merits,(Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), ICJ Reports, 2009.
    10. Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America, Declaration of judge ad hoc Momtaz, December 2022, Reports of Judgments, Advisory Opinions and Orders: Alleged Violations of the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America) , pp 65-79, Request for the Indication of Provisional Measures - Order of 3 October 2018.
    11. Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia Notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276, Advisory Opinion of 21 June 1971, I.C.J Reports, 1971.
    12. Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970) (Advisory Opinion), ICJ Reports 1971.
    13. North Sea Continental Shelf Cases, (1969) Merits, (Federal Republic of Germany/Denmark; Federal Republic of Germany/Netherlands), ICJ Reports.
    14. Norway v. USA (Norwegian shipowners’ claims), 13 October 1922.
    15. Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadic aka "Dule" (Opinion and Judgment), IT-94-1-T, International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), 7 May 1997.
    16. Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay), Judgment of 20 April 2010.
    17. Reparation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations, Advisory Opinion 11 April 1949, ICJ. Reports, 1949.
    18. Reservations To The Convention On The Prevention And Punishment Of The Crime Of Genocide, Advisory Opinion, International Court of Justice, 1951 ICJ Report 1951.
    19. Special Court of Sierra Leone, Prosecutor v. Sam Hinga Norman, 31 May 2004, No. SCSL-2004-14-AR72(E).

     

    References In Persian:

    1. A) Books
    2. Abazari, Y. (2022). Wisdom of Sociology. fifth edition. Tehran: New Design (In Persian).
    3. Ansari, B. (2013). The role of the judge in the transformation of the legal system. second edition. Tehran: Mizan (In Persian).
    4. Brubaker, R. (2015). The limits of rationality. translated by Shahnaz Mosamaparast. Tehran: Parse (In Persian).
    5. Cassese, A. (1991). International Law in a Divided World. translated by Mortaza Calantarian. First Edition. Tehran: The International Law Office (ILO) (In Persian).
    6. Freund, J. (2004). Sociology of Max Weber. translated by Abdul Hossein Nik-Gohar. first edition. Tehran: Tutia (In Persian).
    7. Giddens, A. (2005). Central issues in social theory, action, structure and contradiction and social analysis. translated by Mohammad Rezaei. first edition. Tehran: Saad (In Persian).
    8. Keynia, M. (2021). Fundamentals of Criminology. 19th edition. Tehran: University of Tehran (In Persian).
    9. Khalafi, M. (2009). Legal foundations of crime prevention. first edition. Qom: Noor al-Sajad (In Persian).
    10. Majdfar, F. (2013). General Sociology. first edition. Tehran, Shua (In Persian).
    11. Mirzaei, K. (2006). English-Persian specialized dictionary of humanities. , first edition. Tehran: Hafiz (In Persian).
    12. Mohibi, M. (2014). Discussions of oil and gas rights in the light of international arbitration procedure. third edition. Tehran: Shahr Danesh (In Persian).
    13. Mohseni, M. (2016). Sociology of social deviations. third edition. Tehran: Tahori (In Persian).
    14. Sadat Meidani, H. (2008). Legislative authority of the Security Council. second edition. Tehran: Bureau of Political and International Studies (In Persian).
    15. Tanhaee, H. A. (2014). An introduction to sociological schools and theories. Gonabad: Marandiz Publishing (In Persian).
    16. Tebbit, M. (2014). Philosophy of Law. translated by Hasan Rezaei Khavari. 4th edition Mashhad: Razavi University of Islamic Sciences (In Persian).
    17. Weber, M. (2019). Economy and society. translated by Abbas Manouchehri, Mehrdad Tarabinejad and Mostafa Emadzadeh. 7th edition. Tehran: Samt (In Persian).
    18. Weber, M. (2021). Protestant ethics and the spirit of capitalism. translated by Abdul Karim Rashidian and Parisa Manouchehri Kashani. 10th edition. Tehran: Scientific and Cultural Publications (In Persian).
    19. Zarneshan, S. (2012). Formation and identification of customary international law. first edition. Tehran: Ganj Danesh (In Persian).
    20. Ziaei Bigdeli, M. R.(2022). Public International Law. 77th edition .Tehran: Ganj Danesh (In Persian).

     

    1. B) Articles
    2. Ahmadi, O. (2012). Legitimacy of law from the perspective of Islam and Max Weber. comparative law researches, 17 (1), 1-21 (In Persian).
    3. Azad Barmaki, T, (1996). Sociology of Rationality. Qabasat, 1 (1), 39-57 (In Persian).
    4. Bagherzadeh, R., & Ranjbarian, A.H. (2015). Knowledge of international legislation in the light of general considerations of legislation in legal science. Shahid Beheshti University Legal Research Journal, 19 (74), 169-192 (In Persian).
    5. Bashiriyeh, Hosein (1989). Fundamentals of Max Weber's Religious Sociology - Part II. Tehran University Faculty of Law and Political Science Journal, (24), 203-223 (In Persian).
    6. Gha`eminia, A. R. (2004). What is rationality. Mind (Zihn) Scientific Research Quarterly, (17), 1-12 (In Persian).
    7. Habibi Majandeh, M., & Kamyar-rad, S. (2017). Rule-making in the International Court of Justice through dynamic interpretation. International Law Review (ILR), (58), 65-88 (In Persian).
    8. Habibi, H., & Shamlu, S. (2012). The role of the International Court of Justice in the development of international law. Journal of Public Law Research, 15 (41), 71-114 (In Persian).
    9. Hoseini Jebeli, M. (2002). Customs from a sociological and legal perspective. Ma`rifat, (56), 110-129 (In Persian).
    10. Mohebbi, M., & Amini, A. (2013). The principle of fairness and its rule-making capacity in the procedure of the International Court of Justice. International Law Review (ILR). (51) 9-40 (In Persian).
    11. Moradi Pasand, G., Bashirieh, T., & Gholami, H. (2019). Fundamentals of ethical, philosophical and legal interactional decriminalization. Ethical Researches, 10(3), 263-286 (In Persian).
    12. Mumtaz, J. (2010). Introduction, in: collection of articles of the conference on the role of the International Court of Justice in the continuation and development of international law, Tehran: Iranian Association of United Nations Studies, first edition (In Persian).
    13. Ramezani, M. H. (2010). Looking at environmental issues in the decision of the International Court of Justice in the paper pulp factory case. Comparative Law, (85), 79-100 (In Persian).
    14. Rasoolpour, A., & Abedini, A. (2012). Moving towards rule-making and contemporary concepts: judicial procedure in the mirror of the International Court of Justice. Legal Researches, (21), 133-176 (In Persian).

     

Public Law Studies Quarterly
Volume 55, Issue 3 - Serial Number 43
Autumn 2025
Autumn 2025
Pages 1703-1727

  • Receive Date 19 September 2023
  • Revise Date 10 December 2023
  • Accept Date 15 April 2024

Home

Journal Process Ethics

Peer Review Process

Submission

Indexing and Abstracting

Contact Us