An analysis of stagnation in multilateral law-making – and why the law of the sea has transcended the stagnation trend. (6th December 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Motzfeldt Kravik, Andreas
• Is Part Of: Leiden journal of international law. Volume 34:Number 4(2021)
• Page Start: 935
• Page End: 956
• Publication Date: 2021-12-06
• Subjects: cyber law -- humanitarian law -- law of the sea -- multilateralism -- stagnation; International law -- Periodicals; International courts -- Periodicals; 341.05
• DOI: 10.1017/S092215652100039X
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0922-1565

Abstract

Abstract: The article explores the current stagnation in multilateral law-making based on an analysis of recent treaty attempts across various subfields of international law. It further examines why the law of the sea has continued to evolve despite this trend. The article demonstrates that states still regularly seek multilateral treaties to address new challenges. While there is some evidence of general treaty saturation, it is the current inability of traditional great powers to negotiate new binding norms which is the most constraining factor on multilateral law-making. This in turn is related to deeper geopolitical shifts by which traditional great powers, notably the United States and its allies, have seen their relative influence decline. Until the current great power competition ends or settles into a new mode of international co-operation, new multilateral treaties with actual regulatory effect will rarely emerge. The law of the sea has avoided the current trend of stagnation for primarily three reasons (i) a global commitment to the basic tenets of the law of the sea; (ii) a legal framework that affords rights and obligations somewhat evenly disbursed, allowing less powerful states to use their collective leverage to advance multilateral negotiations, despite intermittent great power opposition; and (iii) the avoidance of entrenched multilateral forums where decisions are reached by consensus only.