Chinese Journal of International Law Advance Access originally published online on June 13, 2009
Chinese Journal of International Law 2009 8(2):291-298; doi:10.1093/chinesejil/jmp013
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
© The Author 2009. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved
AGORA: KOSOVO (PART 2) |
What Role for Academic Writers in Interpreting International Law?—A Rejoinder to Orakhelashvili
Correspondence: * Professor, Innsbruck University, Austria (email: peter.hilpold{at}uibk.ac.at). This paper was completed on 30 April 2009.
The points of criticism advanced by Orakhelashvili can be confuted easily. Secession is a fact. A rule according to which secession can produce legal effects only to the extent these are allowed, as identified by Orakhelashvili, cannot be found in International Law. On a whole, the right to self-determination is a far more complex concept than portrayed by Orakhelashvili. Finally, Orakhelashvili seems to attribute a very limited role to the academic writer in norm interpretation: the straightforward choice between "right" and "false" interpretations. However, a more nuanced position must be taken.