Authoritarian International Law? - In Conversation with Tom Ginsburg

What were the defining events of 2024? Which new publications impressed us the most? What do we expect from the upcoming year in global politics and in terms of new intellectual trends?  Today, we, editors of the Review of Democracy bring you our traditional end of the year podcast. 2024 has been another exciting year for our journal. We have managed to expand in new directions, doubling our core team of editors and opening global horizons, while continuing to focus on our main thematic priorities – Democracy and Culture, the History of Ideas, Political Economy, and the Rule of Law. This episode features no fewer than nine speakers: co-managing editors Robert Nemeth – who acted as our host – and Ferenc Laczó, global editors Anubha Anushree, Ece Ozbey, and Gabriel Pereira as well as section heads Oliver Garner, Adrian Matus, Alexandra Medzibrodszky, and Kristóf Szombati. Enjoy the holidays – and don’t forget to return in early 2025 when we shall bring you more fresh analyses and reflections!

In this conversation at the Review of Democracy, Todd Stern – former United States Special Envoy for Climate Change – explains what made the Paris Climate Agreement such a groundbreaking document and what kind of bargaining and compromises it took to make it happen; discusses the place and role of the US within its broad coalition as well as his extensive engagement with his crucial Chinese partners; and considers major new possibilities to tackle climate change effectively and current obstacles to do so.

International law is a live instrument in the current global geopolitical crisis. This latest RevDem Rule of Law podcast, conducted by Konstantin Kipp with Professor Tom Ginsburg, reflects upon the potentially authoritarian nature of international law in its function of enabling relations between states. Authoritarian regimes have traditionally been reluctant to engage in robust forms of international cooperation. Reasons for this may include strong nationalist views, and concerns that cross-border engagement could invite interference in domestic affairs or constrain the government’s autonomy. Consequently, international law has largely been shaped by liberal democracies. However, this stance appears to be shifting in the 21st century. Just as authoritarian regimes once recognized the strategic value of adopting new constitutions and utilizing seemingly democratic institutions in order to gain legitimacy, they are now beginning to see international law as a potential tool to legitimize their policies and strengthen the pursuit of their preferences. This development was identified by Professor Tom Ginsburg in his 2020 article “Authoritarian International Law?” published in the American Journal of International Law. Half a decade on from this publication, Professor Ginsburg discusses his findings on this still-emerging phenomenon and considers its potential future developments. Past, Present, and Future Authoritarian International Law Ginsburg provides an introduction to the history of Authoritarian International Law (AIL), highlighting the pivotal turning point as marked by the year 2006. He claims that this was the peak for global democracies and that subsequently the story is one of decline.  The conversation explores current developments in international law, raising a concern that the United States’ potential shift towards isolationism could cede the international playing field to authoritarian forces like China or Russia, thereby fueling the development of AIL. Ginsburg describes AIL as “designed to extend the survival and reach of authoritarian rule across space and/or time.” AIL is seen as having the potential not only to secure the persistence of existing authoritarian regimes, but also to be a possible trigger for further authoritarianism. The podcast addresses the extent to which this feature is inherently embedded within AIL, given that liberal democracies tend to pose a challenge to authoritarian regimes. Ginsburg reflects upon whether there is a danger that authoritarians might create entirely new international legal systems and institutions, or else seek to capture and transform existing bodies. While an American return to isolationism might fuel the development of AIL, there is also significant concern that the U.S. could veer toward dictatorship during Donald Trump’s second presidency. Statements by President-elect Trump, such as suggestions that people “won’t have to vote anymore,” imply at the very least authoritarian aspirations. Ginsburg reflects upon whether U.S. isolationism is truly the main danger to international law, or instead whether a government under Donald Trump may actively engage in promoting AIL. Ginsburg offers his view on why, despite his authoritarian nature, Donald Trump will not be able to become the dictator of the United States of America. Authoritarian European Union Law? While the European Union continues to embody relatively strong democratic values among most Member States compared to other regions, right-wing populism with authoritarian aspirations has also been on the rise. The EU's most notable authoritarian leader, Viktor Orbán, has recently advocated that right-wing populists should “occupy” Brussels. Ginsburg considers whether the emergence of authoritarian EU law may be possible. One of the EU’s current strategies for addressing “backsliding” on its values, including democracy and the Rule of Law, is financial conditionality. It remains to be seen whether this tool may effectively halt the trend towards authoritarianism in the long term, or whether it may indeed exacerbate it. Ginsburg concludes his reflections on the supranational dimension of AIL by musing upon whether the Eurasian Economic Committee, discussed in his 2020 article, could evolve into a serious competitor that promotes authoritarian rather than democratic values in the Europe-Asia region. Preventing the Emergence of Authoritarian International Law Tom Ginsburg suggests that there is a strong possibility that the 21st century will be known more as an authoritarian century rather than a democratic one. The notion that international law guarantees a right to democratic governance has faced substantial criticism; Ginsburg challenges this idea as well. The podcast concludes with reflection upon the options for democratic countries to prevent international law becoming authoritarian. Could civil society – whether or not such societies aspire to be ‘open’ or not – prevent the authoritarian transformation of international law? Ginsburg concludes his contributions by emphasizing how recent developments in South Korea illustrate the vital role of civil society in the struggle for democracy. Such struggle, for democracy and against authoritarianism, is set to continue in the second half of the 2020s.

In this conversation at the Review of Democracy, Ionuț Biliuță discusses the connections between Orthodoxy and nationalism in Romania and to what extent they have influenced this year’s presidential elections; the revival of narratives concerning ‘fascist martyrs’ by Călin Georgescu and other radicals; the impact the 2018 Constitutional referendum on same-sex marriage had on radicalization;  the ideas in transnational circulation that have inspired Georgescu's statements, including Alexander Dugin’s and those of Donald Trump’s Evangelical supporters; and the steps that the Romanian Orthodox Church could take to dissociate itself from far-right discourses.

Join Review of Democracy Latin American Editor Gabriel Pereira as he hosts Andrés Malamud, a leading scholar of Latin American politics, to discuss a crucial development in current political affairs: the rise of successful political outsiders in Latin America. The podcast focuses on and draws lessons from the experience of current Argentine president Javier Milei. It delves into pivotal questions: How do outsiders get elected in a political system designed to secure electoral competition among established political leaders? How do they navigate constraints posed by legislatures dominated by opposition? Does the rise of political outsiders from the global north influence the progress of these Latin American leaders? Does the radical right-wing ideology of outsiders make them more effective? What are the lessons for understanding current Latin American politics?

We are thrilled to publish the second episode of our monthly special in cooperation with the Journal of Democracy. In the framework of this new partnership, authors shall discuss outstanding articles from the newest print issue of the Journal of Democracy. In this conversation, Grzegorz Ekiert and Noah Dasanaike explain their concept of dictatorial drift and how various countries have moved toward full autocracy in recent years; discuss new features of dictatorships in the early 21st century and how such regimes relate to each other; consider whether it makes sense to compare the growing trend of autocracy promotion with democracy promotion; and reflect on how full autocracies might be opposed more effectively in the future. The conversation is based on Grzegorz Ekiert and Noah Dasanaike’s article, “The Return of Dictatorship,” published in the October 2024 (35/4) issue of the Journal of Democracy.

In this conversation at the Review of Democracy, Karin van Leeuwen, Aleksandra Komornicka, and Koen van Zon – contributors to The Unfinished History of European Integration that has now appeared in a revised edition – elucidate the main questions that organize their overview of European integration history; reflect on the applicability and usefulness of various influential theories when trying to narrate the history of European integration today; show what special contributions historians can make to the interdisciplinary study of the European Union; and discuss recent advances in the historiography of European integration, specifying questions that would deserve more attention in the future.

Join Review of Democracy Ideas editor Alexandra Medzibrodszky as she hosts Professor Andrew March, a leading scholar of political philosophy and Islamic thought, to discuss On Muslim Democracy: Essays and Dialogues. The book focuses on Rached Ghannouchi’s political thought and offers a unique perspective on the intersection of Islamic principles and modern democratic governance. The podcast delves into pivotal questions: What distinguishes “Islamic Democracy” from “Muslim Democracy” in Ghannouchi’s work? How does Ghannouchi balance the realities of practical politics with the ideals of Islamic thought? Professor March also reflects on the challenges of translating Arabic political philosophy into English, shedding light on the complexities of capturing essential terms and ideas across languages. A unique aspect of the book is the Philosophical-Theological Dialogues, based on in-person conversations between March and Ghannouchi. These dialogues provide a rare and engaging format, bringing Ghannouchi’s ideas into conversation with Western political theory and reveal how cross-cultural intellectual engagement can deepen our understanding of democracy’s diverse expressions.

In this conversation with Kristin M. Plys, we delve deeply into the nature and quality of Indian democracy by examining the legacy and impact of its resistance movements. Plys’ recent book, Brewing Resistance (Cambridge University Press, 2020), studies the Indian Coffee House movement—a unique, worker-driven cooperative that flourished in the 1970s. This movement not only symbolized a shared space for political discourse but also became a hub for anti-authoritarian sentiment, especially during the turbulent years of the Emergency (1975-77), when democratic freedoms were severely curtailed by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi's government. Plys discusses how the imposition of the Emergency, a period marked by mass censorship, arrests, and suspension of civil liberties, offers an opportunity to study the layered political landscape of India. The Indian Coffee House played a critical role in this setting, functioning as both a sanctuary for dissenters and a platform for organizing resistance against state repression. The Coffee House movement’s ties to anti-colonial labor struggles also shaped its legacy, as workers' collectives organized within the Coffee House drew on earlier traditions of anti-imperialist and labor rights activism. These connections underscored a distinctive postcolonial narrative in which anti-colonial aspirations became entwined with the fight for labor rights, impacting political outcomes not only within India but also across the Global South, where similar struggles for autonomy and equity were underway. The Emergency is particularly significant in the conversation, as it catalyzed a diverse range of voices and forced new actors onto the political stage. By examining these anti-establishment leftist movements, Plys offers a nuanced lens to understand both the ruptures and continuities in India's democratic history. Ultimately, the dialogue not only reconsiders India’s democratic journey through the lens of resistance but also provides insights into the potential future paths of democracy in India and other postcolonial contexts, exploring how historical struggles inform contemporary democratic challenges and the broader political landscape of the region.

The Second World Approaches to International Law (SWAIL) project, which will be launched at Central European University in Vienna in February 2025,  aims to establish a more accurate way of conceptualising East Central Europe’s position in, and relationship with, international law. Three themes arise continuously throughout the podcast: liminality, domination, and the emancipatory potential of international law. Liminality is the cornerstone of the SWAIL project. It is discussed throughout the podcast, whether in reference to geography, epistemology, or time. Patryk identifies an issue whereby East Central Europe is too readily thought of as part of the West, when for him, and he proposes for others from this region, it should be thought of as both in and out, speaking to its liminal place in the global order. The result of this false conceptualisation is East Central Europe’s dual exclusion from theoretical understandings of international law; East Central Europe will not feature as the protagonist in a top-down study, nor is it the subject of post-colonial research. Patryk’s proposition is it ought not be sandwiched into either of these camps, rather East Central Europe’s place in international law ought to be understood in its own, fundamentally in-between, position. Communicating his driving thesis, he points out the contradistinction between Ukraine’s experience of the Russian invasion and Poland’s roles in the invasion of Iraq. East Central Europe is a geographic space sharing parallels with the West and the Global South but sharing space with neither. The most significant parallel Patryk makes between East Central Europe and the Global South is their joint experience of domination by external states. Between Russian and Soviet expansion from the East and a history of Western imperialism, East Central European states have a long history of fighting for their sovereignty. By applying a modified post-colonial framework to the region, Patryk contends we can remove a blind sport from Western and Third World approaches to international law, which both fail to give appropriate focus to non-European colonialist entities. Considering East Central Europe’s vulnerable position, it would be wrong not to consider what the recent US election means for the area’s geopolitics. Fortunately, we interviewed Patryk the day after the election. Patryk identified an understandable trepidation in East Central Europe leading up to the election. In the wake of the result, he deems a reconceptualization of the region’s security methods to be necessary. The issue gets to the heart of the SWAIL project, international law itself has been somewhat thrown into the liminal flux, exhibiting a bulwark of rules designed to protect states, but lacking a leader on which vulnerable states can rely to enforce those rules. These rules link to the final theme, which made for a surprisingly optimistic podcast given the current regional context: Patryk identifies emancipatory potential in international law. This optimism flowed into the podcast aboard two vessels, NATO and the Special Tribunal for the Crimes of Aggression against Ukraine by Russia, although it is clear Patryk’s optimism extended beyond these, applying to international law more generally. Regarding the former, Patryk identifies a worrying acceptance among many Global South actors of Russia’s justifications for its aggression when, for Patryk, NATO membership is a sensible defensive measure for East Central Europe to take given the region’s aforementioned geographical vulnerability and related history of imperial domination. Concerning the latter focus, Patryk rejects a commonly advocated position that all special tribunals entrench double standards in international law and communicate a message of selective criminal justice. Patryk identifies binary state-to-state, or region-to-region, comparisons as a misleading way to interpret international law. For Patryk, special tribunals like the one for Ukraine or similar experiments in the Central African Republic and Colombia can also be interpreted as a form of respect for the demands of weaker states in the global order; by shifting the framework away from binaries like Global North versus the Global South or West versus the Rest many more factors can be identified that unites second- and third-world countries than divides them. It is on the point of unity beyond binaries that Patryk already identifies potential scope for expansion of the SWAIL project. Latin America is a region in which he foresees particularly fruitful parallels and avenues for interesting scholarship. For the time being, the project exhibits significant potential, hopefully enabling a better understanding of East Central Europe’s position in international law, which may guide thought on a region that is already and will continue to be pivotal to world order moving forward.