Paradox and Contradiction in International Law

Abstract International law abounds in paradox and contradiction, no less so in the Americas: universalism and particularism, civilization and barbarism, sovereignty and colonialism, imperialism and non-intervention, equality and racism. Whether it is legal scholars reflecting on diplomatic non-intervention, State officials legitimizing control over Indigenous populations, Catholic clerics rationalizing the Conquest of the Indies, international arbitrators deciding cases of “denial of justice,” development professionals advocating rule-of-law reforms, they all navigate and deploy definitionally incompatible concepts and imperatives. Within the Americas, these have generated a host of particular activities to mediate them: compilations of custom, histories of international practice, the search for opinio juris, Pan-American treaties, regional institutions. It is not as if international law pronouncements elsewhere consisted of principled constructions, devoid of these conflicting concepts. They too rest on pervasive epistemic contingency. However, when articulated by hegemonic subjects, their juxtapositions have the force of powerful nations. Latin American publicists and political leaders have attempted to reconcile such paradoxes and contradictions mostly on the power of discourse alone.