The The Role of Diplomatic Conferences in the Development of Legislative Mechanisms in International Law
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21271/zjlp.23.38.6Keywords:
Enforcement mechanisms, Flexibility, Inclusivity, The Bretton Woods Conference,Abstract
The current study examines the influence of three vital diplomatic conferences, The Hague Peace Conferences, the Bretton Woods Conference and the United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea III, on the development of legislative mechanisms in international law. It underscores the critical role of diplomatic gatherings in shaping norms, codifying principles and establishing institutions that address global challenges while emphasizing their continued relevance in contemporary geopolitics. The study addresses gaps in understanding how inclusivity, flexibility and enforcement mechanisms contribute to the success or failure of international legal frameworks, as well as how unresolved historical legacies, such as the Kurdish question, can be addressed through inclusive diplomacy. Employing a qualitative case study approach, the research analyzes primary and secondary sources from key historical conferences (The Hague, Bretton Woods, UNCLOS III) and recent diplomatic efforts, including climate summits and AI governance initiatives. Drawing on these historical insights, the study also analyzes contemporary diplomatic efforts, such as global climate summits and initiatives addressing the Kurdish question, to explore how modern conferences can address unresolved legacies and emerging challenges. The findings confirm the validity of international regime theory in explaining how diplomatic conferences create lasting legal structures that guide state behaviour. The findings also reveal that successful regimes are built on inclusivity, adaptability and robust enforcement mechanisms, with lessons from past conferences offering valuable insights for addressing modern geopolitical and humanitarian issues.
References
Al-Nauimi, N. and Meese, R. eds., 2023. International legal issues arising under the United Nations decade of international law. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
Boyle, A. and Chinkin, C., 2007. The making of international law. OUP Oxford.
Cremers, K., Wright, G. and Rochette, J., 2020. Strengthening monitoring, control and surveillance of human activities in marine areas beyond national jurisdiction: Challenges and opportunities for an international legally binding instrument. Marine Policy, 122, p.103976. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2020.103976
Edwards Jr, D.B., Caravaca, A., Rappeport, A. and Sperduti, V.R., 2024. World Bank influence on policy formation in education: a systematic review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 94(4), pp.584-622. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543231194725
Frieden, J., 2019. The political economy of the Bretton Woods Agreements. SSRN. https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/jfrieden/files/frieden_brettonwoods_dec2017.pdf
Ghosh, M.A.R., Ostry, M.J.D. and Tsangarides, M.C.G., 2011. Exchange rate regimes and the stability of the international monetary system. International Monetary Fund.
Herrup, P. and Brand, R.A., 2023. A Hague Parallel Proceedings Convention: Architecture and Features. Chicago Journal of International Law Online, 2, p.1. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4170254
Indlekofer, M., 2013. International arbitration and the permanent court of arbitration (Vol. 27). Kluwer Law International BV.
Kim, D.K., Lee, J. and Woo, B., 2021. Institutional Rigidity of the Bretton Woods Institutions, Domestic Politics of the US and the Establishment of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. The Korean Journal of International Studies, 19(1), pp.105-132. [Researchgate]
Kojima, C., 2017. South China Sea arbitration and the protection of the marine environment: evolution of UNCLOS part XII through interpretation and the duty to cooperate. In Asian Yearbook of International Law, Volume 21 (2015) (pp. 166-180). Brill Nijhoff. [Google Scholar]
Lee, S., 2018. Territorial settlements in peace treaties. In Research Handbook on Territorial Disputes in International Law (pp. 262-290). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781782546870.00017
Liebenthal, A., 2002. Promoting environmental sustainability in development: An evaluation of the World Bank's performance. World Bank Publications.
Lipscy, P.Y., 2015. Explaining institutional change: Policy areas, outside options, and the Bretton Woods institutions. American Journal of Political Science, 59(2), pp.341-356. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12130
Mossop, J., 2018. Can We Make the Oceans Greener: The Successes and Failures of UNCLOS as an Environmental Treaty. Victoria U. Wellington L. Rev., 49, p.573. https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/vuwlr49&div=37&id=&page=
Nemeth, S.C., Mitchell, S.M., Nyman, E.A. and Hensel, P.R., 2014. Ruling the sea: Managing maritime conflicts through UNCLOS and exclusive economic zones. International Interactions, 40(5), pp.711-736. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050629.2014.897233
Odeyemi, C., 2015. UNCLOS and maritime security: the “securitisation” of the South China Sea disputes. Defense & Security Analysis, 31(4), pp.293-302. https://doi.org/10.1080/14751798.2015.1101186
Østreng, W., 2018. Small States in the Decision-Making Process of unclos iii. In Ocean Law Debates (pp. 216-265). Brill Nijhoff. https://brill.com/display/book/edcoll/9789004343146/B9789004343146_010.xml
Probyn, E., 2022. UNCLOS as a geopolitical chokepoint: locked down, locked in, locked out. In Laws of the Sea (pp. 184-201). Routledge. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/oa-edit/10.4324/9781003205173-9/unclos-geopolitical-chokepoint-elspeth-probyn
Rofe, J.S., 2017. Global perspectives on the Bretton Woods conference and the post-war world order. Palgrave Macmillan. https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-319-60891-4
Saifullah, K. and Ahmad, A., 2020. The increasing influence of the non-state actors in international politics. Journal of European Studies (JES), 36(2), pp.39-57. https://asce-uok.edu.pk/journal/index.php/JES/article/view/144
Samvel, G., 2020. Non-judicial, advisory, yet impactful? The Aarhus convention compliance committee as a gateway to environmental justice. Transnational Environmental Law, 9(2), pp.211-238. https://doi.org/10.1017/S2047102519000426
Schlichtmann, K., 2003. Japan, Germany and the Idea of the Hague Peace Conferences. Journal of Peace Research, 40(4), pp.377-394. https://doi.org/10.1177/00223433030404002
Singh, P. and Jaeckel, A., 2024. Undermining by Mining? Deep Seabed Mining in Light of International Marine Environmental Law. https://doi.org/10.1017/aju.2024.8
Sparks, D.L., 2023. Southern Africa's Blue Economy: Regional Cooperation for Sustained Development. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003245179
Stewart, D.P., 2019. The Hague Conference adopts a new convention on the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in civil or commercial matters. American Journal of International Law, 113(4), pp.772-783. https://doi.org/10.1017/ajil.2019.53
Stewart, F., 2019. International financial cooperation: a framework for change. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429049286
Tuerk, H., 2016. 20 Years of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS): An Overview. Rev. BDI, 49, p.449. https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/belgeint49&div=17&id=&page=
Upcher, J., 2020. Neutrality in Contemporary International Law. Oxford University Press.
Vayena, E., 2021. Value from health data: European opportunity to catalyse progress in digital health. The Lancet, 397(10275), pp.652-653. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00203-8
