That's the question underlying my new essay, The Rise of International Criminal Law: Intended and Unintended Consequences, in the European Journal of International Law (Vol. 20, No. 2, June 2009). And I'm curious as to whether anyone else shares my general feeling that the very success (on some metrics, anyway) of international criminal law is tending to swallow, as it were, the rest of public international law.
It's a very broad-ranging essay, and my thanks to EJIL editor and old friend Joe Weiler for running it, even though it is not exactly a conventional EJIL piece. Here is the table of contents to the essay (which is, however, pretty short as law review essays go, at around 10,000 words).
Regimes of mutual benefit and regimes of altruism Alternative to intervention? Earning the moral right to administer universal justice Reprisal and reciprocity in the laws of armed conflict The rise of the machines Individual liability and the loss of the laws of war as rules for the social organization of war between groups Does anyone 'own' the rules of war anymore? An end-run around the P-5? Neglecting the UN?
Robot soldiers, ATS jurisprudence, the P-5, this piece has it all, in under 10,000 words ... It moves pretty quickly, for a law review article.