Anghie, Antony. 1999. Finding the Peripheries: Sovereignty and Colonialism in Nineteenth-Century International Law. Harvard International Law Journal 40 (1):1–71.Google Scholar
Anghie, Antony. 2004. Imperialism, Sovereignty and the Making of International Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Anghie, Antony. 2006b. Nationalism, Development and the Postcolonial State: The Legacies of the League of Nations. Texas International Law Journal 41:447–464.Google Scholar
Badescu, Cristina G. 2011. Humanitarian Intervention and the Responsibility to Protect: Security and Human Rights. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Berry, John A., and Carol Pott Berry. 1999. Genocide in Rwanda: A Collective Memory. Washington, DC: Howard University Press.Google Scholar
Brown, Chris, and Kristen Ainsley. 2005. Understanding International Relations. 3rd ed. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Cavallar, Georg. 2008. Vitoria, Grotius, Pufendorf, Wolff and Vattel: Accomplices of European Colonialism and Exploitation or True Cosmopolitans? Journal of the History of International Law 10:181–209.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chesterman, Simon. 2001. Just War or Just Peace? Humanitarian Intervention and International Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Deng, Francis Mading. 1996. Sovereignty as Responsibility: Conflict Management in Africa. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Evans, Gareth. 2009. The Responsibility to Protect: From an Idea to an International Norm. In Responsibility to Protect: The Global Moral Compact for the 21st Century, edited by Richard H. Cooper and Juliette Voinov Kohler, 15–30. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Evans, Gareth. 2011. Responding to Mass Atrocity Crimes: The “Responsibility to Protect” After Libya. Transcript October 6, Chatham House, London. http://www.chathamhouse.org/events/view/177949.
Giannini, Renata. 2010. The Rule of Law: State Sovereignty vs. International Obligations. Issue Brief for the GA Sixth Committee, Legal. Norfolk, VA: Old Dominion University. http://al.odu.edu/mun/docs/Issue%20brief%202010,%20The%20rule%20of%20law.pdf.
ICISS. 2001. The Responsibility to Protect. Report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty. Ottawa, ON: International Development Research Centre.Google Scholar
Kennedy, David. 1992. Some Reflections on The Role of Sovereignty in the New International Order. In State Sovereignty: The Challenge of a Changing World, Proceedings of the 1992 Conference of the Canadian Council on International Law. Canadian Council on International Law. http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/dkennedy/publications/some%20reflections%20on%20the%20role%20of%20sovereignty.pdf.
Koskenniemi, Martti. 2004. The Gentle Civilizer of Nations: The Rise and Fall of International Law, 1870–1960. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Koskenniemi, Martti. 2005. From Apology to Utopia: The Structure of International Legal Argument, Reissue With a New Epilogue. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kuperman, Alan J. 2001. The Limits of Humanitarian Intervention: Genocide in Rwanda. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Law, John. 2004. After Method: Mess in Social Science Research. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Longman, Timothy. 2010. Christianity and Genocide in Rwanda. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mattei, Ugo, and Laura Nader. 2008. Plunder: When the Rule of Law Is Illegal. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Mattei, Ugo, and Luigi Russi. 2012. The Evil Technology Hypothesis: A Deep Ecological Reading of International Law. Cardozo Law Review de Novo 2012:263–277.Google Scholar
Melvern, Linda. 2009. A People Betrayed: The Role of the West in Rwanda’s Genocide. London: Zed Books.Google Scholar
Miéville, China. 2008. The Commodity-Form Theory of International Law. In International Law on the Left: Re-Examining Marxist Legacies, edited by Susan Marks, 92–132. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Miller, Lynn H. 1999. The Idea and Reality of Collective Security. Global Governance 5:303–332.Google Scholar
Saito, Natsu Taylor. 2010. Meeting the Enemy: American Exceptionalism and International Law. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Sigg, Alain. 1999. Historical and Political Perspectives on the Genocide. In Genocide in Rwanda, edited by John A. Berry and Carol Pott Berry, 25–68. Washington, DC: Howard University Press.Google Scholar
Tully, James. 1995. Strange Multiplicity: Constitutionalism in an Age of Diversity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tully, James. 2008. The Imperialism of Modern Constitutional Democracy. In The Paradox of Constitutionalism: Constituent Power and Constitutional Form, edited by Martin Loughlin and Neil Walker, 315–338. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
United Nations General Assembly. 2005. 2005 World Summit Outcome. http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N05/487/60/PDF/N0548760.pdf?OpenElement.
United Nations General Assembly. 2007. United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/DRIPS_en.pdf.PubMed
Uys, Jamie. 1980. The Gods Must Be Crazy. 20th Century Fox. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2IxsfUpBck.
Westlake, John. 1894. Chapters on the Principles of International Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Zizek, Slavoj. 2008. Violence: Six Sideways Reflections. New York: Picador.Google Scholar
Zizek, Slavoj. 2010. Zizek: Living in a Cynical Era – Inversion of Cynicism. http://vimeo.com/12234635.
About the article
Published Online: 2014-05-14
Published in Print: 2013-08-01
An exception to this is, of course, found in heterodox paradigms of legal scholarship, such as Critical Legal Studies and Third-World Approaches to International Law. For a wider problematisation of the concept of sovereignty, see, for example, the seminal contribution of Kennedy (1992).
A partial – though perhaps involuntary – acknowledgment of this difference emerges from the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (United Nations General Assembly 2007), as it attempts an uneasy fit between “rights” discourse – formulated in the terminology of abstract claims against others – and the embedded practices enshrined in “institutions, cultures and traditions” that are perhaps closer to the indigenous understanding of “law” and law-making.
Colonial times also left a legacy of co-operation and mutual reliance of churches with state institutions (Longman 2010, 14 and 91), which endured – after independence – even when state power was used systematically to discriminate against the Tutsi minority in the run-up to the genocide (Longman 2010, 171–172). It is only ironic then, and an observation that further strengthens the point being made in this article, that the response to news of direct contribution to the Rwandan genocide coming from church members and officials has given rise to the familiar flash-in-the-pan reaction of directing the focus away from institutional considerations and towards “individual sinfulness” (Longman 2010, 7). This, in itself, is yet another illustration of the fundamental cynicism that, despite the occasional jolt of horror, stands in the way of a more wide-ranging appraisal of the generative contribution colonial institutions (including Christian conversion) played in bringing about the conditions for the genocide to happen.
On the phenomenon whereby international law invariably calls for more international law to mend its own shortcomings, see Mattei and Russi (2012).