ARTICLE

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE PSYCHOLOGY OF INTERNATIONAL LAW

  1. HOME
  2. ARTICLE

06 Pages : 54-61

http://dx.doi.org/10.31703/glsr.2023(VIII-I).06      10.31703/glsr.2023(VIII-I).06      Published : Mar 2023

An Introduction to the Psychology of International Law

Abstract

    Cognitive studies and behavioural economics have been successful in domestic legal concerns and are increasingly utilized in public policy and regulation, their implication in public international law scholarship has not been systematically explored. We hope to fill two voids in the literature with this research: (1) the lack of behavioural insights in international law and economics; (2) the absence of international dimensions in behavioural law and economics; and (3) the avoidance of the importance of international norms by international political psychology. This piece provides a broad overview of the many psychological perspectives used throughout the research contributions and the challenges anticipated by those pursuing this line of inquiry. Despite these caveats, behavioural studies have yielded numerous insights that could greatly advance our comprehension of international law.

    International Law, Psychology, Behavioral Insights

    (1) Saadat Ali Nadeem
    PhD Scholar, Department of Law, The Islamia University of Bahawalpur, Bahawalpur, Punjab, Pakistan.
    (2) Samana Mehmood
    School of Politics and International Relations, Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad, Pakistan.
    (3) Malik Zia-ud-Din
    Assistant Professor, Department of Law, The Islamia University of Bahawalpur, Bahawalpur, Punjab, Pakistan.
Fulltext PDF

References

  • ALLEN, D. W. (2014). The Coase theorem: coherent, logical, and not disproved. Journal of Institutional Economics, 11(2), 379–390. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1744137414000083
  • Andreis, F. de. (2020). A Theoretical Approach to the Effective Decision-Making Process. Open Journal of Applied Sciences, 10(06), 287–304. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojapps.2020.106022
  • Bellamy, R., & Weale, A. (2015). Political legitimacy and European monetary union: contracts, constitutionalism and the normative logic of two-level games. Journal of European Public Policy, 22(2), 257–274. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2014.995118
  • Blumenthal-Barby, J. S., & Krieger, H. (2014). Cognitive Biases and Heuristics in Medical Decision Making. Medical Decision Making, 35(4), 539–557. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989x14547740
  • Broude, T. (2015). BEHAVIORAL INTERNATIONAL LAW. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 163(4), 1099–1157. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24752762
  • Conrad, C. R., & Ritter, E. H. (2013). Treaties, Tenure, and Torture: The Conflicting Domestic Effects of International Law. The Journal of Politics, 75(2), 397–409. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022381613000091
  • Delcourt, B. (2016). Political Economy of International Law: A Convenient Alliance for the Study of Compliance? In The Political Economy of International Law (pp. 159-177). Edward Elgar Publishing
  • Dhami, S., & al-Nowaihi, A. (2007). Why do people pay taxes? Prospect theory versus expected utility theory. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 64(1), 171–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2006.08.006
  • Gaudet, S., Marchand, I., Bujaki, M., & Bourgeault, I. L. (2021). Women and gender equity in academia through the conceptual lens of care. Journal of Gender Studies, Journal of Gender Studies(1), 1– 13. https://doi.org/10.1080/09589236.2021.1944848
  • Hafner-Burton, E. M., LeVeck, B. L., & Victor, D. G. (2016). How Activists Perceive the Utility of International Law. The Journal of Politics, 78(1), 167–180. https://doi.org/10.1086/683371
  • Heavey, C., Simsek, Z., Roche, F., & Kelly, A. (2009). Decision Comprehensiveness and Corporate Entrepreneurship: The Moderating Role of Managerial Uncertainty Preferences and Environmental Dynamism. Journal of Management Studies, 46(8), 1289–1314. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00858.x
  • Hirsch, M. (2019). Cognitive Sociology, Social Cognition and Coping with Racial Discrimination in International Law. European Journal of International Law, 30(4), 1319–1338. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chaa003
  • Iberahim, M. M., & Tantikulanan, C. (2020). Indonesia’s Two-level Game at the WTO: A Political Economy Approach to the International Poultry Trade. Multi-dimensional Disruption in the Asia-Pacific.
  • Köhler, J., Geels, F. W., Kern, F., Markard, J., Onsongo, E., Wieczorek, A., Alkemade, F., Avelino, F., Bergek, A., Boons, F., Fünfschilling, L., Hess, D., Holtz, G., Hyysalo, S., Jenkins, K., Kivimaa, P., Martiskainen, M., McMeekin, A., Mühlemeier, M. S., & Nykvist, B. (2019). An agenda for sustainability transitions research: State of the art and future directions. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 31, 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2019.01.004
  • Krook, M. L., & True, J. (2010). Rethinking the life cycles of international norms: The United Nations and the global promotion of gender equality. European Journal of International Relations, 18(1), 103–127. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066110380963
  • Levin, K., Cashore, B., Bernstein, S., & Auld, G. (2012). Overcoming the tragedy of super wicked problems: constraining our future selves to ameliorate global climate change. Policy Sciences, 45(2), 123–152. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-012-9151-0
  • Levitt, B. B., Lai, H. C., & Manville, A. M. (2021). Effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna, Part 3. Exposure standards, public policy, laws, and future directions. Reviews on Environmental Health, 37(4), 531–558. https://doi.org/10.1515/reveh-2021-0083
  • Liedtka, J. (2018). Why design thinking works. Harvard Business Review, 96(5), 72-79.
  • Ling, R. (2020). Confirmation bias in the era of mobile news consumption: The social and psychological dimensions. Digital Journalism, 8(5), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2020.1766987
  • McDermott, R. (2011). Internal and External Validity. In J. Druckman, D. Greene, J. Kuklinski, & A. Lupia (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science (pp. 27-40). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511921452.003
  • Nagatsu, M. (2015). Behavioral Economics, History of. International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2, 443–449. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-08-097086-8.03053-1
  • Osmani, S. R. (2019). Rationality, Behavioural Economics and Amartya Sen. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 20(2), 162–180. https://doi.org/10.1080/19452829.2019.1565631
  • Peat, D. (2019). The Tyranny of Choice and the Interpretation of Standards: Why the ECtHR Uses Consensus. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3478004
  • Pigou, A. C. (2016). Protective and preferential import duties. Routledge
  • Puddephatt, A., & McLuhan, A. (2019). Generic Social Processes: Reimagining a Conceptual Schema for Grounded Theory in the Contemporary Era. Sociological Focus, 52(2), 140–155. https://doi.org/10.1080/00380237.2018.1544515
  • Puig, S. (2016, November 14). Blinding International Justice. Social Science Research Network. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2829098
  • Savulescu, J., Giubilini, A., & Danchin, M. (2021). Global Ethical Considerations regarding Mandatory Vaccination in Children. The Journal of Pediatrics, 231, 10–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2021.01.021
  • Schmitz, C. A. (1995). Changing the way we do business in international relations (No. 245). Cato Institute.
  • Slaughter, A. M. (2001). International Law and International Relations: Millenial Lectures. Receuil de Cours/Hague Academy of International Law, 9-250.
  • Slomp, G. (2018). As Thick as Thieves: Exploring Thomas Hobbes’ Critique of Ancient Friendship and its Contemporary Relevance. Political Studies, 67(1), 191–206. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032321718761243
  • Stewart, M. (2009). The management myth: Debunking modern business philosophy. WW Norton & Company.
  • Stoelhorst, J. W. (2017). Better Than Rational: A Naturalistic View of Economic Governance. Complexity, Governance & Networks, 3(1), 74–86. https://doi.org/10.20377/cgn-39
  • Strezhnev, A., Simmons, B. A., & Kim, M. D. (2019). Rulers or Rules? International Law, Elite Cues and Public Opinion. European Journal of International Law, 30(4), 1281–1302. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chaa002
  • Teichman, D., & Zamir, E. (2018). Behavioral Analysis of International Law: On Lawmaking and Nudging. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3110367
  • Teichman, D., & Zamir, E. (2019). Nudge Goes International. European Journal of International Law, 30(4), 1263–1279. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chaa007
  • Van Aaken, A. (2013). Behavioral International Law and Economics. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2342576
  • van Aaken, A. (2018). Rationalist and Behavioralist Approaches to International Law. International Legal Theory: Foundations and Frontiers (Cambridge University Press, 2019, Forthcoming)
  • van Aaken, A. (2019). Experimental Insights for International Legal Theory. European Journal of International Law, 30(4), 1237–1262. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chaa009
  • Villeval, M. C. (2020). Public goods, norms and cooperation. In Handbook of Experimental Game Theory (pp. 184-212). Edward Elgar Publishing
  • Voelkl, B., Altman, N. S., Forsman, A., Forstmeier, W., Gurevitch, J., Jaric, I., Karp, N. A., Kas, M. J., Schielzeth, H., Van de Casteele, T., & Würbel, H. (2020). Reproducibility of animal research in light of biological variation. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 21(7), 384–393. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41583-020-0313-3
  • Wallace, G. P. R. (2013). International Law and Public Attitudes Toward Torture: An Experimental Study. International Organization, 67(1), 105–140. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0020818312000343
  • Zamir, E., & Ritov, I. (2012). Loss Aversion, Omission Bias, and the Burden of Proof in Civil Litigation. The Journal of Legal Studies, 41(1), 165–207. https://doi.org/10.1086/664911

Cite this article

APA

CHICAGO

    CHICAGO : Nadeem, Saadat Ali, Samana Mehmood, and Malik Zia-ud-Din. 2023. "An Introduction to the Psychology of International Law." Global Legal Studies Review, VIII (I): 54-61 doi: 10.31703/glsr.2023(VIII-I).06

HARVARD

    HARVARD : NADEEM, S. A., MEHMOOD, S. & ZIA-UD-DIN, M. 2023. An Introduction to the Psychology of International Law. Global Legal Studies Review, VIII, 54-61.

MHRA

    MHRA : Nadeem, Saadat Ali, Samana Mehmood, and Malik Zia-ud-Din. 2023. "An Introduction to the Psychology of International Law." Global Legal Studies Review, VIII: 54-61

MLA

    MLA : Nadeem, Saadat Ali, Samana Mehmood, and Malik Zia-ud-Din. "An Introduction to the Psychology of International Law." Global Legal Studies Review, VIII.I (2023): 54-61 Print.

OXFORD

    OXFORD : Nadeem, Saadat Ali, Mehmood, Samana, and Zia-ud-Din, Malik (2023), "An Introduction to the Psychology of International Law", Global Legal Studies Review, VIII (I), 54-61

TURABIAN

    TURABIAN : Nadeem, Saadat Ali, Samana Mehmood, and Malik Zia-ud-Din. "An Introduction to the Psychology of International Law." Global Legal Studies Review VIII, no. I (2023): 54-61. https://doi.org/10.31703/glsr.2023(VIII-I).06