Emotions and International Law: The Post-Globalization System of Political Remanence to Identity


Editor In Chief

International Law, as a practical realm, developed from its boundaries of diplomacy to bigger contractions of powers and legacies, defining and replenishing the purpose of states, their people and the attributed institutions to resemble and discover newer avenues of systematic semblance. The age, when at the verge of a constitutional semblance is attempted by the formation of United Nations, in the 21st century, however, the cycle of Aristotle is perhaps changing its due relevance, and certainly, this is not fictitious. Unlike World War II, conscience and choice has an equilibrium to construct and improve human rights as an outfit for humanity and a resemblance to the principles of sovereignty in international life. However, at the verge of data-driven hegemonies of economic purge, it is certainly interesting to seek as how identity is going to control society, state institutions, and to a very imperative yet limited extent, the international realms (not organizations in direct sense). There is no vanishing point after public international law and IHL, too, has a significant role to decide humanitarian semblance, which itself, as in the due sense of Lauterpacht, is as important as the consequential fears of a 3rd world war or conflict is being reiterated and feared much.  Despite this, the age of Zuckerberg and Trump is not destined to drive the bigger role that traditional IHL has to play, because now, the place of identity, whether is it the emergence of AI, populist politics, constitutional redemption, and other basic societal realms of ecosystems-based relevance, is not easy to be dethroned. Ideology, and yet totalitarian attitudes change society. However, the emergence of backlash of political neutrality is always a wrong child’s play, which in the end permeates questions as to realise as what International Law shall face in its own fate. This article specifically focuses on the conceptuality of Emotions and International Law in a wider approach with respect to identity cognition.


There exists syllogisms and metaphors of public divergence; yet by yet they objectify and solidify and lead to no correlative outcomes. A special reference can be understood from the role that Heath Ledger played as Joker in 2008 before his death and the magnanimous comparison of the same with Thanos by Marvel. Fictions sometimes signify and this comparison plays an important role. Cynicism is critical, depressing and way detracting, but its role must be clarified enough to be diluted and resolved, and not plagued. In reality, with a general analysis of understanding, populism is mixed up towards Orwell’s totalitarianism, leading to get the very idealistic fear of as what shall be the future of a liberal society. Donald Trump, Narendra Modi, Jair Bolsonaro, to a vaguer extent, Theresa May and even Viktor Orban, are taken in the same pace, which certainly is injurious for the purpose[1] of understanding political diplomacy as a significant understatement to the realm of international law. Nikita Khruschev must not ever be forgotten, when his role as the Soviet Premier was instrumental, even if the proxy Cold war age was at prevalence. Also, the significant point of realization that long-term democracies do forget is about estimating, as how the genealogy of a state is relevant enough[2].

The Old Reactionism to Dimensional Perpetuity: A Challenge

Political philosophies of sovereignty and human rights in the intertwined sequence are based on the approach of reaction. Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau attempted successfully to contend the claim about. The American Constitution however, attempted to represent the governance of resilience, which itself, Ronald Dworkin embraces with the solidarity of being better than before, revealing a sense of replenishment ever. The Indian Constitution, notably, is vitiated in that similar way and represented with no surmises, and of a special status quo of public and private adherence to the realm and the system endowed to the same[3]. One of the best achievements is the resilience and tolerant beauty in Art. 21, which is heterogenous for societal semblance as in Puttaswamy[4], making the original construct of right to life and dignity by the Constituent Assembly clear and uniform. The problem that is existent is based on the fact that perception and ideas have attained a wild ground for interventions, and certainly, the strata of international life cascades seemly. It confuses the constitutional structures and their holders as in to estimate change, when redemption is fatal[5].

Lineation of IHRL: A Historic Mistake

This is not the age of bilateral contracts and unstable international semblances. NATO, the EU, ASEAN, and at the best exhaustive sense, the United Nations, have been in succeeding forges to resonate state roles and effective conjugations, wherein, it becomes important to understand that legal and political rarefactions never exist, and even if they dream to do, then totalitarianism is perhaps the best intruder to exterminate such a wave. Prominently, the anticipatory seismic waves of Brexit in UK and the vague role of MBS in Saudi Arabia, are taken for the Russian purge after the Cambridge Analytica case, which is not the correct way to determine the political space for the due academic and practical development of international law. Thus, it is required to rethink and determine a future of posed positivity.

[We] have to recognise that all our beliefs are socially caused in such a way that, to some degree, their objects remain masked from us. It follows that all of them must be approached and explained in one and the same way. […] If this is nothing more than a stipulation about how we ought to use the term ‘ideological’, then perhaps it will do no harm. But if it is a proposal about how historians ought to set about the business of explaining beliefs, then it seems to me fatal for just the reasons I have sought to give. It refuses to recognise that one of the reasons why someone may hold a certain belief is that there is good evidence in favour of it, that it fits well with their other beliefs, and so on – in a word, that it is rational for them to hold it. If we refuse to speak in these terms, we deprive ourselves of an indispensable means of identifying the most appropriate lines of enquiry to follow in any given [case][6].

The Chatham House claims that 2030 may witness an age of fragility in statehood[7]. Perhaps, claims of civil war in the US by marginalization into polarities (not only on Social Media[8]), but in the states on the geopolitical realm of sustenance[9] might have relevant precision. It is discernible, but the fact is about understanding the dimensionality of as what identity represents. In addition, International Law, unlike tried cum failed to be equated with emotions with via legal proceedings and systems only, needs the realm of identity clearly, so as to make democratization of human rights relevant enough. Mere linear principles of liberty revolve, repeat, but never cultivate human society in the eyes of law[10] (and to the worst extent, even a society[11]). Privacy, as the function of identity as a derivative in the doctrine of human rights, has been beautifully represented by Christina Moniodis, which is notable to be read:

[T]he creation of new knowledge complicates data privacy law as it involves information the individual did not possess and could not disclose, knowingly or otherwise. In addition, as our State becomes an “information State” through increasing reliance on information—such that information is described as the “lifeblood that sustains political, social, and business decisions. It becomes impossible to conceptualize all of the possible uses of information and resulting harms. Such a situation poses a challenge for courts who are effectively asked to anticipate and remedy invisible, evolving [harms][12].

Historical lineation is a farce; turbulence is the nature of content of identity being the protagonist in any case, and thus, it becomes essential to realize as how come we can solve the proxy modalities pertinent to emotions and economic relativities. Syria, for example, being relativistic, being emerged from a fakery of some planned Turkish Revolution from 2011, to now being just a transactional slave to Russia, rumoured and damaged the Shia-Sunni faiths via its own geopolitical proxy wars[13] funded and assisted by Iran, proxy-based backed by Erdogan and openly supported by Putin. In fact, that is the very reason why ISIS emerged as a social blackout to people but a black hole for various people of differing ethnicities for enticement and encouragement to sponsor terrorism[14]. Not even the vibrating issues of IEL, Climate Change, is without the cause of emotions[15]. There have been these resistive realms of climate change before as well, but the effect of and on human civilization is the critical point of question, which is perhaps lost, at the verge of mere mockery at developed economies.

Institutionalization is a Choice: Depends on Us

It is certainly not pessimistic that our institutions may intend to resemble their conjugations, and in the honest precept, it may seem right to have those establishments in that phase of progress, which somewhere, International Law needs to revisit and construct. In the pro-globalist international life, one cannot linger repetitions and fool, nor should destroy the institutions of ideology and let the artificial fragrance of the same exist. Leaders can think to gamble diplomatic exchanges, but in the age of information and perception, it is surely clear that self-determination and IHRL is the most probable key to shape, in geopolitical and regional realms as basic realizations of resilience, and perhaps, this may turn out to be Koskenkiemi’s doctrinal acceptance of International Law as relevant as it should be.


[1] Aristotle & C. D. C Reeve, Rhetoric. [2] Hobbes and the Person of the State | Professor Quentin Skinner, YouTube (2016), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKD7uYnCubg (last visited Nov 18, 2018). [3] Ram Kishore Sen v. Union of India, AIR 1965 Cal 282; Chhabildas Mehta v. Legislature Assembly, Gujarat State, (1970) 2 Guj LR 729. [4] (2017) 10 SCC 1. [5] J. M Balkin, Constitutional redemption (2011). [6] Quentin Skinner, Visions of politics 35 (2002). [7] Preventing Another World War, YouTube (2018), https://youtu.be/MMFIONrmd_A (last visited Nov 18, 2018). [8] Ana Gantman & Jay Van Bavel, Moral Perception Papers.ssrn.com (2018), https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2647767 (last visited Nov 18, 2018). [9] Zack Beauchamp, The midterm elections revealed that America is in a cold civil war Vox (2018), https://www.vox.com/midterm-elections/2018/11/7/18068486/midterm-election-2018-results-race-surburb (last visited Nov 18, 2018). [10] Mr. M.P. Sharma vs Union Of India And Ors., 116 (2005) DLT 628, 2005 (80) DRJ 203, 2006 (2) SLJ 255 Delhi; Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 SCC 225. [11] Gabriel Gatehouse, How much will technology boom change Kenya? BBC News (2012), https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-19903839 (last visited Nov 18, 2018). [12] Christina Moniodis, Moving from Nixon to NASA: Privacy's Second Strand--A Right to Informational Privacy Yale Law School Legal Scholarship Repository (2018), http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/yjolt/vol15/iss1/1/ (last visited Nov 18, 2018). [13] Dr. Lina Khatib & Lina Sinjab, Syria’s Transactional State: How the Conflict Changed the Syrian State’s Exercise of Power Chatham House (2018), https://www.chathamhouse.org/publication/syrias-transactional-state-how-conflict-changed-syrian-states-exercise-power (last visited Nov 18, 2018). [14] Sean Illing, How social media became a weapon of war Vox (2018), https://www.vox.com/world/2018/10/8/17884154/social-media-cyberwar-isis-taylor-swift-peter-singer (last visited Nov 18, 2018). [15] Mary Annaise Heglar, The big lie we’re told about climate change is that it’s our own fault Vox (2018), https://www.vox.com/first-person/2018/10/11/17963772/climate-change-global-warming-natural-disasters (last visited Nov 18, 2018).

We thank you for your support and encouragement to Internationalism. We believe in providing open access to our articles, reports and papers without any paywall for our readers and those who pray well for the think-tank. In order to keep our content open accessed and free, we need your support. Please donate any amount up to 500 INR if possible.

Link to donate: https://pages.razorpay.com/pl_EnnLuU7tqq6lv7/view


Support us

In order to keep our content open accessed and free, we need your support. Please donate any amount up to 500 INR if possible.

Account Number: 2223330062758116
UPI Address: rzpy.payto000003877746613@hdfcbank

© 2020 Internationalism™ - AbhiGlobal Legal Research & Media LLP, 2020.

[Registered under the Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008 | LLP Identification No. AAQ-1629. Please refer to mca.gov.in for more details.]