Find Paper, Faster
Example:10.1021/acsami.1c06204 or Chem. Rev., 2007, 107, 2411-2502
National Contestations of the Legal Reasoning of International Courts and Tribunals: A Gramscian Discourse Analysis Approach
Journal of International Dispute Settlement  (IF0.938),  Pub Date : 2021-09-03, DOI: 10.1093/jnlids/idab001
Edoardo Stoppioni

National contestations against international courts and tribunals are a polymorph object to analyse. While they generally deal with the legitimacy of an international court or tribunal, manifesting discontent with its very existence or work, in some rare cases, national contestations focus on the legal reasoning developed in an international decision. This research will analyse this kind of national contestations in terms of ‘counterhegemonic’ reactions, using the works of Antonio Gramsci and their interpretation in neo-Gramscian scholarship. The purpose is to identify how national contestations articulate a counterhegemonic discourse to build an opposition to the reasoning of an international legal decision, and to deconstruct the linguistic tools that are adopted to facilitate this approach. Requiring a difficult exercise of welding present to future, for the counterhegemonic voice not to replicate a hegemonic discourse with simply different premisses and power intentions, the transformative project behind them is key.