Minnesota Law Review

Hard v. Soft Law: Alternatives, Complements, and Antagonists in International Governance

Understanding the interaction of international hard and soft law in a fragmented international law system is increasingly important in a world where international regimes are proliferating, but where there is no overarching legal hierarchy. This Article responds to the existing literature on hard and soft law, which almost exclusively focuses on how they operate as alternatives and complements to each other. First, it shows how international hard- and soft-law instruments often serve as antagonists to each other. Second, it shows how such an antagonistic interaction can affect the very nature of international hard- and soft-law regimes, potentially leading to the hardening of soft-law regimes and the softening of hard-law regimes. Third, it specifies the conditions under which actors are likely to employ hard and soft law as alternatives, complements, or antagonists. The existing literature is not wrong to examine how hard and soft law may be employed as complements and alternatives, but this literature tells only part of the story. This Article provides an analytic framework for understanding the conditions under which states and other actors choose to employ hard and soft law in different ways, emphasizing the role of distributive conflict among countries and their constituencies as the primary factor leading to the use of international hard and soft law as antagonists. The Article elaborates five general hypotheses, whose plausibility is examined with respect to numerous empirical examples involving multiple policy domains.

:: View PDF

News & Events

  • Follow MLR on Twitter!

    The Minnesota Law Review is proud to announce that we are now on Twitter. Follow us @MinnesotaLawRev for information and updates concerning the petition period and deadlines, the opening and closing of article submissions, our 2014 Symposium: Offenders in the Community, and all other news concerning our authors and publications. [...]

  • Vol. 97 Lead Piece Cited in Al Jazeera Opinion Piece

    A recent Al Jazeera opinion piece that criticizes the Supreme Court’s Daimler decision cites to Volume 97′s lead piece, How Business Fares in the Supreme Court. You can read the Al Jazeera piece here.

  • Masthead for Volume 99 Board

    The masthead for the Board of Volume 99 of the Minnesota Law Review is now available. You can view the masthead here.

  • Above the Law Post Highlights MLR‘s Jump in Journal Rankings

    A recent post on Above the Law highlights the fact that the Minnesota Law Review was ranked 11th in the most recent 2013 edition of the Washington & Lee Law Review Rankings. You can read the post here.

  • Vol. 97 Lead Piece Cited on Slate

    A recent Slate article on the Supreme Court’s decision not to hear the “Moldy Washing Machine” cases, or overturn class certification of those cases in some circuits, cites to the Volume 97 Lead Piece, How Business Fares in the Supreme Court. You can read the article here.

Newsletter

cforms contact form by delicious:days