During this days I set myself a goal to read more articles and books, and I guess I am doing quite well on such goal. To think and to reflect at least a little bit more on international legal theory, and what of the great questions that I have encountered is the axis between International Law and Politics, or to say in other terms international politics which must be understood as international relations.
One great article/book chapter is Tanja Aalberts and Ingo Venzke’s article/chapter entitled Moving Beyond Interdisciplinary Turf Wars, they see that in order to move forward the internal dialogue of International Law for one side and of the other of International Relations, the aim is to encounter International Law as an argumentative practice.
To see International Law as a dialogue rather than a pure theory of science as it was prescribed by Kelsen, but refuted by Morgenthau, his former student. In this tension between Pure Theory of Law for the one side, and Political Realism, or power politics on the other side, there is this vision that is more in the middle.
By understanding International Law as a dialogue, rather than a pure science, then the rules that occur, happen due to a dialogue that is carried out by subjects, and those subjects have a political stand. In the middle then is Wittgenstein as they point out.