{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02107342772472835, 'fraction_numerical': 0.004609812314784327, 'mean_word_length': 4.753787878787879, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Fear and International Law

The international system as we know it was built in a mood of hope and fear. Fear of the return of war, hope for peace. Now international law is again in a process of rapid transformation, at once invoked as it never has been before, and yet also straining under the pressures of a post-Cold War era when economic forces, globalisation and security all vie for our attention and pull states in different directions. After 9/11, the world seemed joined in sympathy for the United States, ready to take collective action to deal with the threats of terrorism and nuclear proliferation. Only a few years later the situation we are faced with seems ever more frightening, and the division between North and South widening. As its emotional intensity rises, it seems ever more difficult to speak of international law in rational, measured tones. Increasing attention to the role emotions play on the development of international law, as doctrine and process, is long overdue. We continue to hope, but we live with the reality of our fears materialised. There is fear of international law (of its colonial impulse, of its new threat to sovereignty) and fear of the failure of international law (to deter great powers or outlaw states). Fear is a reaction to international law, and international law is a reaction to fear. There is fear of the Other—the outlaw state ironically feared because of its irrationality. At the same time, there is fear of the Self, as much of the international system of human rights protection is built with an awareness of the evil that we can unleash, in an effort to constrain the worst of human excesses. This section considers the impact of fear on the system of international law, on states, sovereignty and the mechanisms of peace and security, from the transnational to the local. It points to a growing awareness of the ways in which fear operates directly as a constitutive element of international law and the international ordering and decision-making processes. The contributions aim to go beyond a discussion of fear in the context of the terrorist threat, and to consider the impact of terror in wider systemic terms. Anthony Carty builds on his earlier work in considering the role of fear in the development of notions of collective security (Carty 2002). Considering the role of fear in the context of amorality’s grip on the modern international system, Carty proposes a new anthropology of international law, drawing on the restoration of ethics in law through a critical phenomenology. In his words, a critical phenomenology can ‘expose the pathologies of fear, the use of force to dominate, and the consequences of the absence of respect’. It is an inspiring and ultimately hopeful contribution, building on a complex discussion of a wide range of theorists, and illuminating the changes occurring in a system damaged by recent events. Suitably Carty calls for law as a journey of ‘discovery Cambridge Review of International Affairs, Volume 19, Number 2, June 2006