On April 21, 2024, the Institute of International Law of Peking University successfully held the workshop "Master Class on International Law: Research and Writing of Doctoral Dissertations".

The event invited Prof. David Kennedy, Manley O. Hudson Professor of Harvard Law School, and Prof. Martti Koskenniemi, Emeritus Professor of the University of Helsinki Law School, as keynote speakers. More than ten doctoral student participants from Peking University, Tsinghua University (THU), Yale University, Renmin University of China (RUC), China University of Political Science and Law (CUPL) and University of Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (UCASS) attended the workshop, with over 60 teachers and students from on and off campus auditing on site, receiving enthusiastic responses. The workshop was hosted by Assistant Professor Chen Xiaohang of Peking University Law School (PKULS).

Workshop Content

The workshop focused on the topic selection, research and writing methods of international law doctoral dissertations, with the keynote speakers focusing on how to clarify problem consciousness and construct a research framework. Prof. Kennedy and Prof. Koskenniemi first emphasized the importance of research question awareness in doctoral dissertation topic selection: Firstly, what is the specific international law field involved in the topic, and is the research object of the topic a specific theme, person or institution? Secondly, what problem does the dissertation aim to solve, and can it form academic interaction with existing research? Thirdly, what is the significance of the dissertation for the relevant international law field? The speakers further pointed out that doctoral research should not only see how the specific field of the topic defines the research questions, but also recognize that the field itself may constitute an object requiring examination and research, which is the starting point of critical research.

Prof. Kennedy and Prof. Koskenniemi further discussed the distinction and connection between two different research methods: "understandings" (cognitive structure) and "problem-solving". Academic research requires us not only to be familiar with the specific rules of the corresponding field, but also to transcend the technicality of legal problem-solving, and further explore what theoretical presuppositions and thinking paradigms have shaped the current international law cognitive structure, as well as the value positions reflected behind these cognitive structures. Only by regarding international law as a dynamically evolving cognitive system rather than a collection of static rules can the possibility of critical international law research be unlocked.

Subsequently, the speakers discussed several basic propositions involved in international law research and writing. Prof. Koskenniemi believed that law is never merely a restriction on power, but also a tool of power itself. This involves the proposition of the relationship between law and power in international law research. Mainstream theories often emphasize the restrictive function of law on power, but ignore that law can shape and consolidate power through empowerment mechanisms. Taking international environmental law as an example, Prof. Kennedy believed that mainstream research usually focuses on how law restricts governments and enterprises from damaging the ecological environment, but pays little attention to the fact that behaviors such as burning rainforests and dumping pollutants may themselves be the exercise of power by sovereign states or market entities, and such exercise of power is sometimes endorsed by law. Mainstream research tends to focus too much on "international law rules for environmental protection", but fails to fully discuss how environmental pollution obtains its legitimacy through systems such as property rights and sovereign immunity. Prof. Koskenniemi further pointed out that when people debate whether to strengthen international law regulation, they often fall into the binary opposition of "national sovereignty/international order", but this abstract conceptual opposition cannot reveal the power flow in specific contexts. For example, in the disputes over Finland's accession to the EU and Brexit, the act of a country joining the EU can be regarded both as a restriction on national sovereignty and an expression of national sovereignty will. Similarly, in the binary opposition between international law regulation and deregulation, the abolition of a regulatory mechanism is often accompanied by the establishment of a new empowerment mechanism. Therefore, the conceptual opposition between regulation and deregulation sometimes cannot solve the specific problems of power operation.

In the discussion session, participants exchanged with the keynote speakers on the themes of their doctoral dissertations. The two speakers answered participants' questions on issues such as the soft law/hard law dichotomy, critical international law methods, multilateral mechanisms and international organizations, silence in international law, and international environmental protection financial mechanisms.

Translated by: Han Kaibo

Edited by: Yin Dongyong