Document Type : Original Article
Author
Associate Professor, Department of International Law, University of Qom, Qom, Iran.
Abstract
Introduction
The evolution of international relations has naturally led to conflicts of interest among states and nations. Advancing national interests in the global arena, therefore, requires skill and strategy—collectively referred to as diplomacy. At the same time, the expansion of legal systems has promoted the use of legal mechanisms to pursue higher objectives such as justice and the peaceful resolution of disputes. In this context, the use of legal tools to advance national interests, alongside the use of political tools such as diplomacy to achieve legal ends in international relations, has gained increasing attention. The term "legal diplomacy" has emerged to describe this dual-purpose approach. As a relatively new concept, legal diplomacy encompasses both the application of legal methods to pursue political objectives and, conversely, the use of diplomatic means to fulfill legal goals. Both state and non-state actors may employ legal instruments to advance political, economic, and cultural interests, just as they may use diplomacy to support legal outcomes such as justice and the rule of law. Scholars differ in their perspectives on the primacy of law versus politics. Some advocate for the supremacy of politics, viewing legal mechanisms as instruments to serve national interests. Others uphold the primacy of law, arguing that political actions must remain within the strict bounds of legal norms. The politicization of law for strategic purposes has led some critics to describe it as "lawfare", while others see law itself as a product of political negotiation and power dynamics. This article seeks to explore legal diplomacy as an emerging tool in international affairs, examining its conceptual foundations, practical applications, and potential to advance both national interests and global justice.
Questions
To address the central question—what is the nature of legal diplomacy? —it is essential to examine its conceptual framework, theoretical underpinnings, and practical methodologies.
In response to the question, "What is the concept of legal diplomacy?", this study hypothesizes that legal diplomacy, as a form of hybrid diplomacy, encompasses distinct goals, actors, beneficiaries, and typologies. It functions as a multidimensional instrument employed in the pursuit of both political and legal objectives.
Regarding the theoretical question, "Does primacy lie with politics or law?", the proposed hypothesis posits an interactive and reciprocal relationship between the two. Rather than existing in opposition, law and politics are interdependent and often employed in tandem. From a normative and value-driven perspective, it is both legitimate and strategic to use one as a tool to advance the objectives of the other.
To answer the final question, "What are the methods by which law and politics are applied to advance each other’s objectives?", the study underscores the need to systematically identify and classify the mechanisms by which states employ legal and political tools for reciprocal purposes. This includes strategies at both the legislative and judicial levels, encompassing actions where law serves political ends and vice versa.
Literature Review
Several studies have explored aspects of what may be considered legal diplomacy. Examples include its application in the fields of human rights (Tahir-Kheli, 2020) and the environment (Lang, 2014), as well as in specific legal contexts such as violations reviewed by the Supreme Court of Canada (Rado, 2020) and the legal regime governing transit through the Panama Canal (Arias, 1911). In addition, several works have focused on specific subfields of legal diplomacy, such as judicial diplomacy (Davies, 2019; Lee & Ip, 2019; Squatrito, 2020) and legislative diplomacy (Sayfullaev, 2016; Stavridis & Jancic, 2017; Stavridis, 2016; Scoville, 2013).
However, there remains a notable paucity of English-language literature that explicitly employs the term legal diplomacy or directly addresses the intersection of diplomacy and international law. Many of the existing studies either overlook the central question—namely, the relationship between diplomacy and law (e.g., Bolewski, 2007; Chatterjee, 2007; Giladi, 2021)—or focus only on partial dimensions, such as judicial or legislative diplomacy, without presenting a comprehensive framework (e.g., Hurd, 2011).
One of the earliest and most relevant contributions to this discussion is Josef Redlich’s 1928 book, International Law as an Alternative to Diplomacy, in which he posits that international disputes may be resolved by three agents: soldiers, diplomats, or international lawyers. Notably, Redlich conceptualizes diplomacy and law as distinct and opposing mechanisms, which diverges from the present study’s hypothesis of a complementary and interactive relationship between legal and diplomatic instruments.
Furthermore, the academic relevance of diplomacy and law has been recognized in several university programs. Institutions such as Sorbonne University (Abu Dhabi) offer degrees in International Law, International Relations, and Diplomacy; Coventry University (UK) provides a program on Diplomacy, Law, and Global Change; the University for Peace and the United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR) offer a degree in International Law and Diplomacy; and the University of Riga (Latvia) offers a curriculum on Law and Diplomacy. Despite these academic efforts, there is still a clear need for a comprehensive conceptual and analytical study on the emerging phenomenon of legal diplomacy as a dimension of complementary diplomacy.
Methodology
This study employed multiple methodological approaches tailored to the distinct dimensions of the research. The phenomenological aspect was addressed using a descriptive method, aiming to clarify and outline the conceptual and operational features of legal diplomacy. The foundational analysis was conducted through a logical-deductive approach, drawing on theoretical premises to derive coherent conclusions. The methods section, which investigates the practical applications of legal diplomacy, relied on a logical-inductive approach, synthesizing observed patterns to classify methods used by states.
Additionally, the study incorporates interdisciplinary perspectives, applying both political analyses of legal practices and legal analyses of political strategies where appropriate. This dual lens enables a comprehensive understanding of the reciprocal dynamics between law and politics in the realm of international diplomacy.
Findings
The most accurate interpretation of the relationship between law and politics is that of interactive interdependence, rather than opposition or hierarchy. Law and politics serve distinct yet complementary purposes: politics primarily pursues national and international interests such as order, peace, and security, whereas law seeks to uphold justice and the peaceful resolution of disputes.
The instrumental use of one for the other constitutes the dual framework of legal diplomacy. This can be categorized into two primary modes:
Policy-oriented legal diplomacy, where legal instruments are used to advance political objectives.
Law-oriented political diplomacy, where diplomatic tools serve to promote legal goals.
IIn the domain of international legislative diplomacy, legal mechanisms may be deployed to facilitate political objectives—for instance, the negotiation and adoption of treaties or resolutions serving strategic aims. Conversely, diplomacy may be leveraged to advance legal objectives through consensus-building, the establishment of general legal frameworks, or compromise-based approaches.
Within international judicial diplomacy, the use of law for political purposes can manifest in legal warfare, wherein legal norms and institutions are strategically utilized to achieve political advantage. On the other hand, when diplomacy supports legal goals, it may involve activities such as the selection and arrangement of judges, the citation of foreign legal systems, or the internationalization of judicial practices through collaborative conferences and seminars held by national and international courts.
Conclusion
Legal diplomacy has emerged as a novel and dynamic form of complementary diplomacy, offering substantial capacity for influence in the international arena. As global governance becomes increasingly legalized, the strategic interaction between diplomacy and law will play a more prominent role in shaping international relations.
Accordingly, it is imperative for states to train legal diplomats capable of defending national interests and promoting justice through diplomatic strategies. In the case of countries like the Islamic Republic of Iran, whose overarching policy frameworks align with the principles of justice, including those rooted in Islamic Sharia, the practice of legal diplomacy can be both normatively justifiable and strategically effective. As such, the structured and reciprocal application of legal diplomacy presents a legitimate, reasonable, and forward-looking approach in foreign policy and international engagement.
Keywords
Subjects
