BACKGROUND

     In his article, Modern International Relations Theory: A Prospectus for International Lawyers, Professor Kenneth Abbott of Northwestern University described how international law ("IL") and its nearest social science relative, international relations ("IR"), have been estranged. In the aftermath of World Wars I and II, political scientists grew skeptical of the effectiveness of law as a restraint on state behavior. As many have pointed out, international law neither kept the peace nor mitigated the slaughter. The upshot of this sentiment was realism, a school of political thought that eschews law entirely. Realism contends that states are locked in a ruthless struggle for power. In such a world, contends the Realist, anything goes. This grim vision of international relations has dominated political thinking for most of the 20th century.

     Understandably, scholars of IR and IL have rarely communicated, and scholarship in each discipline developed independently of the other. Even today, most IL and IR scholars attend separate conferences, infrequently read each other's work, and publish in different journals. Slowly, however, this gulf has narrowed. New theories of international relations, namely liberalism and institutionalism, that view law more favorably and the world more optimistically have taken root, particularly among younger scholars. With the prospects for greater interaction between the two disciplines more likely, JILFA hopes to capitalize on what may become the standard for future IR and IL discourse: an interdisciplinary approach to the study of international phenomena.