The concept of legalization

Kenneth Abbott, Robert O. Keohane, Andrew Moravcsik, Anne Marie Slaughter, Duncan Snidal

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

“Legalization” refers to a particular set of characteristics that institutions may (or may not) possess. These characteristics are defined along three dimensions: obligation, precision, and delegation. Obligation means that states or other actors are bound by a rule or commitment or by a set of rules or commitments. Specifically, it means that they are legally bound by a rule or commitment in the sense that their behavior thereunder is subject to scrutiny under the general rules, procedures, and discourse of international law, and often of domestic law as well. Precision means that rules unambiguously define the conduct they require, authorize, or proscribe. Delegation means that third parties have been granted authority to implement, interpret, and apply the rules; to resolve disputes; and (possibly) to make further rules. Each of these dimensions is a matter of degree and gradation, not a rigid dichotomy, and each can vary independently. Consequently, the concept of legalization encompasses a multidimensional continuum, ranging from the “ideal type” of legalization, where all three properties are maximized; to “hard” legalization, where all three (or at least obligation and delegation) are high; through multiple forms of partial or “soft” legalization involving different combinations of attributes; and finally to the complete absence of legalization, another ideal type. None of these dimensions – far less the full spectrum of legalization – can be fully operationalized.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Title of host publicationInternational Law and International Relations
PublisherCambridge University Press
Pages115-130
Number of pages16
ISBN (Print)9780511808760, 0521679915, 9780521861861
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2007

Fingerprint

legalization
obligation
ideal type
commitment
international law
Law
discourse

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Social Sciences(all)

Cite this

Abbott, K., Keohane, R. O., Moravcsik, A., Slaughter, A. M., & Snidal, D. (2007). The concept of legalization. In International Law and International Relations (pp. 115-130). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511808760.009

The concept of legalization. / Abbott, Kenneth; Keohane, Robert O.; Moravcsik, Andrew; Slaughter, Anne Marie; Snidal, Duncan.

International Law and International Relations. Cambridge University Press, 2007. p. 115-130.

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

Abbott, K, Keohane, RO, Moravcsik, A, Slaughter, AM & Snidal, D 2007, The concept of legalization. in International Law and International Relations. Cambridge University Press, pp. 115-130. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511808760.009
Abbott K, Keohane RO, Moravcsik A, Slaughter AM, Snidal D. The concept of legalization. In International Law and International Relations. Cambridge University Press. 2007. p. 115-130 https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511808760.009
Abbott, Kenneth ; Keohane, Robert O. ; Moravcsik, Andrew ; Slaughter, Anne Marie ; Snidal, Duncan. / The concept of legalization. International Law and International Relations. Cambridge University Press, 2007. pp. 115-130
@inbook{147b92449d954e84abf9b72041482489,
title = "The concept of legalization",
abstract = "“Legalization” refers to a particular set of characteristics that institutions may (or may not) possess. These characteristics are defined along three dimensions: obligation, precision, and delegation. Obligation means that states or other actors are bound by a rule or commitment or by a set of rules or commitments. Specifically, it means that they are legally bound by a rule or commitment in the sense that their behavior thereunder is subject to scrutiny under the general rules, procedures, and discourse of international law, and often of domestic law as well. Precision means that rules unambiguously define the conduct they require, authorize, or proscribe. Delegation means that third parties have been granted authority to implement, interpret, and apply the rules; to resolve disputes; and (possibly) to make further rules. Each of these dimensions is a matter of degree and gradation, not a rigid dichotomy, and each can vary independently. Consequently, the concept of legalization encompasses a multidimensional continuum, ranging from the “ideal type” of legalization, where all three properties are maximized; to “hard” legalization, where all three (or at least obligation and delegation) are high; through multiple forms of partial or “soft” legalization involving different combinations of attributes; and finally to the complete absence of legalization, another ideal type. None of these dimensions – far less the full spectrum of legalization – can be fully operationalized.",
author = "Kenneth Abbott and Keohane, {Robert O.} and Andrew Moravcsik and Slaughter, {Anne Marie} and Duncan Snidal",
year = "2007",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1017/CBO9780511808760.009",
language = "English (US)",
isbn = "9780511808760",
pages = "115--130",
booktitle = "International Law and International Relations",
publisher = "Cambridge University Press",

}

TY - CHAP

T1 - The concept of legalization

AU - Abbott, Kenneth

AU - Keohane, Robert O.

AU - Moravcsik, Andrew

AU - Slaughter, Anne Marie

AU - Snidal, Duncan

PY - 2007/1/1

Y1 - 2007/1/1

N2 - “Legalization” refers to a particular set of characteristics that institutions may (or may not) possess. These characteristics are defined along three dimensions: obligation, precision, and delegation. Obligation means that states or other actors are bound by a rule or commitment or by a set of rules or commitments. Specifically, it means that they are legally bound by a rule or commitment in the sense that their behavior thereunder is subject to scrutiny under the general rules, procedures, and discourse of international law, and often of domestic law as well. Precision means that rules unambiguously define the conduct they require, authorize, or proscribe. Delegation means that third parties have been granted authority to implement, interpret, and apply the rules; to resolve disputes; and (possibly) to make further rules. Each of these dimensions is a matter of degree and gradation, not a rigid dichotomy, and each can vary independently. Consequently, the concept of legalization encompasses a multidimensional continuum, ranging from the “ideal type” of legalization, where all three properties are maximized; to “hard” legalization, where all three (or at least obligation and delegation) are high; through multiple forms of partial or “soft” legalization involving different combinations of attributes; and finally to the complete absence of legalization, another ideal type. None of these dimensions – far less the full spectrum of legalization – can be fully operationalized.

AB - “Legalization” refers to a particular set of characteristics that institutions may (or may not) possess. These characteristics are defined along three dimensions: obligation, precision, and delegation. Obligation means that states or other actors are bound by a rule or commitment or by a set of rules or commitments. Specifically, it means that they are legally bound by a rule or commitment in the sense that their behavior thereunder is subject to scrutiny under the general rules, procedures, and discourse of international law, and often of domestic law as well. Precision means that rules unambiguously define the conduct they require, authorize, or proscribe. Delegation means that third parties have been granted authority to implement, interpret, and apply the rules; to resolve disputes; and (possibly) to make further rules. Each of these dimensions is a matter of degree and gradation, not a rigid dichotomy, and each can vary independently. Consequently, the concept of legalization encompasses a multidimensional continuum, ranging from the “ideal type” of legalization, where all three properties are maximized; to “hard” legalization, where all three (or at least obligation and delegation) are high; through multiple forms of partial or “soft” legalization involving different combinations of attributes; and finally to the complete absence of legalization, another ideal type. None of these dimensions – far less the full spectrum of legalization – can be fully operationalized.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84925627229&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84925627229&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1017/CBO9780511808760.009

DO - 10.1017/CBO9780511808760.009

M3 - Chapter

AN - SCOPUS:84925627229

SN - 9780511808760

SN - 0521679915

SN - 9780521861861

SP - 115

EP - 130

BT - International Law and International Relations

PB - Cambridge University Press

ER -