Encyclopedia of Sociology Vol

REFERENCES

Bogue, Donald J. 1985 The Population of the United States: Historical Trends and Future Projections. New York: Free Press.

———, and Calvin L. Beale 1961 Economic Areas of the United States. New York: Free Press.

Fielding, A.J. 1989 ‘‘Migration and Urbanization in Western Europe Since 1950.’’ The Geographical Journal 155:60–69.

Frey, William H. 1990 ‘‘Metropolitan America: Beyond the Transition.’’ Population Bulletin 45:1–51.

——— 1995 ‘‘The New Geography of Population Shifts.’’ In R. Farley, ed., State of the Union: America in the 1990s: Vol. 2. Social Trends. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Gober, Patricia 1993 ‘‘Americans on the Move.’’ Population Bulletin 48:2–39.

Goldscheider, Frances, and Calvin Goldscheider 1994 ‘‘Leaving and Returning Home in Twentieth Century America.’’ Population Bulletin 48:2–35.

Kahley, William J. 1990 ‘‘Measuring Interstate Migration.’’ Economic Review 75(2):26–40.

Lansing, John B., and Eva Mueller 1967 The Geographic Mobility of Labor. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan.

Long, Larry H. 1988 Migration and Residential Mobility in the United States. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

———, and D. DeAre 1988 ‘‘U.S. Population Redistribution: A Perspective on the Nonmetropolitan Turnaround.’’ Population and Development Review

14:433–450.

Longino, Charles F., Jr. 1995 Retirement Migration in America. Houston: Vacation Publications.

——— 1996 ‘‘Migration.’’ In James E. Birren, ed., Encyclopedia of Gerontology: Age, Aging, and the Aged, vol. 2. San Diego, Calif.: Academic Press.

Lowry, Ira S. 1966 Migration and Metropolitan Growth: Two Analytic Models. San Francisco: Chandler.

Prehn, John W. 1986 ‘‘Migration.’’ In The Encyclopedia Dictionary of Sociology, 3rd ed. Guilford, Conn.: Dushkin.

Ravenstein, E.G. 1889 ‘‘The Laws of Migration.’’ Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 52:245–301.

Rogers, Andrei 1989 ‘‘The Elderly Mobility Transition: Growth Concentration and Tempo.’’ Research on Aging 11:3–32.

———, John F. Watkins, and Jennifer A. Woodward 1990 ‘‘Interregional Elderly Migration and Population Redistribution in Four Industrialized Countries: A Comparative Analysis.’’ Research on Aging 12:251–293.

Shryock, Henry S. 1964 Population Mobility Within the United States. Chicago: Community and Family Study Center, University of Chicago.

Weeks, John R. 1996 Population: An Introduction to Concepts and Issues, 6th ed. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth.

Zelinski, Wilbur 1971 ‘‘The Hypothesis of the Mobility Transition.’’ Geographical Review 61:219–249.

CHARLES F. LONGINO, JR.

INTERNATIONAL

ASSOCIATIONS IN

SOCIOLOGY

Founded by Rene Worms in Paris in 1893, the International Institute of Sociology (IIS) is the oldest continuous sociological association of any kind in the world. The IIS also happens to be the oldest continuous international association in the social sciences. Indeed, Worms’s models for the IIS were the recently formed international institutes in law and in statistics. In the same year that he founded the IIS, Worms (1869–1926) also started the Revue internationale de sociologies (two years before Durkheimians would found the Annee sociologigue) and a book series, the Bibliotheque Sociologique Internationale, which would in time publish more than fifty volumes.

In 1893 Worms was twenty-four years old. His organizational skills are even more impressive when we consider where the IIS’s founding falls in relation to that of other major associations in the discipline of sociology, including the discipline’s only other major international association. In 1895, Worms himself founded the Societe de Sociologie de Paris, an association that held monthly meetings. A full ten years later, in 1905, C. W. A. Veditz of George Washington University founded the American Sociological Society (now the American Sociological Association) at a constituent meeting

held at Johns Hopkins University. Another five years later, in 1910, the German Sociological Society held its first meeting—in Frankfurt, with Simmel presenting the opening paper. Three years after that, in 1913, Tongo Takebe founded the Japan Institute of Sociology (now the Japan Sociological Society).

Then some time passed before other major associations were formed. The Italian Society of Sociology was not founded until 1937, by Corrado Gini (who in 1926 established Italy’s equivalent of the Census Bureau and who developed the Gini Scale). The International Sociological Association, which is discussed below began after World War II, in 1948—under broad sponsorship from UNESCO and informed by Cold War rivalries. Finally, the British Sociological Society was founded even later, in 1951; indeed, Britain had only one chair in sociology from 1907 through World War II, housed at the London School of Economics.

Like so many of sociology’s founding figures, from Auguste Comte to George Herbert Mead, Worms was trained in philosophy and began his academic career in that discipline. The son of political economist Emile Worms, he earned his philosophy degree at the Ecole Normale Superieure and then also degrees in law and economics. His first teaching assignment was at the secondary school level while he also substituted for Henri Bergson at the College de France. And like other philosophically trained sociologists of the midand late nineteenth century, including Auguste Comte and Herbert Spencer, Worms’s early way of thinking about society was by analogy to biological organisms. Within a decade, however, Worms moved, under increasing criticism from Gabriel Tarde (and also Dukheim), to a far more eclectic theoretical position, one that treated sociology essentially as the philosophy of the social sciences. After 1907 he taught an annual course in the history of sociology at the Ecole des Hautes Etudes Sociales. During this period he also taught on the law faculty at the University of Paris and served on important advisory bodies of the French government. By 1924 he had risen to Conseiller d’Etat.

The first World Congress of Worms’s IIS was held a year after its founding, in September 1894, and the first volume of the Institute’s Annales appeared a year after that. Not only scholars but

also politicians and other influentials throughout the West found both the Revue and the IIS to be tolerant and supportive of heterogeneous ideas. This hospitable environment reflected Worms’s own broad work experience and interdisciplinary training—along with his own general openness to differing theoretical approaches. Worms respected the work being done, for instance, by the circle around Durkheim, but he also kept a healthy independence from its influence. Thus, we find among the IIS’s earliest members major figures not only in sociology but also in economics, the other social sciences, and the natural sciences: Franz Brentano, Enrico Ferri, Ludwig Gumplowicz, Achille Loria, Alfred Marshall, Carl Menger, Edward Ross, Gustav Schmoller, Georg Simmel, Albion Small, Gabriel Tarde, Edward Taylor, Ferdinand Tonnies, Alexandre Tchouprov, Thorsten Veblen, Lester Ward, Sydney and Beatrice Webbs, and Wilhelm Wundt. Indeed, in the early years sociologists were a minority among IIS members. Yet, with the exception of Durkheim, all major sociologists, Weber included, participated in the Institute at one time or another in its first three decades.

In casting his net well beyond the academy, Worms was known to play on the vanity of the famous from many walks of life in order to bring them into his international organization (D’Antonio 1994, citing Gephart). Often he granted influentials an honorary membership or officership in order to exempt them from paying dues. The first president of the IIS was Sir John Lubbock, vice president of the Royal Society of London, president of the London Chamber of Commerce, and a member of the House of Commons. A year later, Albert Schaeffle became the second IIS president, reflecting the fact that until 1914 IIS Congresses tended to be held annually. Aside from exchanging ideas frequently with Tonnies, Durkheim, and Simmel, Schaeffle served as director of the Zeitschrift fur gesammte Staatswissenschaft of Tubingen. The IIS’s third president was a senator from Russia, Paul de Lilienfeld. One founding member, T.G. Masaryk of Prague, became both president of Czechoslovakia and president of the IIS. IIS vice presidents were no less successful in other pursuits: Bernardino Machada, Raymond Poincare, and Woodrow Wilson were past presidents, respectively, of Portugal, France, and the United States.

The first sociologist to serve as IIS president was Lester Ward, in 1903; two years later, Ward became the first president of the American Sociological Society. Indeed, Ward, Franklin Giddings, and Albion Small were all active in the IIS and would be prime movers in the formation of the American Sociological Society. All would serve as IIS presidents and, together, they comprised three of the American organization’s ten original officers.

Worms himself was always more a technical director than a research sociologist, serving as IIS secretary general and treasurer for thirty-three years. During his tenure, eleven different countries were represented in the presidency of the IIS (and in 1924 Worms was made an honorary member of the American Sociological Society). The first French sociologist to serve as IIS president was Charles Letourneau.

In the interwar years, IIS Congresses were held biannually and IIS leadership was strongly influenced by Célestin, Bougle, Secondo Bouthoul, Corrado Gini, Maurice Halbwachs, Robert MacIver, William Ogburn, Joseph Schumpeter, Pitrim Sorokin, and Luigi Sturzo. Each World War disrupted the frequency of Congresses and, as it turned out, each of these periods also marked general passages for the institute as an organization. For instance, a Congress scheduled for Vienna in 1915 was canceled because of war, and then planning did not resume until 1925. In that year Worms became ill, and he died the following year: the Congress ended up being held in 1927. A decade passed. Then the 14th Congress, scheduled for Bucharest in 1939, had to be canceled—again due to war. It would not be held until 1950, now relocated to Rome and placed under the leadership of Corrado Gini. Earlier, in 1932, Gini had founded the Italian section of the IIS.

At the turn of the century, international associations in all scholarly disciplines typically called themselves ‘‘institutes’’; they were more ‘‘traveling academies, as Scheuch (1997) put it, than bureaucratically established organizations. All drew membership by invitation, all placed numerical limits on total membership, and all organized plenary sessions around particular themes. The IIS continues this tradition to this day. Thus, the format for its biannual Congresses is quite distinct from that of today’s meetings of the International Sociologi-

cal Association (ISA) held every four years. In the first place, the IIS tries to keep attendance to around 500 total participants (whereas ISA meetings draw anywhere from 3,000 to 5,000 participants). In the second place, all participants are encouraged to attend morning plenary sessions organized around a particular conceptual theme selected by each Congress’s program committee. The afternoons are then devoted to working groups in which members present papers spanning a far broader range of topics.

This ‘‘traditional’’ format is designed to serve both interpersonal and intellectual ends: Interpersonally, IIS Congresses stage events that are designed to create a sense of community among scholars from different national traditions of training and thereby to encourage collaboration and other scholarly exchanges. This is the case not only with the collective morning plenary sessions in which presentations are simultaneously translated in three languages—the language of the host country, French, and English. It is also the case with collective lunches, dinners, receptions, and local sightseeing trips. Intellectually, themes of IIS Congresses are intended to have a cumulative impact on social science disciplines.

The Annales served as the IIS’s official publication through 1931 (and the 10th Congress held in Switzerland in 1930), at which time it was discontinued. From this period until 1989, IIS activities were reported in the Revue, which also informally took over publication of IIS Congress papers. In 1989 the Annales were revived and the Revue became independent of the IIS. Recent World Congresses were held in Morelia, Mexico (1982), Albufeira, Portugal (1986), Rome (1989), Kobe (1991), Paris (1993), Trieste (1995), Cologne (1997), and Tel Aviv (1999).

The International Sociological Association was founded in 1948 under an initiative of the Social Science Department of UNESCO—as part of a broad effort that spanned comparable associations in economics, law, and political science. All of these new international bodies very much reflected the geopolitical situation of the day, and all were both considerably larger in membership and looser in thematic focus than the IIS. Today, the major scholarly contribution of the ISA revolves not around its plenary sessions but rather around

nearly fifty specialized Research Committees, some of which rival in size an entire IIS Congress.

After WWII, the Allies were interested in undercutting the conditions that could foster any return to fascism, and they saw the dissemination of the social sciences as one important factor in fostering democracy. Indeed, UNESCO had already opened an Institute for Social Research in Cologne, the Rockefeller Foundation had financed another in Dortmund, and the American government still another in Darmstadt. Given that UNESCO was based in Paris, the first discussions leading to the ISA were held in that city beginning in October 1948 under the leadership of Arvid Brodersen. Also attending this first meeting were Georges Davy, Gurvitch, Gabriel Le Bras, Arie den Hollander, Rene Konig, Louis Wirth, Paul Lazarsfeld, Erik Rinde, and Otto Klineberg.

At the time, national sociological associations existed in eight countries (Belgium, Brazil, China, Germany, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, and the United States). In four other countries sociology was included in other social science associations, and in another ten the discipline was organized as institutes on the IIS model—with membership limited to selected individuals (Platt 1998). In September 1949, ISA organizers invited leading sociologists in twenty-one countries to a Constituent Congress in Oslo. Louis Wirth, the noted American sociologist of urban life, was named the first president, and Erik Rinde in Oslo was appointed Executive Secretary and Treasurer (Platt 1998). Unlike the IIS, membership in the ISA was by national association (including general social science association), not by individuals directly. As such, the rise of the ISA itself contributed to the founding of eleven national affiliates, including the British Sociological Association and its counterpart in Mexico (Platt 1998).

The ISA’s first World Congress was held in Zurich in 1950, organized by Rene Konig with Wirth serving as president. One hundred fifty-four individuals participated, and eleven national associations and eighteen other bodies were admitted as members. In part, this Congress was held jointly with the newly formed International Political Science Association (and the Research Committee on Political Sociology remains a joint committee of both associations). Shortly thereafter, the ISA’s

first Research Committee was formed, focusing on social stratification and mobility. This Committee’s issues dominated the 2nd World Congress in 1953 in Liege, Belgium. By 1959 other Research Committees were being formed, at first referred to as subcommittees. Throughout the 1950s, another seventeen national associations were founded and joined the ISA, and then in the 1960s twelve more were added (Platt 1998). By 1952 the first issue of Current Sociology, the journal of the ISA, had appeared, and papers of early World Congresses were published separately as Transac- tions—a practice that ended in 1970 due to the cost and effort involved (Platt 1998). Originally, ISA World Congresses were held every three years, but beginning in 1962 they were moved to today’s four-year schedule. Tracing the locations of World Congresses to this point, the 1956 Congress was in Amsterdam, the 1959 Congress in Stresa on Lake Maggiore in Italy, and the 1962 Congress in Washington, D.C.

Because the ISA relied on UNESCO for funding, its activities were heavily influenced by the agenda of UNESCO’s Social Science Department (SSD). Early ISA presidents often had served earlier on SSD staff (Platt 1998). One early item on the SSD agenda was using the teaching of sociology to promote international understanding (Platt 1998). Only in the 1960s did teaching steadily lose priority to research, and this same period of transition, not coincidentally, marked the rise to preeminence of the Research Committees—at the expense of the Congress’s general program topic and plenary sessions (Platt 1998). By 1970 and the World Congress in Varna, Bulgaria, there were seventeen different Research Committees (Platt 1998).

One issue facing the ISA leadership in its early years was how to deal with the earlier, well-estab- lished international association, the IIS. IIS activities had lapsed during WWII, and after the war some of its leaders were tainted with affiliations with defeated Axis regimes (Platt 1998). The same controversy split the national sociological association in Germany by 1960 but not the national associations in Italy or Japan. Regardless, as early as 1953 the leaders of sociology’s two international organizations agreed to ‘‘friendly collaboration,’’ including a willingness to schedule meetings at different times and to exchange proceedings. Relations between the two organizations have been

relatively amicable ever since. Both international bodies have had to deal with the state of sociology in communist countries during the Cold War, the rising prominence of sociology in Third World countries, and addressing cases of political and scholarly repression in selected countries (Platt 1998).

In 1970 the ISA made two major changes in its founding statutes, one that introduced general individual membership and another that opened up the governance of the Research Committees. ISA leadership saw the Research Committees as a force moving the organization beyond national associations toward a grander internationalism. One result, however, is that the Research Committees became the equivalent of the internally pluralistic ‘‘sections’’ of the American Sociological Association (ASA), as opposed to remaining more coherent research groups. Thus, like ASA sections, the number of Research Committees has increased and many ‘‘working groups’’ and ‘‘thematic groups’’ within each Committee operate relatively independently of each other. In 1994, more than 3,000 sociologists attended the ISA World Congress in Bielefeld, Germany (76 percent from North America and Western Europe), and forty-five national associations were admitted. By 1997 there were fifty-nine identifiable research groups of one kind or another. Concerns abound, therefore, that the organization’s centrifugal tendencies are overwhelming whatever centripetal forces remain (Platt 1998).

One consequence of the increasing internal pluralism of the ISA is that its funding base became and remains ‘‘increasingly problematic’’ (Platt 1998). ISA dues have been raised considerably for individual members, particularly for those living in economically advanced societies (Platt 1998). Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, communist bloc countries continued to support the voting rights of collective members, along with subsidies by affiliated governments. Still, the only ISA World Congress held in a socialist country was the 1970 meeting in Bulgaria. Looking back in 1994, the chair of a Constitutional Revision Committee held that the ISA’s founding statutes had been premised on Cold War politics. His proposal then was that the organization needed to stress even more the importance of membership by dues-paying individuals, as opposed to relying on government

subsidies. Two years earlier, in 1992, the Research Council had voted to give the Research Committees power equal to that of member national associations. For the first time, the Research Committees voted for ISA officers (Platt 1998).

Increasingly in the 1980s, the ISA was concerned about the dominance of First World sociology to the detriment of contributions from sociologists in the Third World. With this in mind, the journal International Sociology was founded in 1986 with the mandate to favor scholarly submissions from ‘‘disadvantaged areas’’ (Platt 1998). The first ISA World Congress held in a Third World country was in 1982 in Mexico City (followed by the 1986 Congress in New Delhi).

REFERENCES

Clark, Terry N. 1967 ‘‘Marginality, Eclecticism, and Innovation: Rene Worms and the Revue Internationale de Sociologie from 1893 to 1914.’’ Revue Internationale de Sociologie 3:3–18.

———1968 ‘‘Rene Worms.’’ In International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. New York: Macmillan and Free Press.

D’Antonio, William V. 1994 ‘‘Sociology and the IIS.’’

Annals of the International Institute of Sociology, Paris, France, pp. 1–19.

Platt, Jennifer 1998 History of the ISA, 1948–1997. International Institute of Sociology.

Rhoades, Lawrence J. 1981 A History of the American Sociological Association 1905–1980. Washington D.C.: American Sociological Association.

Scheuch, Erwin 1997 ‘‘Closing Report.’’ Address delivered to the 33rd IIS World Congress, Cologne.

DAVID SCIULLI

INTERNATIONAL LAW

NOTE: Although the following article has not been revised for this edition of the Encyclopedia, the substantive coverage is currently appropriate. The editors have provided a list of recent works at the end of the article to facilitate research and exploration of the topic.

International law is the system of rules and principles governing relations at the interstate

level. It originally developed in response to the needs of states but in recent times has grown to include international organizations and, to some extent, individuals.

International law as a systematic body of rules began in Europe in the seventeenth century. Before then, and from earliest history, rules existed governing the interrelations of various groups of people (Nussbaum 1958). But the rules were systematized in Europe only when the contacts among peoples became regular and frequent and the idea of a single ruler for all known society foundered. That occurred with the collapse of the Holy Roman Empire during the Thirty Years War (1618– 1648). The state system developed in its place, characterized by a number of kingdoms and principalities, each equal to the others, sovereign within its own borders, and subject to no outside sovereign. Hugo Grotius, a Dutchman who lived during this time, wrote a seminal book, De Jure Belli ac Pacis (1620–1625), describing legal rules, derived from natural law, by which these states could achieve peaceful coexistence and, when they failed, how they could conduct their wars with some semblance of humanity. His book popularized international law, and he is generally considered the founder of international law.

The rules and principles Grotius described reflected the characteristics of states. The fundamental notion that states were sovereign and equal became a principle of international law. And because the rulers of states respected that principle as law, they were less likely to wage war or to annex their neighbors. International law helped create the success of the state system and in turn reflected the features of the system.

Grotius derived his rules from natural law, thus suggesting that nature was superior to states. By the nineteenth century, however, theorists abandoned natural law as a source of international law. Instead, they looked at the behavior of the states themselves as the source of international law. International lawyers became positivists, and the state became for international law the ultimate political entity. The rules of international law could guide and could set out regular procedures to ensure the smooth and peaceful conduct of international relations, but they permitted states wide prerogatives. Governments acquiesced in international legal rules because their states benefited

from an orderly system of international relations in which they gave up few of the attributes of absolute sovereignty. For example, the rules did not speak to what states did internally, no matter how egregious. Individuals were not considered subjects of international law. Nor did the rules restrain states from the use of force. International law described permissible uses of force, but states could in effect use force whenever they chose.

By the twentieth century pressures for change began to develop. Technological advances in war and communications accounted for movements aimed at restraining states in their use of force and abuse of human beings. People such as Elihu Root, U.S. Secretary of State in Theodore Roosevelt’s administration, wanted international law to provide the vehicle for restraint. Governments started experimenting with dispute settlement through arbitration and courts. They formed the League of Nations to help them control states’ uses of force. International law and international institutions were being substituted for unbridled state sovereignty. The concept was a radical departure from the past and came about only over the course of half a century and two world wars.

After World War II, governments were willing in theory to contemplate real restraints on their ultimate sovereign prerogatives. The United Nations was created as an entity under international law. Its charter committed states to uphold human rights, to cooperate in solving world problems, to abandon the use of force, and to follow the commands of the organization itself. The idea was to lessen state sovereignty for the good of the whole world community. Thus, the state began to lose its place as the ultimate political entity almost exactly 300 years after its rise.

Certain international legal norms are now theoretically superior to the wills of the states. In other words, a certain amount of natural law now characterizes the system again. In addition, the state is making way for other types of political institutions such as regional arrangements, although if the state should ever become finally obsolete so will international law. The current form of international law and many of its rules and principles presuppose a system of coequal entities without a single sovereign.

While the state system remains intact, however, international law has taken on an increasingly

important role in governing the relations of states in an interdependent, technologically linked world. It does this even though international law has never had the institutions typical of domestic law: a legislature for making law, an executive to enforce it, and a judiciary to adjudicate and interpret it. In some respects international law still functions as it did in the nineteenth century because the system benefits the state. Nevertheless, law does get made, enforced, and adjudicated, and social movements are at work putting demands on states to form and live by new norms of international law.

Because of the informal condition in which international law exists, however, some legal thinkers argue it is not law at all but rather moral precepts or mere guidelines. Most prominent of these thinkers was John Austin, who described law as a series of commands backed by sanctions. International law has no overarching authority to issue commands, and the sanctions are irregular. But Austin’s criticism depends on his definition of law. If law is defined as behavior or behavioral restraint induced by a sense of obligation, international law, in its sphere, is law. Positivist international lawyers also point out that in the end the states acknowledge that international law is law, and that is the relevant indicator.

International legal rules have two basic sources: custom and treaty. Rules of customary international law are created through practices that states engage in because they believe they have a legal obligation to do so. Treaties are the explicit agreements states make with each other to be bound. As the need for international law has grown, states have relied on treaties as a law-making vehicle more and more. The general multilateral treaty has become a common form of law making for important international concerns. For almost ten years nearly every state of the world attended a conference to negotiate a comprehensive treaty on the law of the sea. Because so many states attended and the treaty was so long in the making, the treaty began to take on the characteristics of customary international law, irrespective of its status as a treaty. A similar conference will convene in 1992 to discuss climate, and suggestions have been made to convene such a conference for trade.

When no rule of custom can be found and no treaty exists, international courts have in some disputes turned to a third source of law—general principles of law. These are principles commonly found in domestic legal systems and can serve to fill any gaps in international law, which suffers from its ad hoc law-making process. Theorists consider general principles a subsidiary source of international law because general principles are not made in a positive sense by all the states of the system, and they may be applied to a state that did not wish to be bound by them. Custom and treaty, however, generally allow states to opt out of a rule, thus reflecting the traditional view that the states are superior to the system of law. In the last thirty years, however, states have accepted that certain principles cannot be derogated from because they are considered peremptory norms or jus cogens. Examples of such norms are the prohibitions on genocide, the slave trade, and the use of force to advance a state’s political agenda. With the concept of jus cogens, international law has again taken on some elements of natural law.

Jus cogens also exemplifies the extent to which international law has overcome cultural relativity. As new states emerged in the 1960s, scholars from these states questioned whether international law should be binding on them since it was a European product that had aided in perpetuating colonialism. These criticisms have faded, however, because it became clear that international law also created the thing desired most by newly independent countries—statehood. Moreover, because international law is made by states, the new majority could begin to re-create international law. The process of international law has succeeded to the point of bringing states together in accepting that certain principles are overriding, despite the particular value systems of individual states.

Like the law-making system, the law-adjudicat- ing system in international law depends on states volunteering to use it. The system does have courts, in particular, the International Court of Justice. But no state needs to subject itself to the court unless it wishes to do so. The court does have limited compulsory jurisdiction in the case of states that agree to submit cases to it in advance of disputes arising. Nicaragua brought a case against the United States under such an agreement in

1986. States can also agree on an ad hoc basis to submit disputes to arbitral tribunals. The vast majority of international law is adjudicated informally, however. If a state violates international law, such as when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, most states in the system will pronounce their views regarding the legality of the action. Assessing these evaluations leads to conclusions regarding lawfulness. Thus, states make and adjudicate the law themselves.

States also enforce international law themselves. International law is notorious for being poorly enforced. In fact, however, most international law is in fact observed most of the time. Because the states must agree to the law, they tend to make only the laws they want and are willing to live by. Otherwise they opt out of the rules, as the United States has done for some of the new law of the sea. Law is not so well observed, however, in those areas that make headlines—war, human rights, terrorism—which perhaps accounts for international law’s poor reputation for enforcement.

When a rule of international law is violated, the state that is harmed is allowed to take action against the perpetrator. For example, if a fishing treaty between state A and state B is violated because state A’s fishermen overfish in state B’s waters, state B might be entitled to terminate the treaty and prevent future fishing by state A. This system works to some extent, but states have tried to improve on it in recent decades by, first, giving the United Nations and, in particular, the Security Council authority to police some violations of international law and to expand the ability of domestic institutions in enforcing international law by expanding the concept of universal jurisdiction.

The Security Council has authority to maintain peace. In article 42 of the U.N. Charter, it is given the power to call on member states to contribute troops to fight at the direction of the council. The idea comes very close to having an international police force. It has only been used once, however —in Korea in the 1950s. Other attempts have been stymied by the cold war antagonism of the United States and the Soviet Union, each of which has a veto over invocation of article 42. As a sort of substitute, the Secretary General has regularly sent troops, contributed voluntarily by U.N. members, to serve a peacekeeping role. Peacekeeping troops are not supposed to

take enforcement action. But enforcement action may be a possibility again with the end of the cold war. Following Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990, the council ordered worldwide economic sanctions and permitted the use of force, both to enforce the sanctions and to push Iraqi troops out of Kuwait.

Another solution to enforcement has been the widening of universal jurisdiction. To prevent states from interfering in each other’s affairs, international law contains principles of jurisdiction defining when and where a state may enforce rules of domestic or international law. In some instances any state may take action. This concept of universal jurisdiction is as old as international law. It was originally developed to handle the problem of piracy. Pirates are defined as persons who commit crimes for profit on the high seas. Generally they do not fly any state’s flag, and they act outside the territorial jurisdiction of any state. Typically, the state where the act took place or the state of the pirate’s nationality would have jurisdiction, but those categories often do not exist for pirates. The state of the victim might have jurisdiction, but the international system developed the rule that any state may board a vessel that fails to fly a flag and that any state may arrest, try, and punish pirates.

After World War II, universal jurisdiction was expanded to include the concept of crimes against humanity. The victorious allied powers tried German and Japanese individuals, holding them personally responsible for human rights abuses, characterized as crimes against humanity and thus crimes for which any state in the world could take jurisdiction. The Nuremburg and Japanese War Crimes Trials broke new ground in international law by holding that individuals had rights and responsibilities not only under their nation’s law but under international law and by expanding the scope of a state’s jurisdiction.

Individual responsibility and expanded state jurisdiction are being included today in a variety of treaties, especially related to human rights, narcotics, and terrorism. Customary international law now permits universal jurisdiction over persons who have committed genocide or war crimes. The International Court of Justice has also suggested that important human rights may be enforced by any state regardless of its connection with the

violation because the obligation to respect human rights is an obligation owed to all people; it is a right erga omnes.

International law will need these improvements in enforcement. The scope of questions now covered by international law grows annually with the increasing interdependence of the world and the technological advances that bring peoples into conflicting contact. The need to protect the global environment is the newest challenge for international law. States may soon decide they need an international organization to regulate the world trading system. The problems of development, health, communications, education, population, and use of space on earth and in outer space are all new problems in need of attention. Add to them the old problems of war, territorial disputes, governing international organizations, treaties, dispute resolution, refugees, human rights, diplomatic immunity, law of the sea, air space, recognition of new states, and so on, and the growing importance of international law becomes apparent. International law will continue to serve as a means of conducting smooth international relations, its traditional role, but it will also continue to assume new importance as a means of solving problems. In order to achieve this, however, international law must improve its institutions and be accepted by more states, whose own sovereignty will diminish as international law advances.

(SEE ALSO: Genocide; Law and Legal Systems; Sociology of

Law; War)

Brownlie, Ian 1990 Principles of Public International Law. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Buergenthal, Thomas 1997 ‘‘The Normative and Institutional Evolution of International Human Rights.’’

Human Rights Quarterly 19:703–723.

Chinkin, Christine 1995 ‘‘Violence against Women: The International Legal Response.’’ Gender and Development 3:23–28.

Corntassel, Jeff J. and Tomas Hopkins Primeau 1995 ‘‘Indigenous ‘Sovereignty’ and International Law: Revised Strategies for Pursuing Self-Determination.’’

Human Rights Quarterly 17:343–365.

Dezalay, Yves and Bryant Garth 1995 ‘‘Merchants of Law as Moral Entrepreneurs: Constructing International Justice from the Competition for Transnational Business Disputes.’’ Law and Society Review 29:27–64.

Dezalay, Yves, G. Garth Bryant, Pierre Bourdieu, R. C. Austin, David Bonner, Noel Whitty, Sandra Coliver, and Heinz Klug 1996 Dealing in Virtue: International Commercial Arbitration and the Construction of a Transnational Legal Order. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Gros Espiell, Hector 1998 ‘‘Universality of Human Rights and Cultural Diversity.’’ International Social Science Journal 50: 525–534.

Janis, Mark 1988 An Introduction to International Law. Boston: Little, Brown.

Kash, Douglas A. 1998 ‘‘An International Legislative Approach to 21st-Century Terrorism.’’ In Kushner, Harvey W., ed., The Future of Terrorism: Violence in the New Millennium., Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Knoppers, Bartha M. and Sonia LeBris 1991 ‘‘Recent Advances in Medically Assisted Conception: Legal, Ethical and Social Issues.’’ American Journal of Law and Medicine 17:329–361.

Lansky, Mark 1997 ‘‘Child Labour: How the Challenge Is Being Met.’’ International Labour Review 136:233–257.

REFERENCES

Abeyratne, Ruwantissa I. R. 1996 ‘‘International Politics and International Justice: Unity in Diversity?’’ International Journal of Politics, Culture and Society 10:291–316.

Bassiouni, M. Cherif 1993 ‘‘The History of the Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind.’’ Israel Law Review 27:247–267.

Berry, David S. 1998 ‘‘Conflicts between Minority Women and Traditional Structures: International Law, Rights and Culture.’’ Social and Legal Studies 7:55–75.

Binder, Leonard 1996 ‘‘The Moral Foundation of International Intervention and the Limits of National SelfDetermination.’’ Nationalism and Ethnic Politics

2:325–359.

Lecuona, Rafael A. 1997 ‘‘International Law, Cuba, and the United States of America.’’ International Journal on World Peace 14:37–49.

Lowe Joseph, D 1994 Dictionary of Diplomatic, International Law, International Relations Terms, Berkeley: Joseph D Lowe Publisher.

Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law 1981 Encyclopedia of Public International Law. New York: North-Holland.

Mendlovitz, Saul and John Fousek 1996 ‘‘Enforcing the Law on Genocide.’’ Alternatives 21:237–258.

Nippold, Otfried and S. Hershey Amos 1998 The Development of International Law after the World War. Holmes Beach: Gaunt-Incorporated.

Nussbaum, Arthur 1958 A Concise History of the Law of Nations. New York: Macmillan.

Otto, Dianne 1996 ‘‘Subalternity and International Law: The Problems of Global Community and the Incommensurability of Difference.’’ Social and Legal Studies 5:337–364.

Parry, Clive, and John Grant 1988 Encyclopedic Dictionary of International Law. New York: Ocean Publications.

Stone, Julius 1983 ‘‘A Sociologial Perspective on International Law.’’ In R. St. J. McDonald and D. M. Johnston, eds., The Structure and Process of International Law: Essays in Legal Philosophy Doctrine and Theory. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.

MARY ELLEN O’CONNELL

INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION

International migration is a term used to refer to change of usual residence between nations. The number of international migrants is always much smaller than the total number of persons traveling across international frontiers, because the overwhelming majority of such travelers do not intend to change their usual residence. International migration is contrasted with internal migration, which refers to a change of usual residence within a nation. The term immigration is used to denote the flow of persons establishing a usual residence in a given nation whose last residence was in some other nation. The term emigration is used to denote the flow of persons relinquishing a usual residence in a given nation to establish residence in some other nation. Net international migration denotes the difference between the number of persons immigrating to a given nation in a given period and the number emigrating from that nation in the same period.

Immigratory and emigratory events constitute two of the four components of national population change; the other two components are births and deaths. For most nations, population change is determined predominantly by the balance of births and deaths (natural increase). However, for a few nations in certain periods, the net international immigration has also been an important component of the total population change.

In determining the number of persons who have changed residence among nations, national

statistical agencies must specify the meaning of a change in usual residence. The United Nations (1978) suggests that international movements with an intended stay of more than one year be classified as international migration. Unfortunately, there is considerable lack of uniformity among nations with respect to how international migration is defined. For example, according to data of the Mexican government, some 46,000 Mexicans emigrated to the United States in 1973; according to data of the U.S. government, the number of permanent legal immigrants from Mexico was about 72,000 (United Nations 1978). Also, many governments, including that of the United States, collect data on immigration but not on emigration. Finally, all data on immigration published by governments refer to legal immigration only. Data on illegal or undocumented immigration cannot be tabulated.

Certain terms useful for the study of either international or internal migration will now be explained. A migration stream is defined as the total number of migratory events from place A to place B during a given time. The counterstream is defined as the total number of migratory events from place B to place A. The sum of events in the stream and counterstream is termed the gross interchange between A and B. The effectiveness of migration is defined as the ratio of the net migration between A and B and the gross interchange between the two places. The effectiveness of migration can therefore vary from a low of 0 to a high of 1. For most pairs of geographic units, the effectiveness of migration tends to be much closer to 0 than to 1.

Petersen (1975) makes very useful distinctions among the concepts of free, impelled, and forced migrations. In free migration, the will of the migrant is the main factor. In impelled migration, the will of the migrant is subordinated to the will of other persons. In forced migration, the will of other persons is paramount, and the will of the migrant is of no weight at all. Another useful term is return migration, defined as migration back to a place in which one had formerly resided. Chain migration (MacDonald and MacDonald 1964) is also a frequently used concept. It refers to the common pattern whereby a given individual migrates to a particular destination in which he or she already has kin or friends who have previously migrated from his or her own area of origin.